Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

No solution in sight for U.S. gun violence-It's an American way of death.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 02:16 PM
Original message
No solution in sight for U.S. gun violence-It's an American way of death.


No solution in sight for U.S. gun violence

By Bernd Debusmann, Special Correspondent Mon Oct 23, 7:48 AM ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - It's an American way of death. More than 30,000 people die from gunshot wounds every year, through murder, suicide and accidents.


That is an average of 82 a day, and prospects for reducing the toll are dim.

The debate between gun control advocates and the pro-gun lobby was reignited briefly this month by four school shootings between September 26 and October 9.

In one, a man carrying a pistol, a shotgun and 600 rounds of ammunition shot 10 girls execution-style at an Amish school in Pennsylvania, killing five of them, and then killed himself. In another, a 13-year-old took an AK-47 assault rifle to his school in Missouri, pointed it at administrators and other students and fired it into a ceiling.

At a hastily arranged White House Conference on School Safety on October 10, panelists covered topics ranging from metal detectors and school bullies to the value of religious beliefs and good communication between parents and schools.

But the word "gun" was not mentioned until a plucky teenager pointed out to a panel moderated by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales that the common factor was easy access to high-powered firearms.


........http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061023/pl_nm/life_guns_dc
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
lcordero2 Donating Member (832 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 02:21 PM
Response to Original message
1. and only one side had the gun
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skittles Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-24-06 07:16 AM
Response to Reply #1
52. yes, those little Amish girls should have been armed
huh
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
liberal N proud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 02:34 PM
Response to Original message
2. Damn Democrats will take your gun away if they are elected
You want to own a gun so you can kill someone, vote republican

:sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saigon68 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 02:55 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. 800,000 deer hunters in my state believe Hillary will do just that
The Democrats need to get rid of this albatross issue

It is why Al Gore, lost Tennessee and Arkansas in 2000
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
liberal N proud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 03:51 PM
Response to Reply #4
11. And that is why this story is suddenly in the news
We haven't heard anything about this for two years
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 03:55 PM
Response to Reply #11
14. Yup...
somebody's trying to revive the "Dems'll take yer guns" meme as the election approaches, by trotting out the old "assault weapon" bait-and-switch...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-24-06 03:16 AM
Response to Reply #4
50. then there are 800.000 idiots in NY!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saigon68 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-25-06 12:31 PM
Response to Reply #50
65. New York will never elect the repukes
Unfortunately the rest of the country will and does.

And since we have an "ELECTORAL COLLEGE" I think it is an albatross issue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
silvermachine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-27-06 01:59 PM
Response to Reply #4
85. Then they are idiots
Truly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 02:55 PM
Response to Original message
3. "High-powered firearms"...
The recent school shooting fatalities were carried out by a 9mm pistol (not high powered) and some hunting shotguns; the murderer in the Amish school shootings also carried, but apparently did not use, a hunting rifle. I wonder if the writer is proposing to outlaw hunting shotguns?

FWIW, that kid in Missouri didn't have an "AK-47 assault rifle," just a non-automatic civilian lookalike (Norinco MAK-90, I think), that was NOT affected by the 1994 Feinstein ban. Possession of an actual AK-47 assault rifle without government permission (BATFE Form 4) is already a 10-year Federal felony, and always has been.

Methinks someone is trying to kick-start the ban-more-guns crusade just in time for the November elections...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hangingon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 02:57 PM
Response to Original message
5. Obviously, easy access should bellowe ....
pnly for low powered guns.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
whistle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 02:58 PM
Response to Original message
6. I have 16 Nerf blasters of various shapes and sizes with enough
...Nerf ammo to wage a successful insurgency in my community. :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hangingon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 03:10 PM
Original message
I should report you to the BATT...
the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Toys
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
whistle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 05:22 PM
Response to Original message
22. Bring 'em on
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
justice1 Donating Member (483 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 03:10 PM
Response to Original message
7. We need to change our attitudes.
As a nation we are arrogant, intolerant, petty, demoralizing and with a belief in winning at all costs. Now were surprised our kids are the same way. Installing all the highest tech equipment in the world, isn't going to make us any safer than Israel, it's only going to up the ante. Instead of gun violence we could just as easily see suicide bombers in this country. There are so many people
involved in violent crimes that exhibited behavior problems that should have been red flags to underlying issues that went ignored. Punishment alone isn't going to do much for a person, who doesn't understand why they acted out in the first place.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 03:10 PM
Response to Original message
8. If they ever get their facts straight, I may have a heart attack
Edited on Mon Oct-23-06 03:13 PM by slackmaster
Congress allowed a ban on assault weapons -- such as the AK47 used in the Missouri school shooting -- to lapse.

No, the MAK-90 used in the Missouri water-pipe shooting was not covered by the expired federal AW ban. In fact, the existence of ban-compliant knockoffs like tha MAK-90 was a direct result, albeit unintended, of the ban.

This is just another rant about "easy access" to firearms without a hint of what might be done about it. Sure, I have easy access to the firearms I keep locked up in my safe. What would the authors, or gun control supporters in general, do about it without alienating the large majority of peaceful, non-violent gun owners like me?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lindacooks Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 03:22 PM
Response to Original message
9. We haven't tried strict gun control yet.
Flame away. You know I'm right.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 03:51 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. Given that 4 in 10 American households own guns...
and between a quarter and a third of registered Dems and indies personally own a firearm, further restrictions on gun access by the law-abiding are NOT on the table.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

The 1994 Feinstein law--which merely raised the price on replacement magazines for popular civilian handguns, required new civilian rifles to have non-adjustable stocks and non-removable muzzle brakes, and restricted the use of 19 military-sounding names--arguably cost Dems the House ('94), the Senate, and two presidencies ('00 and '04). Care to speculate on the political cost of an actual ban on popular civilian firearms?

My wife and I own guns, lawfully and responsibly. We will keep them, thanks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Viva_La_Revolution Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 07:01 PM
Response to Reply #10
34. thank you
I said this very same thing to a fundie who tried to tell me "hillary wants to take all our guns away". I said "bullshit. Over half the Liberals I know own guns, and we have a right to bear arms. This is a non-issue for us. the only ones saying that are those noobs you listen to on the radio."

:evilgrin:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lindacooks Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 09:56 PM
Response to Reply #34
45. And how many of those guns are handguns and automatic
Edited on Mon Oct-23-06 10:01 PM by Lindacooks
weapons?

Why do gun owners get their panties in a twist when gun control is mentioned? It's such a knee-jerk reaction.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-24-06 06:54 AM
Response to Reply #45
51. Probably around half of gun owners own handguns...
but I think you may be confused about automatic weapons. Possession of any automatic weapon without Federal permission (BATFE Form 4) is a 10-year Federal felony, unless you are military or law enforcement. Private citizens can get permission to own one, but it is a long and involved process, and you'd better be wealthy (a civilian-transferable NFA Title 2 AK-47 costs upwards of $15,000, since there are so few of them).

If you are talking about NON-automatic civilian guns that the Bradyites term "assault weapons," you are talking about maybe 20% to 40% of the guns Americans own. (The ban-guns lobby defines an "assault weapon" as any civilian gun holding more than 6 or 10 rounds, civilian rifles and shotguns with modern-looking stock shapes, etc.)

Even if you despise guns, I think you'd benefit from the following explanation of the issue:

Dems and the Gun Issue - Now What? (DU thread)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MacDo Donating Member (192 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-27-06 01:15 PM
Response to Reply #10
83. I hear you
this one issue that most members of this board won't understand.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stepnw1f Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 03:52 PM
Response to Reply #9
12. I Know You are Right
But the NRA and it's many sheep keep pretending we already did.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lindacooks Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 09:58 PM
Response to Reply #12
47. Yep. It really gets me that they fight every gun control law tooth
and nail, by saying that we need to enforce the laws already on the books, that they fought tooth and nail ... and around and around and around and around.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-24-06 08:03 AM
Response to Reply #47
54. Not so...
what we oppose is further restrictions on the right of the law-abiding to own non-automatic, non-sound-suppressed civilian firearms under .51 caliber that meet the other requirements of the National Firearms Act.

That is a LONG way from "fighting every gun control law." I don't speak for the NRA, but I know the NRA supports the National Firearms Act of 1934 (which controls automatic weapons, sound-suppressed firearms, and guns over .50 caliber), most of the Gun Control Act of 1968, the NICS point of sale background check, and helped write the 1986 ban on armor-piercing handgun bullets and the ban on guns undetectable by X-ray, for example.

What they oppose--and rightly so--is the current attempt by the ban-more-guns lobby to outlaw everything but hunting-style guns, when only 1 in 5 gun owners is a hunter.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 03:54 PM
Response to Reply #9
13. Please define "strict gun control"
Flame away. You know I'm right.

I'll reserve judgement on that until you demonstrate some knowledge of what kinds of gun control we presently have in place.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mithras61 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 04:59 PM
Response to Reply #9
17. Perhaps WE have not...
but the British have (about 30 years worth if I recall correctly), and where are they now... oh, that's right... gun violence is up as compared to pre-ban levels, as is violence using everything from knives to rocks. I've even heard a rumor that they are looking at banning all knives over a certain size because of the incidence of assaults with kitchen and carving knives.

If we ban firearms, gun violence may decrease, but the history we've seen so far in countries with strict controls and similar attitudes to our society's vierw doesn't suggest it will. Furthermore, when guns are unavailable legally, other forms of assaults with dangerous implements tend to increase. I'd rather have a change to more tolerance in our society generally instead. Firearms are not the cause of the violence, merely the method used.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lindacooks Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 10:06 PM
Response to Reply #17
49. Also BS
What are their gun kill numbers and gun ownership numbers per capita?

Here's some facts for you:

"Violence", says H. Rap Brown, is not "as American as cherry pie," but American violence does tend to end in death. The reason, plain and simple, is guns. We own more guns per capita than any other high-income countrymaybe even more than one gun for every man, woman, and child in the country. A 1994 survey numbered the U.S. gun supply at more than 200 million in a population then numbered at 262 million, and currently about 35 percent of American households have guns.

http://www.harvardmagazine.com/on-line/090433.html

"Great Britain, for example, banned all handguns in 1997 when 16 children and their teacher were killed in a primary school gun massacre in Dublane, Scotland. The county's gun-related offenses fell by 21% following ban.

Meanwhile, in the United States, approximately 5,000 children under 15 years of age are killed every year in America due to guns (not to mention the many more children who are permanently disabled). Unfortunately, our gun culture and the powerful gun lobby has not permitted our government to invoke tougher gun laws.

In the populous country of Japan, the number of children killed by guns hovers at around ZERO. In fact, our 5,000 children killed every year number more than all of the child gun-related deaths of all the industrial nations combined..."

http://www.psrla.org/program_gun_violence.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-24-06 11:36 AM
Response to Reply #49
58. British violent crime was already dropping before 1997
Edited on Tue Oct-24-06 11:37 AM by slackmaster




Source: http://timlambert.org/2002/10/malcolm /

Meanwhile, in the United States, approximately 5,000 children under 15 years of age are killed every year in America due to guns...

That is not correct, Lindacooks. In 2003 only 380 children under 14 died from gunshot in the USA.

Query your own statistics at http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/wisqars/
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MacDo Donating Member (192 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-27-06 01:21 PM
Response to Reply #17
84. Well said....NT
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sendero Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 06:13 PM
Response to Reply #9
32. We've tried..
... strict alcohol control, strict drug control and IT DOESN'T WORK.

We live in the world that is, not a fantasyland. No law anyone could ever pass would stop criminals from having guns, and THAT IS A FACT whether you like it or not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lindacooks Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 09:59 PM
Response to Reply #32
48. BS
Look at the laws in Japan and England. They DO work.

If you think that gun violence is the same thing as drinking and using drugs, then there's no reasoning with you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-24-06 10:42 AM
Response to Reply #48
57. If you look at long-term historic trends, it's not so clear
Edited on Tue Oct-24-06 11:27 AM by slackmaster
Neither England nor Japan ever had much of a problem with gun-related crime, compared with the USA.

The homicide rate in England declined after gun control was introduced in 1920, though this could have been the continuation of a long term trend. The rate increased again after 1970 and is now almost as high as is was in the 1880s.

Compare 1910-19 with 1920-1929 and the rate went down.
Compare 1910-19 with 1990-1993 and the rate went up.
Compare 1857-1919 with 1920-1993 and the rate went down.

Homicide rate per 100k, England/Wales, Home office data
(Technically this is the rate for "offences initially recorded as homicide")

1857 1.26
1858 1.58
1859 1.42
1860 1.44
1861 1.36
1862 1.62
1863 1.76
1864 1.67
1865 1.96
1866 1.82
1867 1.85
1868 1.71
1869 1.74
1870 1.43
1871 1.78
1872 1.7
1873 1.58
1874 1.69
1875 1.55
1876 1.63
1877 1.53
1878 1.65
1879 1.51
1880 1.52
1881 1.61
1882 1.57
1883 1.57
1884 1.57
1885 1.49
1886 1.56
1887 1.37
1888 1.43
1889 1.07
1890 1.17
1891 1.02
1892 1.08
1893 1.13
1894 1.02
1895 1.13
1896 1.08
1897 0.98
1898 1.04
1899 1.01
1900 0.97
1901 1.05
1902 1.0
1903 0.94
1904 0.94
1905 0.84
1906 0.77
1907 0.77
1908 0.92
1909 0.85
1910 0.81
1911 0.81
1912 0.86
1913 0.91
1914 0.73
1915 0.75
1916 0.69
1917 0.61
1918 0.54
1919 0.79
1920 0.83
1921 0.66
1922 0.64
1923 0.68
1924 0.71
1925 0.82
1926 0.76
1927 0.75
1928 0.72
1929 0.79
1930 0.75
1931 0.72
1932 0.72
1933 0.88
1934 0.86
1935 0.77
1936 0.88
1937 0.74
1938 0.74
1939 0.85
1940 0.7
1941 0.75
1942 0.96
1943 0.76
1944 0.84
1945 1.15
1946 0.81
1947 0.86
1948 0.78
1949 0.68
1950 0.79
1951 0.75
1952 0.91
1953 0.74
1954 0.7
1955 0.63
1956 0.7
1957 0.71
1958 0.58
1959 0.59
1960 0.62
1961 0.57
1962 0.64
1963 0.65
1964 0.63
1965 0.68
1966 0.76
1967 0.86
1968 0.86
1969 0.81
1970 0.81
1971 0.94
1972 0.98
1973 0.95
1974 1.22
1975 1.03
1976 1.15
1977 0.98
1978 1.09
1979 1.28
1980 1.26
1981 1.12
1982 1.25
1983 1.11
1984 1.24
1985 1.25
1986 1.33
1987 1.37
1988 1.29
1989 1.25
1990 1.32
1991 1.42
1992 1.37
1993 1.31

I suppose one might argue that the rates would be higher if not for England's strict gun control laws, but that puts you back into the realm of guessing.

For any given year, the homicide rate in the USA is about four times that of England. That ratio has held true since before either country had any gun control.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
reprobate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 04:17 PM
Response to Original message
15. How about we compromise? Home defense should be OK, not on streets.


How about a compromise where anyone can have whatever weapon they wish in their home, but it must be behind lock and key when anyone other than the owner and spouse is in the house (other than an intruder of course). Defend your home all you want but don't take that weapon outside to the streets or you get charged with a felony and spend a good part of your life with Bubba and friends.

The facts are that street violence is a major cause of early death in our cities and the fact that we are still argueing about how to stop it just lets more of us die.

Who said America is a civilized nation?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 04:28 PM
Response to Reply #15
16. Much of that is already law...
How about a compromise where anyone can have whatever weapon they wish in their home, but it must be behind lock and key when anyone other than the owner and spouse is in the house (other than an intruder of course). Defend your home all you want but don't take that weapon outside to the streets or you get charged with a felony and spend a good part of your life with Bubba and friends.

In most jurisdictions, carrying a concealed gun without a license is already a felony, and most of the perpetrators of gun violence couldn't qualify for a carry license even if they felt the need for one. Of course, most of them can't legally touch a gun, or even a single round of ammunition, under the Gun Control Act of 1968.

FWIW, we keep our guns in a safe when we're not home or when they're not in use.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
maxsolomon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 05:11 PM
Response to Original message
18. this decision was made decades ago
Edited on Mon Oct-23-06 05:12 PM by maxsolomon
this is what we as a nation have defined as an acceptable level of firearm death. high levels of firearm violence built this nation -cleared the west of pesky natives, lumbering buffalo, wolves, coyotes, & grizzly.

whether we arrived at the current condition due to the NRA, gun manufacturers, or strict patriotic adherence to the constitution matters not. the cat is out of the bag, the guns are on the street, in our homes, concealed on our persons. guns are easy - just point & squeeze - as opposed to stabbing or bludgeoning. restricting bullets would be way easier than 'taking guns away'. then we could get back to old-fashioned killing.

"its WAY too late for gun control in the US" - steve earle.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
struggle4progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 05:18 PM
Response to Original message
19. Police search for clues in teen's shooting
Police search for clues in teen's shooting
By Jennifer Borrasso

SAGINAW (WJRT) - (10/23/06)--Police are searching for the killer of a 15-year-old Saginaw teen who was shot to death in broad daylight. The drive-by shooting happened Sunday afternoon on the 3000 Block of Grant Street ...

http://abclocal.go.com/wjrt/story?section=local&id=4687...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
struggle4progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 05:20 PM
Response to Original message
20. Funeral Service Held in Texas for Family of 4 Found Dead Along Fla. Turnpike
Monday, October 23, 2006

.. Their bodies were found Oct. 13 in a grassy area off the highway in Port St. Lucie, Fla. Yessica was holding Luis Julian, 4, and Luis Damian, 3, as though trying to protect them.

Authorities have said the family died of multiple gunshot wounds and appeared to be lying down or kneeling when they were shot. The couple's vehicle was found abandoned 70 miles south of the murder scene in West Palm Beach ..

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,224059,00.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
piedmont Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 05:29 PM
Response to Reply #20
26. Virginia couple, two children beaten, stabbed in random killing
Edited on Mon Oct-23-06 05:33 PM by piedmont
Man gets death sentence for slaying Va. family:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15388654 /


VIOLENCE is the problem, no matter what weapon is used.


edit: edited heading to make it clear I was referring to a separate case from the one posted by struggle4progress
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
struggle4progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 07:03 PM
Response to Reply #26
36. Homicide .. by age of offender and weapon .. 1976 - 2004 (USDOJ)


Note that guns account for more than half of the deaths in each group. As a general rule, it requires less exertion and less proximity to shoot somebody to death than to stab or bludgeon them. This presumably explains why, for example, one does not see many drive-by stabbings.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
piedmont Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 07:24 PM
Response to Reply #36
40. so what's your plan?
Regarding the graphs you reference, can you say that the murderers who used guns wouldn't have murdered if they didn't have a gun?

As a general rule, it requires less exertion and less proximity to shoot somebody to death than to stab or bludgeon them. This presumably explains why, for example, one does not see many drive-by stabbings.

Does it explain why we don't see drive-by bow-and-arrow attacks? If we ban or greatly control guns, and see an uptick in poison-dart homicide, will we ban those too? Knives reduce the exertion needed to kill. So they should go too?

You've made it clear you think guns are the problem. How would your gun control plan operate?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
struggle4progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-25-06 09:28 AM
Response to Reply #40
61. If you have evidence that blow-gun or bow-and-arrow homicides
replace gun homicides when gun homicides become more inconvenient, do feel free to post it.

I cannot imagine how blow-guns or bows-and-arrows are convenient replacements for convenience store robbery (say) and would therefore expect blow-gun or bow-and-arrow felony homicides to remain at a low level. Similarly, for suicide purposes, blow-guns or bows-and-arrows seem unlikely choices. And I expect most people would rather take their chances against someone armed with a blow-gun than against someone armed with a hand-gun, since a blow-gun is ineffective at very close range and at distance.

Perhaps with a bit more thought you can figure out for yourself why drive-by bow-and-arrow attacks are uncommon and are likely to remain uncommon. But if you really need more ideas regarding that particular issue, let me know.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
piedmont Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-25-06 04:51 PM
Response to Reply #61
68. What's your plan?
If you have evidence that blow-gun or bow-and-arrow homicides replace gun homicides when gun homicides become more inconvenient, do feel free to post it.


I was extending the logic you yourself used:
As a general rule, it requires less exertion and less proximity to shoot somebody to death than to stab or bludgeon them.

You seem to be saying that just because guns make it easier to kill, we should _____ them. I use the _____ because you still haven't said on this thread what exactly you want to do about all those horrible, nasty guns out there.


I cannot imagine how blow-guns or bows-and-arrows are convenient replacements for convenience store robbery (say) and would therefore expect blow-gun or bow-and-arrow felony homicides to remain at a low level. Similarly, for suicide purposes, blow-guns or bows-and-arrows seem unlikely choices. And I expect most people would rather take their chances against someone armed with a blow-gun than against someone armed with a hand-gun, since a blow-gun is ineffective at very close range and at distance.
They are not convenient replacements, but you can't be delusional enough to think that someone who wants to kill or to commit suicide won't find a replacement (or an actual gun, even with the strictest ban you can think of). I'm just pointing out that if you want to do something about guns just because they make it easier to kill, you probably ought to take a look at everything that makes it easier to kill, and consider that humans are clever critters capable of improvising. The firearm is just a tool. 99.9% of the time it's used, it is used responsibly. Infringing on the right of responsible people to use a tool just because some jackasses mis-use it is worse than trading liberty for safety, because you won't even get more safety out the deal.


THIS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4581871.stm
is the logical extension of your argument. Perhaps with a bit more thought you can figure out for yourself why it's ridiculous.






Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
struggle4progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-25-06 08:47 PM
Response to Reply #68
69. Yeah, I was responding to your stabbing example
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

Knives appear to account for only about a fifth as many murders as firearms
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/offenses_reported/violen...

Many US jurisdictions nevertheless restrict carrying of knives in public, similar to what was pointed out in UK link: "The law .. prohibits the possession of offensive weapons in a public place, and the possession of knives in public without good reason or lawful authority .." It's unclear to me why you find this ridiculous.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
piedmont Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-26-06 05:43 PM
Response to Reply #69
73. read a little further
It's unclear to me why you find this ridiculous.


If it's unclear to you, then re-read the article. Here, I'll help-- this is from the article:


The researchers say legislation to ban the sale of long pointed knives would be a key step in the fight against violent crime.

"The Home Office is looking for ways to reduce knife crime.

"We suggest that banning the sale of long pointed knives is a sensible and practical measure that would have this effect."


This is the sort of nanny-state crud Americans don't need or want, and it's just the next step in a progression of consolidating power in the hands of the government in the name of "safety." If we further restrict the possession or sale of firearms because of the reasoning you've demonstrated
in this thread, then next year we'll be having this conversation about kitchen knives and God knows what else.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
struggle4progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-27-06 11:20 AM
Response to Reply #73
81. Yeah, I read the article:


... None of the chefs felt such knives were essential, since the point of a short blade was just as useful when a sharp end was needed. The researchers said a short pointed knife may cause a substantial superficial wound if used in an assault - but is unlikely to penetrate to inner organs ... French laws in the 17th century decreed that the tips of table and street knives be ground smooth. A century later, forks and blunt-ended table knives were introduced in the UK in an effort to reduce injuries during arguments in public eating houses ...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4581871.stm

I'm not sure what an article from a year and a half ago about UK policy discussions on the sale of long pointed knives has to do with American gun violence, nor how the UK's policy discussions contribute to "consolidating power in the hands of the government."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
piedmont Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-27-06 03:11 PM
Response to Reply #81
86. Alrighty then....
You post with the righteousness of proclaiming guns to be evil, without offering even a sniff of a solution, and you think the U.K. has got the right idea in banning guns and kitchen knives and anything else that could hurt someone (think hard about where that logic leads), and you think it's ok to give up a useful tool just because 10 chefs in the U.K. say we could do without them. Am I mis-interpreting you? If not, I guess I'm just flabbergasted.

You seem to believe that objects cause people to harm and kill other people. Instead of getting at the root social causes of violence, you'd rather focus on guns (but what you'd actually do is anyone's guess) and I suppose after that, knives and whatever else. Poverty, lack of opportunity, mental illness, and plain ole mean-ness are a lot harder issues to deal with than banning guns, but dealing with them would do more to alleviate crime than banning one weapon after another.

I'm not sure what an article from a year and a half ago about UK policy discussions on the sale of long pointed knives has to do with American gun violence,
then read my posts again. They passed a gun ban several years ago-- now they want to ban knives. Banning guns is just a point along a continuum, leading to increasingly silly measures and government intrusions into citizens' lives.


nor how the UK's policy discussions contribute to "consolidating power in the hands of the government."
You really don't see how a government systematically disarming its people consolidates power in the hands of that government? Is that idea over your head?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
struggle4progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 05:22 PM
Response to Original message
21. Deadly Shooting Suspect Arrested
Mindy Stone

A shooting in Widefield leads to an arrest in Colorado Springs. One young man is dead. Another behind bars ..

http://www.kktv.com/news/headlines/4459827.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
piedmont Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 05:35 PM
Response to Reply #21
28. Charge Filed After Man Run Over, Killed During Brawl
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
struggle4progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 07:19 PM
Response to Reply #28
39. But using a vehicle with malice aforethought is relatively rare, and
it would be difficult, in general, to deliberately kill someone in their own house (as in my post) using a car or truck.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
piedmont Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 07:27 PM
Response to Reply #39
42. Just because it's rare doesn't make it go away.
Ok, it's hard to kill someone in their home with an auto. But that doesn't make that crime the exclusive domain of guns. And I'd much rather have a gun with me for defense of such an attack.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
struggle4progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 09:36 PM
Response to Reply #42
44. Well, about 200 people a year are cleared for self-defense homicide ..
.. using a firearm, not counting the police cases. Something like 12000 a year are murdered by firearms, of whom 800 a year are shot by an intimate partner. About 17000 kill themselves each year with a gun. Counting accidental deaths, homicides, and suicides, about 2500 a year children under the age of 18 die of a gunshot wound each year.

In short, despite the easy availability of guns in the US, the use of guns in self defense accounts for a miniscule fraction of the shooting that occurs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-24-06 10:38 AM
Response to Reply #44
56. Oh noes, the "Only Way To Use A Gun Is To Shoot Someone" fallacy
a.k.a. the Body Count Fallacy.

:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
struggle4progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-24-06 10:07 PM
Response to Reply #56
60. Armed citizens have pointed guns at me several times.

On the second occasion, I was working a construction crew on a out-of-town job, and went to hang out with the foreman and his girlfriend after hours in their motel room. They had a plentiful supply of beer, and after about an hour the girlfriend went to retrieve something from the fridge, at which point the gun fell off the top of the fridge onto the floor. Girlfriend picked up the gun and handed it to foreman who proceeded "playfully" to point it at me. I found an excuse to extricate myself from the situation as gracefully and quickly as possible. Needless to say, I did not party with them again.

On the third occasion, I was working after hours in my office and heard a noise in the hall. Naturally, I went to investigate. I found myself confronted by a security guard, whose weapon was trained on me. This is a rather loose description, since the guard was so terrified that his hand was trembling uncontrollably and who was entirely speechless until I explained (without moving) who I was, why I was there, and what I was doing. At that point, the weapon was slowly lowered and ultimately holstered.

On this, and at least one other occasion, I have considered myself damn lucky not to have been shot by a fool with a gun. Being armed myself in either of those circumstances might have ensured my sudden death.

Fuck this bullshit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-25-06 10:53 AM
Response to Reply #60
62. Your reply is a non-sequitur
And it sounds like you have made some poor choices in places to work and people to associate with.

Being armed myself in either of those circumstances might have ensured my sudden death.

I fully support and respect your right to not be armed. This is all about personal liberty and freedom of choice for me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
struggle4progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-25-06 11:53 AM
Response to Reply #62
63. Nope: I illustrated "Use A Gun To Threaten to Shoot Someone" since you ..
Edited on Wed Oct-25-06 11:54 AM by struggle4progress
complained that you do not believe "Only Way To Use A Gun Is To Shoot Someone" (a claim which I, incidently, did not make)

<edit: typography>
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-25-06 01:16 PM
Response to Reply #63
66. You gave examples of negligent or unlawful uses of firearms
You are ignoring the fact that they are also useful for legitimate acts of self-defense, which usually does NOT involve shooting someone.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
struggle4progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-25-06 09:07 PM
Response to Reply #66
71. You wish to focus to the use of a gun to threaten to shoot someone
Since there's about a twitch between the threat and the deed, the ratio of justifiable firearm homicides to total firearm homicides is probably a good first indicator of the ratio of justifiable threats to shoot to the total number of threats to shoot.

If you care to provide some other plausible way to the proportion of justifiable threats to total threats, feel free.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-26-06 10:53 AM
Response to Reply #71
72. No, there is a lot more than a twitch between threat and deed
Edited on Thu Oct-26-06 11:00 AM by slackmaster
Police officers pull guns on people far, far more often than they actually shoot people.

And, the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), in 1993, estimated 108,000 defensive uses of firearms by civilians annually.

One more time, the question you keep dodging:

What changes would you make to existing law?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
struggle4progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-26-06 09:17 PM
Response to Reply #72
74. Can't find yr supposed statistic either in '93 National Crime Victimization Survey
or in the much longer but separate collection of tables on which it is based. Not sure why you don't post links for this sort of thing. Nor do I understand why you cite the '93 version of a study that's updated every year.

In any case, perhaps you could provide a more specific cite for your number: the tables run to about 150pp, so if it's there it has to be found. Frankly, tho, I suspect your statistic may be highly derivative: perhaps somebody did some creative arithmetic with table numbers, eh?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-26-06 09:39 PM
Response to Reply #74
75. Finding the data requires an open mind, but here is a hint
Edited on Thu Oct-26-06 09:41 PM by slackmaster
Try this for your initial Google search string:

"National Crime Victimization Survey" "Firearm Self-Defense"

Here's a tidbit to whet your apetite:

*38% of the victims defending themselves with a firearm attacked
the offender, and the others threatened the offender with the
weapon.

*A fifth of the victims defending themselves with a firearm
suffered an injury, compared to almost half of those who defended
themselves with weapons other than a firearm or who had no weapon.
Care should be used in interpreting these data because many aspects
of crimes--including victim and offender characteristics, crime
circumstances, and offender intent--contribute to the victims'
injury outcomes.

About three-fourths of the victims who used firearms for
self-defense did so during a crime of violence, 1987-92


If you are open to the idea that there are legitimate reasons for ordinary citizens to use firearms defensively, you should be able to find all kinds of good information. You'll find all kinds of analysis and derivitives and links to propaganda from pro-firearm and anti-firearm pressure groups, so I suggest you steer clear of those and stick with official government sources.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
struggle4progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-26-06 09:48 PM
Response to Reply #75
76. Looked up the '93 doc and the 150 pp of supporting tables and went ..
.. through it earlier today, as described in my last post, in which I asked for a more specific cite for the numbers you claimed came from that doc.

I'll take your unwillingness to provide a page number or a table number as meaning you can't find the alleged statistic in the document either.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-27-06 10:38 AM
Response to Reply #76
78. Have it your way
I'll take your unwillingness to state what you would do about criminal misuse of firearms as an acknowledgement that you have no ideas.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
struggle4progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-27-06 11:10 AM
Response to Reply #78
80. No point to discussing policy without first getting facts straight. eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-27-06 12:04 PM
Response to Reply #80
82. I agree completely, and I may be wrong
Edited on Fri Oct-27-06 12:05 PM by slackmaster
I confess I am having problems finding an exact source for the 108,000 figure. It may be erroneous. I can find the number "108,000" in many places but not an original document.

Would you settle for an average of 82,500 per year for 1987 - 1992 as a starting point? The key document is called "Handgun Victimization, Firearm Self-Defense, and Firearm Theft (1987-92)". It was published in April 1994, NCJ-147003.

Here is a link to a draft in text format:

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/hvfsdaft.txt

The number of defensive uses of firearms annually is tens of thousands, far more than the frequently cited figure of 200 documented justifiable fatal shootings.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
struggle4progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-25-06 12:03 PM
Response to Reply #62
64. So if a moron points a gun at me, it's my fault?
You say "I fully support and respect your right to not be armed." Well, golly gosh, thanks ever so much: that's really touching.

Apparently, however, you do not much support and respect my right not to have morons pointing guns at me, since you prefer to speculate that this is due to my "poor choices." Thousands of apparently innocent people make similar "poor choices" and die as a result each year, most without having much control over the situation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-25-06 01:17 PM
Response to Reply #64
67. In the situations you described, your choices contributed
But I do hold the person who misuses a gun responsible for the misuse.

You are responsible for avoiding dangerous situations.

Thousands of apparently innocent people make similar "poor choices" and die as a result each year, most without having much control over the situation.

I'll repeat a question that has been put to you already and not answered: What exactly do you propose to do about it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
struggle4progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-25-06 08:55 PM
Response to Reply #67
70. In situations described, I had no prior reason to think a gun would appear ..
.. on the scene.

It's not always immediately clear who the gun-morons are.

In the case of the security guard encounter, I was doing something I had done regularly for about five years at that job: I never saw a guard or gun there at any time before or after that, and I had never met that guard before.

You're simply speculating, meaninglessly, when you claim my "choices contributed"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lindacooks Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 09:57 PM
Response to Reply #28
46. Straw man argument!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
struggle4progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 05:23 PM
Response to Original message
23. One Fairfield officer killed, one wounded in shooting
The Associated Press
Last Updated:October 23. 2006 5:49PM
Published: October 23. 2006 5:49PM
FAIRFIELD, Ala.

A police officer sent to check on a suspicious vehicle in a Birmingham-area neighborhood was fatally shot as she stepped from her patrol car Monday, and a backup officer was wounded as he arrived at the scene seconds later ..
http://www.timesdaily.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
piedmont Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 05:38 PM
Response to Reply #23
30. Three dead, three wounded in sword attack
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
struggle4progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 06:55 PM
Response to Reply #30
33. 2003? Everything I've posted is a news story less than 12 hours old.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 07:01 PM
Response to Reply #33
35. Yet amazingly, you still aren't in compliance with LBN rules
IBMTG
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
piedmont Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 07:09 PM
Response to Reply #33
37. fun with Google
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&lr=&ct=title&ie=UTF-8...

Did you selectively post just the gun-related stories? There's lots of ways kill somebody. Why don't they pass a law against killing people?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
struggle4progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 07:24 PM
Response to Reply #37
41. The thread is about gun-violence in America, so drunk-driving or South African
dog maul deaths seemed irrelevant.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
struggle4progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 05:27 PM
Response to Original message
24. Police Look for Asbury Park Shooting Suspect
Posted: Monday, 23 October 2006 10:16AM

ASBURY PARK, N.J. -- Schools are open in Asbury Park following a two-day shutdown because a student was shot on the street. Tylik Pugh was shot in the head Wednesday morning and died Thursday night ..

http://1010wins.com/pages/112328.php?contentType=4&cont...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
struggle4progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 05:29 PM
Response to Original message
25. Triple shooting in San Francisco leaves one dead, two injured
.. Police say 25-year-old Joseph Melcher walked into a bar called The Flow Saturday night and started shooting ..

http://www.cbs47.tv/news/state/story.aspx?content_id=CF...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dnbn Donating Member (43 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 05:32 PM
Response to Original message
27. The Emperor's New Clothes
But the word "gun" was not mentioned until a plucky teenager pointed out to a panel moderated by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales that the common factor was easy access to high-powered firearms.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-24-06 08:11 AM
Response to Reply #27
55. Define "high powered firearms"...
considering that the guns used in the recent school fatalities weren't high-powered by any definition (well, except for the hunting shotguns), I think someone is a bit misinformed.

Many police departments don't use 9mm pistols because they don't consider 9mm to be powerful enough for police use, for example.

FWIW, a 12-gauge hunting shotgun, like those used at Columbine and in some of the recent shootings, is .729 caliber or 18.5mm...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
struggle4progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 05:36 PM
Response to Original message
29. 20-year-old dead after shooting
GANNETT NEW JERSEY

NEW BRUNSWICK-- A 20-year-old Highland Park man died after being shot at the Catholic War Veterans Hall on Delavan Street in New Brunswick, authorities said ..

http://www.dailyrecord.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/2...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
struggle4progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 05:39 PM
Response to Original message
31. Driver Killed In Drive-By Shooting
HOUSTON -- A man was shot and killed while driving down a southwest Houston road on Saturday, officials told KPRC Local 2 ..

http://www.click2houston.com/news/10136015/detail.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Infinite Hope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 07:14 PM
Response to Original message
38. Easy solution...
Increase educational and economic opportunity. It's that simple.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spinoza Donating Member (766 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 08:49 PM
Response to Original message
43. America is now,
and has always been, a very violent nation. 30,000 deaths from firearms is a very large 100th of 1% of the U.S. population killed ANNUALLY. A real disgrace. Still, thank God for the 2nd amendment. His gun literally saved my fathers life in 1973 when his store was robbed. (Two of the robbers had killed another store owner some months earlier.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Briar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-24-06 08:02 AM
Response to Original message
53. Issues like this
make me even more aware of the dangerous state of the world. The only hyperpower has claimed its right (on extremely dubious grounds) to decide the fate of all the rest of us. Yet its citizens can't even live peaceably, without aggression and the threat of arbitrary lethal force, with one another.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aikoaiko Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-24-06 01:45 PM
Response to Original message
59. ITS A TRAP, I tell you.
Edited on Tue Oct-24-06 01:59 PM by aikoaiko
Some of the more extreme types of gun control, especially bans on some guns, are in some big name Democrats' political toolboxes, but to pull that out now would be a big mistake. We have a good chance to get Congress back and the possibly even the White House, but when we start pushing control or threatening that we'll push it when we win back Congress, we just might NOT get the seats we need.

Edited to add: The Repubs are not saying anything about guns just hoping someone on our side of the aisle says, "More Gun Control" or, even worse for us, "Assault Weapons Ban II".

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
4bucksagallon Donating Member (324 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-26-06 10:41 PM
Response to Original message
77. Gun control is a loosing issue for dems, so if you like republicans
keep bringing up gun control. Nobody is forcing you to own a gun if you don't want to. That is of course unless you join the military or law enforcement. I have had guns since I was a wee boy, and am now a semi mature 58. What is it with some of you, you like loosing causes, it sounds that way. Look any good machinist could make a gun, are you going to try to ban machine tools also? Give me a break!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
struggle4progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-27-06 11:08 AM
Response to Reply #77
79. Hmmm ... Here's the WaPo polling data from earlier this month:
The Washington Post
Monday, October 9, 2006

This Washington Post-ABC News poll was conducted by telephone October 5-8, 2006, among a random national sample of 1,204 adults. The results have a three-point error margin. Sampling, data collection and tabulation by TNS of Horsham, PA ...

43. Do you favor or oppose stricter gun control laws in this country? Is that strongly or somewhat favor/oppose?

----------- Favor -------- ---------- Oppose ------- No
NET Strongly Somewhat NET Strongly Somewhat opin.
10/8/06 61 45 16 37 22 15 2
5/12/02 57 39 19 37 22 15 6
1/15/01 59 46 13 39 26 13 2
5/10/00 67 50 17 30 22 9 3
4/2/00 64 49 14 34 21 13 2
9/2/99 63 52 11 35 25 11 2
8/15/99 63 46 16 34 22 12 3
5/16/99 67 55 12 31 21 10 1
10/13/93* 64 40 24 33 20 13 3
6/8/89* 60 28 32 34 23 11 6
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/postpoll_1...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-27-06 04:07 PM
Response to Reply #79
87. Most polls on this subject share the fatal flaw that this one has
Edited on Fri Oct-27-06 04:11 PM by slackmaster
It's one thing to ask people whether they think laws should be stricter. But when you ask them specifically what they would like to see changed, they usually suggest laws that are already on the books.

Hint for struggle4progress - That's why I and others have repeatedly asked YOU to say what you would like to see implemented. I have zero confidence that you actually know what laws we have now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Jul 25th 2014, 08:46 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC