Why are so many Dems anti-gun?

[Bullet1987]

I have to admit, I've been thinking about buying a gun for some time now...but I never taken that next step. Why? Partially because I really don't know about guns too well. But also because of the culture of Gun Ownership equalling Right-Wingers. I'm telling my mother she should get one because me and my brother are moving out of the house and she stays alone. I worry about her. We have a dog, but he's small and not good for defensive purposes. Besides, my brother is allergic to dander. I know there are a lot of gun nuts on the Right, but I personally don't see anything wrong with them.

[Deep13]

1. The short answer: guns make it easy to kill people.

Plus there is a natural repulsion in liberal thinking toward the idea that violence can ever be a good idea. While I agree with that general proposition, in practice it is not always so simple.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

15. Ghandi would disagree with you.

I would consider him to have been fairly liberal as well. Guns provide a great means of self defense.
The ability to defend one's self from the forcefull will of another is generally thought to be a progressive ideal.
It's nothing more than an emotional appeal to garner votes.

[Deep13]

37. He was free to do so.

Nevertheless, that does not seem to be the prevailing view among liberal activists.

[Spoonman]

92. And the poster gets their answer!

Democrats are NOT anti gun/pro gun control.

Liberal activists are.

[TPaine7]

78. This type of liberal thinking is precisely why many equate liberalism with insanity.

Plus there is a natural repulsion in liberal thinking toward the idea that violence can ever be a good idea.

If violence were always wrong, we should have neither police nor military. If a thing is morally wrong, it is morally wrong to pay someone to do it for you.

The idea that violence is always wrong is just as disconnected from reality as the idea that violence is always appropriate.

[jgraz]

88. Only Rush Limbaugh and his acolytes equate liberalism with insanity.

What are you trying to tell us, T?

[TPaine7]

89. The belief that violence is never justified or morally correct

IS insane. It was insanity thousands of years before Rush was born.

And you knew that. (Unless, of course, you're trying to tell us something.)

[jgraz]

94. The "Liberalism = insanity" slur is pure Rushian propaganda

It's a bit surprising to see someone on a liberal discussion board making excuses for it.

[eqfan592]

96. I think you're taking what TPaine was saying a bit out of context.

TPaine was pointing out a specific belief that some liberals hold as being insane, and he also pointed out that this is one of things that people use to promote the idea that "liberalism = insanity." I didn't read that as him saying he personally thought liberalism DOES equal insanity.

[jgraz]

97. Why bring up the slur at all, unless you feel there's some justification for it?

Radical pacifism is not a commonly-held belief among liberals. It's not even necessarily a liberal (i.e. leftist) position. For example, some fundamentalist Catholic sects hold these beliefs, and they are nowhere near liberal.

Blaming the victim for the attacks against them is an old conservative ploy.

[TPaine7]

99. Follow the thread, jgraz

and see if you can discover why I said what I did.

I was responding to this:

...there is a natural repulsion in liberal thinking toward the idea that violence can ever be a good idea...

I deny that that is legitimate liberal thought. But let me be crystal clear:

TO THE DEGREE THAT THAT IS LIBERAL THOUGHT, LIBERAL THOUGHT IS INSANE.

If I told a foreigner that, based on our status as Americans we were entitled to kidnap and torture innocent citizens in her own country and that this was American policy backed by American patriotism, she would be entitled to conclude that THAT TYPE OF AMERICAN PATRIOTISM was criminally insane.

[jgraz]

101. Deep13's post is not at issue. The fact that you seemed to take his assertion as given is.

It made it look as if you did not understand the difference between pacifism and liberalism and you were using that lack of understanding to justify Teabagger mentality.

However, you've made it clear that you did not intend that, and I accept it. Let's move on to our next time-wasting argument.

[TPaine7]

100. Is this just a general statement, like "the sun is hot?"

Blaming the victim for the attacks against them is an old conservative ploy.

True, but apropos of nothing?

OK, here's another one:

One should always exercise caution when using fire.

[TPaine7]

98. Precisely

I deny that the "violence is never justified" meme is liberal. It is a phony, new brand of liberalism that would have been properly called out as insanity by real liberals throughout history.

It is not true liberalism, but TAKING IT ON ITS OWN TERMS, it is a type of liberalism that makes people think liberalism to be insanity.

I am American. I am an American patriot. There are people who think you should support the president in any and every undertaking in time of war--torture, rendition, wholesale illegal spying, etc. THAT TYPE of patriotic thinking makes people equate patriotism with insanity and lawlessness. I would go so far as to say that type of patriotic thinking is lawless insanity.

If someone wants to say that I oppose patriotism and hate America, let them. Everyone who is fooled deserves to be fooled. Personally, I think principled dissent is the highest form of patriotism.

(I could multiply examples. There are African Americans who think that we should confine ourselves to certain types of endeavors--that stepping outside of our sphere is not acceptable. Such black identity makes some people think that black pride is racism. Indeed, I agree that THAT TYPE of black pride IS racism. Therefore I, a black man, believe that pride in black heritage is racism.

Whatever.)

[Andy823]

2. I own guns

I have most of my life. I hunted for years but due to 3 knee surgeries I haven't hunted for around 5 years now. I have no problem with people owning guns, however I do not think that assault weapons should be owned by anyone but law enforcement or the military. I also have a problem with those on the right who buy guns because they think they will have to "defend" themselves from the "liberals"! Most of these kinds of people have never owned a gun until last year when they were told by the nuts on talk radio and fox news that they would need guns to take their country back! Morons, no matter what party they belong to, should not own guns!

[Bullet1987]

5. I don't agree with assault weapons being in the hands of citizens either

[slackmaster]

11. Welcome to the Gungeon. I've noticed that most people who make statements like that don't really...

...understand what the expired "AW" ban covered and what it did not cover.

[Callisto32]

16. Please define "assault weapon"

Hint: The term is not a term of art within the firearms world, and the .gov has failed to do this on multiple occasions.

[rd_kent]

22. What is an "assault weapon" and why, if the citizenry cant have them does law enforcement need them?

[SteveM]

43. Well, I'll jump in on the "assault weapon" misconception...

"Assault weapon" is a term of art used by many gun-controllers to denote a firearm which LOOKS like an "Assault Rifle," which is a technical term used by the military to describe a medium-powered carbine capable of full-auto fire. In short, the "assault weapon" was demonized as being nothing more than an "assault rifle." Gun-controllers knew the public would be confused, and they intentionally took advantage of the confusion they induced.

The semi-automatic carbine described above is NOT suitable for modern military forces because it CANNOT shoot automatically. Said another way, the semi-auto weapon (first used in the U.S. Army during WW II) was later dropped as obsolete, and like other older military weapons, was shuffled off to civilian hands. It is VERY IMPORTANT to know that both semi-auto weapons and full-auto weapons were developed in the late 1800s.

I have to note also that the semi-auto "assault weapons" so vilified by gun-controllers are now becoming the rifle-of-choice by hunters, those wishing for a home-defense weapon, and target-shooters. The basic design of AR-15s, AK-47 semi-auto "clones" and others make the weapon class easy to carry in the field, faster for target-acquition, they have less recoil and have the capability of a follow-up shot. When chambered (as many are now) for larger caliber cartridges, they make very good big-game rifles. And accuracy is more than adequate. There may be 16-17,000,000 of these weapons in civilian hands; kind of makes bans unrealistic, now. Frankly, if I were years younger and getting into deer hunting, I would forgo the traditional bolt-action walnut & blue steel rifle in favor of this carbine design, your "assault weapon."

While some gun-owners are loud about why they purchase guns, many folks (including myself) don't blab about my politics, except in these pages. And many are on the left. I don't recommend the use of "morons," and in any case, if someone has mental a mental incompetency which would bar him/her from owning firearms, they should be adjudicated as such. The 5th Amendment requires it.

[TheWraith]

66. A word on "assault weapons."

I find most people who say they should only be owned by the military and the police don't know what they're referring to. Contrary to popular misconception, they're not fully automatic, nor can they be made so. They're just semi-automatic guns with detachable magazine, with a design copied from proven military designs. Most old-fashioned bolt-action rifles are copied off military weapons too, just an older generation of them. Firearms engineers (just like any other kind of engineers) are happy to copy proven, reliable designs instead of reinventing the wheel. The Springfield 1903 was cloned from the Mauser model of 1898, and was in turn copied for lots and lots of hunting rifles.

The military does not use the kinds of rifles available on the civilian market, even if they look similar.

As for the morons, defending myself from batshit crazy Republicans IS one of the reasons I own guns.

[pleah]

3. I grew up on a farm and guns were a necessity for us.

I don't like guns, but I do know how to use one.

[frazzled]

4. A better question is ...

Why is this post in the GD: Presidential forum? It has nothing to do with either the presidency or politics in general.

[brewens]

6. So Many?

If you are referring to "they" that want to take everyones guns away, they don't really exist. It's kind of a bogyman that the right likes to frighten gun owners with.
I don't hunt, but do carry a gun when I am somewhere where the wildlife considers me to be food. Mostly on rafting trips. I do buy a combination hunting and fishing license in my state for that. I have never actually heard a serious proposal that would take away my right to do that.

[Jackson1999]

14. Dangerous attitude...

is one that says, "well, as long as the laws don't impact MY use of guns." I live in Washington, DC and have had a legally registered shotgun here for many years that I use mainly for trap shooting. When DC was drafting their new draconian gun laws that basically reserve 2A rights for the wealthy, they included a provision that now, get this, when it comes time to re-register my shotgun I will need to take a 5 hour course at a range and prove my proficiency in shooting a glock.

It all comes down to common sense. You need to look at each law or proposed law critically. When you do, you find that very few are "common sense".

[pipoman]

79. Thats because there is no movement

to restrict long guns while on rafting trips. You should realize that 'they' are people who say things like, "I do buy a combination hunting and fishing license in my state for that. I have never actually heard a serious proposal that would take away my right to do that.", while completely disregarding the fact that this discussion is about the 2nd Amendment (civil rights, ya' know) which has not on single solitary thing...nothing, mind you, to do with hunting or canoeing. Need I point to specific examples right here on DU of people wishing to outlaw manufacture of guns and ammo, tax same at comical rates (chrisrockism), enact foolish, proven ineffective, 'assault weapons bans' (in our party platform and on BO's agenda)..so you see, this movement does exist, though loosing steam, maybe if we keep hammering away we can finally lay this idiocy to rest in the next few years.

[Jackpine Radical]

7. I think to some extent that gun views are conditioned by urban/rural background.

I grew up in the north woods, and learning to use a gun was a lot like learning to use an axe or a chain saw. They are all dangerous but useful tools. Guns were associated with getting food. I went to a 1-room country school, and would bet that there was not a kid there (including first-graders) who lived in a home without guns, and who had not already learned to shoot under adult supervision. We just didn't think of guns as devices for settling interpersonal disputes. Murder was very rare. I can recall one in my county from early childhood until I left for college. To this day I own guns, am still a fairly good shot at 65 (I was very good when I was younger; used to handload and target shoot and all that), and live in a rural neighborhood where I would be surprised if any of my neighbors did not also own guns. I guess I can see why people in urban areas want to limit access to guns because of their very different cultural meaning there--association with crime, etc., but I think attempts to control guns are doomed to failure, and I don't want my own rural gun-owning culture messed over by laws designed to deal with urban problems.

[kestrel91316]

8. You would do better to ask why so many Republicans are pro-gun:

because they believe that individual personal rights take absolute precedence over society's rights to regulate personal behavior with an eye toward public safety. Democrats don't.

[SteveM]

44. I do not share this outlook on GOP-Democratic differences...

While I don't think that "individual rights take absolute precedence," I have serious questions about "society's rights to regulate personal behavior with an eye toward public safety."

I would like to know what a "societal right" is? The Constitution allows rather strict guidelines on what the government cannot do, and they are necessarily based on individual rights. I am NOT a fan of "society... regulating personal behavior." That is something government should not be doing, unless the behavior in question is encoded in criminal law, and that law is constitutional.
Public health would be best served by guaranteeing health care to all, better schools for all, a cleaner environment, and enforcement of health and safety codes which are grounded in sound science.

The so-called "public health model" used as a rationale for gun-control is very poorly thought out. SEE: CDC study examining "gun interventionist" strategies as they relate to public health.

[Tim01]

52. Because they haven't been manipulated and used, on this issue.

The numbers and facts speak for themselves. A suspension of disbelief is required to be in favor of gun control, and not in favor of drug control.

[MisterBill45]

59. This is flat-out BS

Republican favored laws:

No drugs (Nixon founded the DEA, Reagan started the "War on Drugs," GHW Bush asked for and got the crack cocaine law -AKA send more black people to jail law-.
No dildos or other sex toys
No gay people -anywhere -doing anything
Patriot Act
Pro-Torture -including US citizens caught on American soil (Richard Padilla)
Anti-Habeus Corpus
Anti 10th amendment -Bush vs. Gore

I could go on forever.

Neither party has a remotely acceptable record on civil liberties. The totalitarian impulse runs deep in both.
On the GOP side, the instinct favors monied interests. On the Democrat side it's always couched in false claims of "compassion" because after all, we citizens are too stupid, ignorant etc. to make decisions ourselves.

If you think the GOP wouldn't sell the Second amendment down the river in a heartbeat if it got them some extra votes, you are sadly mistaken. I remind you that REPUBLICANS Paul Helmke and Sarah Brady are the ones running what used to be called Handgun Control, Inc. who's directly stated purpose was the banning of all privately owned firearms *cough, oh, we just meant handguns*

I campaigned for Obama and I have very rarely voted Rep. except when the alternative was so bad I could not stomach the idea (Carter 80, ducockeyed 88). but the Dems have been infiltrated by Corporatists and and elitists to a horrendous degree. (And no, elitists does NOT mean educated, it means people like Feinstein who want to take MY gun, but have a CCW for themselves because they're "important."

Gun rights is NOT NOT NOT a "liberal" or "conservative" issue. It's a civil rights issue. Period.

Neither party has remotely clean hands on this issue. The DNC has just been STUPID enough to hand a major civil rights issue over to the GOP on a silver platter and we've been suffering at the ballot box ever since. It took cretins like GWB and Dick Cheney and Sarah Palin to START to reverse the trend AND to put the first black man in the White House. (Oh, the Irony, bush will be remembered as he pres who was so bad he had rednecks telling pollsters: We're voting for the n****er:P)

I despise the GOP and will never vote another republican as long as I live after the last 8 years. But don't pretend to yourself for one second that the Dems are pure as the wind-driven snow. MANDATED private insurance buy-ins? RUFKM? I campaigned for a year so Blue-X can make more money on their Fing stock? PULEASE! Socialist/progressive my ass!

[polichick]

9. The NRA has given gun ownership a bad name by blindly fighting for...

...the right to own any kind of weapon at all, even in cities where police are often out-gunned - and by trashing Democrats.

[NoNothing]

10. The NRA has never taken that position

[doc03]

178. They haven't? How about after the Oklahoma City

bombing when they oposed putting taggets in explosives so they could be traced? That's when they lost my support. We have a test coming in Ohio for the NRA, we have Governor Ted Strickland that supports the 2nd Amendment and voted against the AWB and we have John Kasich that supported the AWB. Let's see if the NRA endorses Strickland or Kasich, my bet is the most the NRA will do in this case is just sit it out, they may even find a way to endorse Kasich..

[oneshooter]

180. The reason the NRA opposed taggants

is because the BATF was going to put them in Smokeless powder for reloading. They would not, could not say what effect the taggants would have on the pressure curves. ALL reloading data, both for reloading and factory loads would have to be redone. At a cost of many millions of dollars. Smokeless powder for reloading is NOT an explosive, it is rated as a flammable solid.
They would also add taggants to commercial black powder, when was the last time you heard of a bomb that used black powder? This would also mean revising ALL of the pressure and reloading data. Again at the manufactures cost. The explosives industry would also have to revise all of their formulas, with the additional testing required, of all commercial/industrial/military explosives.

The manufacturers were against it. The end users were against it, including the military. And in the end the BATF could not guarantee that the taggents would be useful, or findable after an explosion.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas


Edit to add: The Oklahoma bomb used nitrogen fertilizer and diesel fuel. No explosives, so no taggants( if they had been used).

[doc03]

192. I know, at the time the NRA claimed they didn't know how the

tangents would affect the wear on the gun barrels, they come up with a million excuses. Come on you have a copper jacketed bullet being forced through a barrel at 3000 FPS and a taggent following it out is going to wear the barrel out, get real. The excuses the NRA uses are the same type of lame excuses the Republicans use in the health-care debate. They are going to have death panels, they are going to ration health-care. The NRA plays on peoples fears just like the Republicans do on every issue. No you don't hear of black powder bring used as an explosive because it is regulated and if someone bought a large amount it would raise a red flag, that's why. They use ammonium nitrate and diesel fuel because it is readily available and untraceable. In case you forgot George H. W. Bush a life member of the NRA quit the NRA because of their radical views when that right-wing a---hole LaPiere referred to the FBI as jack-booted thugs. I am a gun ouner, have a CCW
and support the 2nd Amendment but do not support the NRA any more they are just an arm of the Republican party. I get their mailings every once in a while and it hasn't changed in 30 years it's always send us money to defeat the Democrats. The NRA headquarters should be named in honor of Ted Kennedy since they raised most of the money using his name. They send the same lame push polls every once in a while with pictures of their villains Hillary Clinton, Nancy Polosi and Barack Obama. I never saw them demonize any anti gun Republicans such as John Kasich.

[Ernesto]

12. Agreed polichick!

BTW.... I own a Colt .45 automatic pistol.

[rd_kent]

25. Please show me where the NRA has ever advocated that.

[Callisto32]

13. "The right to own any kind of weapon at all."

If pro RKBA types don't take this we end up with nothing. In my short time on earth arguing for RKBA I have heard that I should not be allowed to have the following because:

Semi-auto/auto weapons are not accurate enough.

You can't stock a handgun to make it more accurate, because that would make it a short-barreled rifle, which of course you can't have. (Unless you pay the government first.)

Bolt-actions are too accurate.

.50 caliber weapons are too powerful.

Service size auto-pistols have too many rounds.

Revolvers have too powerful a round.

Small caliber weapons are not powerful enough, so they are less likely to kill so they are inhumane.

That shotgun/rifle is too short.

That handgun is too long.

That rifle/handgun/shotgun is too cheap ("Saturday night specials")

And so on and so forth. Is it any wonder the pro RKBA among us just say "screw it, well work for it all"?

[Jackson1999]

19. You forgot

Hollow point bullets!!! See, they kill too efficiently, despite eliminating the risk of passing through a person or wall and hurting an innocent bystander.

[rd_kent]

26. self delete

[Callisto32]

55. A single person just can't list them all!

[rd_kent]

24. You have been reading too many talking points. Please point out where the NRA advocates that.

[SteveM]

45. I'm no fan of the NRA, but they don't fight for "owning any kind of weapon..."

There are strict regulations on any weapon which is not a small-arm (designed to be carried and operated in one or both arms), up to and including full-auto weapons (which are much more heavily regulated than handguns, non-auto rifles and shotguns. The government is also free to regulate "heavy" weapons as well. LEOs have over the last few years been equipping (if they haven't already done so) their officers with the dreaded "assault weapon," semi-auto carbines of moderate power. I'm not sure how police are out-gunned. Do you have some examples?

I would agree for the most part with your comments about the NRA "trashing Democrats," which is why I won't join it.

[Tim01]

53. You are either telling a non-truth on purpose, or you are uneducated.nt

[Tejas]

102. ...a drive-by non-truth at that. nt

[PavePusher]

62. Why should peaceful, law-abiding Citizens...

be prohibited from owning/carrying firearms for self-defense in cities?

You pretty much just admitted that the police can't help them...

[safeinOhio]

109. Like most people here, I am all in favor of peaceful

law-abiding citizens owning/carrying firearms. Other than saying, lock up criminals and throw away the key, I don't see the NRA or most advocates here coming up with any restrictions to keep fire arms out of the hands of criminals. Myself and others have called for registration and records kept on all handguns purchased. I can find no violation of the Second Amendment to such a restriction. In many states any criminal or crazy can buy a handgun from a non federal gun dealer.
I have asked for supporters of gun rights here to come up with other solutions to keeping handguns out of the hands of those that legally shouldn't own them and never get any ideas. Only complaints that it would be a hassle and might cost a few bucks. I feel that if illegal use of handguns and handgun violence was reduced, it would reduce the push to inhibit the Second Amendment.

[X_Digger]

112. Why should the NRA (or average law abiding gun owners) be responsible for 'fixing' the problem?

Compare these two statements and tell my why you appear to disagree with the first, but I bet you'd agree with the second:

"The NRA is an advocacy organization for the protection of legal exercise of the second amendment.
It is not the NRA's responsibility to address psychos abusing the second amendment by shooting people."

vs

"The ACLU is an advocacy organization for the protection of legal exercise of the first amendment.
It is not the ACLU's responsibility to address pedophiles abusing the first amendment by distributing child pornography."

It's just as wrong headed to blame the NRA for gun violence as it would be to blame the ACLU for child pornography. It's not the NRA (or average law abiding gun owners') problem to fix, no more than child porn is the ACLU's problem to fix.

Now, on to some *ahem* whoppers in there..

In many states any criminal or crazy can buy a handgun from a non federal gun dealer.

There is no such animal as a 'non-federal gun dealer'. If one is engaged in the business of dealing firearms, you must have an FFL. If you were insinuating that a private seller is a 'dealer', I'd take that distinction up with the BATFE, they have rather strict rules that they enforce. Does selling my car via the want-ads make me a car dealer? Does selling my house make me a realtor?

registration and records kept on all handguns purchased.

Exactly how does this work for the 65m handguns already in private hands? If compliance is low (and look at Canada for an example of non-compliance with a registry) how would this affect jack-all? When that uber-expensive system of registration (again look at Canada for their $948m boondoggle to register just over 7m guns) is defeated by doing nothing, what's next, eh? Going door to door? "No, officer, I sold that handgun last year." What's sure to be a massive expense bypassed by a single lie.

I have asked for supporters of gun rights here to come up with other solutions to keeping handguns out of the hands of those that legally shouldn't own them and never get any ideas.

Really? How about opening up NICS to private sellers voluntarily? That one's been bandied around here for a long time. But seeing as how the majority of weapons that criminals use come from 'friends/family' (40%) or 'street/illegal source' (40%), I think that whole registration schtick is a solution looking for a problem, or just a way to nibble at our rights.

Only complaints that it would be a hassle and might cost a few bucks.

Or disadvantage those least likely to be able to afford it but who also are the most affected by violence. Or that any measure of 'judgement' in it would be applied differently depending on skin color, income level, or political affiliation. Or that a requirement that all weapons be registered, and then saying something akin to "Oh hey, look, we're out of registration forms. Come back next month." can be used as a de facto ban. (a la Washington D.C.) Or that 'training' / 'safety inspections' / etc that are only held on certain days of the month, on short notice will be used just to deny as many people as possible.

No thanks.

[safeinOhio]

117. I don't get your argument

"The NRA is an advocacy organization for the protection of legal exercise of the second amendment.
It is not the NRA's responsibility to address psychos abusing the second amendment by shooting people."

Registration of handguns at point of purchase would be legal under the 2nd. Is the NRA against background checks?

"There is no such animal as a 'non-federal gun dealer'. This has nothing to do with what I am saying. A purchase from an individual requires no background check. Feel free to remove "federal" from gun dealer.


"Exactly how does this work for the 65m handguns already in private hands? If compliance is low (and look at Canada for an example of non-compliance with a registry) how would this affect jack-all? When that uber-expensive system of registration (again look at Canada for their $948m boondoggle to register just over 7m guns) is defeated by doing nothing, what's next, eh? Going door to door? "No, officer, I sold that handgun last year." What's sure to be a massive expense bypassed by a"
I'm not saying this law would solve everything, only slow the movement of illegalhandguns. I'm not asking for a door to door check, only a check when the gun is sold by an individual as it is now done when sold by a dealer.


"Really? How about opening up NICS to private sellers voluntarily? That one's been bandied around here for a long time. But seeing as how the majority of weapons that criminals use come from 'friends/family' (40%) or 'street/illegal source' (40%), I think that whole registration schtick is a solution looking for a problem, or just a way to nibble at our rights."

Not only making it voluntary, it would make it mandatory. It does not affect your constitutional rights in any way. If it is legal to have a law on background checks, it is already legal. Only a hassle. Too bad for the hassle that is not much different than you selling your car as an individual. The title has to change hands thru the government by registration of the title. Cars are still stolen, but there would be a lot more if not.


"Or disadvantage those least likely to be able to afford it but who also are the most affected by violence. Or that any measure of 'judgement' in it would be applied differently depending on skin color, income level, or political affiliation. Or that a requirement that all weapons be registered, and then saying something akin to "Oh hey, look, we're out of registration forms. Come back next month." can be used as a de facto ban. (a la Washington D.C.) Or that 'training' / 'safety inspections' / etc that are only held on certain days of the month, on short notice will be used just to deny as many people as possible."

A cost of 5 or ten bucks is not a big deal. A box of shells cost way more than that. Is the registration of cars used to hassle anyone? That would be illegal. It would just make it the same as buying from a dealer. You buy a car from a dealer and he handles the paper work. Buy a car from an individual and you go to the DMV. It could also be done thru a gun dealer as is already done with the purchase of a gun from an out of state individual in some states.


Still no idea on stemming the flow of illegal hand guns I see.

[X_Digger]

119. "slow the movement of illegalhandguns"..

It's already illegal to provide a firearm to a person that you 'know or have reason to believe' is a prohibited person. (18 USC 922)

Friends and family of a felon are likely to 'know or have reason to believe' that the felon is, in fact, a felon and prohibited from possessing firearms. Yet they sell or give them to them anyway, knowing that they can be arrested for doing so. (And be subject to a jail term of five years and $10,000 fine - 18 USC 924).

Explain to me how a 'friend or family member' who is right now subject to imprisonment for providing a firearm to a prohibited person is going to change that behavior with registration? Lets assume for the sake of argument that the 'friend or family member' complied with registration (and that's a BIG assumption). All it would take to bypass this is to say "Why officer, I didn't sell that gun to that felon, he must have stolen it from me." (Which actually may be true, since we don't have a breakdown of how many of those 'family / friend' transfers occur with the owner's consent.)

And obviously it has no effect on the 40% of guns that are transferred via 'street / illegal source'.

All you've done is 'slow the movement of legal handguns', hoping that it also slows some small percentage of illegal transfers. Now weigh that against the already demonstrated de facto ban or infringement of civil liberties when other "registration" schemes have been implemented.

Again, this is a solution looking for a problem. A "solution" easily abused by the powers that be, that depends on a (IMHO) highly unlikely combination of circumstances (Those 65m existing handgun owners will register them and those 65m existing handgun owners who would have broken the law before would not do so now.)

[safeinOhio]

126. I don't think ever felon has a girl friend that will buy them a gun. If they do and did

there would end up being a record of the transaction.
Let call the registration of autos an already demonstrated model for the sale of handguns. Is it a big deal or an infringement of any liberty to have to register a car?
No this would not get rid of already existing unregistered handguns. It would make it harder for criminals to purchase them at a garage sale or from an ad in the paper.
I say it will have an effect on the guns transferred on the street. It will make it more difficult for those that can't legally own one if they see an ad in the paper. They would still have to pass a background check that they don't have to now.
What makes sense about having background checks now if they are of no use?

Then again, you can come up with no other way to slow handgun sales to illegal buyers.

I would be more than happy to go thru a background check as I already do when buying from a dealer. No rights violations. I feel the way to keep the 2nd Amendment strong is to do everything possible to reduce gun crime. Public out cry from crime is the biggest threat to gun ownership.

[X_Digger]

129. Purchasing an auto does not require registration..

.. only when I choose to take it out into the streets and I required to register it- much like carrying a gun in most states requires licensing.

I can buy ten cars today and have zero interaction with the state.

purchase them at a garage sale or from an ad in the paper

And exactly how many criminal guns are purchased this way now? 1.0% come from 'flea markets' and 0.7% come from 'gun shows'.

So.. this great big, expensive as hell, not likely to be complied with solution gets us what.. a reduction of 1.7% of crime guns? (Assuming of course that you don't just jiggle figures from one column to another- e.g. 'street / illegal source' goes up by that same 1.7%.

And in exchange you get a system ripe for abuse, with a demonstrated precedent.

Again.. no thanks.

[safeinOhio]

131. Most Americans, including gun owners agree

that more needs to be done. They seem to think that mandatory registration of handguns and pistols is a good idea by 82% and that number includes gun owners. While you say change nothing, the majority of people in this country disagree.

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/339/12/813

There was strong support for policies prohibiting persons convicted of specific misdemeanors from purchasing a firearm. Support for such prohibitions was strongest for crimes involving violence or the illegal use of a firearm (83 to 95 percent) or substance abuse (71 to 92 percent). There was also widespread support for policies designed to reduce the illegal sale of guns, such as mandatory tamper-resistant serial numbers (90 percent), a limit of one handgun purchase per customer per month (81 percent), and mandatory registration of handguns (82 percent). Even among the subgroup of respondents who were gun owners, a majority were in favor of stricter gun regulations with regard to 20 of the 22 proposals covered in the poll.
Conclusions Strong public support, even among gun owners, for innovative strategies to regulate firearms suggests that these proposals warrant serious consideration by policy makers.

Eighty-one percent of all respondents favored limiting handgun purchases to no more than one per customer per month. Eighty-two percent favored mandatory registration of handguns and pistols, and 63 percent favored mandatory registration of rifles and shotguns. Seventy percent preferred that licenses to sell guns be given only to operators of gun stores and not to persons who want to sell guns from their homes. When asked whether they would favor or oppose a law requiring that private gun sales be subject to the same background check as sales by licensed dealers, 77 percent of the respondents favored such a law. Eighty-three percent agreed that the arrest of illegal gun traffickers should be one of the highest priorities of the police and, despite the perceived importance of the arrest of drug dealers, 30 percent said that it was more important for the police to crack down on illegal gun sales than to crack down on illegal drug sales. Respondents were told that serial numbers on handguns, which permit gun tracing, could be made harder to remove, and that this could increase the price of the handgun slightly. Still, 90 percent favored a law requiring handgun manufacturers to make serial numbers tamper-resistant.

[Euromutt]

132. Argumentum ad numerum

A majority of Californian voters voted in favor of Prop 8; that didn't make it right.

Moreover, that piece has a few problems. The first is that it has the names of Arthur Kellermann and Garen Wintemute in it, both notorious for twisting data to support a predetermined conclusion, and writing abstracts and conclusions that conclude that Guns Are Bad, even though the research does not support that conclusion.

The second is that it's from the NEJM, which has demonstrated a sufficiently strong editorial bias against firearms that it has unquestioningly printed research (like Kellermann's) so shoddy it would have received a failing grade had it been written by an undergrad.

Note in the context of the above that the article does not include a list of the questions that the survey respondents were asked. It's well established that how you phrase a question plays a major role in what kind of answer you're likely to get. Zogby, for example, is known to specialize in producing the results the party commissioning the survey wants to get by tailoring the questions to generate the desired response.

The third is that it's from 1998. Relying on opinion polls to guide public policy is bad enough, but relying on 12+ year-old opinion polls is downright terrible.

[safeinOhio]

134. I think even recent polls show that

a majority of Americans, including gun owners are in favor of mandatory background checks on all handgun sales. As this would be both constitutionally legal and supported by a majority of Americans, what's the problem?

Can you show me any poll that refutes that statement?

Can you show me how registration of handguns is against the constitution?

As I believe in the Democracy and would be more than happy to have a national referendum on such a law, I think poll numbers can be a guide to public policy.

[Euromutt]

173. That doesn't not make it an argumentum ad numerum

And may I point out that universal background checks are a different issue from handgun registration. Most of the pro-RKBA types on this forum (including me) have expressed support at some juncture for making the NICS at least available for private party sales; most of the disagreement has been on details, like how to protect the privacy of parties involved (mainly from each other), how it should be paid for, whether it should be mandatory or voluntary, etc.

Handgun registration is a different question, and so far, the problem we seem to be having is that various people have been asking "why should we have handgun registration?" and your answer boils down to "why shouldn't we have it?" You've asserted it would be popular, and not unconstitutional, but those aren't positive arguments for why it should be implemented. What you haven't been able to articulate is a sustainable argument that it would do an amount of good that would outweigh the expense and the cost in loss of liberties.

Yes, we register motor vehicles, but what sets motor vehicles apart from firearms is that there aren't activists and politicians who advocate vehicle registration as a first step towards restricting private ownership of cars by refusing to accept new registrations (as with handguns in Chicago and D.C.) or confiscating vehicles that have been previously registered (as with "assault weapons" in California and New York City). Gun owners have precious little reason to believe that a registry will not be used at some future date to implement a de facto ban on the types of firearms registered.

[X_Digger]

133. In 1998 maybe (the date of your article)..

However today..

http://www.gallup.com/poll/123596/In-U.S.-Record-Low-Support-Stricter-Gun-Laws.aspx

[safeinOhio]

135. How about a poll from Dec. 2009?

http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/html/media-center/pr012-09.shtml

"The poll clearly shows that NRA members are no different from general gun owners," said  Frank Luntz. "By overwhelming numbers, they all believe that that Second Amendment rights and keeping guns from criminals are complementary, not contradictory. It is perfectly consistent to support the Second Amendment and still support background checks at gun shows and greater efforts to keep terrorists from buying guns."
Among many results, the poll showed the following:
• NRA members and gun owners support an approach that protects personal freedom and  security;
•
• NRA members and gun owners support sensible new measures to combat illegal guns,  including closing the terror gap (82 percent NRA members support, 86 percent Non- NRA gun owners support), closing the gun show loophole (69 percent / 85 percent), and  requiring gun owners to report lost and stolen guns (78 percent / 88 percent); and


Frank Luntz is a conservative, not a liberal gun control advocate.

[X_Digger]

136. "It's not what you say, it's what people hear." -- Luntz's motto

Relying on a push poll from a conservative agitator whose own motto typifies his methodology is weak sauce.

Just goes to show that Luntz will give you the poll answers you want, if you give him enough money.

I'll take Gallup, CNN, and USA Today, thanks.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/08/gun.control.poll/

"Now, a recent poll reveals a sudden drop -- only 39 percent of Americans now favor stricter gun laws, according to a new CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll."

[safeinOhio]

138. Great poll, only it does not ask the question

Would you support background checks on everyone purchasing a handgun from a private individual as is required when buying from a gun dealer?

In general poll questions about restrictions on guns, as in the poll I sighted, people are against more restrictions. When asked if they do not want people on terrorist list to be able to buy guns, they are for that restriction. When asked about closing loop holes that allows criminals and mentally incompetent people to buy handguns from individuals without background checks, they are for restrictions.

Now find a recent poll that ask those questions.

You pick and choose polls with the best of us.

[X_Digger]

139. Those are the only recent polls I can find, at a national level..

Just because it's the only poll that asks that particular question doesn't mean that the poll methodology is valid.

I would say, rather, that there is no national poll by a respected, reputable, unbiased organization on this question, but generally, polls by respected, reputable, unbiased organizations show a majority of americans want gun laws to remain the same or be relaxed.

You really should check Frank's creds before you start endorsing his results-

http://www.theseminal.com/2009/06/11/this-is-how-you-beat-down-frank-luntzs-talking-points/

"Senator Jeff Merkley takes on Frank Luntz’s memo to kill health reform, and minority leader McConnell, on their dishonest campaign to kill health reform. As Merkley points out, Republicans who parrot Frank Luntz aren’t engaging in a debate about health reform, they are simply using poll-tested language to kill reform and prolong the health care crisis. They don’t oppose the President’s plan or plans by Democrats in the Senate, they oppose any plan."

http://mediamatters.org/research/200706260002

"As Media Matters for America has noted, Republican pollster Frank Luntz, who the Public Broadcasting Service has announced will provide "public feedback" following PBS' coverage of the June 28 Democratic presidential forum, has shown open disdain for Democratic priorities and candidates and has reportedly been reprimanded and censured by his peers for withholding and misrepresenting polling data and methodology. "

[safeinOhio]

140. Frank Luntz is a right wing hack

and a NRA, Sarah Palin supporter, that is why the article is worth posting.

As I said, when asking the same people about loop holes that make it easier for felons to buy guns without background checks, most will support background checks.

Why do you want to make it easy for felons, insane and those with protection orders to buy handguns?

[X_Digger]

141. If he's a hack, why did you endorse his push poll?

All it shows is that Luntz will give you whatever poll results you want if you pay him enough.

"Why do you want to make it easy for felons, insane and those with protection orders to buy handguns?"

False dichotomy- "If you don't support what I suggest, you want to give handguns to X." This isn't an 'either / or' proposition.

You haven't demonstrated that your proposal would even make a dent in illegal acquisition of handguns to prohibited persons that wouldn't be picked up by other means of acquisition.

What, we're supposed to take it on faith? Do this just so that we can say we're 'doing something'? At the already demonstrated erosion of our civil rights (see DC, NY, Chicago, CA)?

Not to mention the political costs. You want to hand the repugnicans a six-foot two-by-four that they would use to severely beat every (D) name attached to this measure about the head and shoulders? Do you want to lose the house and senate again a la '96?

Here'd be the rep talking points from a 'national registration' proposal
-$billions cost (If Canada spent $948m to register 7m guns, and there are 65m handguns in the US- you do the math.)
-Compliance (again Canada- they had to keep extending the deadline for registration and still only ended up with ~40% reg'd)
-confiscation- Ask SKS owners in CA & NY about their rifles and how their registration turned into "We know you have one of these rifles. Turn it in, sell it out of state, or destroy it."

[safeinOhio]

142. I disagree with about every thing you are saying

we already have background checks on 90% of all handguns purchased. Extending that to the 10% of individual purchases will not cost a fortune or step on anyones right.
No recent polls show what I am saying except for the one commented on by Luntz, even though he didn't do the poll.
There are no other recent ones, so I don't think you can say the new ones would be any different.
As for confiscation, I have already said it should not extend to long guns. So please toss that one out. I'm not calling for registration of current guns only at sale. Throw out the Canada part.

Ok on the false dichotomy if you'd ever answer my constant request for you to come up with ANY solution to the problem of hand gun violence and guns in the hands of crooks.

I'd be all for a referendum by a neutral source on if the American voters would support background checks on all handgun sales to prevent crooks, terrorist and mentally impaired from gaining easy access in the same way we already do for the 90% of handguns sold by dealers. If not 60% of the voters were for such a law, i wouldn't call for it. If it showed more than that favored such a law and would vote for the party that supports it, would you also?

[X_Digger]

146. Luntz DID do the MAIG poll

"commented on by Luntz, even though he didn't do the poll."

Perhaps you didn't pick that up from the brady press release.. http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/downloads/pdf/luntz_poll_questionnaire_and_responses.pdf

See where it says 'the word doctors / it's not what you say, it's what people hear'? http://theworddoctors.com/team.html

I'm not calling for registration of current guns only at sale.

There are 2m new handguns handguns sold in retail sector in the US each year. (see http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/gunsinamerica)

Now, how large would the program have to be to cover the additional 2m guns each and every year? That's not even considering the 300k+ non-new handguns that trade hands each year.

Throw out the Canada part.

Yeah, if I were in your shoes I'd want to throw that out too- too embarrassing when it serves as an example of how expensive / reliable such an effort might be in the US.

Ok on the false dichotomy if you'd ever answer my constant request for you to come up with ANY solution to the problem of hand gun violence and guns in the hands of crooks.

My four-fold plan would be as follows-
1. End the drug war. A majority of gun homicides happen not between family members, but between 'acquaintances' (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2008/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_10.html) and we know that a majority of those who kill have a previous criminal record including violent crime (http://www.cardozolawreview.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=138:kates201086&catid=20:firearmsinc&Itemid=20) - that leads me to believe that the majority of gun homicides occur with relationships such as 'drug dealer', 'mule', etc. You don't hear about drive by shootings being related to alcohol distributors, do you?
2. Address the root causes of crime- if we had a proper social safety net, including mental health services, proper health care, living wages, and a justice system that wasn't so keen on locking up as many african-american fathers as possible, we'd be in a similar situation as other countries with a lower overall crime rate, guns or no. Fewer people would turn to crime in the first place. See, that's an important distinction between the two of us- I'd rather have fewer criminals, you'd rather have fewer tools in criminals' hands.
3. Enforce existing penalties on the law books- weapons charges are often the first things to be plead away in today's justice system. 'Catch and release' doesn't usually kill the fish, but in the justice system it damn well might kill someone else.
4. Allow (but not require) private sellers to utilize NICS over the phone to verify the buyer of a firearm. This would allow those selling firearms to people they don't know well to verify that the buyer isn't on a prohibited list. Those who don't care to whom they sell are likely not going to follow such requirements anyway, so it only applies to those most likely to follow the law anyway.

I'd be all for a referendum by a neutral source on if the American voters would support background checks on all handgun sales to prevent crooks, terrorist and mentally impaired from gaining easy access in the same way we already do for the 90% of handguns sold by dealers. If not 60% of the voters were for such a law, i wouldn't call for it. If it showed more than that favored such a law and would vote for the party that supports it, would you also?

I'll answer this by asking a question of my own- "If a majority of americans voted to reinstate slavery, would you favor it as well?" No? How about "If a majority of americans voted to outlaw gay marriage, would you favor it as well?" That's called "Tyranny of the Majority".

See Alexis de Tocqueville's Democracy in America (1835, 1840).

[safeinOhio]

149. Ok your 4 fold gets a D-

My four-fold plan would be as follows-
1. End the drug war. A majority of gun homicides happen not between family members, but between 'acquaintances' (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2008/offenses/expanded_infor... ) and we know that a majority of those who kill have a previous criminal record including violent crime (http://www.cardozolawreview.com/index.php?option=com_co... ) - that leads me to believe that the majority of gun homicides occur with relationships such as 'drug dealer', 'mule', etc. You don't hear about drive by shootings being related to alcohol distributors, do you?
2. Address the root causes of crime- if we had a proper social safety net, including mental health services, proper health care, living wages, and a justice system that wasn't so keen on locking up as many african-american fathers as possible, we'd be in a similar situation as other countries with a lower overall crime rate, guns or no. Fewer people would turn to crime in the first place. See, that's an important distinction between the two of us- I'd rather have fewer criminals, you'd rather have fewer tools in criminals' hands.
3. Enforce existing penalties on the law books- weapons charges are often the first things to be plead away in today's justice system. 'Catch and release' doesn't usually kill the fish, but in the justice system it damn well might kill someone else.
4. Allow (but not require) private sellers to utilize NICS over the phone to verify the buyer of a firearm. This would allow those selling firearms to people they don't know well to verify that the buyer isn't on a prohibited list. Those who don't care to whom they sell are likely not going to follow such requirements anyway, so it only applies to those most likely to follow the law anyway.

1. So you are going to end the drug war. Just call it quits and walk away. I'd agree, but the party that calls for that would never win another election. Just like you thinking reasonable gun laws would doom Dems.

2 Root cause of crime. Now you are talking about spending a 1000 times more than a registration program that would cost too much.

3. Everyone says that one. Then no one wants to pay taxes to build and staff more prisons.

4. Where are your statistic that Those who don't care to whom they sell are likely not going to follow such requirements anyway, so it only applies to those most likely to follow the law anyway. You also make statements without any facts.

It is very easy to be critical of some other persons solution, yours or mine. So, lets just leave it at that. The important part is to start the discussion on how to solve a problem. So, couldn't we compromise and just look at mandatory background checks on all handgun sales. The tools to do that are in place. No big cost factor. 90% of all gun sales are thru dealers already. There is something wrong with it when I can buy a handgun at a garage sale with no questions asked. I could have been a serial killer or a terrorist. I would have been more than happy to fill out a form and have a check on my status made. If not, what is the purpose of background checks at a store? Why would one be ok and not the other?

[X_Digger]

151. What are you going to 'give' in your compromise?

Let's say we 'give' you all private handgun sales get a background check. What regulation are you going to relax as compromise? Repeal the Hughes amendment to the McClure / Volkmer act? Remove restrictions in interstate sale? Remove the 'sporting purposes' clause?

(Hint: No, compromise isn't, "We'll only take half as much as we want.")

1. So you are going to end the drug war. Just call it quits and walk away. I'd agree, but the party that calls for that would never win another election. Just like you thinking reasonable gun laws would doom Dems.

It's already happening, albeit slowly- see the rise in medical mj. The upside is that we'd have a heck of a lot of room in our prisons for taking care of #3, and more money for #2. Public opinion about the drug war is shifting, it's only a matter of time before those calling for ending the nonsensical farce outnumber the puritanical prudes on the other side.

[safeinOhio]

161. Because of the different state laws,

relaxing the laws on interstate sales might work. Sales between individuals in different states are allowed now, only it must be done by a FFL dealer. A national background check on private sales would make that no longer needed.

Yes MJ laws are moving that way through the back door of medical mj. No major party has endorsed flat out legalization.

Ok, so now you are all for background checks and I'm for interstate sales with national background checks.

See, things can be hammered out with compromise on both sides.

[X_Digger]

163. Now on to details..

.. the salient points I can see with opening up NICS to private sellers is a means for a seller to check the status of a buyer without having to visit a police station or FFL, so a phone based system. The next point would be a number + pin, so that a seller doesn't get enough information to 'spoof' as another user.

Seller dials 1-800-ATF-NICS
Seller says "I've verified that the buyer is of appropriate age (>18 for long guns, >21 for handguns). The NICS # on his driver's license is XXX-XXXX-XXXX-XXXX."
NICS person says "The last name of the seller is Johnson, and his zip code is 11111, correct?"
Seller says "Yes."
NICS person says "Please put Mr. Johnson on the phone."
Buyer takes the phone.
NICS person says "Mr. Johnson, Do you assert that you are not a prohibited person as defined by 18 USC 922(r) and affirm that you are eligible to purchase this firearm under applicable state and federal law? Yes? Okay, what is the PIN number associated with your ID?"
Buyer recites private PIN.
NICS person says "Thanks, please hand the phone back to the seller."
NICS person says (to seller) "Proceed" or "Denied"

As is the case now, three days after a "Proceed", NICS destroys all record of the transaction. "Denied"s get passed on to the BATFE, as potential perjury cases.

No registration, no fees, no having to visit a police station, no hassle for a buyer or seller, no identity theft.

[safeinOhio]

166. No sales between residents of other states.

You want to make sure YOU don't sell a handgun to a terrorist or felon or criminally insane person? How about if crack dealers volunteer to not sell crack either? How about sex offenders volunteer to register where they live. Save a lot on government expense and not violate anyones rights too. As I see it now you have the right to not sell your guns to anyone you think is, may be or isn't a criminal. No change.

I'm done. You have it your way. I'll have it my way.

[X_Digger]

167. Err, are you the same person who said..

"relaxing the laws on interstate sales might work."

That is "sales between residents of other states".

Did someone take over your keyboard for post #161, or the last one?

eta: emphasis added

[safeinOhio]

168. I'm the same one that said

"relaxing the laws on interstate sales might work. Sales between individuals in different states are allowed now, only it must be done by a FFL dealer. A national background check on private sales would make that no longer needed."

That being a National Law requiring background checks would mean that there would no longer be a need for a ban on interstate sales between individuals not going thru a dealer. A compromise that you suggested. The voluntary aspect would negate that.

[X_Digger]

169. Nor did I say my suggestion was voluntary.. *scratches head*

(At least not in the previous post.) I'll give you mandatory, but that still doesn't mean it has to be done by the police or an FFL. If I can run a background check on someone to make sure they're not prohibited, why must it go through anyone else?

[wjbarricklow]

179. Why not lock up the criminals?

That seems to be the best way to make sure criminals cannot get guns.

By letting a criminal back on the street, the state is telling me "he is reformed, he has paid his debt to society; he can move in next door to you, wave hello to your wife every morning, and walk the street where your children play."

Then, by prohibiting him from owning a firearm, the state turns right around and says, "but for crying out loud, don't let him have a gun, he'll kill somebody!"

Am I the only one who sees something wrong with this picture?

[PavePusher]

187. Stop Making Sense!!!

Lalalalalalalalalalalala........

:evilgrin:

[spin]

128. I have often advocated here ...

that we extend the NICS background check so as to allow private citizens to access the system and be sure that the person they plan to sell a weapon to has no serious criminal or mental problems.

Currently, if I sell one of my firearms, I only sell to someone that I personally know and who has a concealed weapons permit. Obviously, that limits selling my firearms.

It would be nice if I could walk into a gun store with a potential buyer, have him fill out the required paperwork and then have the gun store clerk run a NICS background check for a REASONABLE fee.

In fact, I feel all private sales of firearms should require an NICS background check.

I definitely never want one of my weapons to end up in the hands of a criminal.

I also believe that a large number of gun owners would agree with me and support requiring NICS background checks for all private sales of firearms.

I enjoy shooting but I also would enjoy living in a society where criminals or people with severe mental problems find it more difficult to obtain firearms.

I also would like to see law enforcement and the judicial system treat carrying an illegal firearm as a VERY SERIOUS crime punished by LONG sentences. This would discourage criminals from carrying firearms on a frequent basis and reduce the number of shootings caused by one person "disrespecting" some other fool.

Without total confiscation of firearms, we will totally never eliminate the misuse of these weapons. Any attempt to confiscate all firearms would result in more violence and death than we now have and would most likely fail.

That doesn't mean that the pro-gun people can't work together with those who totally oppose firearm ownership and make headway to solve the problem of firearm violence in our society.

[safeinOhio]

150. I agree with you 100%

Others seem to think that it would be the end of the world to put in any reasonable laws to that effect.

[spin]

154. I can't understand why ...

As a seller I want to know that the person I'm selling the firearm to is honest.

As a buyer I would have to realize that the background check will increase the price of my purchase.

As a responsible gun owner, I feel the NICS background check has proven successful in dealer transactions. It should also work for private transactions and help to prevent criminal violence and perhaps eliminate the sale of firearms to those who have severe mental problems.

A lot depends on enforcement. If a law passes that requires a background check for all private sales, the punishment should be severe enough to discourage bypassing the law. And if a seller didn't get a background check for a buyer and the firearm was eventually used in a crime, the seller should face prison time.

Of course, anyone who engages in gun illegal trafficking should spend a LONG time in prison.

[oneshooter]

152. Tell me what is a "reasonable"fee

The fees for transfers between FFls here range from $20 to $100 to 10% of the price of the weapon. These are paperwork only items which are almost pure profit for the dealer.
And what will stop a future politician from raising the "reasonable fee" by 200%-300% or even 500% "for the children".

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[spin]

153. Ten to twenty dollars sounds reasonable to me ...

I just submitted the renewal forms for my concealed weapons permit with a check for $65. The new license will be good for 7 years.

The fee for a first time license is $117 which includes the fee for fingerprints.

I can't see a good reason for a gun store clerk to charge more than $20 to run a background check. It's a simple process.

I believe the cost of a concealed carry permit in Florida has actually fallen and the license lasts for a longer time.

So many people in Florida are applying for carry permits that the department that issues them is having a hard time keeping up.

[oneshooter]

181. Only half of an answer

"And what will stop a future politician from raising the "reasonable fee" by 200%-300% or even 500% "for the children"."

It has been done many times.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[spin]

183. Actually, I believe the cost of a Florida concealed weapons license ...

has dropped over the years. If my memory is wrong, I do know that the license is now valid for a longer period of time.

On Wednesday, June 11, 2008, the Division of Licensing began issuing concealed weapon licenses that are valid for seven years.

***snip***

Please also note that this increase in the period of time during which a license is valid comes with no additional increase in fees. NEW and RENEWAL license fees remain unchanged.
http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/weapons/concealed_weapons_7yr.html

Of course, in a gun unfriendly state, the fees could easily increase as an attempt to keep "those people" from being able to afford one.

[oneshooter]

186. I'm talking about the back ground check fee. n/t

[spin]

191. Of course the government could raise that fee ...

Sorry that I didn't follow your question correctly.

The government could argue that they need a larger fee to finance the system. Currently one of the problems with the system is that some states don't get their records updated in a timely fashion.

I just bought my daughter a firearm for her birthday. I was going to ask the clerk what the cost of the background check was. I'll check the receipt tomorrow. It would be interesting to know if the dealer pays a fee to the government for the background check. I doubt it, but I'm not sure.

[PavePusher]

189. Please tell me what other Rights you would be O.K. paying a fee for?

I find that to be anathema.

If there is to be any cost involved, it should be paid by those people who insist on it so they can "feel safe", and not by anyone who objects to it.

[mzteris]

17. if you don't "know about guns" - DON"T get one.

And don't get your mother one, either.

Unless you know how to handle one, it's more dangerous to have than not.

Get your mom a bigger dog and your bro some zyrtec. (Or get a dog that's non-allergenic.) Dogs are basically deterrents just because of the noise they make taking away the element of surprise. If someone has targeted your house for a particular reason, they'll have taken the dog into consideration.

Another question would be, WHY would your mom be "a target" anyway? Does she have money? Does she look like she does?

Get some motion detector floods for the front and back of the house. Buy some better deadbolts and window locks. She'd be much better off.

[canoeist52]

18. Here's the thing. I watched rational Massachusetts friends,

whose opinion I respected, vote for republicans, against their best interests, giving us basically 30 years of backward economic policy, over one issue--guns. They gave up the liberties they took for granted because they believed someone was coming to take their guns.

[Jackson1999]

20. Naw,

as a former Masshole, I a can assure that they were not afraid of someone "taking away their guns." Sure they were probably concerned about increased restrictions. That is reasonable.

The thing with most people in Mass is that, even among Kennedy supporters, there was a feeling that you had no real vote for the past 50 years.

[Jackson1999]

21. The other thing that should tell you is...

How stupid the gun issue is for Democrats to champion. From the polls and people I talk to, the leadership is increasingly out of touch with the rank and file on this issue.

[Tim01]

54. Then democrats should become in favor of supporting the constitution.

This is a no brainer. There are a whole shitload of people who are split between being democrat, or protecting their 2nd amendment rights.
If democrats would stop attacking the 2nd amendment they would pick up a monstrously huge number of votes overnight.

[randr]

23. I own guns

I think the NRA is a lobby for gun and ammo manufacturers and dealers.
I do think that we should have laws to regulate who can have guns, what types of guns and ammo are sold, strict regulations on uses of guns, and very strict penalties when these rules are broken.
The idea that I need my gun to protect myself from my government is so ridiculous it boarders on the insane.
Has there ever been an armed stand off where the authorities did not win?

[Ernesto]

27. K&R

[armueller2001]

31. Yep. There sure has.

It was called the Revolutionary War. Check it out sometime.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

34. ROFL +1 n/t

[randr]

56. I was refering to our lifetimes

Most issues we deal with are in the present.

[PavePusher]

64. Yeah! History (and current world events) are irrelevent!

Did I get that right?

[Euromutt]

72. Ireland 1922? Cuba 1959? Algeria 1962? Nicaragua 1979?

If you're willing to accept "within living memory" rather than specifically "within our lifetimes."

[SteveM]

83. I still remember that old Sherman tank the Sandinistas liberated from Somoza...

smoking and waddling through a gulch in the final drive to oust the U.S.-backed and HEAVILY ARMED dictator.

Cuba is an even starker contrast. In my studies of Central-American and Caribbean politics, it was a prime example of how a regime, despite being heavily armed (Batista had helicopters in the 50s!), can collapse under a well-planned and coordinated attack by a small, lightly-armed insurgency. Another regime backed by the U.S., and Trafficante to boot.

Pardon my spelling.

[pipoman]

80. Holy

Shit!!! This is without a doubt the most dangerous 'think' there is...more dangerous than gun owning neighbors and gun happy cops put together.

Do you even get that in the entire history of mankind, thousands of years, every empire which has ever existed...EVER...has risen and fallen? Do you realize that for the history of mankind, thousands of generations...THOUSANDS...transportation was by foot or by beast ONLY, that lighting came from wood or animal fat ONLY, that communication was within shouting distance ONLY..100 years vs. 10,000+ years of human history..and you are advocating not giving consideration to human history for present day policy....how dangerously short sighted of you.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

33. >_<

I think the NRA is a lobby for gun and ammo manufacturers and dealers.
Wrong. The NRA is comprised of card carrying paying citizens.
The NRA is is powerful because it direcly represents millions of members and stands on behalf of 80 million gun owners.
The manufactures actually have thier own special interest lobby. ;)

I do think that we should have laws to regulate who can have guns, what types of guns and ammo are sold, strict regulations on uses of guns, and very strict penalties when these rules are broken.
All of those regulations exist - who can have guns, what kind, prohibited ammunitions, what conditions you can legally discrarge guns under, how you can store them, and most of the laws are criminal in nature. In fact guns are one of the most frequently regulated items in america. There are literally tens of thousands of laws dealing with guns on the books - an aweful lot for something that "shall not be infringed"

The idea that I need my gun to protect myself from my government is so ridiculous it boarders on the insane.
Has there ever been an armed stand off where the authorities did not win?
You cannot protect yourself from your government. I don't think anyone has that fantasy.
however 80,000,000 firearm owners standing together would probably do alot better.
There are insurmountable logistical hurdles (even for best military in the world) when trying to defeat 80,000,000 people.
These logistical problems are complicated even further when your fighting in your own back yard.

[X_Digger]

39. Battle of Athens - 1946

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_%281946%29

[Jackson1999]

40. You don't think we have those things already? nt

[Katya Mullethov]

58. John Joe Gray is still holed up

Going on more than ten years now .

[one-eyed fat man]

81. Yorktown

George Washington 1; Lord Cornwallis 0

[benEzra]

82. We *DO*.

I do think that we should have laws to regulate who can have guns, what types of guns and ammo are sold, strict regulations on uses of guns, and very strict penalties when these rules are broken.

WE DO!!!!!!!

The is an immense body of law regulating who can have guns, what types of guns and ammo are sold to the general public, STRICT regulations on uses of guns (not only what you can do with them, but where and under what circumstances you can possess them), and extremely strict penalties when the rules are broken.

For example, mere possession of a gun easily convertible to full auto (even if not actually converted) by any citizen in any state, outside of police/military/government, without Federal authorization (BATFE Form 4), is a 10-year Federal felony. Ditto for even owning the parts to make an automatic weapon.

Automatic weapons are tightly controlled (ALL of them, even "AK-47's like the ones in Iraq and Afghanistan" that the MSM likes to scaremonger about). Sound suppressed weapons are tightly controlled. Firearms over .51 caliber are tightly controlled (even ordinary shotguns are only on the market by "sporting purpose" exemption, as a 12-gauge is .729 caliber).

Look past the red herrings and the scaremongering. The gun control debate is about the continued right of mentally competent adults with clean records to continue to purchase and lawfully use non-automatic, non-sound-suppressed NFA Title 1 civilian small arms under. 51 caliber that meet the many miscellaneous requirements of the National Firearms Act of 1934, the Gun Control Act of 1968, the Hughes Amendment to the McClure-Volkmer Act of 1986, the Armor Piercing Ammunition Ban of 1986 (expanded in 1994), etc. etc. etc.

The idea that I need my gun to protect myself from my government is so ridiculous it boarders on the insane.
Has there ever been an armed stand off where the authorities did not win?

An armed populace greatly increases the threshold of political capital necessary to carry out an oppressive regime, and (if the worst happens) can conceivably mitigate its effects. The last big one in this country ran from 1775 to 1783, as I recall.

I think the NRA is a lobby for gun and ammo manufacturers and dealers.

That's the NSSF (National Shooting Sports Foundation). The NRA represents its membership, mostly individual gun owners, who both fund it and elect its board of directors.

[farmout rightarm]

137. One could say the Soviets were the "authority" the Afghanis fought...and beat.

I think that NRA claim is silly, gun and ammo manufacturers hardly need any help with sales, most of them can't make enough to fill the market anyway. The problem with most proposed "strict regulations" is that they inconvenience law-abiding people and have zero effect on those predisposed to commit crimes.

[LiberalFighter]

28. I agree with another poster that you should not get a gun if you don't know how to use it.

Will your mother be able to handle a gun calmly when she feels threaten?
Not forget that the safety needs to be off to shoot?
Fumble with the bullets if the gun is not loaded?
Understand that if her life is in danger that she needs to shoot to kill because that may be the only shot she gets off?

Regardless of whether she has a gun or not you need to do other things to make her safe.
Make sure she doesn't have much money or other valuables in the house.
Make sure she doesn't talk about anything of value she has in the house.
Secure the house with dead bolts and other security devices. And she uses them.
She does not open the door without knowing the person at the door.

If she has a cell phone make sure she keeps it with her at all times and programmed with either 911 or your number.
If she doesn't have a cell phone make sure any phones she has in the phone are programmed for emergency speed dial.

Make sure you know what is happening in her life on a daily basis to prevent scams that happen to the elderly.

[Bonhomme Richard]

29. I don't think a majority of Dems think about the issue at all.

There are the Anti's that focus on guns just like the anti's that focus on smoking (my vice), furs, etc. Not very different from the pro's on the issue. It's a matter of personal focus. I am a gun owner, as a matter of fact I just picked up my CCW permit yesterday, but even I get annoyed when I see all the gun forum post here that seem to me like one big circle jerk. Post after post of one person or another killing some perp or perceived perp all day long like they have something to prove. It gets old, appears to be baiting, and I don't know what they are trying to prove. It seems awfully defensive to me and they are not winning any friends. For want of a better term, there are fanatics on both sides of the issue but the fact that they are fanatics closes their minds to any common ground.
Whether I own a gun is my business and I have a right to own one. I am no where near paranoid enough to think that I need to carry one on me for protection. I am not in that line of work but in my state (CT) there is only one permit and that is to carry.

[SteveM]

48. There is a difference between smoking & furs on the one hand, and guns on the other...

"There are the Anti's that focus on guns just like the anti's that focus on smoking... furs, etc. Not very different from the pros on the issue."

The aspect of animal rights which crows over furs is rather marginalized, and smokers are (as yet) poorly organized to "defend" their position against any prohibitionist efforts, and cannot focus their efforts in meaningful political action.

Guns are different. You have a powerful force of pro-2A folks who will not be marginalized, who are focused and who have a proven track record in defending (and now promoting) the Second Amendment. Perhaps most Democrats don't "think about the issue," but the GOP clearly does.

I don't much care for the bushel-basket posting of so many self-defense incidents, but I see the point when compared with the Johnny-on-the-spot coverage by a generally pro-gun-control MSM of some nut case shooting people at a mall. The examples should be reduced and a finer point made.

As for concealed carry, I don't see where you can characterize people who carry concealed as "paranoid." Maybe you aren't fearful (a different psychological state), but you can't extend your state of mind to the larger population of those carrying concealed. You aren't in their shoes, and they are not in your's.

[TheKentuckian]

30. I don't get it. Gun control is conservative policy that looks to take

rights from the individual.

That's the nanny stater-authoritarian wing of the party that always has it's knickers in a twist on this issue. I don't understand at all why anyone wants an armed police state and an unarmed populace. That's not liberal in the least from my perspective but then I'm a commie, pinko, liberal not a progressive.

[damntexdem]

32. Many of us are anti gun-idiocy.

Against the idiocy of the NRA, which opposes the most common-sense controls.

And if your brother is moving out the house, your mother could get a bigger dog. But if she wants a gun, she should also get training in its use -- and it should be her wish, not yours.

[eqfan592]

35. Please list what "common sense" controls you are speaking of? (nt)

[Jackson1999]

36. ...and here we go ;-) n/t

[rd_kent]

42. Where are we going?

[PavePusher]

143. Why are we in this hand-basket?

And who turned up the thermostat?

:rofl:

[rd_kent]

41. What "common sense controls" are you referring to? Please explain....

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

46. How about a list of those common sense controls they oppose?

[safeinOhio]

110. How about the registration of all handguns at point of sale?

1. This would not violate the Second Amendment.
2. Most street crime, where a gun is used, is with a handgun.
3. No rebellion was ever won with handguns. This is not a call for registration of long guns.

The only hassle would be the sale would have to take place thru a federal gun dealer or police station. This would at least require a background check that is already required when a purchase is made from a dealer.

I would like to see other "common sense" ideas to reduce the number of illegally owned handguns by criminals and mentally impaired.

[X_Digger]

113. Where's the 'common sense'?

Considering that 80% of criminals' guns come from 'friends/family' or 'street/illegal source', why would you think this would have any affect whatsoever? All you'd do is push more from one category into another. Yay black marketeers! More illegal guns imported, more guns stolen from legal owners.

*sigh*

Let's not even get started on what other 'qualifications' that local police stations would start imposing. (a la California's "safe" list that says this Glock in black/black is fine, but this other Glock in OD green/black isn't "safe")

[Euromutt]

115. What added value does registration bring, and how?

I'd seriously like to know what registration is supposed to achieve that existing laws cannot.

In a sense, registration at point of sale already exists, in that there's a paper trail from the manufacturer/importer, through the distributor and the dealer, to the first buyer. If you know the model and serial number of the firearm you're looking for, it's traceable, at least to its first buyer. If you don't know the model and serial number (most likely the latter), then a register isn't going to help, unless you want to interrogate everybody who owns that particular model of handgun.

Those prohibited from owning firearms are, of course, not going to register any they have so those aren't going to be readily traceable, and thanks to Haynes v. United States (1968), such people can't be required to, as this would oblige them to incriminate themselves. So for such people, the situation remains the same as it is now: if caught in possession, they can be charged with illegal possession, but they can't be charged with possession of an unregistered firearm. Moreover, they have to be caught first, and if they're not in any registry, it's not going to help catch them.

So it's not clear to me how a handgun registry is supposed to help curb violent crime. If you could explain to me how this is supposed to happen, I'd be most appreciative, though I will try to poke holes in it if I can.

[safeinOhio]

116. What is the difference from buying any handgun from a

store or fed dealer or and individual? A background check. Many people are now refused purchase because they have a history that prohibits purchase. Call it a loop hole. Can't pass a background check, no problem, buy from an individual. There will always be always be stolen and straw buys. This would at least stem the flow. If you sell a handgun to your brother the serial killer, at least you'll know it can be traced back to you and you'll face criminal charges. Steal a handgun and you won't be able to sell it in the parking lot to someone that thinks he or she is making a legal purchase. If you are buying a gun from an individual you'll know it is not stolen as it will be checked.
What registration is supposed to achieve that existing laws cannot. Make it harder to sell your stolen gun. Make it possible for your stolen gun to be returned to you. Make it harder for someone that can't pass a background check to buy a handgun. Add the charge of "possession of a stolen gun" to a gun crime.

Now, once again, everyone can shot some holes in this idea, however no one can come up with any other or better ideas to stem the movement of handguns into the hands of those that can't pass a background check. Cars are registered. That is a big hassle, but, you can't tell me that registering cars doesn't cut down on stealing and selling them.

Best part is, registration of handguns is legal under the Second Amendment. I can call for the registration of all handguns and be a supporter of that constitutional right.

[Euromutt]

120. That doesn't really answer my question

If you sell a handgun to your brother the serial killer, at least you'll know it can be traced back to you and you'll face criminal charges.

That's already the case; if he's caught in possession of a firearm he shouldn't have, local law enforcement will almost certainly request an ATF trace, which will, via the 4473, lead the ATF to you.

Steal a handgun and you won't be able to sell it in the parking lot to someone that thinks he or she is making a legal purchase.

Okay, that's a legitimate consideration, but if--as in this scenario--the buyer wants specifically to legally buy a firearm (and he's only going to a private seller because the seller is offering a better price), then it's almost certain that our buyer isn't interested in using the firearm for unlawful purposes. So this isn't relevant to the objective of keeping firearms out the hands of the criminally inclined.

If you are buying a gun from an individual you'll know it is not stolen as it will be checked.

If you want to be certain you're not receiving stolen goods (or at least, that you won't be liable), why not just buy from an FFL? Or you could take it to your local cop shop on your own initiative and see if they'll run a trace on it. Given that law enforcement routinely requests traces on firearms that are not believed to have been used in crimes, this shouldn't be impossible.

What registration is supposed to achieve that existing laws cannot.

You'll have to excuse me if I remain skeptical that it will actually do what it's supposed to.

Make it harder to sell your stolen gun.

Doubtful. If you live in or near a major city, you can probably find someone who's in the market for a firearm and doesn't care if it's stolen. In fact, the prospective buyer may actually prefer that, as it makes it harder to trace, and if you're the kind of person who would steal and sell a firearm, chances are you have no scruples about whom you sell it to.

Make it possible for your stolen gun to be returned to you.

Theoretically already possible. If you're the original buyer, an ATF trace will lead to you, in which case, you'd better have reported the gun stolen. Speaking of which, what can registration do that reporting the gun as stolen (you do have an inventory of your firearms, listing models and serial numbers, don't you?) cannot?

Make it harder for someone that can't pass a background check to buy a handgun.

Again, doubtful. Once a firearm makes its way into the illegal circuit (via straw purchases, theft, etc.) whoever's selling it is not going to be fussed about the prospective buyer's bona fides. And the available evidence indicates that the criminal element doesn't acquire a significant amount of firearms from private sellers anyway.

Add the charge of "possession of a stolen gun" to a gun crime.

Why would that not be possible under current laws? All it ought to take is for the legal owner to have filed a report of theft. Moreover, if the object is to put offenders away for longer (which I'm not convinced is an effective response to begin with), why not simply increase the penalty for committing a gun crime and/or being in illegal possession of a firearm? Same result, without requiring a registry.

Now, once again, everyone can shot some holes in this idea, however no one can come up with any other or better ideas to stem the movement of handguns into the hands of those that can't pass a background check.

Unfortunately, "nobody can come up with a better idea" doesn't mean the idea under discussion is worth pursuing. If a patient is suffering from an unknown disease, and none of the attending physicians know what to do, you don't treat the patient for some random disease--say, lupus--just because "nobody can come up with a better idea."

What you're essentially advocating is doing something for the sake of (being seen to be) doing something, despite there being no plausible reason to believe it'll have any beneficial effect. And that's just not good enough reason to do it.

[PavePusher]

188. Sigh. Here we go again... The Reprise.

"1. This would not violate the Second Amendment."
I'm pretty sure the Founders would disagree with you. Violently. As would I.


"2. Most street crime, where a gun is used, is with a handgun."
You think the criminals would register any of their guns? And so you'd have a total failure of the objective (supposedly to decrease crime...?).


"3. No rebellion was ever won with handguns. This is not a call for registration of long guns."
Then any registration is, again, pointless.


Sorry, I will not list my Constitutionally protected property with the Government, my trust does not extend that far. I might think about it... if you start first. With your books...

[Jackson1999]

38. Because it provides an outlet for racist fears.

Okay, now that I've got your attention. I'm not sure I believe this, but I have noticed something interesting among fellow "liberals" when it comes to discussing guns. Most of the anti-gun rhetoric is positioned around the fear of "whacko right wing rednecks with guns" both in private conversations and in the MSM. The most anti-gun attitudes come from cities with large Black popluations. The "whacko redneck" population in my city is very small, if non-existent. I am beginning to suspect that their real fear is Blacks with guns. If you live in a city with a large black population, that is where the most crime is. Of course, good liberal Dems can't say "I am afraid of Blacks with guns," so they just make it about guns in general.

My final anecdotal point on this is that I can't tell you the number of times I've been told, after knocking down one gun argument after another that "Look, I don't mind if YOU own a gun." The funny thing is, they quickly try to change the topic when I ask what they mean by "you."

You can also see this in the "money test" that is put in place in places like DC. If you can't afford double the price of a gun, or if you don't have a salaried job where you can burn 3 vacation days, then no gun for you. Just who are these rules targeting?

[maxsolomon]

47. on edit

this entire thread is pointless.

buy your mom a gun - or don't. but you'll still be scared.

[Jackson1999]

49. Pointless?

It is an important topic given how it has killed so many Democratic campaigns. I really don't understand why.

[maxsolomon]

68. because its a wedge issue

its DESIGNED to slander the dems, and there's only 1 way for the party to get out from under it - move to the right of the NRA.

think that will happen? i don't think it will.

i'll admit i'm cynical. i believe the holocaust of needless gun deaths will go on year after year after year, driven on by a fear-hyping media, an absolutist NRA, and profit-hungry weapons industry. and with the current neandertal majority in the SCOTUS, no case in the next 20 years will result in a closer definition of 'well-regulation' or 'militia' or 'arms'. we've made a collective choice that an unsullied, intact 2nd amendment is worth the lives it costs.

[Jackson1999]

69. I respect that opinion

Although I don't agree with it. If you don't like the second amendment, the start a movement to amend it or do away with it. The Dems who get in trouble are the ones who try to pretend it does not exist.

[X_Digger]

70. 'absolutist', 'profit-hungry' weapons industry?

It's hard to "meet in the middle" when you're standing on my toes. When is the last time you heard someone who is proposing more gun control say "and the compromise measure is ___" (no give, all take.)

Had there been any hint of compromise (and no, compromise is not "I'll only take half as much as I want") I think gun owners would have been less leery of further measures.

Regarding 'profit-hungry' weapons industry- You do realize that we spend more on cosmetics or cut flowers than guns and ammo, right? The defense industry is huge, but the civilian market is anemic in comparison.

[eqfan592]

71. Excuse me, but your blind hatred and ignorance is showing. (nt)

[benEzra]

122. I don't think it's necessary to "move to the right of the NRA"...

I think merely respecting the status quo with regard to what mentally competent adults with clean records can legally own would be sufficient. No new bans, stop demonizing the law-abiding, don't let the repubs at the Brady Campaign or the MSM sucker the party into taking up any more gun control albatrosses.

[SteveM]

86. You haven't explained the relevancy of being "scared"...

"buy your mom a gun - or don't. but you'll still be scared."

First, it is very important not to make a flippant decision about gun purchases. THAT is the relevancy of the discussion. If your mom doesn't won't a gun, or is unsure, then it would be advisable to NOT "buy" her one, and instead implement other actions.

I'm not sure what the significance is of "being scared." Fear (is that an adequate substitute?) is a normal response to threatening conditions, be they immediate or potential. A proper firearm and knowledge of its use may ameliorate the fear AND the threat, but regardless, in an of itself, there is nothing wrong with fear or "being scared."

Being "scared" is neither a character flaw nor a diminution of one's humanity. It is a cue to take reasonable action based on the threat. That is how you get past being scared.

[Tim01]

50. Because they think of guns as "mean". nt

[SteveM]

51. Some noted "liberals, lefties" who owned or advocated for 2A...

FDR
Eleanor Roosevelt (she packed)
JFK
LBJ
Jimmy Carter
Eugene V. Debs
Harriet Tubman

There are many more, and I'll let others get in on this if they wish. Gun-control did not get "popular" in American politics until the late 1960s, and was most concentrated in the Jim Crow South, which legislated gun bans. For Negroes.

There has been good advice about how to protect your mother. But she would have to make the decision to use a gun. My Mom (who is 90) moved into assisted living, and no doubt one of the reasons was she didn't feel like she could use a gun for self-defense, even though she knew how to use a gun. Unfortunately, this does not appear to be an option for you or her.

[spin]

57. Many Democrats come from large liberal urban areas ...

which have restrictive gun laws. Chicago, New York City and San Francisco are prime examples

Few people in these cities (with the exception of criminals) own firearms. The citizens lack familiarity with firearms and firearm owners. Few of their friends and co-workers are gun owners. Since criminals are the most common gun owners they equate gun owners with violence.

Lacking basic knowledge of the subject, they are easily misled by propaganda from politicians and the Brady Campaign.

But leave the big liberal urban areas and journey into the heartland of our country and you will find a different culture. Firearms are common. Many people grew up in homes with firearms and are very familiar with them. Hunting is common as is numerous shooting sports including target shooting and cowboy action shooting. Many large cities have few restrictions on firearms and a large number of people have concealed carry permits and carry.

Democrats in these areas own firearms and oppose ideas proposed by organizations such as the Brady Campaign. Often, Democratic politicians get high ratings from the NRA and openly advertise their support for the Second Amendment and the right of the citizens they represent to own firearms.

While it is true that the Republican Party has shown strong support to gun owners, it is also true that they will sell out gun owners if they sense a political advantage to a flip flop.

If you do convince your mother to get a firearm for self protection make sure that she attends a gun safety class and practices at a range to gain proficiency with her weapon. Self defense shooting is a martial art. It's easier to master than karate or judo and far more effective, but it does require practice.

[demosincebirth]

60. I'm not anti-gun, I'm just against certain ones.

[MisterBill45]

63. Like what?

Some hints:

With a Krag Jorgenson bolt-action rifle CA 1890ish I can shoot a cop through his car door and through his BP vest with a hunting round. -From 800 yards -No special nuthin.

With a .32 S&W CA 1868ish I can shoot six people dead, reload in under 2 seconds and shoot some more.

With a brand new M-4 military select-fire, full-auto capable carbine I can't shoot ANYTHING with a vest and do damage past 100 yards. Car door? you're safe unless I'm 50 feet away and probably still are at that distance. the weapon is utterly worthless in combat past 250-350 yards. Ask the vets home from the the sand box.

With a Brand New Glock .40 with a "hi-capacity" magazine using HOLLOW-POINT AMMUNITION SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED TO KILL PEOPLE the cops are safe unless I hit them in the leg, arm or head. It won't do dick against even a cheap BP vest.

In other words, unless you're talking explosives, virtually all the fear of weapons is no more rational for the "scary looking" ones than it is of an antique passed down from your great grandfather.

I'm not calling you names. I'm calling you ignorant -Lacking in knowledge of the subject.That's no crime or disrespect to you.

All I ask is that you not try to legislate away my rights based on ignorance and irrational fear.

[demosincebirth]

73. All, except those for sport and hunting. We need no weapons

made for the sole purpose of the killing of human beings in the hands of people.

[Name removed]

76. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

90. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Spoonman]

93. Given your previous verbage regarding weapons

and the fact that I am a veteran who served 5 years in an "AIRBORN" unit, I find your statement below very telling.

"I served as a paratrooper in the U.S Army for six years protecting your sweet ass"

"Paratrooper" is not a term used in the last 50 years (CIRCA WW-2).

With regards to your above statement I reply: I highly doubt it!

[demosincebirth]

95. Doubt it all you want I can care less. n/t.

[burrfoot]

104. That expression actually means that it is possible for you to

care less. i.e. you do care. I think you were looking for "I couldn't care less."

[GreenStormCloud]

77. My wife is alive because she had a handgun when she needed it.

Without her gun, how could she have defended herself against the mugger? She is 4' 9", and is a senior citizen, so she isn't going to do any super ninja stuff. She has asthma so pepper spray could be fatal to her if the wind brought it back to her. Would you be happier if she were just another crime statistic?

[demosincebirth]

91. Glad for your wife. I really am, but less guns is better than more guns Thats my belief..

[GreenStormCloud]

107. But gun sales are up and crime is down, murder is down.

Would you care to explain that?

[Euromutt]

111. You're entitled to your belief, but it's insufficient as a basis for public policy

Especially since there's no evidence to support the notion that having fewer guns in private ownership is better than more guns. If you have fewer guns, but they're all in the hands of the wrong people (armed robbers, organized criminals et al.), that's a less desirable situation than if you have a lot of guns, almost all of which are in the hands of people who aren't a likely threat to their fellow citizens.

Moreover, since firearms are by no means the only of inflicting injury and/or death upon one's fellow human, having fewer guns in private hands means fewer people will be able to effectively defend themselves against violent crime.

[SteveM]

87. Nearly all "sport and hunting" weapons were once military weapons...

From the earliest revolvers (used by the Texas Rangers), through muzzle-loaders (Revolution, Civil War and the wars in between), bolt-actions (Spanish-American War and both World Wars), to semi-automatic rifles (WW II, Korean and into Vietnam), the guns which are now in civilian hands were designed to "kill human beings." All the aforementioned weapons are now considered "obsolete" for military purposes, as the standard arm for infantry is a short-barreled rifle capable of FULL-AUTOMATIC fire.

The revolver (considered rather old technology) is used for home-defense, target practice and some big-game hunting. The muzzle-loader is used almost exclusively by a sub-set of hunters, bolt actions are used for target practice and hunting almost exclusively, semi-auto pistols are used for shooting sports and defense, and the semi-auto rifles are used for target-practice, home-defense and hunting. (I know of NO ONE who hunts with a full-auto weapon; it is strictly illegal in, I believe, all states.)

In short, ALL the major weapons groups now in civilian hands were at one time used to "kill people" in combat. Even the "AK-47 clones" (semi-auto versions of the full-auto "real thing"), and the AR-15 (semi-auto versions of the full-auto "real thing" M-16 presently used in combat) are used as hunting weapons, when re-chambered for bigger rounds; in fact, this weapon type is rapidly becoming the rifle-of-choice for hunting and WILL replace the bolt-action rifle as the most popular weapon for big-game hunting. You can purchase a knock-off AR-15 at Cabela's or Academy Sports & Outdoors today. Presently, there may be more than 16,000,000 so-called "assault weapons" in the hands of American citizens, more by far than the total number of folks who hunt!

Put another way, any "sport and hunting" weapon can be used "solely" for the purpose of killing people. The key is they CAN BE USED. And that implies a human being who makes it so.

[GreenStormCloud]

106. Self Delete. Duplicate. N/T

[benEzra]

123. Given that self-defense is the #1 reason most U.S. gun owners own guns,

followed by recreational target shooting/plinking as #2, hunting in a distant #3, and collecting bringing up the rear, I'm not sure that makes any sense.

All, except those for sport and hunting. We need no weapons made for the sole purpose of the killing of human beings in the hands of people.

It doesn't help that the rhetoric you cite is almost always used to demonize the most popular sporting weapons in the United States...

[AtheistCrusader]

130. My sporting and hunting weapons ARE weapons of war.

There is no rifle that can kill a deer, that cannot kill 2-3 humans lined up in a row.

[PavePusher]

65. Which ones, and why?

Just curious...

[demosincebirth]

74. See post # 73

[PavePusher]

124. Sorry, sweeping generalizations don't cut it.

You're going to have to be more specific.

I can hunt with many AR-15 varients, also with AK rifles. They also have legitimate sporting uses. Also, all modern hunting rifles are derived from former military weapons. Care to draw and support a line somewhere?

Incidently, The Second amendment has nothing to do with your sporting or hunting limitations. You may attempt to change the Constitution... good luck with that.

[PavePusher]

190. Crickets..... I thought so. n/t

[benEzra]

61. The split between repub and Dem/indie gun owners in the USA is about 50/50

and the Brady Campaign was founded by, and is run by, repubs. The "most Dems hate guns" meme is used by repubs to try to swing gun-owning Dems and indies to vote repub, and by Third Way communitarian gun-control activists to try rally average Dems to take up the gun-control albatross again.

Plenty of DU'ers own guns for defensive purposes, recreational or competitive shooting, hunting, collecting, whatever. Yes, there are gun enthusiasts on the Right. There are also gun enthusiasts on the Left, and everywhere in between.

[grahamhgreen]

85. MUST READ! Very well said. nt

[TheWraith]

67. Put simply, I think it's an urban versus rural thing.

Most Dems tend to live in urban or suburban environments where there's no need for a gun most of the time, and little to no hunting. Therefore, they don't see a positive side of gun ownership, and tend to fall into the habit of viewing guns both as a negative, and as something those uncouth rural conservatives do.

Out here in the boonies where I live, almost everybody has guns, including most of the Dems I know. Why? Because they're useful tools when you've got wild animals running around your back yard. Because some people like to hunt. Because living around here I can't guarantee a black bear isn't going to show up and decide he wants into my house. And because if you call 911 and tell them you urgently need help, you can be assured of having a response some time within 15 or 20 minutes, assuming you didn't call in the middle of the night, or when they're busy doing something else.

Besides, because of that divide, most people who aren't accustomed to guns never get to realize that shooting a gun can be fun, even if you never shoot it at anything other than clay targets and cinderblocks.

[MisterBill45]

75. You're right. lack of exposure is the answer.

Also, a lot has to do with age. Anyone raised in the 60s or earlier probably has a lot different attitude on the subject than someone raised later.

when I was growing up in the 60s-70s no one even TALKED about guns being bad. It started getting a lot of attention in the media in the 70s and then really took off in the 80s with the Brady bunch getting lots of attention PRIMARILY BECAUSE THEY WERE REPUBLICANS in favor of gun control. It was a true "Man bites dog" thing and it got tons of attention.

People who were otherwise content to leave the issue alone got REALLY pissed after the AWB in 1994. I was a newspaper reporter at the time in Eastern Washington. I interviewed a POPULAR Democrat who voted for the AWB and he wouldn't answer any questions on the subject. A nice local guy made good. The voters sent him packing in favor of a right-wing WACKO who promised to try to reverse the bill. This was out of character for the district, but sure as shit, DOC HASTINGS is still in office.

Bill Clinton, the guy I voted for twice, handed the Repubs an issue they've been milking ever since. It was a political disaster that makes Gettysburg and Waterloo look like minor setbacks.

Now you have MOST Americans energized about the issue. You notice BARACK OBAMA...the anti-gun guy from the most anti-gun state/city in the freakin country had to talk about his SUPPORT of 2a to have a hope in Hell of surviving a general election. Democrats are RIGHTFULLY scared of even bringing another AWB even to committee!

Gun control is a bad idea on all fronts for so many reasons I can't even begin to explain. The Dems are just slow. They're only beginning to grasp that LA, SF, CHI and NYC are not the entire fing country and those people in the "flyover" states VOTE.

About damned time. Maybe someday they'll also grasp that political courage is important and get us a healthcare bill that isn't a welfare program for blue cross!

[grahamhgreen]

84. I'm not! I do believe it is a constitutional right to own a weapon.

Although I would suggest getting her pepper spray (FOX is very good).

[Euromutt]

103. I suggest you look into training before you purchase a firearm

An NRA-certified instructor is your most likely bet.
You can find one in your area here: http://www.nrahq.org/education/training/index.asp
Look specifically for classes in Home Firearm Safety, or FIRST Steps Pistol Orientation to start. A decent instructor will provide a .22-caliber pistol and ammunition, so you (and/or your mother) can get to grips with the basics of firearm handling and marksmanship before you commit to buying a firearm.

If you, and your mother, do decide to go that road, you can next look into a Basic Personal Protection In The Home class. You will probably have to provide your own firearm and ammunition, so you can train with the weapon you actually intend to use. I can't tell you what firearm to get, because there's no "perfect" handgun; personal preference simply plays too large a role. See if there's an indoor range that does rentals and try out some models. That said, there are two options that I always advise prospective handgun owners to look at first, because they've worked well for a large number of people.

If your (mother's) preference goes toward a revolver, I'd suggest a Ruger SP101 with a 3" barrel, chambered for .357 Magnum. Despite the different numbers, the .357 Mag cartridge is essentially an elongated and more powerful .38 Special, and you can safely load and fire .38 Spl cartridges in a revolver chambered for .357 Mag. And because a revolver chambered for .357 Mag is designed to handle the higher pressure and recoil of that cartridge, its mass absorbs a lot of the recoil from the less powerful .38 Spl (even in "+P" higher pressure loads), making to quite comfortable to shoot. So get a revolver chambered for .357 Mag, but load it with .38 Spl; you can move up to .38 Spl +P or even .357 Magnum once you get comfortable with it.

For semi-automatics, the first thing to look at is the Glock 19. Glocks are really easy to operate and maintain, as well as being reliable and accurate, which is why they're popular. The "compact" frame of the models 19, 23 and 32 are a comfortable fit for most hands, while the 9mm chambering of the 19 provides adequate incapacitating power with a level of recoil that's manageable for most people.

[spin]

114. Good advise...

I owned a Ruger .357 SP101 for years and put a lot of rounds through it.

I eventually acquired a S&W Model 60 with a 3" barrel. The Smith has a slightly better trigger pull. I personally prefer S&W revolvers, but Ruger makes, IMO, the stronger firearm as Rugers are built like a brick shit house.

Both are an excellent choice for a home defense weapon or a concealed carry weapon.

I'm not fond of Glocks because you either like them or you don't. I've fired many at the range and never had a problem with function or accuracy. They just are fugly pistols. I like the style of a Cot 1911 .45 auto or a clone. I also am not fond of the Glock safety as it is mounted on the trigger. To me that's like putting the gas pedal on top of the break.


Colt Gold Cup Trophy National Match 45 ACP


Kimber Custom Shop Stainless Raptor II 1911 .45ACP



Glock 19

[Euromutt]

118. Truth be told, I don't like Glocks either

"You either like them or you don't," very true. And in fact, I don't much care for them myself, even though the Glock 17 was the first centerfire handgun I ever shot (in the Dutch army), and I did very well with it. The lack of manual safety doesn't bother me; I rather like the idea of a gun that doesn't fire unless and until you pull the trigger, and that only requires you pull the trigger to make it fire. As long as you obey Cooper's Rule #3 there shouldn't be a problem.

The thing is, I'm a southpaw, and as a defensive handgun, I like having ones with controls made for left-handers. Consequently, my choice fell on the new S&W M&P. I have a full-size as a "nightstand gun" (actually in a quick-access lock box), fully pimped out with night sights, Crimson Trace laser grips, weaponlight and extended mag; my carry gun is the compact version, also with night sights and laser grips. As a reserve weapon, I have a CZ 85, the ambidextrous version of the CZ 75. I own other handguns, but they're for recreational and instruction purposes only.

That said, I know that Glocks work for a lot of people, so I don't base my advice on my own preferences. Also, because Glocks are so popular, there's a wide range of aftermarket parts available for them. But do note, I advise that the 19 is the model to look at first. If you don't like it, look further. The Springfield XD series is another good option, as is the S&W M&P series. I just generally wouldn't advise anyone to get a DA/SA as their first defensive handgun; striker-fired pistols have the advantage of having a uniform trigger pull.

There's nothing wrong with 1911s (I have a Taurus PT1911 myself), but they're not what I'd consider a beginner's gun. Though if you also buy a Ruger 22/45, you can practice your 1911 skills at .22LR prices.

[spin]

121. I always suggest a newbie shooter buys a Ruger .22 target pistol...

to learn the basics of shooting; Slight alignment, breath control and trigger squeeze.

The S&W M&P looks like a good firearm and I've read a lot of good reviews about it.

I prefer DAO or SA on a pistol. I like to use the 1911 style .45 autos I own for target work and for years I had a Beretta 96D cal Centurion for home defense and as a car gun. I ran several thousand rounds through this DAO .40 cal pistol without any problems not caused by faulty ammo. I foolishly sold it just before I retired.

I have no fondness for a DA/SA pistol. With practice, I could get used to the trigger pull difference between the first and second round but I like to shoot revolvers in the DA mode . The biggest advantage of a DAO pistol or using a revolver in DA is that you have a stiffer and much longer trigger pull. In a situation where the adrenaline is flowing it's hard and almost impossible to apply enough pressure to the trigger so as to cause an accidental discharge.

I don't plan to draw and point my weapon at some fool on the street who is attacking me. If I pull my weapon, I will have to believe that it is necessary to shoot and I will be in the process of doing just that. But it's possible that I might surprise an intruder in my home and I plan to draw down on him and hold him for the police if I can and he cooperates.

[benEzra]

125. On "crunchentickers"...

I have no fondness for a DA/SA pistol. With practice, I could get used to the trigger pull difference between the first and second round but I like to shoot revolvers in the DA mode. The biggest advantage of a DAO pistol or using a revolver in DA is that you have a stiffer and much longer trigger pull. In a situation where the adrenaline is flowing it's hard and almost impossible to apply enough pressure to the trigger so as to cause an accidental discharge.

With DA/SA "crunchentickers" as the late Jeff Cooper termed them, I think they have pros and cons. Like you, I like the idea of having a long, fairly heavy DA first shot, for the reasons you state. But if you do need to shoot more than one shot (whether defensively or just recreationally), it's nice having a light, crisp single action trigger instead of the same long, heavy pull. I find the DA/SA transition pretty natural, but then again my first handgun years ago was a DA/SA (Bersa .380) so I'm rather accustomed to it.

My current CCW pistol is a DA/SA 9mm, specifically a Smith & Wesson 3913 Ladysmith with Trijicon Novaks (green lamp up front, orange lamps in the rear). I shoot USPSA with it when I can, and probably do better than I'd do with a DAO of comparable barrel length.

[spin]

127. I've only fired a couple of DA/SA pistols ..

The first time I tried one, I put the first DA shot into the X-ring of a 25 yard bullseye target at 21 feet. The second SA shot caught me by surprise and I missed the entire target.

But you make a valid point. With a good SA pistol, I can hit the target far quicker and more accurately than I can with a DAO pistol. Double taps are possible.

It would just take practice to become familiar with the DA/SA firearm.

I currently live inside the city limits of a small town. I hope to sell this home and move into the country. I plan to look for a place where I can set up a range on my property. I would love to get back into reloading my ammo. It would be great to wake up in the morning. Enjoy a good breakfast and take one of my firearms outside and walk outside to run a box of ammo through the weapon.

If I accomplish this dream, I may buy a pistol like your Smith & Wesson 3913 Ladysmith just for fun. I may well find that I actually like DA/SA with practice.

[GreenStormCloud]

145. I like DA/SA.

If I need the gun in a real hurry, I don't want to have to cock it first. And I don't want to store it cocked with tension on the spring. I know that modern springs aren't supposed to take a set, but I am too old fashioned in that respect. So DA first shot solves that problem. I am not worried about the difference in trigger pull because if I need the pistol so quickly that I can't cock it, then the BG is so close that I won't have to aim anyway, point shoot do nicely.

If I do need the difference in accuracy, then I will be using the sights and will have time to cock the hammer manually. I don't HAVE to fire the first shot DA.

But SA, with its lighter, crisper trigger is more accurate for me. So I perfer most of my shooting to be SA. That is one of the reason why I like autoloaders. They automatically cock themselves.

So DA/SA is excellent for me.

That said, I do have an autoloader that is DA only. Kel-Tec P3AT. But it is designed for close in point shooting anyway. In fact, for my hand-to-gun fit, it has an excellent natural point-to-hit.

[spin]

155. You do make some good points. (n/t)

[Euromutt]

182. Hey, if it works for you, that's what matters

Ultimately, that's the test of any firearm: does it work for you? It doesn't matter if has a phlebotinum frame, unobtanium slide, and still worked after being dropped from a U-2 and buried in the permafrost on the Alaskan north slope for a year if the grip is a bad fit for your hand, the magazine release is difficult for you to reach, etc.

[eallen]

105. I think it's cultural, and not just rural vs. urban

Many urban kids nonetheless grew up shooting and hunting. Especially in the south and west. It seems to me that many people who did not grow up with guns carry almost totemic attitudes toward them. Those opposed view them as much more a problem than they actually are. Those in love with them grant them almost mystical power to protect and liberate. Both groups are endowing guns with far more magic than they carry. The right-wing has successfully leveraged this into another element of the culture war. I have been stunned at the number of times I see those getting into conservative politics who figure, at some point, that they want to acquire their first gun because of their political views.

:hippie:

[GreenStormCloud]

108. When I grew up in Texas in the 1950s, everybody was a Democrat and...

every family had guns.

[spin]

157. Strangely, when I grew up in Ohio ...

I lived in an area where only hunters owned firearms and most were shotguns or .22 caliber rifles.

The area was strongly Republican. I remember one time in high school I mentioned that I felt Social Security was an excellent idea. My teacher called me a Communist in front of the class. I held my own in the debate that followed but most of my fellow students agreed with my teacher.

How times change.

[aikoaiko]

144. I wonder about the same thing.

[yodoobo]

147. Because we understand the issue better

[rd_kent]

148. Well then, by all means, please explain it to the rest of us.....

I'm all ears.


Or was that just a drive-by post with no substance, facts or evidence to support the statement?

[yodoobo]

158. The question was asked and answered

I'm not interested in a debate. Just answering the question the guy asked.

[rd_kent]

160. It was hardly answered. You made a blanket statement that had nothing to support it.

No facts or evidence to support such a wild claim.

[yodoobo]

164. go have your debate with someone else

asked/answered.

[Euromutt]

184. If you're not interested in a debate, what are you doing on a discussion board?

Oh well, what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence...

You're wrong; end of discussion.

That was easy.

[yodoobo]

185. nah. Just that one particular debate.

arguing guns is like arguing religion.

Ok. make that two debates that I don't care to take part in on a discussion board.

[spin]

156. That's good ...

Your arguments may provide some lively debate and if they stand up they may educate both sides of the RKBA discussion.

To be fair your post does look like a drive by post by a person with an elitist attitude.

There are plenty of good points that can be made to support those who oppose firearms.

We all look forward to your reply.

[yodoobo]

159. I suppose it is a bit of a drive by post

As I said above, I'm not really interested in debating this with folks who have no interest in changing their minds. Or in some cases a vested interest in not changing their mind.

95% of the posts in the dungeon are bait to have this debate all over again. When I refuse to get drawn in, I can even sense the frustration from the other poster that I didn't take the bait. If not taking the bait=drive by, then guilty as charged.

There's a million places on the Internet where we can have the pro-gun vs anti-gun debate. It's been done millions of times. A million plus one on DU isn't going to change things even if you or I did change our minds. If all of sudden I because a gun lover with an ak-47 on my hip, that will not alter the situation.

But the fact is that the Democratic party does does support gun control and we do it because we feel that we have a better understanding of the issue than the other party. Its really that simple.

[rd_kent]

162. But the evidence does not support you, in fact, the evidence refutes your claim.

But the fact is that the Democratic party does does support gun control and we do it because we feel that we have a better understanding of the issue than the other party

That statement seems irresponsible in light of the fact that the Dem platform on this issue is opposed my a majority of Dems. So, to claim that you somehow have a better understanding of the issue is just plain wrong.

[yodoobo]

165. The OP seems to acknowledge this

"why are so many dems anti-gun"?

Unfortunately their really any unbiased polls out there on this.

The anti-gun folks have their set of polls.

The pro-gun people have their set of polls.


How many times have you seen both groups agree with one particular gun poll? How many times have both groups acknowledge that a particular gun or violence study is unbiased?


It comes down to pick your party. Are you with the Democratic party on this, or are you with the Republican party on this?

[rd_kent]

170. Ah, the old "you either with us or your against us" canard.

Nice try, but no cigar.

I don't think it comes down to the childlike choice you have presented, sorry. Its that kind of polarization that has continually made this issue a losing one for the Democratic Party.

But you can certainly hang on to that dying argument, even though you know that the facts do not support you.


You have revealed what you really are yodooboo, A blind ideologue.

Have a nice night.

[yodoobo]

172. i don't think so.

My ideology happens to align with the platform of the Democratic party on the issue of guns.

I was against guns long before I started voting.

Surely there are areas where you DO agree with the Democratic platform? Does your agreement there make you a "blind ideolgue" Of course not.

People join political parties because they agree with their platform. The Democratic platform is generally anti-gun (with some exceptions). the fact that -mostly- like minded people join is hardly suprising.

Now you know why so many Democrats are indeed anti-gun. They aren't anti-gun because they are Democrats. They are Democrats because they are anti-gun (among many other things)

[rd_kent]

177. But can't you see that THIS is a LOSING issue for Dems?

I think it was Einstein that said the definition if insanity is to repeat the same behavior and expect to get different results.

In case you haven't noticed, most DEMS up for election don't even MENTION guns or gun control. Why? Because it is a LOSING issue! Most Americans are not for gun control, at least not the type the Dems have supported for so long. Why? Because the whole line of reasoning for supporting gun control has turned out to be FALSE!

You said you were against guns long before you started voting. Why? Now that you are an educated and informed voter, why do you still hold that position?

[Tim01]

174. I'm not going to support a bad idea no matter the party.

Gun control is a bad idea. It is very bad for the democratic party politically. It is a violation of the constitution for a reason. And really, guns are the only tools that can be used by innocents to protect themselves from badguys. Mace and tasers and all those things just don't compare to the capabilities of a gun.
My mom lives alone. She has locks on all of her doors and windows, and a security system, and a handgun. It is a multi layer system and it is a very good system.

Seriously, the numbers show that guns are not bad. Some people are bad.

As I always point out. Alcohol kills twice as many people as guns, and it's a recreational drug. But nobody wants it more controlled no matter how many people it kills. And really democrats want more drugs available, which will certainly equal more people dead, and democrats are willing to live with more recreational drug deaths.

[SteveM]

176. I couldn't support Democratic Pary-inspired apartheid laws, and I can't now...

The font for most gun-control legislation is Jim Crow. SEE:

www.georgiacarry.org

Search locally for the Heller brief, submitted to the SCOTUS, and you will see with great clarity the "truth" of gun-control legislation.

It is not enough to say "How many times have both groups acknowledge that a particular gun or violence study is unbiased?" This unacceptable attitude toward intellectual inquiry is what breeds, IMO, a disdain for academic studies and sound research. ANY study with regards gun policy must stand peer-review. If it can't, then it must be cast aside. You may wish to reference the Center for Disease Control's Executive Summary of "gun interventionist" policies and laws, wherein they conclude that none of the policies and laws it studied could be shown to affect the outcomes of the policy-makers.

"It comes down to pick your party. Are you with the Democratic party on this, or are you with the Republican party on this?"
This rather reactionary statement is really a last-refuge for the gun-control side of this debate, but, a predictable refuge.

[spin]

171. Well you are not a drive by poster...

While it is true that I would probably be unable to change your mind and you would find it extremely difficult to change mine, other posters and lurkers often follow the arguments here. Therefore a good debate might prove educational and help people form a educated opinion on the subject of gun control.

I post in the Gungeon because (1) I'm a Democrat and (2) posting a pro-RKBA opinion on a liberal, progressive Democratic forum is a challenge. I want to test my arguments and find their weaknesses. It's quite possible that a person who regularly haunts conservative pro-gun sites but occasionally visits DU, will read the arguments and realize that not all Democrats favor draconian gun control or registration and confiscation. Realizing this he may make a decision to read the discussions on other topics and possibly reconsider his support for the Republican party and at least consider voting for a Democrat.

Of course the lurker might find better logic in the points presented by the gun control advocates.

You state that "the Democratic party does does support gun control and we do it because we feel that we have a better understanding of the issue than the other party. Its really that simple." I would point out the the subject is far from simple and many Democrats totally disagree with extreme gun control measures.

As this chart shows many Democrats either own their own firearm or live in a hose where another member owns a firearm.



This graph shows that most firearm owners own a firearm for self protection.



The info comes from a Gallup poll conducted in 2005 http://www.gallup.com/poll/20098/gun-ownership-use-america.aspx

The Democratic Party has shot itself in the foot several times over the gun control issue and has so polarized many of the 80 million gun owners in this country that they refuse to even consider voting for a Democrat candidate. Support for gun control has decreased significantly in the last few years.

(CNN) -- From Oakland, California, to Binghamton, New York, several mass shootings in recent weeks have killed dozens across the country. But has there been an effect on public opinion?

Yes, and in a surprising way.

Since 2001, most Americans have favored stricter gun laws, though support has slightly dropped in recent years: 54 percent favored stricter laws in 2001, compared with 50 percent in 2007, according to Gallup polling.

Now, a recent poll reveals a sudden drop -- only 39 percent of Americans now favor stricter gun laws, according to a new CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll.

The gradual, long-term decline in support for gun control from the early 1990s to 2008 coincided with a decline in the murder rate. But this year's sudden drop seems to be influenced by politics, namely the Obama administration.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/08/gun.control.poll/

In fact while the number of firearms in our country has shown a dramatic increase over the last couple of decades and many states have adapted "shall issue" concealed carry laws, violent crime has also shown a dramatic decrease.



I don't consider the proliferation of firearms and the advent of many people carrying concealed firearms as the cause of the drop in violent crime. But if more guns = more violent crime, the graph would look far different.

Thanks for your reply. I can understand why you don't really want to participate in the debate. If you start, you could easily spend a lot of valuable time in the Gungeon.

[Euromutt]

193. My reasons are very similar

I post in the Gungeon because (1) I'm a Democrat and (2) posting a pro-RKBA opinion on a liberal, progressive Democratic forum is a challenge. I want to test my arguments and find their weaknesses.

I quite agree. I'm a "recovering" gun control advocate; I changed sides on this issue once before as a result of encountering new evidence, and I'd like to think I'm open-minded enough that if I were to be presented with better evidence in favor of gun control, I'd change sides again. Most gun boards are populated by gunnies, and debate doesn't go much further than "what part of 'shall not be infringed' don't you understand?" and cries to "socialism" at the mere suggestion that it might be advisable that somebody with a history of poor impulse control be prevented from owning firearms.

I do come here at least in part hoping to have my opinions challenged. Or at least, hoping for a polite but frank exchange of views, rather than the usual mass bitching about how stupid/evil "liberals" (or, more precisely, the caricature thereof) are. Makes a change from the perennial ".45 v. 9mm" and "thumbing the slide release v. pulling back the slide overhand" disagreements, and hopefully there's some actual thought involved.

[SteveM]

175. Actually, there is evidence that the public IS "...changing things"...

DU's "Forums: Guns" is unique because it is an open forum WITHIN the context of a major political "liberal/left" site. And there has been a survey of DU members which indicate a little over 50% own firearms.

I disagree with "...we do it because we feel that we have a better understanding of the issue than the other party. Its really that simple." The Democratic Party prima face does NOT have a better understanding, as it continues to hang onto this relative modern variation on a theme of Jim Crow prohibition. Most Democrats didn't understand that current gun-control laws are based on the apartheid laws of the Old South. Most didn't understand that the various prohibitionist schemes could not be shown to have an effect on the social ills of crime. Most didn't understand that the Second Amendment recognizes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Most didn't understand the difference between a hoary old hunting rifle and an AK "clone."

But since "Guns: Forum" is here, the situation is "altering."

BTW, "the debate all over again" is necessary, for DU is (hopefully) not a static site, and new members join all the time. Some may not wish to change their prohibitionist mind-set; others are open to change. That's why "Forums: Guns" is a good thing.