Gun control is a distraction, a minor issue

[Ron Green]

Last edited Thu May 7, 2015, 07:53 PM - Edit history (1)

compared to the issue of building a more connected, peaceful and fair society. Taking away, or even registering all the guns in this country will NOT make a less toxic culture, but finding ways to build community will encourage people to disarm.

[AuntPatsy]

1. Not really, gun owners take their rights much more seriously than they do for

Say Women's rights, racial equality, labor reform, etc....

[darkangel218]

2. You are wrong.

I am a gun owner and what you say is absolutely not true.

[AuntPatsy]

6. Well I was being a bit sarcastic but no I'm not wrong, you do not obviously nor do I,

But far to many do sadly...

[darkangel218]

9. Many who?

The right wingers?? They already feel the way they do. Please don't tie gun ownership to not caring about social rights. Its not fair.

[AuntPatsy]

14. I honestly don't want to, I own quite a few guns.....it's complicated ..the thinking

Of some I understand but it is not only Republicans, I honestly wish it were

[TampaAnimusVortex]

128. Not to mention, with 3D printing its now impossible to stop people from making guns easily.

Anyone with a 500 dollar 3D printer (and price dropping widely) cant print a gun at will.

Guns are now unregulatable. Save your energy for something you can control. You might as well outlaw air to murders.

[AgingAmerican]

194. I own guns and I dont

But then I am for gun control.

[Logical]

38. I disagree with you and don't believe you. Nt

[darkangel218]

39. Thats too bad, isnt it. nt

[NYC_SKP]

4. In that sense, Sanders will appeal to a far broader range of voters.

Personally, I don't have a problem with Sanders' record on gun laws, except for the limit on magazine capacity.

[AuntPatsy]

7. It is true though, the issue will not hurt him..

[darkangel218]

10. No it will not.

Sanders is an honest person who cares about the people. He doesn't care about taking bribes from 1%s and selling his soul to wall street. He is genuine. People will vote for him and what he stands for.

Take care.

[AuntPatsy]

31. Cannot argue with that, you take care as well 😊

[CreekDog]

105. who are you accussing of "taking bribes"

that is a crime and if you're saying someone has done that you need to provide evidence.

[ann---]

103. I think it will

I don't like his stance on that issue. Some people
are anti-war and don't vote for warmongers. Same
with gun mongers.

[GGJohn]

21. You are completely wrong.

I'm a gun owner, I own numerous handguns, rifles, shotguns, and I'm just as passionate for all rights.

[AuntPatsy]

30. Not wrong, did not say all, said many ;) numerous ones here as well....am licensed

[GGJohn]

33. Ok, then I apologize. eom.

[onehandle]

3. Tell Gabby Giffords that.

[img][/img]

[NYC_SKP]

5. I like Gabby Giffords approach to reducing gun violence.

I think she and Bernie would see eye to eye on most proposed legislation.

[greatauntoftriplets]

8. Or Hadiya Pendelton.

[NYC_SKP]

11. A beautiful child.

What a tragedy, what an utterly unnecessary loss.

[VScott]

23. Gang bangers are responsible...

but guns get the blame.

Probably over some inner city drug dealing territory, or macho pissing match.
But... guns are still to blame.

[NuclearDem]

25. Because a switchblade would have ricocheted and killed her the same way.

Oh, wait.

[NuclearDem]

29. Why on earth would we want to keep guns out of the hands of such people?

"Violent gang-affiliated criminals are getting access to guns, but that's no reason to try to control guns!"

[stone space]

57. Sub-human? What exactly is a "sub-human"?

Is a "sub-human" anything like a "gang banger" or a "thug"?

Just because some sub-human, POS, assholes have to resort to using firearms, etc,
and other other sub-human, POS, assholes respond in kind over petty ass bullshit, is no reason enact
more gun control, legislation.

Deal with the gang problem first, then maybe we can discuss the gun problem.

[Electric Monk]

253. LOL, someone's transparency page is showing...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=312399&sub=trans

[GGJohn]

254. LOL, someone else's transparency page is showing...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=313825&sub=trans

[Electric Monk]

255. LOL, someone else's transparency page is showing... and this time it's yours

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=317559&sub=trans

[GGJohn]

256. LOL.

Someone's transparency page is no longer showing.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=317559&sub=trans

[cali]

52. No gun control legislation introduced would substantially reduced the

number of guns out there. Gun control that would actually reduce gun violence is unconstitutional in light of SCOTUS decisions that uphold an individual's right to possess firearms.

[NuclearDem]

70. Yes, I get it, you're a Sanders supporter.

[stone space]

56. Is "gang banger" a euphemism for "thug"

Gang bangers are responsible...

[GGJohn]

62. Why don't you tell us? eom.

[stone space]

63. It is pretty obvious that it is. He took it all the way to "sub-human" below. (nt)

[GGJohn]

64. So?

That's his opinion, and mine I might add, something we're still allowed to do in this country.

[VScott]

119. All gang bangers are thugs...

but not all thugs are gang bangers.

[JustAnotherGen]

162. And Renisha McBride n/t

[greatauntoftriplets]

168. Yes.

Interesting subthread.

[CanadaexPat]

17. Tell the Supreme Court that. nt

[GGJohn]

22. And yet, she and her husband are still gun owners. eom.

[onehandle]

32. LOL! They lead a gun control group.

Gungeoneer fail.

You guys see nothing but 'gun grabbers' in every shadow.

[friendly_iconoclast]

107. I'm a gungeoneer. I'm also a host of the Civil Liberties group:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1168

You might want to adjust your black-and-white view of issues a little.

Just sayin...

[Agnosticsherbet]

12. According to the FBI, in 2012 there were more than 6000 gun cause homicides

Gun control is not a small issue.

[GGJohn]

24. 6,000? Out of a population of 320,000,000?

It's a tragedy when an innocent person is killed by a gun, but in retrospect, 6,000 is a very tiny percentage.
Other than UBC's, gun control is a losing proposition.

[Logical]

40. Wow, compare it to the UK, France, etc. wow, what a clueless statement. Nt

[GGJohn]

41. Different countries, different cultures. eom.

[Logical]

42. Don't try to downplay 6000 deaths pal! Disgusting! Nt

[GGJohn]

43. What's disgusting is your twisting of my words. eom.

[Logical]

44. You said how small a percent it was like you were talking about.....

Sprained ankles. Lol, I imagine you also say how low a percentage the cops kill Black men. So it must not be an issue either? Wow.

[GGJohn]

46. Hey, if you want to distort what I said, have at it, I could care less what you think.

Good night.

[Logical]

49. You mean you "Couldn't" care less I assume? LOL, you mention percents and then downplay other.......

countries lower percents.

You have not really thought out this argument I assume.

[Agnosticsherbet]

71. Answered the wrong person. My appologies.

I am sure their families agree with you.

[Logical]

73. I dont think you meant to reply to me. Nt

[Agnosticsherbet]

75. I appologize. I clicked in the wrong place.

[Logical]

78. No problem, I do it all the time! nt

[Agnosticsherbet]

77. So you think that 6000 people murdered with guns is not cause for alarm.

I am sure the families agree without you,
And those children dead at Sandy hook
With a 6000 dead strong back up choir
Will rise from their graves and sing praises
For your stand in defense of guns.

[GGJohn]

172. Yeah, that's right, I don't care about 6000 citizens killed by firearms.

I will always defend all rights, including the 2A, the 1A, the 4A, etc.

[Agnosticsherbet]

182. At least you are honest.

The modern interpretation of the 2nd foisted in us by the NRA and Republicans so gun corporations can expand their profits is something else.

[GGJohn]

183. So you say,

but most constitutional scholars, including our President, disagree with you.
And my post that you replied to? Maybe you missed this smily:

[LittleBlue]

149. Agreed. And how many are gang- or narcotics-related?

If you're not a gang member or a narcotics trafficker, or in the vicinity of one, I'd be willing to bet that your chances of dying by gunshot are even more remote.

Gun laws won't have any significant impact on organized crime. The issue is a political loser anyway. The left won't turn out to support it, but the right turns out massively to oppose it. And then it gets tied up in court as its constitutionality is questioned.

[ieoeja]

161. Last time I saw an FBI report on causes, gang related was one of the smaller ones.

The vast overwhelming majority of known causes were by friends and acquaintances during an argument. So your first sentence should read:

If you're not family, or in the vicinity of friends, I'd be willing to bet that your chances of dying by gunshot are even more remote.

[LittleBlue]

165. Nope, most are suicides

A lot of people have been citing a recent report, "American Gun Deaths to Exceed Traffic Fatalities by 2015." The article shows that gun deaths in America are slowly rising, and now stand at 32,000 per year -- a staggering toll. Now, 32,000 deaths per year is a lot of death, and I'd never minimize that. But what the article's authors fail to mention is that gun murders comprise less than a third of that total -- about 9,000 per year in recent years. With accidental gun deaths steady at around 500-600 per year, the bulk of those 32,000 "gun deaths" are suicides.

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/12/the-single-best-anti-gun-death-policy-ending-the-drug-war/266505/

Only 500-600 accidental deaths.

And up to a half of the actual homicides are drug-related. From the same link:

Reliable statistics on the number of drug-related murders in the United States are hard to come by. A 1994 Department of Justice report suggested that between a third and a half of U.S. homicides were drug-related, while a recent Center for Disease Control study found that the rate varied between 5% and 25% (a 2002 Bureau of Justice report splits the difference). Part of this variance is that "drug-related" murders are hard to define. There are murders committed by people on drugs, murders committed by addicts to get money for drugs, turf-war murders by drug suppliers, and murders committed by gangs whose principal source of income is drug sales.

And that doesn't even account for gang gun homicides that involved merely wearing the wrong color in the wrong area, or gang-related shooting of innocents. Between suicides, gangs and drugs, that makes the already very small number of gun deaths even smaller. Maybe a few thousand.

[Recursion]

181. Very few. Most shootings are of relatives. And the real crisis is gun suicide

Suicide by gun numbers absolutely dward homicide by gun numbers (two times as many most years). When a pol puts forward a gun control bill that puts suicide prevention in center stage I'll listen.

[stone space]

67. The ammosexuals at DU will tell you that their deaths don't matter.

According to the FBI, in 2012 there were more than 6000 gun cause homicides

They'll find all sorts of reasons to dismiss and minimize them.

[friendly_iconoclast]

108. Really? Who would those people be, exactly?

I'll have translated Proust's A recherche de temps perdu into Linear B
before you come up with an answer...

[Electric Monk]

131. "My right trumps your dead."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=126744

[friendly_iconoclast]

173. A line *not* uttered by a DUer

If you want statements by *actual DUers* about guns, there's a thread with several hundred
of them, located at the forum you found that in:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/11729858

As for Sanders v. Clinton, there's a simple question that might provide some guidance:

Which would harm more Americans: Sanders's stance on guns, or
Clinton's stance on economics?

The answer (which I will leave to the conscience of those reading this) should tell
you who to support in the primaries.

[Electric Monk]

184. A sentiment endorsed by "DUers", though admittedly most endorsers have since been PPRd.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=166761

A couple endorsers are still with us

[beevul]

186. Hey, how about those members of your group who say f rated Bernie is a deal breaker...

Hey, how about those members of your group who say f rated Bernie is a deal breaker.

I'm sure they only want reasonable common sense gun control, seeing how they like Bernie so much.

[Electric Monk]

187. Sanders is in favor of universal background checks and magazine size restrictions (10 rounds max)

as am I. Other DUers can speak for themselves.


I loooove how some of you gunthusiasts obsess about GCRA, while at the same time maintaining that it's insignificant and a hopeless cause

[beevul]

190. And yet hes too much of a "gun nut" for some of your buddies.

I think that pretty well shows their true colors.

[friendly_iconoclast]

188. One of you lot had an apologia for internment camps in that thread:

They are also still with us. The defense starts here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=126987

As the disinterested observer can see, ammophobes are also able to deliver callous and ill-advised statements- more can be found at the following thread

http://www.democraticunderground.com/11729858

The OP of the "My Right Trumps Your Dead" put it better later on, and should have
gone with that instead of the original line:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=126802

"Do it for the children" has been the trump card always played

By those who want to restrict freedom in the name of Society, the Public Commons, the Greater Good, or whatever the slogan of the moment is. It is just another manipulative form of the Moral Panic that American falls into every 20 years or so.

"Doing it for the children" got us Alcohol Prohibition, the Hays Code, Seduction of the Innocent, the War on Drugs, The Parents Music Resource Center, the myth of Satanic ritual abuse, the drive to regulate Video Games and so on.

[GGJohn]

174. And you would be doing the same thing that I called you out on a thread

in the RKBA group.

[pinboy3niner]

13. Nice sarcasm

Distraction from building a more peaceful society, lol!

[Ron Green]

20. I wasn't trying for sarcasm.

My point is that gun control steps, even background checks (we just passed it this week in Oregon) do not address the point that shooters who've not participated in the more rigorous process will still kill people.

The real issue is How do we detoxify our culture? How do we build strong towns and communities who care for us all? How do we decouple human happiness from economic growth? I think Bernie Sanders cannot solve these problems, but he will sure as hell talk about them, and that's a start.

[Exilednight]

26. Detoxification begins with removing the

Antibody, which in this case is guns. Only a moran would believe that there is no corolation between legalized guns and violence. The proof is in, and countries with strict gun controls have less violent crime - PERIOD, END OF DEBATE.

My solution: all guns begin "legal". If you want to own a gun that it is registered to you for life. If someone steals it and it's involved in a crime, then you and the person who stole it are BOTH held accountable. If you want to own a gun then you need to be held responsible for it. If you ever want to get rid of it, then you its turn it in to the authorities.

If this were done, watch how many gun nuts would start calling for legislation mandating ID grips, trigger locks and background checks.

[derby378]

81. Period? End of debate? Let me introduce you to Mexico...

Sorry, but this sort of political dogma has been debunked before, and it will be debunked again.

[Exilednight]

117. I was speaking of post industrialized countries, such as the US. Not to mention

That the overwhelming majority of guns in Mexico are from the US.

[friendly_iconoclast]

110. Are people responsible for crimes committed with their cars after they've been stolen?

If not, why should guns be treated differently?

[KittyWampus]

112. Cars aren't lethal weapons. And liability should be tied to negligence in safeguarding

a lethal weapon.

Furthermore, at least with a car the owner/operating has been licensed and proven to have basic safety skills.

Guns do not.

[beevul]

116. So what.

Do you think it matters to a kid hit and killed by a drunk driver, or his parents, whether a car is considered a "lethal weapon" or not?

Do you think it matters to those who die when some idiot runs a car through a crowd, whether is considered a "lethal weapon" or not?

Furthermore, at least with a car the owner/operating has been licensed and proven to have basic safety skills.

Which license is required to OWN a car, or drive a car on private property?

Where do you guys come up with these arguments?

[Exilednight]

118. A gun only has a single purpose in modern society. It is used

Strictly to kill. A gun has no other practical use. Target shooting has no value to modern society, neither does hunting simce it's not required to survive in modern society.

Guns should be treated different because they are designed to kill, and only kill. Cars have a much more practical use. Without guns, modern society would not come to a stand still, but it would without cars.

[beevul]

120. Nice opinion.

300 million guns in America, and 10 thousand-ish gun homicides. Even if one includes the 20000 self inflicted gunshot deaths, and even the woundings, one thing is absolutely clear:


Most guns are not used for what you claim their "only purpose" is. If they were, you'd have a point, and numbers to back it up.


But they aren't, and you don't.

[Exilednight]

122. I'm not stating opinion, nor data- just pure logic.

What other purpose does a gun have?

Edit: allow me to rephrase: what can I get with a gun that I can't without that depends on my survival?

[beevul]

123. You're completely entitled to answer that question for yourself.

When you start trying to answer it for others, were going to have a problem.

And yes, everything you wrote was opinion.

"what can I get with a gun that I can't without that depends on my survival?"


What can you get with DU, that you can't without, that depends on your survival?

Yet here you are.

[Exilednight]

124. DU is not a weapon that can kill. That's a gun's only intended purpose. That's not opinion.

[beevul]

125. Yes, thats an opinion.

Have you not heard of "target rifles".

Are you completely ignorant of Olympic target shooting, and marksmanship competitions of all sorts all over the nation?

Let me guess, they're just practicing to kill.

"Olympic shooters are just murderers in waiting"...I can just hear it now.


A gun is "intended" to propel a projectile at a target of the shooters choice.

Nothing more, nothing less.

The fact remains, most guns owned by Americans are not used to kill. Most people who own them do not use them to kill.

In the face of that, "intended purpose" is meaningless, regardless what it is.

[Exilednight]

126. And what does target practice add to society?

[beevul]

127. What is it required to add to society?

[Exilednight]

129. Sethimg other than its intended use is to kill. Guns kill, plain and simple.

[beevul]

130. And yet...99 plus percent of privately owned firearms don't.

Plain and simple.

And unassailable fact.

What target shooting and shooting sports "add to society", isn't up to you to decide for everyone else.

[Exilednight]

132. Your use of right-wing NRA talking points is quite telling. Answer one simple

Question honestly, what is the benefit of owning a gun?

[beevul]

134. Yes, I know, anything not completely anti-gun is an "nra talking point".

Such sophomoric attempts to silence dissent and squelch discussion by those in disagreement with the anti-gun narrative are the hallmark of the anti-gun movement.

Question honestly, what is the benefit of owning a gun?

Ask a thousand different gun owners, get a thousand different answers.

For me, it keeps the coyotes out of the yard, and discouraged from eating my little ones. I'm sure my little ones would say that's a benefit if they could talk.

It allows me to target shoot which I enjoy. I consider that a benefit.

I live in a corridor that is often used by escapees of the local correctional facility. Should the need arise, I can defend myself/family.

I'd call that a benefit.

You aren't against self defense with a firearm too, are you?

[Exilednight]

137. Coyotes are scavengers, not hunters. Firearms are a complete failure

In terms of self defense. If you pull a gun in defense, statistics prove that you are more likely to be injured or killed by your own gun.

What else you got?

[beevul]

140. Tell that to the my animals who have been killed.

I'm sure they'll rest better knowing coyotes are scavengers rather than predators.

I'll give you credit for being half right anyway:

•Coyotes are opportunists, both as hunters and as scavengers. They eat any small animal they can capture, including mice, rats, gophers, mountain beavers, rabbits, and squirrels, also snakes, lizards, frogs, fish, birds, and carrion (animal carcasses). Grass, fruits, and berries are eaten during summer and fall.

http://wdfw.wa.gov/living/coyotes.html

What else you got?

I and most Americans have a right to own guns among other things, and you aren't going to change that.


I think that about covers it.

[Exilednight]

143. I thought you were talking about children when you said little ones, not rodents.

[GGJohn]

176. The hell coyotes aren't hunters.

I've lost several chickens, piglets, lambs to coyote attacks.
And your stats are crap, even the CDC says so.
You're completely free to not own firearms, you're not free to decide for others.

[Exilednight]

192. Coyotes killing farm animals does not a crisis make. n/t

[GGJohn]

195. Except that that's lost revenue, and I notice you're now not denying that

coyotes are hunters.
Also, I and my wife hunt for our food and just because you buy your steroid, chemical filled meat from a store, don't tell others how they don't need to hunt.
You're free not to own firearms, you're not free to try to deny them to others.

[yeoman6987]

252. One of the reasons our country was founded was for the

2nd amendment. We are the only country with a right to bear arms. Why compare to other countries that don't have that right? That doesn't make any sense. The United States has a Bill of Rights. It is our foundation. Without those rights, we will be like any other country. If we wanted that, we would not have left England.

[GGJohn]

175. There it is, the NRA meme.

I was wondering how long it was going to take you to utter that famous phrase, that usually means you've lost the debate and it's time to for slogans.

[Exilednight]

133. BTW: just because no one is killed or shot does not mean a gun was not used in a violent crime.

[beevul]

135. Likewise, just because nobody was shot or killed, doesn't mean a gun wasn't used in self defense.

[Exilednight]

136. That's like finding a needle in a haystack. Statistics prove

That if you own a gun your chances increase 4 fold that you will be the victim of a violent crime. Statistics, also, prove that if you pull a gun in defense the odds are that your own gun will be used against you.

[beevul]

139. The statistics you refer to have been debunked time after time after time.

"needle in a haystack".



"Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million (Kleck, 2001a), in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008 (BJS, 2010)."


http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=18319&page=15

Let me guess, the nra paid them to say that in gold krugerrands.

[Exilednight]

141. My stats are from the FBI. You didn't read the fine print. It ONLY includes crimes where

Someone died.

1 For the purposes of this report, the terms “firearm violence,” “gun violence,” and “firearm-related violence” refer to morbidity and mortality associated with the possession and use of firearms. Firearms use a propellant or powder charge to fire a projectile and are distinct from other guns, such as BB, pellet, and other airsoft guns.

[beevul]

142. So what? N/T

[Exilednight]

144. Violent crime does not need to include death. n/t

[beevul]

146. Did someone say it did? N/T

[Exilednight]

147. The report you posted in an attempt to make your argument and

TRY, but failed to succeed, to debunk my stats.

[beevul]

150. Nonsense.

I assume you can read:

"Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million (Kleck, 2001a), in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008 (BJS, 2010)."

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=18319&page=15

Where there does it say "only includes deaths"?

[Exilednight]

152. Footnote 1 on Page 1

1 For the purposes of this report, the terms “firearm violence,” “gun violence,” and “firearm-related violence” refer to morbidity and mortality associated with the possession and use of firearms. Firearms use a propellant or powder charge to fire a projectile and are distinct from other guns, such as BB, pellet, and other airsoft guns.

[beevul]

154. That footnote applies to the study I linked to, NOT...

That footnote applies to the study I linked to, NOT to the studies or the language contained in them, that the study I linked to quotes.


Bzzzt. Thanks for playing though.

[Exilednight]

159. That's some circular logic. n/t

[Exilednight]

148. In all seriousness, can you point to anything that has not been thoroughly debunked after be touted

By the NRA?

[beevul]

151. I could say the same to you. 1994 called and they want their talking points back.

We own guns, and were keeping them, thanks.

[Exilednight]

153. Someone debunked FBI stats? Proof please!

[beevul]

155. The creative usage of them is what was debunked.

Repeatedly and thoroughly.

[Exilednight]

158. Proof please?

[beevul]

160. You first. N/T

[Exilednight]

163. Fbi.gov

[X_Digger]

185. Wait, is only guns that are without practical use without a purpose 'required in modern society'?

I mean shit.. bowling balls. They're not 'required in modern society' either.

Well fuck, then bowling balls have no purpose!

What can I get with a bowling ball that I can't without that depends on my survival?

(This setting aside the benefits of the shooting sports, hunting, and self-protection.)

[Exilednight]

193. There's no benefit in hunting or shooting sports and statistics

Prove that owning a gun is more likely to make you a victim of a violent crime, per the FBI.

[GGJohn]

197. There's plenty of benefit in hunting or shooting sports.

I and my wife hunt, I won't eat that store bought steroid/chemical filled meat, we also enjoy a day at our range just plinking at targets.
You're perfectly free to not own firearms, you're not free to deny others that right.
BTW, here's how your store bought meat is raised and slaughtered.







Yeah, that's what you support.

[Exilednight]

203. Im a vegan, other than eggs and ice cream.

[GGJohn]

204. I don't give a fuck if you're a Martian,

you said in a post that people don't need to hunt anymore, there are stores where you can buy food.
Going on that seems to be that you support those factory farms and the horrible living conditions of those animals.

[Exilednight]

207. Not at all. There are alternatives. Just because they are ignored by you

Does not mean they don't exist.

[GGJohn]

208. What alternatives?

Following your lifestyle? No thanks.

[Exilednight]

212. Free range farms,raise your own .... Maybe you

Should put down your gun and do a little research.

Don't follow my lifestyle if you LOVE your gun. Keep clogging your arteries and die an early death. I'll live to be over a 100 and in great health at 45. Single digit body fat%.

[GGJohn]

214. Let's see, if you look at my avatar,

you'll get a general idea of how old I am, and I'm in perfect health according to my doctor at my last physical, I don't take any meds, I have no ailments, I eat healthy.

We own a farm in AZ, free range chickens, some cattle, pigs, sheep, etc., we grow our own fruits and veggies, but regardless, we still hunt for our meat, venison, hog, turkey, other game birds fill our freezer and what we don't need, goes to the food pantries for the less fortunate.

[X_Digger]

226. So thinning the herds of white-tailed deer is of no value?

The $2 Billion dollars that have been gathered from the sale of firearms, ammunition, and archery equipment didn't do shit, eh?

Lol. Please, do keep this up.

[Exilednight]

231. At what cost of childrens' lives has that 2 billion come at, and in a $14 trillion

Dollar economy, 2 billion is a drop in the bucket.

I can keep it up all night. I got a big dick and don't need a handgun or rifle to overcompensate, like some people do for their inadequacy. (Hey, you made the statement, I just replied to it)

[GGJohn]

232. I was wondering when you would refer to the penis comparison.

You didn't disappoint.
Why are you anti's so obsessed with the male genitals?

[Exilednight]

234. That sounds very homophobic on your part. n/t

[GGJohn]

239. That sounds very homophobic on your part.

Hear the whooshing sound?
Right over your head it went.

[Exilednight]

241. So far you're two for two on the tea bagger scale. n/t

[GGJohn]

243. Now you're resorting to personal attacks.

You're 2 for 2, are you going for the trifecta?

[Exilednight]

245. It's not personal. You made a homophobic remark and you love your guns. Both are facts.

I'd say have a good life, but instead I shall say: I hope karma gives you the life you deserve.

Bye.

[GGJohn]

246. Naw, I didn't,

you're the one who made the reference, I just countered it, but if you truly believe that it was a homophobic remark, feel free to hit that little box in the lower left hand corner that says alert post.

[X_Digger]

236. Feel free to set those goalposts down, they must be heavy.

So 'no value' becomes 'not enough value', eh?

I guess there's no value *snort* not enough value in saving wetlands (duck stamps) or national forest projects (pittman-robertson act excise taxes).

And those whose lives have been saved with firearms? I guess they have no value *snort* not enough value either, eh?

Please continue..

[Exilednight]

237. You can do all that without guns. With that being said,

I'm not against gun ownership, just much more stringent laws.

[GGJohn]

240. No, I can't nor will I do without my firearms. eom.

[Puha Ekapi]

238. "There's no benefit in hunting...."

No benefit to hunting? Where are you from, exactly? Here in rural Utah, on the rez, hunting is absolutely of great benefit. It is a major supplement to our diet, and there are families that would be hard pressed to eat well without the ability to hunt.

Talk about completely clueless....

[hack89]

201. Recreation is my reason for owning guns

i enjoy competitive target shooting. Perfectly valid reason in a modern society, especially considering it harms no one.

[GGJohn]

205. But...but...but....GUNS!!! eom.

[Exilednight]

209. Unless your gun is stolen and used in a crime.

[hack89]

210. That is why they are in a big safe. nt

[Puha Ekapi]

235. "Where do you guys come up with these arguments? "

It's a symptom of rectal/cranial inversion.

[NYC Liberal]

36. "shooters who've not participated in the more rigorous process will still kill people"

What about those shooters who got their gun(s) because it was trivially easy for them to do so?

No law or preventive measure is completely failsafe. To declare that because some people will find a way around a law, nothing at all should be done, is ridiculous.

[Ron Green]

45. Declare that "nothing at all should be done" ??

Did you read the post? What I'm saying ( and others in the thread get it) is that the RW and the media flog these wedge issues while the big problem grows.

Look, I've gotten rid of all my firearms over the years, have decided to live more courageously unarmed, and supported Oregon's recent background check legislation. But we've got major transformation to accomplish and that's going to take some focus.

[bullwinkle428]

15. Anyone who thinks we're going to see incremental (let alone substantial)

steps forward when it comes to gun control under ANY Democratic president is living in a fantasy world, sad as though that may be.

[Evergreen Emerald]

16. Lol

You are funny

[NuclearDem]

18. Sneaky sneaky.

[darkangel218]

19. Yes it is.

Once the debates start we shall see who the rotten apple actually is.

Enough said.

[tritsofme]

27. Sanders' campaign is the distraction, he is a minor candidate.

Is a statement much closer to the truth than this OP.

[Inkfreak]

34. It is constantly posted here that being pro 2nd A is anti-Dem.

if it was true, they wouldn't be caterwauling so much. The majority of America is consistently pro 2nd A.

Name calling and petulant insults won't change that.

[Exilednight]

138. My question is why is the US so pro gun? N/t

[Inkfreak]

170. A fair question.

But I think you'd get such a variety of answers it'd be hard to nail down a specific answer.

When I was able to purchase my first shotgun & .22 I went target shooting every weekend for a few summers. Now they sit unused. I tried hunting and found I didn't have to stomach for it. I'm currently getting my pistol permit, but that's for my job and only for that. otherwise I wouldn't own one.

[beevul]

145. I respectfully disagree.

Name calling and petulant insults won't change that.

I submit that the name calling and petulant insults serve only to strengthen the resolve of those folks who are pro 2nd A.

[Exilednight]

164. I disagree that the majority of the US is pro gun, I truly

Believe it's a vocal minority.

[beevul]

166. Thats nice. It doesn't reflect reality, but its nice.

Beyond that, you'll have a hard time finding polling that agrees with your belief even among DU members:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022169602

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024793281

[Exilednight]

167. a belief and support are two separate things. I believe the

2nd amendment gives us the right to own guns, but I don't support it. I'd love to see it changed.

[GGJohn]

178. Well then, get the congress to call for a Constitutional Convention

and try to get the 2A changed, but be aware that it takes only 13 states to scuttle any change to the BoR.

[GGJohn]

177. Yeah? Except NOT!!!

http://www.people-press.org/2014/12/10/growing-public-support-for-gun-rights/

Read it and weep.

[Exilednight]

191. It looks like we are finally getting to the point where the majority of people are stupid. n/t

[GGJohn]

196. So are you accusing gun owning DU'ers of being stupid?

Are you accusing the President of being stupid?

[Exilednight]

198. As it pertains to guns: yes

[GGJohn]

199. Well, IMHO, we're not the stupid ones,

those who try to restrict a right would fit that category.

BTW, how does it feel to be on the losing side of history?

[Exilednight]

200. People killing people with guns is not exactly winning.

[GGJohn]

202. Sometimes there's no choice,

if someone breaks into my home while my wife and I are there and they threaten us, I'm going to do my level best to defend us with lethal force, if the perp dies, too bad so sad.

Also, you say we don't need to hunt anymore, we have stores?
So you support those factory farms?

[Exilednight]

206. You'd end up going to jail. Most states

Do not have a stand your ground law, and even those that do don't allow threats of violence as a defense, nor are you allowed to use lethal force to defend property or animals.

There are other alternatives to factory processed meat. Free range farms, raising and slaughtering your own or simply giving up meat.

[GGJohn]

211. Someone breaks into my house and I defend myself with lethal force and I would go to jail?

Are you fucking kidding me?
No state in the US would put me in jail for that.
And that's not SYG, that's Castle Doctrine, which every state has.

You know nothing about self defense laws in the US and it's badly shows with this post.

[Exilednight]

213. Actually I know a lot about self defense laws. We just convicted a guy

Last year here in VA for shooting an unarmed home invader.

[GGJohn]

215. Yeah, sure you did.

How about a link?

[Exilednight]

216. Sure

Google.com

[GGJohn]

217. Just did, nothing about a jury convicting a home owner for shooting a home invader in VA.

Sorry, but I don't believe any jury would convict any home owner for defending their homes against home invasion.

[GGJohn]

218. 15 pages so far....nothing.

Fact is that your story is bunk, didn't happen.

[Exilednight]

219. Says the man who's on the "winning side of history" not my fault

You don't know how to use google.

[GGJohn]

220. Really?

Then it shouldn't be too hard for you to post that link.
Up to page 30 and still nothing about a VA homeowner being convicted for shooting a home invader.

[Exilednight]

223. Google: home owner convicted shooting intruder, and you will find stories from all around the countr

[GGJohn]

225. They're almost all the same person, Jerry Rasmussen, who lured them in and then

killed them.
Wow, you found 1 story, out of thousands of justified self defense shootings of home invaders.
Still waiting for the link of the VA homeowner convicted of shooting a home invader.

[Exilednight]

227. Ii found several stories on that first page. n/t

[GGJohn]

228. Yeah, and most of them were about the same guy in IN.

I'm stilllllll waiting for that link, but at this point, you can't see to produce it, there's no mention of any homeowner being convicted in VA for shooting a home invader anywhere on the net, so I'm calling your story a lot of hot air.

[GGJohn]

222. Went as far as 50 pages, nothing.

Your story is crap, there was no homeowner convicted of shooting an unarmed home invader in VA.

Next time, try to make a story sound more believable.

[Exilednight]

229. How many more children must die from gun violence befor you can declare victory?

I might lose, but I won't have the blood of innocents on my hands.

How many more will die after you have decided that your side of history has won?

Seriously, what number is acceptable to you?

[GGJohn]

230. I don't have the blood of innocents on my hands either,

and for the record, homicides are at a 20 year low, you're safer now than 20 years ago.

How many more children must die from gun violence befor you can declare victory?

Oooooh, attempt to shame by emotion.

[Exilednight]

233. Homicides are down, but non lethal gun assaults are at their highest since

2008. You obviously support limited gun laws, so yes; you do have blood on your hands.

[GGJohn]

242. Naw, I've carefully looked at my hands and fail to see any blood.

BTW, got a link yet to that alleged conviction in VA?

[DonP]

244. No, that's not true either

Or maybe the FBI UCR is all wrong and Eric Holder was just a shill for the NRA and "Big Gun".

All violence, including non lethal violence involving guns, is at a 35 year low.

At least make shit up that has some kind of credibility or do 5 minutes of research. So far you're 0 for 3 and you're embarrassing yourself.

[Exilednight]

247. I did fact check it, at factcheck.org

The thing many gun nuts seem to not want to admit is that a gun need not be discharged (discharging of firearms is the only metric the FBI uses to measure) to be a crime involving a gun.

[GGJohn]

248. If you're so amped on facts,

then why can't you produce that link that I've been asking for?

[DonP]

250. All those emotional posts and "claims" and not one cite or link?

You'd almost think someone is pulling their "facts" from a nether place.

Watching for that Virginia homeowner that he convicted for shooting a home invader.

You'd think something that important would be in all the papers.

Any minute now .... pretty soon ...

[GGJohn]

251. Yup,

this is one of those, "you shoulda seen the one that got away" stories.

[GGJohn]

249. Same with DGU's,

a firearm need not be discharged to count as a DGU.

[NightWatcher]

35. The top three wedge issues: god, guns, and gays.

And the rich keep us fighting over them instead of waking to see who is picking our wallets and bones bare.

[TheKentuckian]

37. It is a solid poo turkey with arsenic sauce effort and regressive to boot as

it is anytime you angle to take power from the many and concentrate it to the domain of the few.

[BrotherIvan]

47. I very strongly disagree with Sanders on his gun votes

But I very much agree with many of his others, like universal healthcare and IWR. I don't think he's perfect, but I do think he is the candidate who most aligns with my values.

[GeorgeGist]

48. Yeah, what's another 30000/yr dead!

[tk2kewl]

50. I am a proponent of strong gun control...

But without economic justice, human dignity, fairness and community, all other progressive issues are reduced to windowdressing and distraction imo

[CrispyQ]

51. If we had a more connected, peaceful & fair society,

perhaps the fear factor would go down & so many would not feel the need to arm themselves. OTOH, there are a type of person, usually male, who I think feel that guns are part of western masculine culture.

[leftofcool]

53. Sure it is, unless Hillary had voted against the Brady Bill.

[99Forever]

54. The neolibs are digging for dirt...

... anywhere, anyway they can find it.

It's freakin' hilarious.

[leftofcool]

59. Voting against the Brady Bill is dirt?

I don't think so.

[99Forever]

65. Voting for the Iraq Invasion was good?

Hanging out with the Banksters is good?

Want more?

[NuclearDem]

74. Sanders voted against Brady and has a very mixed record on guns.

Deal with it.

[99Forever]

85. Hillary Goldman Sachs Clinton has along record of standing up for 1%ers.

Hillary Goldman Sachs Clinton has a long history of being a war hawk.


Deal with it.

[NuclearDem]

87. What's funny is you assume I'm a Clinton supporter.

When I've said repeatedly I don't support one over the other.

[99Forever]

88. Of course you don't.

Me neither, just laying those old pesky facts out there and trying to decide.

[NuclearDem]

92. For some reason, I'm not surprised you don't understand.

[99Forever]

101. Oh....

... I "understand" just fine.

[Comrade Grumpy]

99. Okay. I dealt with it. Still prefer Sanders.

[stone space]

55. Doesn't this belong in the gungeon?

Why is generalized bashing of gun control allowed in General Discussion?

[GGJohn]

61. Then alert on it and see if you can get it locked. eom.

[stone space]

72. I just did. My OP in reply was locked, so I expect this one to be locked as well.

I'm sure that the locking applies to both sides of this argument and not just one side.

[GGJohn]

179. Maybe it was locked because of your history of mis-representing what was said in the RKBA?

Just musing.

[gordianot]

58. Gun control is a well thought out wedge issue.

It has taken decades to craft positions on both sides and is a trap. Even cursory background checks an area both sides might agree has been rendered divisive. So you must either eliminate public ownership and use of firearms or you allow unrestricted ownership and use of fire arms for whatever purpose you so desire. The beauty of this wedge it can be inserted into any political conversation and will manage to take over. You exist somewhere in the middle you can be driven to either extreme which excludes you from the other side.

You have been and will be manipulated. Have some political issue you want to disrupt? Insert gun control vs Gun ownership stand back.

[sendero]

60. Nothing fits the "liberal" stereotype.....

.... like those who still think, no FEEL, because there is little thought involved, that any kind of meaningful gun control is possible in America.

Guns are EVERYWHERE and you can pass any fucking law you want THEY ARE NOT GOING AWAY.

Anyone that can't see this basic fact is delusional and not worthy of engaging on any subject.

[theboss]

90. I wouldn't got that far, but I'm not sure I even see a place to begin on gun legislation

Since Clinton won in '92, all you see is an increase in open and concealed carry states, the end of the assault weapons ban, increased gun sales, etc.

I had this talk with a friend recently and wondered when it was appropriate to surrender on issues. The Right needs to surrender on gay rights. The Left probably needs to surrender on any kind of broad gun control.

It would probably help the political rhetoric in this country in some way.

[sendero]

91. We may as well surrender..

.. we've made no real inroads in a very long time. And when we DID have the chance to do something, we did the idiotic Assault Weapons Ban, a law that accomplished nothing but alienating our ability to do the tiny marginal things we could do to help, i.e. background checks.

The fact is if you want to regulate/change something you need to understand it. Guns=bad is not understanding any more than gays=bad is understanding.

[Paladin]

66. Thanks, Bernie Sanders, for hampering the gun control movement.

All these "Who gives a shit about guns?" comments suddenly popping up on DU are proof positive of it.

[BainsBane]

111. Human life thrown overboard in pursuit of hero worship

They won't want a president. They want a political messiah, a God who shall not be criticized.

[seabeyond]

115. it must be the old and white and man, that they have in their group and refuse to delete.

facts are facts.

[stone space]

68. One person's dead kids are another person''s minor distracton. (nt)

[workinclasszero]

69. Ohio boy, 3, picks up unattended gun, fatally shoots toddler in face

Ohio boy, 3, picks up unattended gun, fatally shoots toddler in face

A toddler was killed in Cleveland, Ohio, on Sunday afternoon when a 3-year-old boy accidentally shot him with a gun that had been left unattended in a home, police said.

At least one person was home at the time of the shooting, but Cleveland Police Chief Calvin Williams said investigators hadn't determined who owned the gun.

The toddler, who was 1 years old, was pronounced dead at the hospital after he was shot in the face, WEWS-TV reported.

http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2015/04/ohio_boy_3_picks_up_unattended.html

Minor issue? This shit happens just about every damn week, if not daily, in America and you say its a minor issue? That is sickening!

[theboss]

76. The issue with gun cuntrol is that the Left has lost and lost badly.

I'm not sure where we even go at this point.

[Paladin]

80. Your abject surrender is noted. Seems like you've got lots of company, here. (nt)

[derby378]

83. We start by recognizing that gun legislation is not a right-wing vs. left-wing issue

I can own a Kalashnikov and still be a left-winger; indeed, I can claim gun ownership is a left-wing issue. Instead of making it right vs. left like FOX News and the NRA are doing, let's recast the debate as authoritarians vs. average folks who simply want safer communities for themselves and their families.

Background checks are entirely doable. Magazine bans, though passed in some states, may not be doable nationally - they could be seen as a backdoor "assault weapon" ban.

The party is going to have to make peace with gun owners. Notice I didn't say "make peace with the NRA" - right now, that's impossible. Reach out to the average gun owner in America with a plan for gun legislation that is doable and Constitutional without being overreaching.

[theboss]

89. That makes sense

I just don't see any real "gun control" legislation that can be passed outside a few states at the moment - certainly nothing at the national level.

[Matrosov]

95. The Left didn't lose, it never really tried in the first place

Many gun owners are single-issue voters, and they and the gun lobby have done an excellent job of pumping out the propaganda 24/7. Meanwhile, most progressives only care about control when there was a shooting event in the news, and their interest tends to fade away again rather quickly.

The Left tends to focus on unimportant matters of control, like assault rifles and magazine sizes. Sorry, the majority of crimes are committed with handguns, and getting rid of AR15s will have a negligible impact on gun deaths. We'd be far better off using this energy to focus on all guns, rather than just certain types or certain aspects.

We are also allowing the gun lobby to control the nature of the discussion. They always point out how people who use guns for self defense would likely be dead if guns were outlawed, conveniently ignoring that countless more are already dying each year precisely because guns are not outlawed.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

79. Ugh. nt

[bigwillq]

82. I don't think gun control is a distraction

nor a minor issue.
But I feel it's not of the main concerns for the average citizen.

[Agnosticsherbet]

84. Peaceful and Guns are mutually exclusive, except for the residents of graveyards.

Those who connected with the bullets from a gun
And met death, the fairest of all arbiters
Sadly, are unable to speak.

[Matrosov]

86. Control is part of a more peaceful and fair society

Think of the thousands of innocent lives that would be spared if the public no longer had access to guns.

Most of those innocent lives are African American at that.

So getting rid of guns would absolutely make society more peaceful and fair.

[Ron Green]

171. I think it would work the other way around (see edit to OP.)

Better communities first; then guns aren't the answer.

[Matrosov]

224. If we had better communities, there'd be no need to disarm

I'm not worried about the guy who goes plinking on the weekend.

The problem is, as long as he has any access to firearms whatsoever, so do the criminals, regardless of background checks and gun-free zones and all that.

[GGJohn]

180. And what's your proposal for getting rid of guns?

Repeal the 2A? Re-interpret the 2A?
What?

[seabeyond]

93. of course. we state so many issues minor, at the expense of others lives, for the comfort of the $.

really? you had to go there. so, those whose issue is guns in america that kill, to the back of the bus?

[NCTraveler]

94. The irony in your op is off the charts. nt.

[etherealtruth]

96. Yeah ... I remember back in the day here (at DU)

... the same kind of posts directed at the proponents of Gay marriage and Gay rights. DU was unfortunately subjected to the same sort of trivialization of these basic human rights. Of course those posters were quite wrong then ... as most posters trying to trivialize issues are.

Progressive issues are not trivial.

(note I am NOT conflating human rights issues with the ability to own implements of destruction)

Gun control is a progressive issue. Not all progressive support gun control but most do and it is a large issue in the progressive community. I understand that not all democrats are progressive, as well.

[seabeyond]

97. women issues are minor. blacks issues are minor. yes, gay issues are minor too.

$$$$$

[etherealtruth]

98. Yep ... exactly

[stone space]

113. I wasn't here on DU then, but I remember exactly the same thing on other sites.

This sort of minimization is a HUGE turnoff for me, every bit as much now as it was back then.

[etherealtruth]

114. Certainly human rights trump all ...

... but it is weird (to again) see progressive causes trivialized

[KG]

100. I lolz'd

[ann---]

102. Not to me

You cannot build a "peaceful and fair society"
when guns are so ingrained in the culture. America looks like
a third-world country when it comes to gun control.

[BainsBane]

106. millions of human lives

are minor. A culture of violence, war and militarization, minor. Human life pales in comparison to what you care about, which is what exactly? "Peaceful society"? There is no peaceful society when we exist in a continual state of domestic war, when police kill citizens and people like you turn a blind eye and call it minor.

The callous disregard for human life is appalling.

Additionally, pretending to care about corporations while referring to the corporate gun lobby's takeover of our democracy as "a distraction" is hypocritical. There are the single biggest and most powerful lobby in Washington and do more to erode our basic rights than any other. To turn a blind eye to that is to show no regard for "a more connected peaceful, society." You tell me my life and the lives of people in my community are a minor concern, and you claim you want connection? Bullshit. Without respect for human live, for justice in poor communities over the power of the corporate gun lobby, you can't for a minute expect me to believe you give even the slightest shit about a "connected, peaceful, fair society." I'm sick of hearing the privileged tell the rest of us how little we matter. You don't give a fuck about our lives, so fuck your elitist politics.

This is the last straw. The complete contempt for the poor and disenfranchised by people claiming to be liberals is repulsive. You want everyone to forsake their basic rights, and now even our lives, to satisfy the white middle- and upper-middle class' anger at Wall Street. You are not worth more than the people being killed by guns in the inner city, though it's pretty clear you think you are. The arrogance and disregard for human life is as contemptible a position as I've seen. If that is what supporting Sanders is about, hell will freeze over before I empower people who openly dismiss the deaths of millions of Americas, more dead through gun violence since 1968 than in all the wars in US history. How could their lives matter compared to your desire for an entertainer in chief to be on cable TV and make you feel good about yourselves? This post shows those words of "connected and peaceful" are complete artifice when you invoke them to justify millions of deaths.

Congratulations for sinking Sanders' candidacy. I knew if anyone could do it, it would be people on this site. People here are a prime example of why no one outside your little in-crowd wants anything to do with you or your elitist class project. You keep up the great and noble fight for the 10 percent vs. the 1 percent. I'm going to look after myself because clearly you don't give a shit ablout my basic right to life, a mere "minor concern."

[seabeyond]

109. I'm sick of hearing the privileged tell the rest of us how little we matter.

excellent post. and of course, i am on board.

i simply keep thinking about the texas senator that want women and girls to carry dead fetsus's to avoid an abortion.

it is not too much of a challenge for me. yet, sanders supporters, creating his campaign, just keeps telling me how insignificant the rest of us are, when it comes to the $.

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

156. Yeppers

[HassleCat]

157. Agree

Because we have the 2nd Amendment, and because we have so many firearms already in the hands of so many people, it's difficult to implement any kind of effective gun control.

[olddots]

169. guns are like tobacco

the right of dumbth .

[Throd]

189. Probably not in my top ten...

[theboss]

221. Politics follow the culture

We consistently lose on gun control, because we have lost the culture when it comes to guns.

It's the reason we are winning on gay rights. We won the culture there.