Why did I do such a 180 on guns?

[Taverner]

Last edited Sun Dec 30, 2012, 06:22 PM - Edit history (1)

I used to support gun rights.

I used to think everyone had a right to bear, and in my case, to NOT bear arms.

I have never owned a gun and I never will

Then the killings stated

One after another

It got so bad, reporters couldn't finish up one story about a massacre before they had to start reporting on the next

Then I said enough

I did research

I read studies on both sides

Guess what: the gun lobby is lying to you

Their studies are a joke

Selective sampling, leading questions - just all around bad research

The anti gun studies, many in which the lead researcher started out pro gun, were done correctly

And they always showed what should have been painfully obvious

Guns = murder

Every time

Any other kind of talk is weasel wording

I felt lied to. Deceived. Knowingly given misinformation.

Being lied to is something I don't take very lightly

Chances are you don't either

They are lying to you



12/30: This thread, so far, has shown the desperation of the gun supporters.

Because something is happening here
But you don't know what it is
Do you, Mister Jones?

[riverbendviewgal]

1. people kill people but

Guns make it easier . And quicker. And you don't have see your victims' look you in the eyes. And you don't have to touch him. With some guns you can kill 30 people In a minute.

[Hoyt]

8. And, That's the main reason gun culture is so attracted to them.

[Flatulo]

216. I'm going to completely level with you.

That's not why people are attracted to them, at least not the vast majority. People who intend to cause mayhem and death, as well as career criminals, are of course going to use the best tool available.

Here's the part where I am going to completely level with you. Are you ready?

I've been around gun owners my whole life. By and large, they are good, solid people who represent no risk to anyone.

However.

I've known more than a few around whom I was just not comfortable. They tended to acquire lots of guns and practiced unsafe behaviors with them.

I noticed, amateur psychologist that I am, that they shared a certain personality trait, or flaw, if you will.

They were loud, boastful, and tended towards exaggeration and bluster. They were always talking about how they were going to do this or that to anyone who crossed them. They had fucked more girls than you. Their car was faster than yours. They had beaten up so and so for looking at them the wrong way. They had been aggrieved by their bosses. Most of it was pure bullshit, but I think they really believed it.

A few of them were banned from our town shooting range (some by me when I sat on the board) for unsafe behaviors with guns. We were very nervous about crossing these guys.

I don't know if there's a name for this personality disorder, but I think it is a disorder. Lots of people who don't have guns also exhibit this behavior.

I wish there was some way to screen for this trait, and prevent these types of personalities from acquiring weapons. My guess is that maybe 5% of the people who joined the gun club were thusly unsuited. We had over 200 members when I was involved, and maybe 6 or 7 of this type.

I don't think it's fair to deny permits to 200 people because 10 of them are loud-mouthed asses, and maybe .0001 of them goes off and gets into trouble with his permit.

[Hoyt]

217. That's a pretty high percentage, although I think percentage is higher.

The number of folks lining up to buy assault weapons a week after Sandy Hook is a good indication of how sick some of these folks are. And, they'll pass that "illness" on to others.

Do appreciate your honesty.

[Flatulo]

218. Frankly, I think a lot of them are buying weapons out of defiance, and not necessarily out of

some kind of power fetish. Is a minor but possibly critical distinction.

[Hoyt]

219. Since damn near all of them are white yahoos, I hope the end up eating those guns.

[Flatulo]

221. That would be pretty funny, especially since I hear the AR-15s have been run up to $5k. nt

[Bake]

225. Because they're WHITE or because they're yahoos?

Because I'm sure you really didn't mean because they're WHITE.

Bake

[CrispyQ]

165. I read that the body of the youngest victim had 11 gun shot wounds.

Eleven.

From that fucking gun.

I personally cannot begin to imagine the destruction of that precious little body.

[vankuria]

171. Too much to bear

I can't even wrap my mind around that. All those precious babies shot dead. I hate guns, always have and now I hate them even more.

[CrispyQ]

174. Me too.

[Flatulo]

211. That one report sent me into such a depression. I wish there were a hell so that Lanza and his

mother could both burn it it for eternity.

I just can't get my mind around that. What the fuck is the matter with people? How can one's mind get into such a state that repeatedly shooting children seems like a good idea?

[Kablooie]

190. Guns *encourage* killing.

Without a gun you may try to hurt someone but with a gun that immediately changes to killing instead of hurting.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

2. You say, "the gun lobby is lying to you." Not to me. They, whoever they are, don't even contact me.

There's also nothing to indicate that they engage in mindless and insulting name-calling.

If I ever want to see that, however, all I have to do is log on to a board which holds itself out as a "discussion" board but which tolerates the squelching of discussion.

[farminator3000]

6. you get a paycheck, don't you?

i'd say "you're too dumb to think for yourself" is a pretty big insult. careful, i might use it on you...

what kind of a-hole would put this crap below on the internets? it certainly is insulting.
also a loaded question with an answer which is complete crap.
and, no, i won't put a link, google- nra ila second amendment, its right there for any little kid to see

MIND POLLUTION

9. Shouldn`t we at least try some gun control to see if it works?
We have. Over the past century, all types of gun control laws have been implemented in different parts of the United States. Everything from purchase restrictions to complete gun bans has been tried. These laws have not worked, and in some cases have had the opposite effect from what was intended.

Some big cities have strict gun laws. New York City has very strict gun laws, more strict than the rest of the state of New York. In spite of this, New York has always had significantly higher violent crime rates. Washington, D.C. and Chicago, Ill. have banned the ownership of handguns, and both these cities have much higher violent crime rates than the surrounding areas.

States such as Illinois and New York have gun owner licensing. Other states, such as Hawaii, have gun registration. However, none of these laws led to reductions in violent crime rates. And that is the real test of gun control laws. Do crime rates fall after gun laws are passed? The clear answer is no. Gun control has been tested, and it has failed the test.

[farminator3000]

9. the biggest piece of BS there

is that the NRA HELPED PASS those laws until 35 years ago.

so there's that.

[Lucky Luciano]

23. NYC is having its lowest murder rate this year

...since accurate record keeping began in 1963. That is 50 years. The rate is down 82% since 1990 and us way below the second best year of 2009. A murder rate if 414 per year in a city proper of 8,000,000 is not bad at all - now imagine the rate if you stay in Manhattan south if 96th street. A very safe place.

[farminator3000]

29. wonder why?

New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg announced on Friday that the nation's largest city could finish the year with the lowest number of murders and shootings since 1963, when it began keeping comparable data. The number of murders this year in New York is only about one-fifth the total of 2,245 homicides recorded in the peak year of 1990.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/29/chicago-homicide-rate-new-york_n_2378073.html

**

Nothing spurs talk of gun-control legislation quite like a highly publicized crime committed with the aid of a handgun.
Such was the case 100 years ago this month, when a brazen murder committed near Gramercy Park led to the enactment a few months later of New York State’s landmark Sullivan Law, which required police-issued licenses for those wishing to possess concealable firearms and made carrying an unlicensed concealed weapon a felony (pdf).
http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/23/100-years-ago-the-shot-that-spurred-new-yorks-gun-control-law/

[GreenStormCloud]

66. Take a look at El Paso, TX.

NYC's murder rate with your number is 5.175 per 100K people. El Paso had a murder peak in 2012 with 22 murders in a city of 800K which gives a rate of 2.75 per 100K, much lower than NYC of which you are so proud. El Paso has more guns than people and sits on the Mexican border, a major conduit for drugs and people smuggling.

[farminator3000]

90. don't take a look at el paso

this is about an entire country, not one city or another

so what is the police to population ratio in el paso?

don't bother answering. nobody wants to hear it

[Lucky Luciano]

132. Interesting take on El Paso in this article discussing how

towns with a high concentration of immigrants can often be very safe (much to Jan Brewer's chagrin):

"El Paso is among the safest big cities in America. For the better part of the last decade, only Honolulu has had a lower violent crime rate (El Paso slipped to third last year, behind New York). Men's Health magazine recently ranked El Paso the second "happiest" city in America, right after Laredo, Texas—another border town, where the Hispanic population is approaching 95 percent."


http://reason.com/archives/2009/07/06/the-el-paso-miracle

...oh yeah...and Dallas, TEXAS also has a murder rate 260% higher than NYC.

[October]

191. Compare population

El Paso vs New York City


And what's with the condescending tone? New York is doing well. Why can't someone be proud - even by simply listing facts.

[GreenStormCloud]

201. When one list a rate, population is automatically taken into consideration.

jSince you don't seem to understand rates, NYC had 414 murders with a population of about 8 million which is a rate of 5.175
(414/8,000,000)X100,000 = 5.175 El Paso has had 22 murders and a population of about 800,000. (22/800,000)X100,000 = 2.75

Yes, NYC is doing well, but El Paso is doing better, and has more guns than people.

[itsrobert]

204. I have lived in El Paso

You are comparing apples in Oranges. El Paso's population is spread way out. How many people live in NYC per square mile and how many people live in El Paso per square mile?

Plus you are also off on El Paso population by 150,000. According to the 2010 census the city's population is 649,121. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Paso,_Texas Or you confusing El Paso city with El Paso County? You also underestimated NYC's population by 245,000 people : 8,244,910 http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/05/nyregion/census-estimates-for-2011-show-population-growth-in-new-york.html?_r=0 Seems like your numbers are in error at best, and intentionally deceptive at worst.

[GreenStormCloud]

213. I took Post # 23s statement for NYC population.

I Googled for El Paso's population and it looks like Google may have given me the county population instead of the city.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

50. Nothing that you are saying has anything to do with what I've said.

Did you post this and your "careful, i might use it on you..." in the wrong place?

[farminator3000]

93. you said this-

you said this-
There's also nothing to indicate that they engage in mindless and insulting name-calling.

i showed you the evidence. look up some ted nugent quotes

he is on the board of the NRA

he said this

"I get a full predator spiritual erection" from hunting "bear, lions, coons, housecats, escaped chimps, small children, scared women and everything else that can be chased and/or hunted."

go away

[AnotherMcIntosh]

101. Are you nuts? Are you saying that someone by the name of "ted nugent" is a lobbyists?

I have no idea as to who he is.

If he is a lobbyists, I don't know that.

I didn't refer to this "ted nugent" of yours. I didn't refer to the NRA. I didn't even refer to you.

I posted directly to the OP.

If you like to engage in "mindless and insulting name-calling," maybe that's the reason why you seem to my words at #2 refer to you.

That's what you want to do? Engage in "mindless and insulting name-calling"? If so, you are a perfect example of one of the jerks on this discussion board who wants to squelch discussions.

You are a jerk. I am not going to "look up some ted nugent quotes."

Go talk to yourself.

[farminator3000]

112. he's ON THE BOARD OF THE NRA FOR GOD'S SAKE

http://meetthenra.org/nra-member/ted%20nugent

[farminator3000]

114. i apologize in advance if you are a respectable lady, but, you asked

AnotherMcIntosh (5,226 posts)
2. You say, "the gun lobby is lying to you." Not to me. They, whoever they are, don't even contact me.
There's also nothing to indicate that they engage in mindless and insulting name-calling.

Hunting is undeniably an outlet for the Nuge’s animal instincts. “I hump the wild to take it all in,” writes Nugent, “there is no bag limit on happiness.” Ted and his trusty Labrador retriever, Gonzo the Wonderdog, get a “full predator spiritual erection” from pursuing “bear, lions, coons, housecats, escaped chimps, small children, scared women, and everything else that can be chased and/or hunted.” He also takes plenty of predatory digs at those he considers to be his human prey: He names a wild boar after Janet Reno (“the only thing missing was the purple dress and he-man haircut”), and describes the same boar as emitting a “Courtney Love-like squeal,” while the remaining boars mill around like “a throng of stoned, lost Grateful Dead fans.”

http://www.salon.com/2002/06/11/nuge/

great googledyboogledy horseshit, can you believe THAT?

no WONDER they don't put HIM on tv.

[Lordquinton]

195. I knew Nugent was a repulsive human being

but that bit about a "Courtney Love like squeal" considering his post...relations with her
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002585940

why is he not locked up somewhere very secure? and why is he even allowed to go near a firearm?

[farminator3000]

205. you are insulting human beings by giving him that status!

The New York Post attempted to contact Nugent for a response but was unsuccessful. Moderators at Nugent’s official forum deleted the only thread asking about the topic as evidenced by the forum’s search giving a file not found error for the matched thread.

i guess he was pissed at CL for calling him out on national radio as a pedophile??


Good call, Mitt. Great influence on your sons, including Tagg who tweeted:

“Ted Nugent endorsed my Dad today. Ted Nugent? How cool is that?! He joins Kid Rock as great Detroit musicians on team Mitt!”

Yay! A pedophile endorsed daddy!

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/04/18/1084534/-Romney-has-a-Pedophile-Problem-Named-Ted-Nugent


what did he say to the secret service so they'd let him go?

and naming his dog after hunter s thompson? PUKE!

[oldbanjo]

170. I agree, In SC the crime rate was climbing

before the people got CWP permits.

[Skittles]

196. the gun lobby talking points are all over DU every damn day

you don't know what they are?

[Rex]

3. Looks like you answered your own question.

[Coyote_Tan]

4. Guns don't equal murder every time...

So it's pretty easy to dismiss your findings on their face.

[farminator3000]

7. right, target shooting, whatever

how about every OTHER TIME?

kill animals, kill people, shoot targets, scare people in self defense

got any numbers?

[Coyote_Tan]

15. So are you claiming that 50% of guns have been used for murder?

[farminator3000]

20. nope. that is a number, i'll give you that. 50% is more like the number of illegal guns going around

when a gun is used to kill someone (which he meant in his OP) the rate would be 100%

here are more numbers:
Among the world’s 23 wealthiest countries, 80 percent of all gun deaths are American deaths and 87 percent of all kids killed by guns are American kids.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/07/gun-deaths-a-familiar-american-experience/

sucks, huh?

[spin]

124. A high percentage of those murders are a direct result of our failed War on Drugs. ...

Chicago gang violence shows no signs of stopping

December 10, 2012 7:26 PM

(CBS News) CHICAGO - There is a war going on -- not overseas, but right here on the streets of America. A gang war has taken over parts of Chicago.

Over the weekend, 14 people were shot. Two were killed.

So far this year, there have been more than 2,364 shootings and 487 homicides.

CBS News National Correspondent Dean Reynolds rode along with Commander Leo Schmitz of Chicago Police Department's 7th district. The area is a gang-related swath of the city's South Side. They started to drive as children were leaving school for the day.

"When you have them coming out of school, and there's any kind of gang conflicts, you've got a mix like fire and gasoline," Schmitz said.

The gangs are fighting a war over turf, drugs and money.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57558351/chicago-gang-violence-shows-no-signs-of-stopping/

I suspect we will spend a lot of time in the near future debating about reinstating another assault weapons ban and little time considering revising our current laws on illegal drugs. We may end up with another watered down AWB. Even if we were able to pass a law banning all semi-auto firearms and were able to confiscate them, the drugs gangs would have little problem smuggling weapons in from nations where they obtain their drugs. Consequently kids would continue to die in the crossfire between competing gangs.

[farminator3000]

133. so what? who said anything about drugs? they don't shoot each other with drugs..spin off!

The total number of gang homicides reported by respondents in the NYGS sample averaged nearly 2,000 annually from 2006 to 2010. During the same time period, the FBI estimated, on average, more than 16,000 homicides across the United States (www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10tbl01.xls). These estimates suggest that gang-related homicides typically accounted for around 12 percent of all homicides annually.

http://www.nationalgangcenter.gov/Survey-Analysis/Measuring-the-Extent-of-Gang-Problems

12% is high?

you are high!

smuggling IN weapons when there are already more guns than people?!??!?

woo hoo, that's a good one. guns are much smaller than drugs, too, right? easier to smuggle?

[spin]

150. Pass a law banning and confiscating all firearms in our nation and watch what will happen. ...

Mexico has very strong gun laws and yet the Mexican drug cartels have fully automatic firearms which do not come from our nation.

AK-47

The AK-47 is a selective-fire, gas-operated 7.62×39mm assault rifle, first developed in the USSR by Mikhail Kalashnikov. It is officially known as Avtomat Kalashnikova (Russian: Автомат Калашникова . It is also known as a Kalashnikov, an "AK", or in Russian slang, Kalash


***snip***

To fire, the operator inserts a loaded magazine, pulls back and releases the charging handle, and then pulls the trigger. In semi-automatic, the firearm fires only once, requiring the trigger to be released and depressed again for the next shot. In full-automatic, the rifle continues to fire automatically cycling fresh rounds into the chamber, until the magazine is exhausted or pressure is released from the trigger. As each bullet travels through the barrel, a portion of the gases expanding behind it is diverted into the gas tube above the barrel, where it impacts the gas piston. The piston, in turn, is driven backward, pushing the bolt carrier, which causes the bolt to move backwards, ejecting the spent round, and chambering a new round when the recoil spring pushes it forward.[39]...emphasis added

***snip***

In Mexico, the AK-47 is known as "Cuerno de Chivo" (literally "Ram's Horn&quot and is one of the weapons of choice of Mexican drug cartels. It is sometimes mentioned in Mexican folk music lyrics.[81]...emphasis added
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AK-47

These gangs also have far more powerful weaponry that you can't buy in Mom and Pop gun stores in the U.S.

Mexico’s Drug Lords Ramp Up Their Arsenals with RPGs
By Ioan Grillo / Mexico CityOct. 25, 20120

When a Mexican SWAT team stopped a stolen Cadillac van in the border city of Piedras Negras, it was not a surprise when they were greeted by a tirade of bullets as the criminals blasted and ran. But after they kicked open the trunk, the officers realized they could have been victims of more catastrophic firepower. The gunmen had been in possession of an arsenal of weapons that included three Soviet-made antitank rockets complete with an RPG-7 shoulder-fired launcher. If the criminals had got a rocket off, they could easily have blown the SWAT vehicle to pieces. RPG-7s can also take out helicopters and were used in the Black Hawk Down episode in Somalia in 1993.

The rockets, found on Saturday, are part of an increasingly destructive array of weaponry wielded by Mexican drug cartels, like the feared Zetas, in reaction to attacks on them by police and soldiers. While security forces have taken down several key cartel bosses this year, gunmen have struck back, setting off five car bombs, hundreds of fragmentation grenades and several shoulder-fired rockets. Soldiers even seized one homemade three-ton tank with a revolving gun turret. When Mexican marines on Oct. 7 claimed to have killed Zetas leader Heriberto Lazcano, he was also alleged to be found with an RPG-7. (Lazcano’s corpse was stolen from the morgue, and the Zetas are now believed to be led by his No. 2, Miguel Treviño.)
http://world.time.com/2012/10/25/mexicos-drug-lords-ramp-up-their-arsenals-with-rpgs/

And yes, firearms would be much easier to smuggle than tons of marijuana.

[farminator3000]

156. nobody said TAKE ALL THE GUNS AWAY. so TAKE YOURSELF AWAY

Pass a law banning and confiscating all firearms in our nation and watch what will happen. ...

sounds like you'd enjoy it!

[spin]

182. Many people here on DU have suggested that in recent days. ...

Senator Dianne Feinstein once said this:

Feinstein said on CBS-TV's 60 Minutes, February 5, 1995, "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them . . . Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in, I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here."[24]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Dianne_Feinstein#Gun_politics

This column recently appeared in the Detroit Metrotimes:

Ban all guns, now
Nobody needs to have a handgun in America — period
By Jack Lessenberry
PUBLISHED: DECEMBER 19, 2012

Nobody needs to have a handgun in America.

Nobody needs to have guns in their home, period.

***snip***

Nobody needs guns in their homes. When the entire story surrounding the Connecticut elementary school massacre is sorted out, many will blame the mother of the shooter.

***snip***

Nobody, apart from the police, needs to walk around with guns. What about guns for target shooters and hunters? Fine. Long as they keep them locked away at the club or lodge.
http://metrotimes.com/columns/ban-all-guns-now-1.1418281

No I wouldn't enjoy a total ban and confiscation on all firearms as it would break this nation right down the middle.

But I have little worry that it will happen anytime during my lifetime.

[farminator3000]

227. many people here on DU don't wanna hear your nonsense

you forgot a part-
Feinstein possessed a concealed handgun permit in the early 70's "And, I know the sense of helplessness that people feel. I know the urge to arm yourself because that's what I did. I was trained in firearms. I'd walk to the hospital when my husband was sick. I carried a concealed weapon. I made the determination that if somebody was going to try to take me out, I was going to take them with me." -- 27 April 1995 [28][29]

She is opposed by gun rights organizations, such as the NRA,[which?] who say her proposals on gun control are unconstitutional.[citation needed]

But I have little worry that it will happen anytime during my lifetime.


http://dailycaller.com/2012/12/27/alert-sen-diane-feinstein-releases-gun-ban-summary-for-2013/

two? three weeks?

just stop it. read some more of that wiki page- have you ever had a friend who was ASSASINATED?

[spin]

230. Happy new year to you. ...

May we make some true progress on addressing gun violence in our nation.

No. I've never had a friend who was assassinated.

[farminator3000]

231. you too, you seem cool!

[spin]

233. Thanks. (n/t)

[Bake]

226. Self defense is NOT murder.

But don't let the truth get in the way of your argument.

Bake

[Control-Z]

14. Did you get paid to sign up

here at DU and spread gun nuttery? Or is it just fun for you?

[Coyote_Tan]

16. Got it...

I make the true statement that every gun has not been used for murder and it gets labeled as "gun nuttery"

Glad to see everyone is rational here...

[Control-Z]

32. You have 58 posts, cowboy.

It's not real difficult to know what every single one of them have been about.

[billh58]

36. Every plant the NRA/Gungeon

crowd sends over here must be desperate for the .05 cents per post they get paid...

[Control-Z]

51. Seriously.

That's why I was wondering if it was for some sick kicks.

[farminator3000]

98. a nickel? that much?

there must be a pay scale, some are slightly, um, not better...maybe...less....bad?

[billh58]

99. Most of them never make it

past $4 -$5 bucks until they are served a going away pizza. The sharper ones become sleepers, and maybe make enough for a cheap beer from time-to-time.

[billh58]

33. How about this, Slick?

Every time a gun is used to kill an innocent human, it's murder. Every time a murder occurs, the blood is squarely on the hands of the fucking NRA and its blind followers who cheer this madness and disavow any responsibility for their fucking guns and the carnage they cause.

Yes, it is easy for "cold dead hands" lunatics to "dismiss (any) findings on their face," because they only care about their fucking guns, and their pathetic 2nd Amendment so-called right to pollute our society with 300 million fucking guns and the highest gun death rate in the world.

Go back to whatever site the NRA/Gungeon crowd of buttwipes recruited you from.

[Coyote_Tan]

34. Take a deep breath, count to 10...

... and go outside for a while.

You'll feel much better, I guarantee.

[billh58]

35. Yeah, I will step outside for a moment because

your NRA talking points horseshit is stinking up the place. Hit the road Jack...

[Robb]

40. Members who joined DU right after Newtown

...to "educate" us all on the finer points of the NRA propaganda machine need to go.

[Coyote_Tan]

42. Seems to be the hot topic of the moment...

You're over thinking it...

[farminator3000]

111. because its a royal pain in the @ss

you're over denying it..

[Robb]

160. Indeed.

[anchovy]

135. So Democrats who happen to differ on this one issue are completely unwelcome?

Nice.

[Robb]

179. Aw.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=298681&sub=trans

[Lizzie Poppet]

37. Again, priceless.

Unsupported attribution of cause.
Strawman argument.
Broad-brush amateur psychoanalysis.
Vulgarity.
Outright falsehood.

Way to make a rational, rigorous case for your POV...

[farminator3000]

102. you should have called yourself dizzy puppet...

oh snap!

[farminator3000]

100. woo hoo! are you typing that or just yelling into your phone?!?!?

howdy sir,
you could change all the f-bombs to "darling" and post that in the other thread we have going...

as the answer to the "guns don't equal murder everytime..." non-statement

check this one out:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022082664

[slackmaster]

5. I don't believe you did a 180 at all

Not really.

[Taverner]

10. Read through my posts if you want...

Now I probably wouldn't have been one of the NRA's Prostitutes, but it was clear I thought gun control didn't work

Then I read the studies

[XRubicon]

12. Have you changed your mind on vets?

Do you support the troops?

[XRubicon]

77. I thought you said you don't support the troops?

Now you don't support generals? Is this another 180?

Can we count on your support of the troops?

[Taverner]

78. How many sock puppets do you have? No, supporting the troops means supporting what they do

Invasion of countries that haven't harmed us, torture, murder, no I don't support these things

And if you do aka support the troops then you have no decency or morals

Now go back to that rock you and your sock puppets crawl to when you've been bested.

Get now!

[Taverner]

81. Do you get off on stalking me?

Should I expect chocolates?

[Cleita]

11. I'm still not against guns as a whole, but I am against

unfettered ownership, storage and the use of them. I'm for a well regulated use of guns, which means that not every one will be able to own and use one and those who do will be able to own and use them under limited circumstances.

[aikoaiko]

13. Guns = Murder??? Every time ???

Is this an example of a truthful utterance?

[Curmudgeoness]

18. Guns have one purpose.

Just because every time someone picks up a gun, someone is not murdered, does not take away from the only purpose of guns.

Guns are for the purpose of killing. Even when they are used for target "practice", they are practicing using the gun....to do what else with it?

[aikoaiko]

28. Not all killing is murder. Let's not conflate terms.

I'm not opposed to someone using lethal force to defend themselves or family (with a gun or otherwise).

I'm not opposed to lawful hunting (with a gun or otherwise).

Yes those involve killing but not all killing is morally wrong or illegal.

And some people target shoot for the sake of recreation and competition only -- not to practice for killing.

I understand people's dislike for firearms and desire to enact more restrictions, but hyperbole is lame foundation from to discuss those gun control options.

[Curmudgeoness]

41. Weasel wording, as the OP suggested.

I am not a hard-core anti-gun zealot, but I do not delude myself into thinking that guns are entertainment.

Yes, not all killing is murder, and I was careful in my post not to use the word "murder". I know that guns are used to wage war, and that is not murder....but is still a horror. I do not know anyone personally who target shoots for recreation and competition only...they are also hunters (but I give you that it is possible there are some who do this, although they could easily find another pastime). I know guns are used for hunting, and in this day-and-age, this is not for sustenance but just the thrill of the kill. I know that guns are kept for protection, but that does not mean that the intent is not to kill.

For the record, I have a handgun for protection....although I am not sure that it is the smartest move. And I am aware that if I were to use it, I would be taking a life. In my eyes, killing. In the eyes of the person slain, murder. It is all perspective.

[Lizzie Poppet]

45. Good post.

I would point out, though, that if you do have to use your handgun for self-defense, odds are you won't be killing anyone. You certainly have to behave as if that will occur, since there's still a far-from-remote chance. But even leaving aside defensive usages in which the assailant elects not to continue because of the sight of the firearm (my one DGU was like that, actually), only about one in five non-suicide gunshot wounds are fatal. Modern trauma medicine borders on the miraculous.

My own firearms are for either self-protection or for competitive target shooting. I shoot the former weapons more because I believe it's my responsibly to be in very good practice if I'm going to reply on a firearms for this purpose (and because I enjoy shooting). I haven't been doing a lot of competition shooting lately. I haven't hunted since I was 13 years old, when Dad and I more-or-less simultaneously decided we'd really rather hunt with cameras.

[Taverner]

54. I've made intruders run, twice

Both were petty unarmed burglars and I did so by running and screaming at them

Surprisingly, I wasn't killed, but the stats show most burglars are unarmed

Yes, he was free to commit another crime but he's the one who has to have nightmares of a running, naked, screaming Taverner for the rest of his life.

[Lizzie Poppet]

60. Good on ya!

I'm probably too small for that to be much of a threat to anyone (although there's the "holy shit, she looks crazy...I'm outta here" factor...), but I do think most burglars want to part of a confrontation, armed or otherwise.

[Taverner]

63. Ever see the 30 Rock where Liz dresses like a crazy homeless lady so everyone leaves her alone?

Hilarious

[Flatulo]

72. "... But I do think most burglars want no part of a confrontation, armed or otherwise."

Sounds like you're willing to bet your life on that.

I'm not.

[Lizzie Poppet]

82. Nope.

I accept that it's the higher probability, but any burglar in my home (or attempting to gain entrance, for that matter) while I'm inside will face my 1911. They won't get shot* if they do absolutely nothing to endanger my life and health, but they will face the possibility.

* as mentioned upthread, the one DGU of my life (so far and hopefully ever played out like that: no shots fired

[Flatulo]

89. Yeah, that's the optimal outcome. Still, not one that I ever relish having to deal with. nt

[ret5hd]

76. hi darkangel!!!

:wave:

[Flatulo]

62. Well done, but not all of us are able to fight off intruders.

I'm disabled and couldn't run even two steps, let alone challenge an intruder.

Hell, my dick doesn't even work anymore unless I take a blue pill.

A gun, wielded by a trained hand and within the confines of the law, can equalize one to one's opponent.

[Taverner]

64. Thing is, neither I nor any others are calling for a complete gun ban

Semi Autos? Hell yeah - those have no use other than in war

But I don't see a problem with a med to small caliber six shooter

[Flatulo]

68. Then I misread your OP and apologize.

Although I think semi-autos are fine, but lets limit the magazine capacity to 5, 6, or 7 rounds. No grandfathering. Turn them all in.

If you can't defend yourself with 7 rounds, then you need more training. In fact, the only time a gun should be even brandished is when there is an immediate and grave danger to life and limb. I would never pull to shoot some kid robbing a Quickie mart.

[spin]

106. Strange that I have enjoyed shooting my .22 cal semi-auto target pistols and ...

my target grade 1911 Colt .45 ACP pistols at paper targets on the range for at least 30 years if they are only good for warfare.

Oddly I use revolvers for self defense although I enjoy target shooting with them too.

[GreenStormCloud]

71. You were lucky.

I can easily find news stories of people killed by intruders. In fact, in recent years there have been two couple murdered in their homes by intruders in my small town of 2,000. One couple was stabbed to death, the other couple was bludgeoned to death.

I choose not to trust to luck and be ready for the worst, while hoping that the worst never happens.

[spin]

103. Rounds from handguns are not always lethal. ....

A 12 gauge shotgun loaded with buckshot is far more deadly at close range.

[Curmudgeoness]

123. Yes, that is what I have heard.

And that may be the unconscious reasoning behind my choice. It was suggested that a shotgun would be a better choice to kill an intruder.

[Flatulo]

138. Meh, still wouldn't want to spend my Saturday nite having a 9mm Black Talon picked out of my spine.

Sometimes shooting victims from medium bore rounds are so maimed that they wish they were dead, especially if they're hit near the spine. Which is why one should be absolutely certain that they could shoot an attacker or intruder before arming oneself.

I read quite a few books by Massad Ayoob back in the day, but the one I remember most vividly is "In the Gravest Extreme", where he tells you in great detail what will happen to you even if commit a justifiable shooting.

You'll be arrested and handcuffed.
You'll be charged with assault and battery with a deadly weapon.
You'll be taken to a jail cell and be deprived of your freedom.
You'll burn through your life savings retaining an attorney to defend yourself.

That's what will happen in Massachusetts. Your mileage may vary. But shooting anyone, anywhere is a hell of a life-altering experience. About the only thing that would make it worthwhile is the possible knowledge that you indeed protected your family from a violent and possibly deadly assault.

[spin]

177. That sums up why I hope I NEVER have to use a firearm for self defense. ...

The list left out the often significant psychological problems that can haunt a person who shoots another person even entirely justified.

[Heidi]

206. This should be a thread of its own.

I know many gun owners who haven't thought through the responsibilities associated with gun ownership and the perils of actually using a firearm in self defense.

Thank you for your post.

[Flatulo]

209. Your welcome. I also happen to believe that the statistics do not accurately reflect how often

a handgun is used, without being fired, to dissuade someone from assaulting another, simply because to notify the police that you did in fact even brandish a pistol would be to get yourself arrested and imprisoned.

I know I sure as hell wouldn't report it to the cops, especially here in Massachusetts where the Districts Attorney are at open warfare with licensed gun owners. They lost the concealed carry battle, but openly declared their intentions to make life absolutely unbearable for CCW holders. I know of one CCW who did 6 months in Essex County for merely opening his jacket to show a pistol butt. This was in a bar, and was a very bad idea. He should have left the premises and taken his chances outside, where at least if he was pursued, he would have had a better case. We are NOT a stand your ground state. We are a Must Flee state.

[Flatulo]

215. Bravo on the marksmanship training, especially considering the circumstances under which you

received it.

I think I've posted here a few times regarding how difficult it is to hit something with a handgun even 15 to 20 feet away, especially in the higher calibers like .357 Mag. A friend of mine bought a small-frame magnum and I could not even shoot the damned thing. It was like having my hand whacked with a sledgehammer - literally excruciating. A really stupid, stupid pistol to carry. It was much more manageable in .38 special.

I appreciate your thoughts on this matter. I certainly do not worship guns in any sense of the word, but I do appreciate the engineering that goes into them. I used to enjoy some time at the rage, but ammo is now so expensive and I'm living on 1/4 of what I used to earn, so that's an activity I can't afford anymore. My guns are always secured in a sturdy safe with a combo lock that, after 20 years, only I still know how to open. I favor banning large-capacity magazines with prison sentences for those who do not turn them in. Any ban has to have teeth in it.

[sanatanadharma]

30. The sole reason for the existence of guns is truely as you say...

Guns are for killing.
Hunting is killing.
Target shooting is practice to be ready to use the gun for its purpose.
Self-defense is being ready to kill or threaten to kill.
Collecting is fascination with the "cool tool that kills".
2nd amendment is for state sponsored killing because they 'gots lots' of guns (sic)

[spin]

115. Bullseye target shooting is far different than defensive shooting ...

Bullseye shooting is usually at ranges such as 25 or 50 yards. Defensive shooting is at far closer ranges such as 21 feet or less. Defense shooting In bullseye target shooting the use of the weapons sights is extremely important while in defensive shooting you might not have the opportunity to use your sights.

The object in using a firearm for self defense is not to kill but to stop an attack that would lead to you being seriously injured or dead. In most true life situations when the attacker realizes that you are armed he will break off his attack. If you do shoot an attacker with the typical handgun there is an excellent chance that he will survive.

[Lordquinton]

197. You can use guns for target shooting

but that is not their intended purpose.

[Flatulo]

44. If that killing is in the cause of self- defense, then it is both legally and morally justified.

Unless you value the rights of another to deprive you of your life more than you value your right to deny him that opportunity. This whole issue was settled when the Magna Carta was signed.

In such cases I am reminded of the line from 'Fight Club' regarding '...pandas who would not fuck to save their own species'.

[NickB79]

127. Guns have one purpose

Propelling a piece of lead out of the barrel in the direction the barrel is aimed. Where that gun is aimed, and at what, is solely up to the person holding it.

Even when they are used for target "practice", they are practicing using the gun....to do what else with it?

Uh, hit smaller and smaller targets and get higher and higher scores It's like saying that someone practicing swinging a baseball bat is only doing so to crack a few skulls in the future.

But it's good to know that people like the US Olympic Biathlon Team are actually training to do some sky-by shootings on the slopes of Vail

[Flatulo]

139. Target shooting is fun, but too expensive unless your shooting .22 cal, or doing your own reloads.

I actually think ammo should be cheaper, so that people spend more time at the range learning how to shoot. As it is, I think a lot of people who buy a pistol take it home and throw it in a drawer.

[Warren Stupidity]

75. when (or if) the upset over massacre(s) dies down here

the gungeoneers will go back to their normal mode of celebrating every use of firearms to kill other humans, every new deregulation of gun usage, every example of RKBA absolutists expressing their right to walk around like a goddamn hollywood cowboy in some grossly inappropriate place.

It is only when it becomes embarrassing to be so over the top in gun nuttery that the gungeoneers reign it in.

[aikoaiko]

95. People who support the RKBA are devastated by the massacre, too.

There's no need to belittle current attempts to compromise or discuss meaningful regulations.

[Warren Stupidity]

96. Sorry but the pattern has been repeated too often for me to buy that.

Most of the devastation appears to be of the "OMFG this might actually result in new regulations" variety.

[aikoaiko]

148. Sure some people, including me, are concerned about maintaining a civil liberty even as...

...we all try to make an effort to reduce gun violence.

Some useful legislation may come out of all this, but we'll see.

[LynneSin]

17. NRA doesn't care about the 2nd amendment

Their goal - profits for the gun manufacturers

[Deep13]

80. It's a 1-sentence amendment and they have managed to convince...

...hundreds of millions of people that it does not say what it says.

They ignore the entire first half which is about regulated bodies of armed men protecting STATE (nothing about individual) security. Then they use the modern, colloquial definition of "people" instead of the traditional, literal definition. "People" is not the plural of "person," it is a singular, collective noun like "group" or "army." There's nothing about individual rights in there.

[Flatulo]

91. I'd read some arguments that whenever the Framers used "the People" in either the body

of the Constitution or in the Bill of Rights, the intention was to speak to individuals, not the people collectively, so why, would the 2A be different?

[bongbong]

119. Get a clue

Read Federalist Paper #29. Besides defining "well-regulated" in a way the NRA HATES, it also discusses the chaos that would occur if you had a bunch of untrained yahoos running around with guns.

Very prophetic, those Founding Fathers.

[Flatulo]

130. But Hamitlon wrote in Federalist #28...

"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual State. In a single State, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."

Clearly there is some cherry-picking that can be done.

All my professors were of the opinion. Long before Heller, that the 2A conferred an individual right. Of course, I went to engineering school, but we did have a humanities requirement.

[bongbong]

185. LOL

The cherry-picked excerpt you picked from 28 has nothing to do with the militia, instead it is a general hypothetical about states vs federal power. It says nothing remotely relating to the words in the 2nd Amendment.

Nice try. But NRA Talking Points fall apart. Always.

As for your anecdote about your professors' feelings about the meaning of the 2nd Amendment, it is simple hearsay and thus worthless. If you don't understand what that means, I'll illustrate it.

"I went to the greatest law school in history. All my professors were SCOTUS justices. They all agreed with me that the 2nd Amendment was about a collective right."

[Flatulo]

187. The current SCOTUS has ruled that the 2A is both an individual right as well as

speaking to self defense.

So, LOL right back atcha. If and when a future SCOTUS overturns Heller, then you can bleat all you like and I'll just grin and suck it up.

Until then, Heller is the law of the land, and it doesn't matter what I, or even you think.

[bongbong]

220. Right wing fucks infesting DU

Anybody who agrees with super-right-wing opinions from dopes like Scalia should stay on Freeperland where they belong.

[Flatulo]

222. 'Scuse me? That's not a very nice thing to say.

I'm a donating longtime member here.

Do yourself a favor and set me to Ignore.

[bongbong]

223. Not directed at you

My post is not directed at anyone in particular, and in fact reflects the TOS of DU. It is, after all, DEMOCRATIC underground.

[Flatulo]

224. But surely you realize that President Obama has acknowledged that the 2A

confers an individual right? Surely you don't consider him a R/W fuck?

Look, I know this is a very very contentious debate. For the record, I strongly support an AWB and magazine capacity limits of 5 to 7 rounds, including limits on how many magazines one may possess. I am not what anyone would consider a 'gun nut'. I don't know if you support that, or if you favor total confiscation of all guns, but you should know that that just isn't going to happen. Never, ever, ever.

[Deep13]

158. Like where else in the original Constitution or BOR? nt

[Flatulo]

173. Well sir, right in the 1A...

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That, I believe, is clearly an individual right, i.e., not reserved to the states. When they mean the States, they say the States.

And here again in the 4A:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

I also believe the word 'regulated' means exactly what it says. The gov can restrict the types or numbers of firearms that can be kept. So I have no problems with band on assault-style magazines or high capacity magazines.

[Deep13]

188. I figured you'ld point to the 4th.

And the people as a whole have a right to be secure from unreasonable searches and seizures, but individually, personas and houses can be searched on warrants.

person, persons. people, peoples. basic grammar. "People" is singular.

"Regulated" refers to militias, not weapons or persons, although a militia is made out of persons and weapons.

There is a line of thinking that says that "people" in the original Constitution (We the people) and the BOR does not refer to everyone who lived in the new USA, but literally the persons who signed the DOI and the Constitution. In other words the white, Protestant, rich ruling class. It did not include women, non-property owners, non-Protestants (except for MD), and non-whites. Think on it. Are slaves part of "We the People?" Are Indians? Are Irish laborers? What about women who could not vote or own property in their own names? Are they part of "we the people?" Among actual historians who study colonial and post-colonial USA, the census is that those involved in the 2nd Continental Congress and the early Federal period saw the Revolution as removing one rich, white patriarchy--the king--and replacing him with themselves. It was not until the Jackson presidency that a lot of people thought that the USA should be democratic.

[Flatulo]

210. Respectfully disagree with this.

"And the people as a whole have a right to be secure from unreasonable searches and seizures, but individually, personas and houses can be searched on warrants. "

No, you - as an individual person, are protected against unreasonable searches and seizures. The key word here is unreasonable. A warrant gives the government the right to stop you and search you, but the burden of evidence is on the government. There has to be an indication that you have committed, or are about to commit, a crime. You are completely free to go about your business without being hassled by the police. (As a practical matter, this is not entirely true for many minorities, but the authorities who hassle people because of their appearance are in violation of the law).

The point is, that the entire BoR restricts the government from infringing on the stated rights of individuals. When the Constitution means the States, it says States. When it means individuals, it says "the people".

At least that's my opinion. The SCOTUS agrees with me, at least for now. A future court could rule differently, but that is extremely unlikely due to the tremendous deference shown toward precedent. The only hope for people who wish to ban guns altogether is another amendment to repeal the 2 nd. And that's not bloody likely unless all the southern states secede. And we know how that ended the last time.

[Lizzie Poppet]

19. I strongly disagree about the relative merits of the respective research.

Not that the studies that end up with pro-gun-rights conclusions aren't often flawed in their data collection phase methodologies in the ways you assert. They frequently are. However, the anti-gun studies, while more often sound in data methodology, frequently break down in their analytic phase. That is to say, they are epistemologically weak: they do not rigorously support what they conclude that the data means. A common problem in science in general, actually...and a reason that the field of philosophy of science is making rapid inroads into the review process.

No one on either side is lying to me, I assure you. At least not successfully. This is what I do.

[farminator3000]

22. research this

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/07/gun-deaths-a-familiar-american-experience/

Among the world’s 23 wealthiest countries, 80 percent of all gun deaths are American deaths and 87 percent of all kids killed by guns are American kids.

[Lizzie Poppet]

24. Not telling me a thing I don't already know.

I'm not arguing that the US doesn't have a problem with gun-related violence, despite that trend actually moving downward. It's still absurdly high. That wasn't remotely my point. My point was that shoddy research occurs frequently on both sides of the gun control debate.

[farminator3000]

26. BS post a link to some anti gun control thing that isn't a complete crock.

i dare you

[Flatulo]

49. This hasn't been normalized to population size, so it's deceptive.

I know the US is still #1 by any metric one cares to use, but when one relies on obviously disingenuous statistics sun as this one, the truth is not served.

[farminator3000]

84. normalize this

In America, over one dozen guns are legally sold every minute of every day.

same link.

The National Rifle Association is quick to associate more guns with less crime, saying that since the early ’90s, when many states relaxed their weapon laws, violent crime has dropped 70 percent. Despite the rampages on campuses and military bases, as well as the hail of gang bullets in Chicago that has killed over 200 so far this year, the national murder rate is at a 47-year-low.

But on the other side of the argument, the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, a non-profit organization, points out that Americans still kill each other with guns at a level that is staggering compared to the rest of humanity.

A study in the Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery found that the gun murder rate in the U.S. is almost 20 times higher than the next 22 richest and most populous nations combined.

same link

do you notice how it DOES NOT say non-profit after it says NRA?

[Flatulo]

88. Sorry, I missed that. Sloppy on my part.

Obviously the murder rate here is ridiculously high.

Is it also ridiculously high when the murder weapon in a knife, bat or shod foot?

I'm trying to understand if there is something uniquely violent about just being American.

[farminator3000]

97. s'ok, flats..

The cities with the highest crime rates tend to have particularly high poverty rates, high unemployment and low median income. Two of the worst-off cities, Flint and Detroit, Mich., both have had well-publicized budget woes. Flint was taken over by an emergency city manager after failing to pay its bills in 2011. Detroit is facing similar budget problems and recently came to a temporary oversight agreement with the state.
http://www.nbcnews.com/business/most-dangerous-cities-america-832351

poverty isn't unique to us but maybe cutting police budgets is?

good question!

[Flatulo]

129. Supposedly Clinton's community policing efforts contributed meaningfully to the drop

in violent crime we saw in the last 15 or so years. More cops certainly seems to me to be a good idea, since people tend tom behave around them.

[Flatulo]

134. I also wonder about the combination of our high demand and punitive penalties for drug use.

Lots of young minority males go to into prison as minor offenders and emerge as violent adults. I'd rather keep them out of prison in the first place by making more opportunities available for universal higher education and inner-city jobs programs. 'Course we seem to have pissed away a few trillion dollars on wars...

Do we have stats for how many gun deaths are due to gang/street violence vs daddy shooting little Billy because he jumped out and yelled "Surprise!", i.e., purely accidental?

Not that either is OK, but the causes are vastly different as should be the solutions.

[farminator3000]

25. e·pis·te·mol·o·gy MY ASS.

e·pis·te·mol·o·gy (-pst-ml-j)
n.
The branch of philosophy that studies the nature of knowledge, its presuppositions and foundations, and its extent and validity.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2074487

THAT is KNOWLEDGE? go away.

the guy is completely right, and i commend him for his actions.

[Lizzie Poppet]

27. Priceless.

Start with vulgarity.
Follow up with completely irrelevant link.
Add inane strawman.
Conclude with completely unsupported assertion of fact.

Trust me, you shouldn't be making an issue of logic or philosophical principles to anyone. In any case, you certainly won't be doing so to me: welcome to ignore. I have zero patience with this sort of buffoonery these days.

[farminator3000]

31. awesome!

thanks!

[Taverner]

59. Can you cite some examples? Studies?

I'll see if I can dig up mine.

Most of the pro-gun studies I've seen tend to conflate causation and correlation too quickly, and tend not use the same numbers the rest of us use.

[janx]

167. True, Lizzie.

The shoddy analytical skills (or beginning with a false premise) can and does corrupt any presentation of data. The more politically charged the topic, the more this seems to occur.

[Curmudgeoness]

21. It takes a big person to admit they were wrong.

I congratulate you on doing your own research instead of listening to pre-programmed talking points, and for admitting that there is another side to the argument, and that they have valid points.

Welcome to the light.

[judesedit]

38. If you don't like being lied to, don't turn on FAUX noise.That's all they do and they're proud of it

I know I wouldn't have a gun in my house either while growing up or while married. Too many bad tempers going on. Thankfully, we've all calmed down and are all still here.

Irrational thinking leads to irrational action.

[Taverner]

55. Irrational thinking leads to irrational action.

Exactly

[spin]

116. I feel you made a wise decision as firearms are not for everybody. I should point out ...

that I am a gun owner who enjoys target shooting handguns and I have a concealed weapons permit.

[DirkGently]

39. It is, specifically, the irrational NRA gun cultism, that is the problem.

Last edited Sat Dec 29, 2012, 05:41 PM - Edit history (1)

Not the hunters or plinkers or country people or ex-cops or military. There are rational conversations to be had about arms and the Constitution, and public safety.

What is getting in the way is the CRAZY TALK. LaPierre calling ATF jack-booted Nazis out to murder Americans. Claiming that registration is a government conspiracy to take guns.

All of those misleading / misused / deliberately misunderstood rhetorical nuggets about how we'd all just kill each other with steak knives and armed society is polite society and how crime goes down when you shoot people for stealing.

The whole NRA cult of crazy is built for one thing -- to SCARE people into BUYING lots of guns and lots of ammo.

First thing we do, we need to stuff that batshit organization into a hole and seal it up. The sportsmen and hunters and target shooters need to start over with a new organization that just cuts all the crazy right the fuck out.

Then we can talk about this stuff, and maybe get somewhere.

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

43. Yessiree! You are correct, and well said.

[billh58]

48. +1000

Well said, and right on point. The NRA, and its right-wing lunatic fringe followers, ARE the problem in this country. We need to target politicians who have been "endorsed" by the NRA, for replacement on BOTH sides of the aisle at all levels of government. As long as the NRA buys and owns our politicians, they will continue to be a cancer on our society.

[farminator3000]

110. i see your +1000 and... i'm all in

http://www.policymic.com/articles/21430/the-top-5-politicians-in-the-pocket-of-the-nra

i don't know what state you're in, but spread that around

careful, #5 is a real stomach-churner.

start your own thread with that!

bet you're pretty dangerous @ the poker table too!

[Taverner]

52. Exactamundo

[farminator3000]

108. nail. head. bang!

i don't know where you live, but pass this around.

http://www.policymic.com/articles/21430/the-top-5-politicians-in-the-pocket-of-the-nra

#5 made me barf in my mouth a little...

$500,000 for mc cain, and AZ has the WORST murder rate? um.

[anchovy]

131. The term 'jackbooted thugs' was invented by the left after Waco and Ruby Ridge and a few other

incidents. I absolutely agreed then, and I do now...did the BATF suddenly become the good guys a couple years ago? It's awfully hard to keep up without a script.

[farminator3000]

137. how many times did they invent it? 3? 4? or maybe it was your boss

ruby ridge '92
waco '93

if you can read the stuff after that excerpt and not puke, good for you. go away. nice 2nd post!

In a fundraising letter to NRA members, dated April 13, 1995, NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre called the federal officials who enforce U.S. gun laws “jack-booted government thugs.”

LaPierre tied the phrase to a Clinton-administration law that banned certain semi-automatic weapons. He wrote:

“…the semiauto-auto ban gives jack-booted government thugs more power to take away our constitutional rights, break in our doors, seize our guns, destroy our property, and even injure or kill us.”

The last part of that sentence conjured up images of the fatal confrontations between officials from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms and Randy Weaver’s family at Ruby Ridge, Idaho in 1992 and with the Branch Davidians at Waco, Texas in 1993.

LaPierre’s use of the phrase “jack-booted government thugs” was his metaphorical way of likening BATF officials to....
http://www.thisdayinquotes.com/2012/04/wayne-lapierre-vs-jack-booted.html

http://www.thisdayinquotes.com/2012/04/wayne-lapierre-vs-jack-booted.html

[anchovy]

164. I'm going to be charitable and assume you are young. The term was coined after the

Kent State killings in 1970 when some college kids protested Nixon's invasion of Cambodia and were assassinated by soldiers ...using...assault weapons.

[farminator3000]

169. bullshit

prove it.

how hard is is to type words into google, you fool?

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

As an allegory
Totalitarianism

The word is commonly used in Britain as a synonym for totalitarianism, particularly fascism, although jackboots and similar types of footwear have been worn by various British regiments since the 18th century (see Wellington Boot, origins). Following the 1982 invasion of the Falkland Islands, British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher declared that the democratic rights of the Falkland Islanders had been assaulted, and would not surrender the islands to the Argentine "jackboot."

In 1995, National Rifle Association (NRA) Executive Vice-president Wayne LaPierre sparked controversy when he referred to federal agents as "jackbooted government thugs"; the comment caused former U.S. President George H.W. Bush to cancel his lifetime membership in the organization. The resignation of so public a figure as Mr. Bush prompted an open letter from the association to the former president to be published in major newspapers; the letter included a litany of alleged and settled cases of Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms abuses and an assertion that LaPierre and the NRA were merely borrowing a well-worn phrase uttered by other public figures in their calls for reform of the agency, among them Representative John Dingell of Michigan.[8]

[DirkGently]

180. Really? My recollection was that it was the right that imploded

after Waco & Ruby Ridge. Militia types railed that Clinton and Janet Reno unfairly targeted a white supremacist and a gun-hording child molester with a Jesus complex, as I recall. Who "on the left" has compared ATF to Nazis?

[farminator3000]

184. you said it!

they imploded AND exploded..a whole damn building

[farminator3000]

183. i remember it well, '95. no kent state. wrong wrong wrong and WRONG! no waco, no ruby nothing

you have a script, it just sucks.

so...which one was it again? really?

it wasn't your BOSS in 1995?

why are you defending him so badly then?

he was playing off the PARANOIA OF waco and shit. are you down with koresh, too?

did you miss this little...appropriation of historical imagery here? what's that last word after "BATF officials to..."

and then it says six days later there was a building blown up in oklahoma? remember THAT?


In a fundraising letter to NRA members, dated April 13, 1995, NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre called the federal officials who enforce U.S. gun laws “jack-booted government thugs.”

LaPierre tied the phrase to a Clinton-administration law that banned certain semi-automatic weapons. He wrote:

“…the semiauto-auto ban gives jack-booted government thugs more power to take away our constitutional rights, break in our doors, seize our guns, destroy our property, and even injure or kill us.”

The last part of that sentence conjured up images of the fatal confrontations between officials from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms and Randy Weaver’s family at Ruby Ridge, Idaho in 1992 and with the Branch Davidians at Waco, Texas in 1993.

LaPierre’s use of the phrase “jack-booted government thugs” was his metaphorical way of likening BATF officials to....

http://www.thisdayinquotes.com/2012/04/wayne-lapierre-vs-jack-booted.html

[Chorophyll]

47. K&R. The gun industry is an industry. Just like the tobacco industry. Just like the oil industry.

Why anyone would think the gun industry has OUR best interests at heart is beyond me. Needs as much regulation (if not more, because it produces weapons) as any other industry.

[dkf]

56. I did a 180 the opposite way.

I used to think it was perfectly fine for the government to do things like take away guns because I didn't like guns and I didn't want them anywhere near me.

Then I realized how seriously other people take their guns, and how they would view the government if we took away what they feel is a right.

And then I decided it is better to not alienate gun owners from their government because having that many people despise government is more dangerous than gun deaths.

My way of life depends on a society that respects government.

I do believe we should be able to prevent those who should not have guns from possessing them. I am not sure how to do that though.

[Taverner]

57. Interesting hypothesis.

Not sure if I agree, but yes, gun nuts are scary

I almost think it qualifies as mental illness

[dkf]

69. People who believe their rights are being violated can be amazingly single minded and intense.

Most women believe they have a right to choose. Threaten those rights and they too can be as single minded as any gun owner.

The right to be married...you call it a "civil union" and still it cuts to the soul.

Rights are very personal and violation of them causes outrage and alienation and a feeling of not being respected by government.

I personally haven't needed the right to bear arms, to choose to have an abortion, or to marry someone of the same sex, but I can see the same passions within each community. Are they all crazy? I don't think so.

[yewberry]

186. Most people realize that Constituttional rights are limited and regulated. Except the 2A folks.

The gun-rights advocates' response to the tragedies in the past couple of weeks has been more of the same: stonewalling. They have all the rights and yet they pretend they are being persecuted.

Those of us whose life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness are at risk by the hobbies of gun-rights advocates should also be afforded the same leeway-- we are outraged and alienated, and the gun-rights advocates hold all the cards in this political dialogue. AGAIN. The government and the gun-rights lobbying groups do not respect us. They are again completely unwilling to make ANY kind of compromise on this issue, and pretend that they are patriots protecting liberty with their insistent 'cold, dead hands' rhetoric.

So if you feel more sympathy for the poor, beleaguered gun-rights folks who have all of the rights than those of us who don't have an interested lobbying group on our behalf, so be it. But really, those poor, threatened gun-rights advocates run the table, and you know it.

[dkf]

198. Doesn't the Brady campaign lobby?

[yewberry]

208. Here's a chart.

What do you think?

[billh58]

79. There's that NRA

talking point again: "I used to think it was perfectly fine for the government to do things like take away guns because I didn't like guns and I didn't want them anywhere near me."

Not one single person in a position to introduce, vote on, or debate legislation aimed at gun control has ever even mentioned taking all guns away. That is an NRA myth aimed at introducing fear of the "jack booted" government in order to bolster their membership of crazies, and attract Koch Brothers sponsorship money. The majority of DU members feel the same way.

What is happening now, after the pubic has had enough of the carnage, is that sensible gun owners, and the majority on the non-gun owning people in the USA, are calling for stricter gun control. That will include the tight control of certain rapid fire weapons, registration of all guns, and requiring background checks for all gun sales -- including private sales. The NRA and its lunatic followers will fight these initiatives with all of the money the Koch Brothers can give them, but we can, and will, beat them. The pendulum has begun to swing toward sanity about gun control.

[dkf]

85. I don't read what the NRA puts out, but I do read DU.

Maybe you need to talk to DUers.

[billh58]

92. I talk to DU-ers every day

and yes, there are a few who are calling for a total ban on all guns, but not that many in the general scheme of things. They are in fact, evened out by the NRA/Gungeoneers who are calling for no regulation ("cold, dead hands&quot whatsoever. The smart money is on strict, but fair, legislation which will be aimed at responsibility and accountability as determined by a majority of reasonable Americans. As I pointed out, no one in a position to actually introduce or vote on gun control legislation has called for the total banning of guns.

The 2nd Amendment, and even Heller, does not prohibit the strict regulation and control of who can have a gun, what they can use it for, where they can "keep" it, or where they can "bear" it. There will be howls from the right-wing NRA/Gungeon crowd, but our country is being torn apart by gun violence, and it needs to stop. Less guns, and less availability to guns, is the answer.

[dkf]

104. And what do you think the OP is espousing?

[billh58]

107. I just re-read the post

and it appears to me that the OP has discovered that the NRA lies (no surprise for many of us), and that there is a need for more regulation. I couldn't find one reference in the OP to "taking away all guns."

[dkf]

109. "Guns = murder Every time"

I don't know how you interpret that as a moderate appeal for sensible gun regulation but if that is how you see it then so be it.

[billh58]

117. I see it as calling a spade a spade...

Pointing out that "guns = murder, every time" is not a call for the total ban of all guns, at least not to me. It IS a strong statement, and one I believe that needs to be made in order to counter the NRA's "more guns are the answer." More guns = more gun violence, and where does it end?

Passions are high on both sides of this issue, but I think that it's good thing that the gun control contingent is finally becoming passionate enough to voice their opinions -- as loudly and often as they can. If there is anything that would be helpful to ban, it would be the corporate right-wing influence that the NRA has over too many politicians from both sides of the aisle. Unfortunately, the only way to accomplish that would be to vote their favored politicians out of office.

Incidentally, keep in mind that it was the exact same right-wing 5-4 SCOTUS traitors which gave us Citizens United, and Heller, making it two out of two for the neoconservative right-wingers.

[dkf]

118. Keep murder legal but regulated?

Well if that works for you.

[billh58]

121. Wow!

I don't see how you gleaned that from anything either I, or the OP said. How in the hell can you "keep murder legal" when it never has been? Murder is murder, and guns contribute greatly to the number and frequency of murders in this country. Regulating guns more stringently will hopefully help to reduce the number of murders made possible by the current state of easy access to guns by almost anyone.

I don't mind discussing this with you rationally, but please don't go all Gungeon on me here and attribute things to me that I didn't say or even imply. Yes I want to see much stronger regulation and control of guns. No I don't want to see a total ban on ALL weapons -- just the ones which were designed specifically for military use, and serve absolutely no purpose in civilian hands except to kill other civilians.

[dkf]

125. I don't see how you interpret guns = murder every time into

Keeping guns legal but regulated. How does that follow?

[billh58]

128. Oh, I see what you did there.

Yes, that would be a logical conclusion if that were indeed what the OP meant literally, but somehow I don't think that it was. If that is what you really want to take away from the OP's message, that is your absolute right and I will not bother you anymore.

I'm beginning to get the feeling that there is some background here that I am totally unaware of, and I really don't want to antagonize you any further.

Have a nice day, and be well...

[dkf]

166. No it's okay. I just think it follows logically.

I think you have the right idea of the legislative limitations but from the quote i was posting I would say that is not where the OP is and that was my entire point.

[anchovy]

136. If Scotus finds 5-4 against DOMA and PROP 8 will we still hate them?

I'm trying to keep score here...

[anchovy]

143. I'm starting to love this place where dissenting opinions are so very welcome.

Thank you from the bottom of my heart, "Bubba".

[billh58]

176. If you can still read this "Bubba"

enjoy your pizza, but I have no doubt that you'll be back. I believe that this is at least your second or third incarnation as a professional troll, but you know what? You twits are fun to play with...

[farminator3000]

145. you crack me up...

[farminator3000]

142. leave the man alone

he's a veteran. go away, you are bad at this.

[anchovy]

144. You know something?...I'm a REAL veteran. I swore to uphold the Constitution of

the United States of America and I'm pretty goddamned sure that includes the Bill of Rights.

[farminator3000]

147. you better not mess with bill, i think he's got ya on that one. maybe you were, but

who knows? maybe you and bill know each other.

that'd be funny!

[anchovy]

149. It wouldn't be all that strange...I have lots of batshit nuts friends.

By the way, I was shooting guns when most of the antigun pearl-clutchers around here were just gleams in the milkman's eye.
Not one of them ever jumped up and started firing by itself, or injured one single person. Varmints and a few deer were not quite so lucky.

[farminator3000]

154. so where'd you fight?

as a veteran, i mean?

[anchovy]

157. Viet Nam

I actually met John Kerry there.

[farminator3000]

161. oh, really? prove it. where is it?

why don't you talk to somebody that agrees with you? why argue? don't they teach you how to argue in the army? you aren't that good

[farminator3000]

172. lying to a veteran about being a veteran is pretty weak

that's all.

[billh58]

155. And you know what Bubba, I get the feeling that you're a plant too.

Piss off and go join your Gungeon buddies...

[billh58]

153. Ooh, a REAL veteran. My, my, aren't you special Bubba?

Now run along and play with your NRA/Gungeon right-winger buddies and tell each other heroic war stories about how you're going to protect us from our scary old Liberal government with your big old guns.

Bub bye Bubba...

[Jenoch]

178. "Calling for no regulation whatsoever"

is gun-grabber hyperbole in the extreme.

[farminator3000]

151. maybe being more specific than 'guns' would allow you to form an argument

And then I decided it is better to not alienate gun owners from their government because having that many people despise government is more dangerous than gun deaths.
My way of life depends on a society that respects government.


your way of life depends on a society that WORSHIPS guns but DOESN'T respect them.

if a woman can choose what to do with her body then why can't two women (lesbians, get it)?

have fun with that one!

[Flatulo]

58. Guns = murder Every time

This statement is nonsense.

If it were even remotely factual, there would have been, at minimum, 300,000,000 murders in the US since its inception.

There have been guns in my family going back three generations. Not a one has ever been so much as brandished in anger.

Talk about the NRA being over the top with it's talking points...

By all means, lets have an intelligent discussion on guns. There are far too many of the wrong kinds, accessible to the wrong people.

By all means, lets get rid of assault-style weapons and high capacity magazines that serve no purpose in hunting, sport or self-defense. Lets check the hell out of people who want to acquire any kind of firearm. Lets stop the straw-man purchases and gun show loopholes.

But lets separate fact from fiction. There are strong people who will take advantage of the weak. Wielded properly, with training, guns can neutralize that advantage. I don't know how many times per year that actually happens, and I don't really care. If it happens even once, then possession of the defensive weapon is morally and legally justified. I won't let anyone deprive me of the right to preserve my own life and the lives of my family.

I'll give up my gun when everyone else, and that includes all the bad guys, give up theirs.

Ain't gonna happen.

[Taverner]

61. Yes, guns are so helpful as cooking tools and gardening insturments

The other day I was digging a radish bed with my AR 15...and it worked way better than a shovel.

Seriously, what else is a gun good for besides killing?

[Flatulo]

65. "Seriously, what is a gun good for besides killing?"

It can be pretty useful at preventing one from getting killed. Most often by merely being present. As you noted, most burglars are unarmed.

In such a situation, I would prefer to have the advantage.

But that's just me, and I value my life much more than the life of an intruder.

[anchovy]

152. It's terribly difficult to imagine anyone more dedicated to "gun control" than

someone who wants to rob, terrorize, maim, rape or otherwise victimize someone else.

[Flatulo]

168. Excellent point. I'd never thought of it that way. But

I am reminded of something I'd learned a while back... the feudal Japanese Samurai were the only members of society who were allowed to carry weapons. So the peasants and farmers learned how to make weapons out of other things, like sticks and farm implements. And thus the martial arts were born.

[anchovy]

146. Thank you. I still can't figure out how leaving people defenseless is a 'progressive' value.

[BeyondGeography]

67. If you own a gun for non-sporting reasons, the odds are against you

It is far more likely to be used accidentally, against someone you know in anger or on yourself than in constructive self-defense. That's one reason why most people don't have one.

[Flatulo]

70. "That's one reason why most people don't have one."

And that's certainly a choice that most people make.

I'm not too concerned about the statistics. My personal choice, and legal right, is to keep a handgun for defensive purposes. I'm OK with limits on magazine count and capacity. But I retain the moral option of choosing to defend my life, with lethal force if necessary, against someone who wants to rob me of it.

When society stops producing people who insist on violating the rights of others, then I'll stop owning one.

[GreenStormCloud]

83. Not true for legal gun owners.

It is certainly true that violent criminals who also have guns are extremely high risk of gun accidents and of using the gun in anger. But ordinary, legal gun owners don't do that. Ordinary people don't fly into violent temper rages. Criminology is a very well studied field and it is well known that murder is almost never a person's first violent offense.

Suicide is a separate issue. Guns don't radiate a "kill yourself" mind control field. People become suicidal for various reasons and a gun is an efficent way of doing it. Without a gun they will simply choose an alternate means. Suicide was invented with the invention of guns.

A person who has lived a law-abiding life is very safe with a gun. Criminals aren't safe, either to be one or to live with one.

[Deep13]

73. The theater shooting made me skeptical...

...and the grade school shooting was the last straw. I could not help noticing that a real rash of mass shootings happened after the AWB expired. Granted Columbine happened earlier as did the DC sniper case.

As far as the gun lobby goes, I knew they were lying when they demonized the UN small arms trafficking treaty. I realized then that they really do represent gun makers and not NRA members. Plus, I was disgusted by their association with Ted Nugent, Sarah Palin, and Oliver North. They could have taken the lead following the CT shooting and defined the issues and laid out a plan of sensible action while still protecting the interests of their members. Instead we got "good guy with a gun." Jesus, really?

Unfortunately, however sound the logic seems, the evidence does not support the position that an armed society is safer from crime than an unarmed one. I still think that a person ought to consider being armed if he or she is in real danger of criminal assault--not everyone can fight off or run from an attacker or move out of a high crime area--but as a general proposition, unarmed societies are less likely to view violence as a solution to problems. As far as good guys with guns go, AFAIK, none of the mass shooters had records so their was no way to know they were "bad guys." Besides, Ft. Hood was a fucking army base full of armed soldiers! The shooting injuring Rep. Gifford and a killing a judge had Secret Service present.

It's the reaction time that prevents the NRA logic from being a reflection of reality. The "good guy with a gun" will either be target #1 or else will not have time to react before the bad guy can empty a 30-round magazine into a crowd.

Now, unlike the OP, I enjoy shooting as a hobby. I've shot a lot of paper targets. I don't hunt or carry concealed and have never had to threaten anyone, much less shoot anyone, alhamduallah. But those stick on paper targets that change color when shot--they're living on borrowed time. I'm a little concerned that new restrictions might cut into my hobby, but it is only a concern, not an obsession. If it happens--shrug--I'm sure I'll live.

[GreenStormCloud]

86. The soldiers at Ft. Hood were not armed.

I have nine years active duty experience. Soldiers only carry guns and live ammo if the duty assignment specifically calls for it. Only the MPs were armed. The other soldiers were unarmed. The shooter was stopped by MPs with guns.

Rep. Gifford did not have Secret Service present. They only guard presidential candidates and presidents and vice presidents. They don't guard every member of Congress.

[Deep13]

162. Interesting, thanks. nt

[Jenoch]

181. It was a civilian policeman, Sergeant

Mark Todd who shot and incapacitated the Ft. Hood shooter.

[GreenStormCloud]

200. Thanks. N/T

[farminator3000]

87. thanks, that was totally cool!

for someone like you, a target license will be like a hunting license, hopefully...

could you add that here if you feel so inclined? i'm a farmer (you prob. guessed) and bill is a veteran. thanks

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022074455

[Deep13]

189. you can cut and paste it with attribution. nt

[villager]

74. Weasels and liars!? Among a crowd that obsesses over implements of violence and dismisses...

....the massacre of children!? Who woulda thought....

(Actually, given the subject matter, maybe that smilie is out of place)

(And no offense to actual weasals, however...)

[libodem]

94. NPR

Had an excellent discussion with an expert. He was saying that statistics regarding what gun, shows up in what ever crime, are not allowed to be made public, because facts kill the NRA talking points everytime. They have legislated that the FBI, be hamsrung, in regard to information. Public information should at least be published to counter act the nuts at Faux. All the corporate broadcast meganoplies have a dog in this fight.

Follow the money.

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

105. That one group of lobbiests should be allowed to, in effect, issue such a gag order is appalling.

The NRA, like the RW in general, has a very limited idea of freedom.

[libodem]

120. yep

Just tack it on to the last page of some other piece of legislation, and snake it through.

[Care Acutely]

113. Suicides, terroristic intimidation, violence, accidents, murder, bystander deaths

Spree killers, "friendly fire," gun culture, disposable urban youth, kids finding loaded weapons, gun show loopholes . . . yeah. Enough already. Just, enough.

Thank you taverner.

[Warren DeMontague]

122. I've always been creeped out by guns, and probably more inclined towards greater regulation of them.

That said, until recently it hasn't been a front-burner issue for me, because I am ordinarily sympathetic to personal choice arguments (on issues like drugs, etc) and because I'm aware of the political considerations which have caused (in times past) our party to not press Gun Control as a Federal Issue.

But I've changed my mind. Enough is more than enough.

[NickB79]

126. "Then the killings started. One after another"

It got so bad, reporters couldn't finish up one story about a massacre before they had to start reporting on the next.

Except apparently that's not true:

http://articles.cnn.com/2012-04-03/us/us_us-mass-killings_1_campus-shootings-mass-killings-murder?_s=PM:US

Despite the huge media coverage devoted to them, crime statistics show that there is no upward trend in mass killings -- defined as having four victims or more, not counting terrorism -- since the 1970s, he said.

Campus shootings, such as the Virginia Tech massacre in 2007, or the cluster of school shootings of the 1990s, including Columbine, often attract more attention than multiple killings in other settings.

At Virginia Tech, 23-year-old student Seung-Hui Cho took 32 lives in a solo shooting spree on the Blacksburg campus before killing himself.

In 1999 at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado, 18-year-old Eric Harris and 17-year-old Dylan Klebold killed 12 of their fellow students and a teacher before taking their own lives in the school library.

But despite these high-profile cases, the chances of falling victim to a school or campus shooting are still incredibly slim, Fox said.

"Overall in this country, there is an average of 10 to 20 murders across campuses in any given year," he said. "Compare that to over 1,000 suicides and about 1,500 deaths from binge drinking and drug overdoses."

And also for more discussion of the issue:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/17/graph-of-the-day-perhaps-mass-shootings-arent-becoming-more-common/

[farminator3000]

140. go away you have nothing

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/mass-shootings-mother-jones-full-data

7 in 2012
4 in 2011
1 in 2010

upward trend, go away

[paleotn]

163. I understand the sentiment.....

...but guns do not always = murder. That's an overreaction. Of course the gun lobby lies, Taverner, but lets interject a bit of sanity to this discussion. What exactly are you advocating here? A full and complete ban on all firearms? Might make sense for you urbanites, who get the "creeps" from guns. In a heavily urbanized area, to me that's sensable. In the very rural area in which I live, a total ban doesn't make as much sense, but reasonable changes to current law are needed .

My suggestion is a total ban on semi-automatic weapons in all jurisdictions, both hand guns and long guns. Forget magazine size and assault weapons bans. That's just a knee jerk reaction based on what looks "scary." Instead of a 30 round magazine, 3 10 round mags work nearly as well and can be swapped in a matter of seconds. And not all serious firearms, from a firepower perspective, look "scary" to unfamiliar eyes.

Semi-auto is not a requirement for hunting or target shooting. It would not affect me as a hunter one bit. Yes, I do hunt since I refuse to outsource all my killing. In fact, I've been using the same 20 round box of 30-06 for 3 years now, for both hunting and sighting in my bolt action rifle. I have a box of 30-30 that's even older, since I don't use my lever action rifle all that much. The one common factor in all mass shootings is firepower. The ability to put a significant amount of lead down range quickly. A semi-auto ban eliminates that factor.

[farminator3000]

175. good idea, but ban is strong word

cops, responsible people, target shooters if they keep it at the range, could have semis, stuff like that.

[amuse bouche]

193. Of course they're liars

It's all about money. They don't actually give a rat's arse about anyone's rights

[flvegan]

194. What did you have for dinner tonight, Tav?

[Tuesday Afternoon]

199. no such thing as justifiable homicide in Taverner's World but, there will be cookies and milk!

[Pholus]

202. Ahhhh, so says the "steely eyed missile man!"

In TA's world, bad guys with guns can ONLY be stopped by good guys with guns.

A lack of imagination. When your only tool is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

203. where and when did I ever say such a thing? in my imagination I am flying away from this nonsense.

[Warpy]

207. My own 180 on guns happened when I left Boston

and moved to the high desert in the southern Rockies.

Back in Boston, I despised guns, all guns. I'd faced bad guys with them more than once and I hated the feeling. I never wanted to own one because I knew a lot of the guns the bad guys had were obtained in burglaries.

Out here, I realized that this country is still really wild, bears and cougars a common problem outside the cities and occasionally inside them. People in rural areas don't have Animal Control to call to get the bears out of the trash cans, they need their guns.

I have no problem with long guns that aren't made to hunt people.

I still hate pistols and semi auto guns. There is no reason for either in private hands.

[farminator3000]

228. K&R

I have no problem with long guns that aren't made to hunt people.

nice!

those last two words always make me think of JC VanDamme in Hard Target

[locks]

214. Thank you taverner for a great post

I used to believe we could have a rational discussion with gun owners who considered themselves reasonable, at least the ones who say they only want a gun for hunting and one gun in their home for "self-defense." After living through hundreds of thousands of killings and reading thousands of "studies", newspaper editorials, posts, and comments from our elected officials, I no longer believe we will ever find common ground. After visiting Louisiana where every "debate" ended with the need for more guns, and how much safer we all would be if everyone was armed, I came home to Colorado to find pandemonium at gun shows and the CBI with a two-week backlog of 13,000 background checks and needing a half million dollars just to process the gun buys since the Newtown tragedy.
And in liberal, sane Boulder our local paper has a letter today from a woman who, after attacking our "transformational" President, says: "Sorry, frothing-at-the-mouth anti-gun nuts, but the Second Amendment has never been about duck hunting. It's the inalienable right of free people to defend themselves against despotic government (and lunatics). There's a term for countries where only the military and police have guns: Police State. They can be very safe places to live until the government comes for you."
My only hope now is that we will elect people who have the guts to stop listening to the specious arguments of gun lovers, stop taking money from the NRA and gun manufacturers, and stand up to pass laws which will stop this lunacy. I hope there are enough truly reasonable citizens who will back them.

[farminator3000]

229. i just noticed the OP's update. hmm.

12/30: This thread, so far, has shown the desperation of the gun supporters.

Because something is happening here
But you don't know what it is
Do you, Mister Jones?


Well, you walk into the room
Like a camel and then you frown
You put your eyes in your pocket
And your nose on the ground
There ought to be a law
Against you comin' around
You should be made
To wear earphones...

[Darque Wing]

232. Thanks, Taverner.

Anything less than abolishing the Second Amendment is just pretending to look busy.

That statement has gotten me banned, deleted, censored, and generally kicked out of all sorts of places in the last few weeks. I've never been keen on guns, but after Newtown happened just about twenty miles away from my town, where my daughter is in first grade, I am fully out against the 2nd Amendment and all its supporters - both the NRA hacks and the liberals who run in fear from any mention of the NRA, who tacitly support the NRA by ceding the issue immediately and demanding that I do the same.

Given the response I got at my first post yesterday, I was prepared to ditch DU as yet another nest of limp liberals and the right-wing trolls that feed on them. I still am, of course, thanks in large part to the tone of the replies to your post here. But it is nice to know that even here, there is someone (with enough posts that they won't just get dismissed as a sock puppet, as I was) willing to say it: guns are murder. Every time.

Thanks. Happy trails.