HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Justice & Public Safety » Gun Control & RKBA (Group) » At least one American cit...

Wed May 21, 2014, 06:51 PM

 

At least one American city has sensible gun laws

[center][/center]

Last week a federal judge in Washington, D.C., upheld the District of Columbia’s common-sense gun-registration laws. They are laws that should be emulated in St. Louis.

Unfortunately, they can’t be. State law preempts local jurisdictions from gun laws that are any more restrictive than the ones passed by the state — and Missouri takes perverse pride in having some of the least restrictive gun laws in the nation.

The Legislature, in the last two years, has considered nullifying federal gun laws. Lawmakers who want to ignore the U.S. Constitution’s Supremacy Clause should sympathize with a city that wants to nullify the state’s preemption law. The guess here is that they wouldn’t.

The District of Columbia, as a stand-alone entity, doesn’t have to worry about gun-happy rural and suburban Republican lawmakers who fear the gun lobby. Having lost the headline part of the 2008 Supreme Court case D.C. v. Heller — the Second Amendment guarantees an individual the right to own firearms — Washington’s city council set about reading the fine points of the decision.

http://www.stltoday.com/news/opinion/columns/the-platform/editorial-at-least-one-american-city-has-sensible-gun-laws/article_c798c78a-4bac-51f8-83f1-f255179b508a.html

70 replies, 11028 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 70 replies Author Time Post
Reply At least one American city has sensible gun laws (Original post)
SecularMotion May 2014 OP
Travis_0004 May 2014 #1
Starboard Tack May 2014 #6
HALO141 May 2014 #9
Starboard Tack May 2014 #11
hack89 May 2014 #12
Starboard Tack May 2014 #18
hack89 May 2014 #20
Starboard Tack May 2014 #58
hack89 May 2014 #60
Starboard Tack May 2014 #64
hack89 May 2014 #65
Packerowner740 May 2014 #56
Starboard Tack May 2014 #59
gejohnston May 2014 #15
spin May 2014 #27
Starboard Tack May 2014 #34
spin May 2014 #35
yeoman6987 May 2014 #26
Starboard Tack May 2014 #30
yeoman6987 May 2014 #31
Starboard Tack May 2014 #32
gejohnston May 2014 #2
Nuclear Unicorn May 2014 #3
ileus May 2014 #4
Starboard Tack May 2014 #7
ileus May 2014 #13
Starboard Tack May 2014 #16
gejohnston May 2014 #17
Starboard Tack May 2014 #19
sarisataka May 2014 #22
Starboard Tack May 2014 #36
gejohnston May 2014 #23
Starboard Tack May 2014 #37
gejohnston May 2014 #41
Starboard Tack May 2014 #42
gejohnston May 2014 #43
gejohnston May 2014 #45
Starboard Tack May 2014 #46
gejohnston May 2014 #47
Starboard Tack May 2014 #48
gejohnston May 2014 #49
Starboard Tack May 2014 #50
gejohnston May 2014 #51
Starboard Tack May 2014 #52
gejohnston May 2014 #53
hack89 May 2014 #14
spin May 2014 #28
Starboard Tack May 2014 #5
discntnt_irny_srcsm May 2014 #8
Starboard Tack May 2014 #10
MicaelS May 2014 #38
Starboard Tack May 2014 #39
Packerowner740 May 2014 #57
discntnt_irny_srcsm May 2014 #40
oneshooter May 2014 #44
Lizzie Poppet May 2014 #54
Starboard Tack May 2014 #55
jimmy the one May 2014 #21
jimmy the one May 2014 #24
gejohnston May 2014 #25
jimmy the one May 2014 #29
gejohnston May 2014 #33
jimmy the one May 2014 #61
gejohnston May 2014 #62
jimmy the one May 2014 #63
gejohnston May 2014 #66
jimmy the one May 2014 #67
gejohnston May 2014 #68
jimmy the one May 2014 #69
gejohnston May 2014 #70

Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Wed May 21, 2014, 08:13 PM

1. So you are fine with the excessive fees it costs to get a gun?

 

The fees are highly regressive. I don't mind paying 400.00 in fees. I can afford it. I guess if you want to defend yourself you shouldn't be poor, right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Travis_0004 (Reply #1)

Thu May 22, 2014, 12:09 AM

6. Let's be realistic here.

Why would poor people in DC, or in any city, be interested in buying a gun? What exactly would be the purpose? I doubt they would need it to hunt for food. And I doubt they would be prepared to pay $50. Rich people buy guns to protect themselves from poor people, because they're afraid of them. So don't give us that crap that gun fees are unfair. Poor people are not interested in guns.

I love it when gun owners justify their paranoia by pointing to poor people. Such hypocrisy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #6)

Thu May 22, 2014, 02:26 AM

9. Poor people are more often the victims of violent crime.

THAT'S why they might want to buy a gun.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HALO141 (Reply #9)

Thu May 22, 2014, 02:44 AM

11. You are probably right

And doesn't that make you wonder why the only people buying the guns are the scared rich people. Maybe they are the ones shooting the poor people. Or maybe the poor people are being shot by other poor people, you know the so-called "bad guys", so let's give all the poor people guns so they can shoot each other, then the rich people won't need guns anymore, unless they get really bored and then they can start shooting each other.
Now, how's that for a fucked up form of population control?
You gotta love America, land of the free, home of the brave.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #11)

Thu May 22, 2014, 06:46 AM

12. Why do you think only rich people are buying guns?

Is that provable or merely more emotional hyperbole?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #12)

Thu May 22, 2014, 12:30 PM

18. I don't. Rich is a relative term

One has to assume that guns are only bought by those who can afford them. To a poor man who earns only enough for essentials, such as food, housing and clothing himself, anything he spends beyond that entails sacrifice of one or more of those essentials.

To that man, someone who gets to eat out occasionally is a rich man. In my world, having enough discretionary income to buy a gun would be a sign of a rich man. YMMV

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #18)

Thu May 22, 2014, 12:34 PM

20. They can cost as much(or as little) as a TV

are all people that own TVs rich?

You do understand that used guns are very cheap?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #20)

Tue May 27, 2014, 01:32 AM

58. I guess it's all about priorities.

Poor people worry about food and shelter, not TV's and guns. Poor means NO discretionary income in my world. YMMV

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #58)

Tue May 27, 2014, 08:23 AM

60. So most Americans below the poverty line are not really poor?

Because you know they have TVs (and guns). Walmart makes billions off them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #60)

Tue May 27, 2014, 12:39 PM

64. If they are below the poverty line and buy guns, they are intellectually poor.

Unless their guns are used for hunting for food. But if they are spending money on handguns and fashionista holsters to protect themselves from imaginary threats, then they do not fall into the category of financially poor, imo. Poor judgement, poor thinking definitely.
TV's are very cheap and don't require ammunition, which is not cheap, and can run on solar power. I have one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #64)

Tue May 27, 2014, 12:43 PM

65. Those goal posts getting heavy? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #18)

Mon May 26, 2014, 02:40 PM

56. Your idea of rich is somewhat outside the norm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Packerowner740 (Reply #56)

Tue May 27, 2014, 02:06 AM

59. That may well be so

Carrying a gun around in public is also somewhat outside the norm.
I'm rich enough to be able to afford a gun, but it would be a poor choice in terms of priorities.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #11)

Thu May 22, 2014, 06:51 AM

15. scared rich people buying guns?

How about someone in between buying for sport? That is really the vast majority. That is also the typical donor to the "gun lobby". The only scared rich people I see, outside of Ted Nugent, are the ones creating astro turf gun control groups while hiring armed security.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #11)

Thu May 22, 2014, 01:46 PM

27. Actually some groups are giving guns to poor people in crime ridden neighborhoods. ...

Last edited Thu May 22, 2014, 04:38 PM - Edit history (1)

APJune 8, 2013, 9:13 PM
Free guns program launches in Houston neighborhood

***snip***

Strain's northwest Houston community of Oak Forest is the first neighborhood in the country being trained and equipped by the Armed Citizen Project, a Houston nonprofit that is giving away free shotguns to single women and residents of neighborhoods with high crime rates.

While many cities have tried gun buy-backs and other tactics in the ongoing national debate on gun control, the nonprofit and its supporters say gun giveaways to responsible owners are actually a better way to deter crime. The organization, which plans to offer training classes in Dallas, San Antonio, and Tucson, Ariz., in the next few weeks, is working to expand its giveaways to 15 cities by the end of the year, including Chicago and New York.

***snip***

It costs the organization about $300 to arm and train an individual and about $20,000 for an entire neighborhood. All costs are paid through donations, said Coplen, though he declined to say how much his organization has raised so far.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/free-guns-program-launches-in-houston-neighborhood/


It will be interesting to see if crime falls in the neighborhoods that get the free weapons and training. I personally suspect it will but time will tell.

We will definitely hear if the program is a failure but I suspect that if it is successful it will receive little notice from the main stream media.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spin (Reply #27)

Thu May 22, 2014, 04:16 PM

34. Very interesting.

I can see how it makes sense to arm single women in neighborhoods that are virtual war zones. Not sure if it is the right response, adding more guns to the mix in a state already awash with guns. Houston is a rough city, no doubt about it, and single females are particularly vulnerable. Also, shotguns make more sense as a deterrent to would-be home invaders/rapists, than handing out handguns.
As you say, it will be interesting to see how it works out.

It reminds me somewhat of my years in Alphabet City (lower eastside NYC) during the eighties. It was a war zone, with shootings daily. Residents were afraid to go on the streets for years, especially after dark. There were no cops besides the occasional cruise by, which was completely ineffectual. Finally, the solution came with "Operation Pressure Point", which involved putting a uniformed cop on every block 24/7. Worked beautifully and lasted.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #34)

Thu May 22, 2014, 04:44 PM

35. Much will depend on the quality of the background checks run on the people ...

who are given the shotguns and the training they receive. Hopefully the weapons will be stored properly to prevent any access by children.

I checked and was unable to find out if the program has been successful or a failure. Of course it may be a little early to tell.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #6)

Thu May 22, 2014, 01:32 PM

26. Poor people are not interested in guns.

 

Can you please rewrite this sentence? I know what you mean but that broad brush is a bit much.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yeoman6987 (Reply #26)

Thu May 22, 2014, 02:32 PM

30. If you know what I mean, why rewrite it?

I have been poor for a good portion of my life. I know what being poor means. The last thing on my mind was wanting or needing a gun. The first thing was where my next meal was coming from, the second where I might be sleeping that night, followed by an infinite number of other things before a gun.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #30)

Thu May 22, 2014, 02:36 PM

31. Well I wrote it because you said "ALL POOR PEOPLE"

 

I don't typically speak for every person in a group and thought you didn't either, but maybe you do sometimes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yeoman6987 (Reply #31)

Thu May 22, 2014, 02:48 PM

32. No I didn't. I said "poor people..." I did not say "ALL" at all.

If that's how you interpreted it, though you said you understood what I meant, then I trust I have clarified that I was not referring to every single poor person on the planet.
I was stating what I think to be the obvious. No broad brushing involved, in fact no brushing at all.
I don't belong to any groups, so I don't speak for any. My comments come from my personal observations and experience, combined, at times, with research, facts and data.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Wed May 21, 2014, 08:43 PM

2. so "sensible" is defined by prohibition?

or very close to it. DC has a Kafkaesque licensing and registration that does nothing to affect the crime because the criminals buy stolen guns from drug dealers or make their own. But then, it isn't intended to deter crime. It is intended (like Chicago, New York, Australia) to make it difficult to discourage general ownership.
The latter makes up about 40 percent. They have very high fees to limit ownership to upper income, making it regressive and classist. The gun control movement is classist to its core, once you push away the appeals to emotion and race baiting you have intellectually bankrupt mess.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Wed May 21, 2014, 08:56 PM

3. "Republican lawmakers who fear the gun lobby."

So trite. What about those of us who are not Republicans, lawmakers or fearful of the gun lobby?

By the way, when DC's gun laws were far more restrictive (sensible?) DC was still one of the most violent cities in the US. Lots of people being sensibled to death.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Wed May 21, 2014, 09:47 PM

4. DC gun laws....making easy victims since....forever?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ileus (Reply #4)

Thu May 22, 2014, 12:12 AM

7. Assholes carrying guns shooting easy victims since...forever!

Excluding the "good guys" of course and the "family fun guys", America's role models.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #7)

Thu May 22, 2014, 06:46 AM

13. forced defenseless victims...now that's progressive.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ileus (Reply #13)

Thu May 22, 2014, 12:22 PM

16. "forced defenseless victims"

Forced by whom?
Defenseless how?
Victims of what?

Teaching little kids that guns are fun...now that's progressive.
Teaching kids that it's fun to destroy the environment by running around on smog producing ATV's...now that's progressive.
Teaching kids that a gun is a "personal safety device", rather than a tool designed to kill...now that's progressive.

Those kids are the defenseless victims of misguided parents.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #16)

Thu May 22, 2014, 12:28 PM

17. forced by the DC city govenment

DC public safety director said it is better to be hospitalized than to defend yourself
Victims of violent crime and paying taxes to a corrupt city government that is full of self serving politicians
Kind of like Chicago, but not as bad.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #17)

Thu May 22, 2014, 12:33 PM

19. " DC public safety director said it is better to be hospitalized than to defend yourself"

Really? Do you have a link to that? Hmm! I thought not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #19)

Thu May 22, 2014, 12:52 PM

22. That is essentially what he said

“The problem is, if you are armed, it escalates the situation. It is much better, in my opinion, to be scared, to be frightened, and even if you have to be, to be injured, but to walk away and survive. You’ll heal, and you can replace whatever was taken away.”

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sarisataka (Reply #22)

Thu May 22, 2014, 06:17 PM

36. It is part of what he said.

And essentially, I agree with him. The story of the guy's roommate and his girlfriend demonstrate the wisdom of his advice. Imagine the likely outcome, if he had been armed against 3 guns pointed at them. Very sound advice.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #19)

Thu May 22, 2014, 12:52 PM

23. Actually, I do.

I have posted it a couple of times, it is even on my You Tube "likes".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #23)

Thu May 22, 2014, 06:18 PM

37. Sounds like his advice was good

or would you have recommended a shootout in this situation?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #37)

Thu May 22, 2014, 08:04 PM

41. That the public safety director follow his own advice

and give up his armed body guards and have the city pay the medical bills for crime victims. The subtext was "I don't give a rat's ass about you little people, I only care about my ideology and power. I'm OK with you dying for what I believe in." His view is very common in the UK, which is the most violent country in Europe.
Actually, his advice was very dangerous. Often, even if you "just give it to them" they will beat or kill you just for the hell of it. Studies done by the Census Bureau and DoJ show that if you resist, less likely to be harmed. In the 1970s many gun prohibitionists even went as far as not to resist physical assault or rape. The couple was talking about physical assault, not stuff. That attitude emboldens predatory sociopaths, especially when the budget cuts lay off cops, who don't have a legal obligation to do anything for you anyway.
If the assailant produces a weapon, yes shooting him or stabbing him is fine. By pulling a weapon, you are showing that you are willing to kill for something. Sorry, the only way deal with predatory sociopaths is to remove them from the population, they can't be rehabilitated.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #41)

Thu May 22, 2014, 09:12 PM

42. Do you have a link supporting the "armed bodyguards"?

Regardless, his advice was still good, especially for the case in point.
There are times when it makes sense to defend oneself, but that one was a no brainer, and thankfully turned out OK.
You should never be willing to kill for something, unless it is to save your life or the life of another. Not some thing.

Your argument re the UK only proves his point. If indeed it is the most violent country in Europe, the homicide stats speak for themselves. Imagine the death toll if guns were used.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #42)

Thu May 22, 2014, 09:46 PM

43. Seriously?

Big city officials in the US all have armed body guards provided by the tax payer, especially in places like DC and Chicago. Bloomberg even has NYPD provided guards after leaving office.
Sorry, when someone puts a weapon in your face you can't read their minds. You can't tell. One thing I do agree with libertarians with is the non aggression principle. If anyone uses force against you, you have the right to repel them.
http://www.infiniteunknown.net/2013/01/11/britain-the-most-violent-country-in-europe-violence-rate-is-4-36-times-worse-than-in-the-u-s/
I suspect had the PSD had been white, and the questioner a person of color, I think even anti gun people would ponder if there was racial motive.
Saying that since UK is the most violent country proves his point. It doesn't. It proves my point that in nature, predators attack only those who they think or know that can't fight back. Wolves will not attack an adult bison, only the calf. Same with wild horses. A wolverine will because they can. Some animals have weapons, some depend on bluffs (butterflies). Humans are the same way. That is why the Aurora shooter drove past a couple of movie theaters playing the same movie, and chose the one that he did. That is why 18 year olds attack the 60 year old. If a predator knows or thinks there is a chance they will be harmed, they are less likely to. That is why, back to the DoJ funded Wright/Rossi study, the US has fewer home invasions aka hot burglaries than other countries. A guy decides to rob a gas station, and half of the people are wearing jackets or have their shirts not tucked in, and you happen to be in, say, Arizona. Are you going to rob it or pick another target?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #42)

Thu May 22, 2014, 10:41 PM

45. depending on how you calculate violent crime,

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #45)

Fri May 23, 2014, 11:03 AM

46. And the intentional homicide rates?

Hard to fudge these stats.
4.8 per 100,000 in the US
1.2 per 100,000 in the UK

But if you advise people to have a shoot out with 3 armed meth heads, over a cellphone and some plastic, then those stats are unlikely to improve on your side of the pond.
Violence may be bad, but rarely leads to death.
If less crime is more important to a society than fewer homicides, then you're in the right place.
It's a sad indictment of a society, when folks kill each other over the crap they buy at Walmart.

You can troll the web for old news articles (2008) about politicians fudging stats in an attempt to appease public outrage over knife crime. If that's all you've got to bolster your recommendation to let folk carry guns, then your coming up mighty short.
And the other link is a joke.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #46)

Fri May 23, 2014, 03:07 PM

47. not exactly

Hard to fudge these stats.
4.8 per 100,000 in the US
1.2 per 100,000 in the UK

Actually it isn't hard. Japan does it all the time. We count murder/suicides as one murder and x number of suicides. Japan counts them all as suicides (especially when parent takes out self and family). They use a different term to distinguish the two, but is reported as suicide. Cold cases are often written off as suicides just to close the case. Another way of counting it is number of dead body vs number of incident. For example, Sandy Hook would be 28 in the first example and 1 in the second. In the US, local agencies report the number of homicides to the FBI for the UCR, solved or not. The US also counts all homicides, including justifiable homicides by police and citizen.
The links in the UK were related to, and number of articles, of scandals where departments reported deflated actual crime rates to make themselves look good. Besides, the homicide rate was about the same or lower when the NRA-UK had more members than the US, there were zero gun laws (including documented cases of Bobbies borrowing pistols from citizen "toters" than today.

But if you advise people to have a shoot out with 3 armed meth heads, over a cellphone and some plastic, then those stats are unlikely to improve on your side of the pond.
Who said anything about shooting out? When are you going to drag out the tin man and the lion too? 1) very few (maybe a couple of hundred out of FBI/CDC estimate of 800K) defensive gun uses involves death and maybe add a thousand for wounding. Besides, less than lethal weapons are banned in DC including pepper spray. Remember their pre Heller gun law stated that no firearm accessible or operational within your home (meaning, it had to be disassembled).

If less crime is more important to a society than fewer homicides, then you're in the right place.
You missed the point entirely. There would be less crime (assuming other factors are equal, but that is a different rant) if such an undertaking involved more risk. What I said was there would be less violent crime, like robbery and rape, if there is a greater chance of the would be victim being able to defend themselves, which does not always involve being killed.
It's a sad indictment of a society, when folks kill each other over the crap they buy at Walmart.
It's even sadder when those who work to buy stuff at Walmart (or the cash they earned from working at Walmart) is told by a government official that the meth head has equal or greater right to steal it from you, especially since there is no chance in hell said government official is willing to give up his gun or guns.
It's even sadder that you missed my point, the butterfly example, as part of the larger discussion. There would be less crime and still fewer homicides because of the deterrence factor. What I said about jackets or shirt tails out did not mean they all or some would have guns, that they might or might not and the robber would have no way of knowing. None of them could be.
Even if you give up your phone, or the Nike shoes, there is no guarantee that you will live, because there is a chance that they will kill (or inflict grave bodily injury) just for the hell of it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #47)

Fri May 23, 2014, 03:46 PM

48. I give up. Sorry bud, but you lost me at Japan.

Catch you later. Gotta go swim now, it's 100 degrees here and I'm dying.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to gejohnston (Reply #49)

Sat May 24, 2014, 12:16 AM

50. Not sure what your point is

A baseball bat beating in Chicago and gun policy in DC? Are you suggesting this girl should've had a gun?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #50)

Sat May 24, 2014, 12:28 AM

51. or at least a means of defense

since the law of DC and Chicago don't allow even pepper spray. If you don't see the connection, I don't know what to say. To me it would be obvious.
Statistically, I mean based on peer reviewed studies published in criminology journals, she would have been better off with one.
The DC pol said, in not so many words, "it is OK for you to get injured or killed for what I believe in." That is kind of universal, since I'm sure he would say the same thing to someone in Chicago or anyplace else.
What if a white official said that to a constituent of color? Say he said it Maryland or Alabama?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #51)

Sat May 24, 2014, 02:20 AM

52. I agree a pepper spray is appropriate.

He gig not say what you put in quotes. He never said it's OK and he never said "what I believe in". Don't misquote, please. We all know what he said. And I agree with him, when confronted by insurmountable odds it's better to come out alive, even injured. He did not say that was OK, just better than dead.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #52)

Sat May 24, 2014, 11:02 AM

53. that is a sub text

He is in a position of power to make his personal opinion law, that is, in effect, what he is saying. Sorry, there is no ethical or moral justification for his view especially since you better believe he has his guns. Especially since DC argued to the SCOTUS that police and city government have no responsibility to protect individuals. The SCOTUS agreed and several other cases since you, and the government has no responsibility for your safety. From the tone of his voice, it was obvious he didn't care. Given my experiences in DC, I also wonder about the racial component.
Sometimes pepper spray is appropriate. Sometimes not. For example, I would use pepper spray against a dog. Against a human, it is iffy. It is 75 percent effective and worthless against drunks and someone on drugs under ideal conditions. If it is raining or a headwind, it is worthless and would be better off with a gun.
The point is, what someone carries to defend them self is none of mine or your business.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #7)

Thu May 22, 2014, 06:48 AM

14. Criminals shooting people you mean

I really don't think legal gun owners are the reason for DC's decades of carnage.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #14)

Thu May 22, 2014, 01:49 PM

28. I agree. There are few legal gun owners in DC. (n/t)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Thu May 22, 2014, 12:00 AM

5. Why do you never respond to the comments made to your OP's?

Are you happy to let the gun nuts take over your threads, or are you just trolling for a reaction? Or are you hoping someone else will carry water for you? I really don't get it.
DU is a forum where we discuss issues. You come up with some good stuff, but always leave it hanging as flame bait.
It doesn't help your credibility. Just sayin'.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #5)

Thu May 22, 2014, 01:32 AM

8. He's okay enough

Some of his stuff is off in left field but I guess he'll come out of his shell when he's motivated/inspired/bored with pasting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to discntnt_irny_srcsm (Reply #8)

Thu May 22, 2014, 02:34 AM

10. I just wish he'd engage in the conversation a little.

He does some good leg work, but then leaves it hanging. I don't get it, but there's lots of stuff I don't get.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #10)

Thu May 22, 2014, 06:21 PM

38. I think he is Trolling in an attempt ...

To get (over) reactions out of RKBA members in an effort to get them banned. He has made it quite clear on several occasions that he believes there is no place on DU for a RKBA position, and thus it if were up to him this group would be eliminated.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MicaelS (Reply #38)

Thu May 22, 2014, 06:34 PM

39. I'm not so sure.

I thought that, but he does the same, from what I can see, wherever he posts. And he usually finds good controversial stuff to post, but never follows through. His responses to other posts are rarely more than a couple of words.
Maybe his forte is in researching rather than debating and formulating ideas. I dunno, but all his conversations seem to be one way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #39)

Mon May 26, 2014, 02:52 PM

57. His normal response I have seen was either

Hi stalker or lately Hi follower

If he doesn't want people responding to his posts he shouldn't post.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #10)

Thu May 22, 2014, 07:27 PM

40. Most everyone who replies to his OPs...

...have, at one time or another, said that they would like to see some dialog from him and, failing that, at least some comment of his own. Pretty much all of his OPs are 'LBN style'.

I rather dislike the idea that there are folks out there who post in a Discussion Forum and refuse to actually DISCUSS anything. I'm guilty of forgetting to respond or missing someone's reply to me and not answering. It happens. I'd just like to see folks make an effort at respecting replies from their readers.

When I take the time to post an OP, I really appreciate any replies whether it's a simple question, a short "thanks", a long and thoughtful exchange or even the occasional reply saying that I'm way off base and all (___) should be banned forever. I can accept disagreement and criticism but if I reply with anything thoughtful to your OP and you systematically ignore me, over and over, you are just being rude.

Being rude (by inaction) isn't against the rules, here. Just because it's not against the rules, doesn't make it a good idea.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to discntnt_irny_srcsm (Reply #40)

Thu May 22, 2014, 10:32 PM

44. He/She/It has said that he/she/it doesn't want to have a conversation with"gun nuts". n/t

The person spoken of has never stated or shown on profile a gender.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #5)

Sat May 24, 2014, 12:10 PM

54. Because the point isn't to engender discussion.

 

The point is to spam the group into unusability. And it works, at least in my case: first time I've looked in here in days...and probably the last time for days, too. Far better gun politics discussions are happening on Discussionist, frankly.

Good job, SecMo! Mission fucking accomplished...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lizzie Poppet (Reply #54)

Sat May 24, 2014, 06:10 PM

55. He does the same thing in Religion, along with a few other anti-theists.

It's interesting that only extremists engage in such behavior. I'll check the Discussionist discussions. Haven't really spent much time there yet.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Thu May 22, 2014, 12:48 PM

21. flaws in the progun arguments

Johnston: DC has a Kafkaesque licensing and registration that does nothing to affect the crime because the criminals buy stolen guns from drug dealers or make their own.

No DC criminals generally don't do that, you don't know what you're talking about; criminals (& potential criminals) can buy, get or bring guns in from neighboring Maryland & Virginia, often getting them from straw purchasers or friends. There are no border checks going into & out of DC, where Maryland has a land border on 3 sides and guns walk back & forth daily.
.. And I don't know of too many home made zip guns in DC, which no self respecting criminal would even want, he wouldn't feel, uh, safe with something which needs a hammer to shoot, as opposed to a genuine mft'd gun.
.. Furthermore, there are about 100,000 rifles & shotguns legally owned (ergo licensed & reg'd) in DC (even during handgun ban days), which for ~550,000 peeps makes it 2 longguns per 9 peeps (not gunownership rate tho). Toss in pre76 grandfathered handguns, legal handguns for business owners & retired police, all reg'd.

Johnston: But then, it isn't intended to deter crime. It is intended (like Chicago, New York, Australia) to make it difficult {,} to discourage general ownership.

Bong - reg'd rifles & sgs have always been legal in DC, again you don't know what you're talking about. The handgun ban had always been intended to 'deter crime', even the black DC sheriff said the ban enabled police to stop & arrest predominantly young black males carrying handguns who were causing most of the crime problems.

Johnston: The latter makes up about 40 percent. They have very high fees to limit ownership to upper income, making it regressive and classist.

Not sure what the '40%' is, appears to be Chicago, New York, Australia(?), & then toss in DC, you sure do revel in bashing liberal democrat cities there Johnston, you love to bash them to death, & think Wyoming has some righteous gun attitude which makes for low crime, when it's more like not too many people live there, & no large cities. A fair weather democrat you are, imo.

nuclear uni: .. when DC's gun laws were far more restrictive (sensible?) DC was still one of the most violent cities in the US. Lots of people being sensibled to death.

DC is one of the approx. 35 large cities in USA (of ~360) with >500,000 people, that's far more the reason it has & had high violent crime rates, & there are progun cities ranking in the same top 25 tier as DC, you complain of DC's smell while ignoring the stink in your own backyard.
DC's sister city with similar demographis & a third the population, 100 miles down the interstate 95, Richmond Va, has generally had a higher murder rate than DC for many years past,so put that in your pipe & smoke it.

nuc uni: so "sensible" is defined by prohibition?

DC did not ban rifles & sgs. I lived in DC area for 30 years & know more about this than you two charlatans; was born in DC as well.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jimmy the one (Reply #21)

Thu May 22, 2014, 01:26 PM

24. DC ranked 21st in viol crime cities

Some rightwing business mag rated the 25 most dangerous cities in America for 2011, & 10 were cities with stricter guncontrol laws, while 13 were progun cities, & Detroit & flint are about a push - brady gives Michigan a C (allows asslt rifles & superclips), but Detroit passed shall issue in ~2002, some improvement, still usually number one or two in violent crime rate.

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-25-most-dangerous-cities-in-america-2012-10?op=1

Detroit, Flint, & progun St Louis, Memphis, Little Rock, Birmingham AL, Atlanta, Cleveland, Kansas City, Nashville, all had higher violent crime rates than DC, which ranked 21.
DC is also the nations' capital, full of intrigue & frustrated & neurotic people too.
I doubt we'll hear nuc uni complain about violent crime rates in these cities, not liberal enough there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jimmy the one (Reply #21)

Thu May 22, 2014, 01:26 PM

25. zip guns make up DC's 40 percent

No DC criminals generally don't do that, you don't know what you're talking about; criminals (& potential criminals) can buy, get or bring guns in from neighboring Maryland & Virginia, often getting them from straw purchasers or friends. There are no border checks going into & out of DC, where Maryland has a land border on 3 sides and guns walk back & forth daily.
There is little or no evidence to support that. There is no evidence of widespread violations of the Gun Control Act that you describe.

Since peer reviewed studies funded by the DoJ found that criminals don't get their guns from FFLs or gun shows, the point you think you are making is irrelevant. As far as where DC, which is what the OP is about, is on the list of worst place to be is an example of post hoc ergo propter hoc.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #25)

Thu May 22, 2014, 02:27 PM

29. would you believe, a half percent? nah

johnston: ... zip guns make up DC's 40 percent

Again you're as clear as mud; I googled & all I could find was a blurb from gunguru kopel:

kopel: Illegal home production of handguns is already a fact of life; a BATF study found that one-fifth of the guns seized by police in Washington, D.C. were homemade.

And: From 2000 through 2012, law enforcement recovered more than 28,000 guns in the District.. D.C. includes non-firearms such as BB guns; http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/local/dc-recovered-guns/

So, 20% of 28,000 guns 5,600 guns, over a 12 year period is approx. 500 homemade guns per year (if kopel is correct); But 'recovered guns' is a far stretch from combined handguns & legal guns in DC those years. 500 divided by over 100,000 legal guns is about a half percent per year, but that doesn't include illegal DC guns; Dunno what your point is whatsoever, try to include a source link & more detail, thanks.

Johnston: As far as where DC, which is what the OP is about, is on the list of worst place to be is an example of post hoc ergo propter hoc.

Uh, huh, more of your hoc. Go into detail & explain what is post hoc & what is propter hoc, so we can know if you're just tapdancing or have some real argument, because just tossing a platitude around doesn't prove much unless you explain it, thanks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jimmy the one (Reply #29)

Thu May 22, 2014, 04:14 PM

33. not all information is online

it pays to, you know, visit a brick and mortar library.

Uh, huh, more of your hoc. Go into detail & explain what is post hoc & what is propter hoc, so we can know if you're just tapdancing or have some real argument, because just tossing a platitude around doesn't prove much unless you explain it, thanks.
Actually I was clogging. You imply, and often say, that the stricter gun laws equal lower crime rates. That is an example of that logical fallacy. In fact, it is the about the most common fallacy gun control activists use. Define progun. Also, Business Insider is corporatist, not right wing.

brady gives Michigan a C (allows asslt rifles & superclips), but Detroit passed shall issue in ~2002, some improvement, still usually number one or two in violent crime rate.
Michigan also has had "universal background checks" since 1925. Brady mention that? Detroit didn't pass anything. Lansing is the capitol, not Detroit. The State of Michigan passed shall issue, which has nothing to do with the crime rate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #33)

Tue May 27, 2014, 09:59 AM

61. a fact is not a logical fallacy

gjohnston: You imply, and often say, that the stricter gun laws equal lower crime rates. That is an example of that logical fallacy.

The logic fallacy is what you wrote above, for I've never said that stricter gun laws absolutely equal lower crime rates, just that in general - amongst demographically similar cities - violent crime rates tend lower when under stricter gun laws.
A fact cannot be a logical fallacy.
Still you did not explain clearly what was the ergo & what was the propter, you're still tapdancing.

Johnston: Detroit didn't pass anything. Lansing is the capitol, not Detroit. The State of Michigan passed shall issue, which has nothing to do with the crime rate.

Michigan passed shall issue ccw in july 2001, but I believe Detroit had restrictions which were in effect until 2002, when shall issue, or 'fuller' shall issue, was allowed.
Which is what I meant when I wrote: .. Detroit passed shall issue in ~2002,

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jimmy the one (Reply #61)

Tue May 27, 2014, 11:00 AM

62. cherry picking a few cities

Actually, I used the wrong one http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cum_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc which simply means coordination does not imply causation. Since you cherry pick cities, you are also card stacking. The link clearly explains it.
The logic fallacy is what you wrote above, for I've never said that stricter gun laws absolutely equal lower crime rates, just that in general - amongst demographically similar cities - violent crime rates tend lower when under stricter gun laws.
A fact cannot be a logical fallacy.
the fallacy is saying that one has anything to do with the other. Second, demographics have little to do with it because that is saying one race is inherently more violent than the other. There are an infinite number of reasons why the murder rate would be higher in LOLA than NYC.
Studies done by the DoJ, LoC found no evidence that gun laws affect crime anywhere in the world. The Library of Congress study was even done during the so called "research ban".
Since DoJ funded studies dating back to the 1980s show that criminals rarely go to FFLs and never to gun shows, that makes the laws irrelevant because they don't affect those cause most of the murder and mayhem. There is no evidence that liberalized CCW has any effect on crime either way.

Did you and Piers Morgan go to the same school? It seems that you learned debate and critical thinking (more accurately, didn't learn it at all) from the same school of thought. The only difference is that when is loses he resorts to name calling. You are at least polite and start talk about tap dancing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #62)

Tue May 27, 2014, 12:35 PM

63. uncoordination

Johnston: Actually, I used the wrong one which simply means coordination does not imply causation.

The proper phrase is 'correlation does not prove causation'. But this just means that it doesn't absolutely prove causation. There can indeed be a causative effect if there is a correlation. You just can't say that when geese fly over a lake going north, they cause the weather to become warm.

And your link ended with this: As with any logical fallacy, identifying that the reasoning behind an argument is flawed does not imply that the resulting conclusion is false.

Johnston: Since you cherry pick cities, you are also card stacking. The link clearly explains it.

An utterly ridiculous remark, since I was specifically noting which progun cities or shall issue cities had higher violent crime rates than wash DC. I couldn't 'cherry pick' those cities without them actually BEING those cities, now could I? what I wrote is below:

what jimmy wrote: Detroit, Flint, & progun St Louis, Memphis, Little Rock, Birmingham AL, Atlanta, Cleveland, Kansas City, Nashville, all had higher violent crime rates than DC, which ranked 21.





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jimmy the one (Reply #63)

Tue May 27, 2014, 12:59 PM

66. No.

The proper phrase is 'correlation does not prove causation'. But this just means that it doesn't absolutely prove causation. There can indeed be a causative effect if there is a correlation. You just can't say that when geese fly over a lake going north, they cause the weather to become warm.
Take that up with Wikipedia. While you are at it, take it up with Princeton. Yet that is what you are doing. There can be, but you have not proven it. Nor have you provided any evidence of it.

An utterly ridiculous remark, since I was specifically noting which progun cities or shall issue cities had higher violent crime rates than wash DC. I couldn't 'cherry pick' those cities without them actually BEING those cities, now could I? what I wrote is below:

what jimmy wrote: Detroit, Flint, & progun St Louis, Memphis, Little Rock, Birmingham AL, Atlanta, Cleveland, Kansas City, Nashville, all had higher violent crime rates than DC, which ranked 21.
What about other cities in those states? That is cherry picking. Since we know that the violent crime rate was higher before any of them adopted shall issue, and we also know that CCW holders are statistically more law abiding than cops, your attempts to show that there is a cause fails.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #66)

Tue May 27, 2014, 02:45 PM

67. another false premise

what jimmy wrote: Detroit, Flint, & progun St Louis, Memphis, Little Rock, Birmingham AL, Atlanta, Cleveland, Kansas City, Nashville, all had higher violent crime rates than DC, which ranked 21.

Johnston replied: What about other cities in those states? That is cherry picking. Since we know that the violent crime rate was higher before any of them adopted shall issue, and we also know that CCW holders are statistically more law abiding than cops, your attempts to show that there is a cause fails

Duh, I was not trying to establish causation; duh, I was only factually listing those pro gun or shall issue cities with higher violent crime rates than wash DC, to counter arguments that DC guncontrol was ineffective - if it was ineffective, then those progun shall issue cities done did worse.

You again reply with tapdancing & creating your own false premise as if it was what I had written.
As well, I'm thinking again that you cannot comprehend, less yet argue successfully, from a valid platform. In part because you're too duplicitously pro gun.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jimmy the one (Reply #67)

Tue May 27, 2014, 02:55 PM

68. yes you did

Duh, I was not trying to establish causation; duh, I was only factually listing those pro gun or shall issue cities with higher violent crime rates than wash DC, to counter arguments that DC guncontrol was ineffective - if it was ineffective, then those progun shall issue cities done did worse.
done did worse? Actually you were, and you are implying it now. If you weren't, what is the point you were trying to make? You haven't made a single logical or valid point yet. When shown the errors, you complain about "tapdancing".
So please, stop wasting my time with childish word games and projection.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #66)

Tue May 27, 2014, 03:03 PM

69. prove & imply

Johnston: Take that up with Wikipedia. While you are at it, take it up with Princeton. Yet that is what you are doing. There can be, but you have not proven it. Nor have you provided any evidence of it.

I haven't tried to prove causation, tho I think it's probable (more guns more crime).

As far as 'correlation does not prove causation', it's more a layman's phrase substituting prove for imply, since imply in scientific terms is synonymous with prove, while imply can also be interpreted as 'suggested' which might not fit for the layman.

thesaurus entries for imply:

entail -- correlation does not entail causation.
hint
involve
signify -- correlation does not signify causation.
suggest
betoken
connote
denote
designate
evidence -- correlation does not evidence causation.
include
insinuate
intend
intimate
presuppose
refer
point to http://thesaurus.com/browse/imply


Thus, I have nowt to take up with Princeton.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jimmy the one (Reply #69)

Tue May 27, 2014, 03:31 PM

70. fail.

and those straw are slipping out of your fingers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread