Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Kerry/Gun Violence

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Politics/Campaigns Donate to DU
 
JHS Donating Member (68 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-16-03 10:45 AM
Original message
Kerry/Gun Violence
Edited on Tue Jul-15-03 09:45 AM by JHS
John Kerry favors measures to increase gun safety. Kerry supports enforcing existing gun laws more vigorously, closing the gun show loophole, and requiring all handguns to be sold with a child safety lock. In the Senate, John Kerry authored the Gun Lock Consumer Protection Act, requiring the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) to formulate minimum safety standards for gun safety locks and that guns with proper locks are sold to consumers.

John Kerry is troubled by the numbers of Americans - and particularly children - that are wounded or killed by gunfire. Kerry supports stricter gun control measures. Where is Dr. Dean on this issue and why?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
pansypoo53219 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-15-03 09:44 AM
Response to Original message
1. don't play reptilican games
WHERE IS BUSH?!?
united we stand-divided the simian wins.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JHS Donating Member (68 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-15-03 09:49 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. If we don't discuss the issues . . .
and are not really clear where each candidate stands, Chimpy Inc. still wins. It is important to get the record and positions out there clearly, so people can make educated choices. No games!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-15-03 09:49 AM
Response to Original message
3. Do we require child-safety seats for every car sold to consumers?
Edited on Tue Jul-15-03 09:51 AM by slackmaster
I have no children, and if I was required to buy one with a new car I'd be pretty annoyed.

I have a gun safe. All of my firearms are locked up inside of it except when they are in use, being cleaned or inspected, etc. I also have a large Ziplock bag full of useless trigger locks, which all told cost me about $100. I was required to buy some by a San Diego municipal ordinance, later ones by a California state law. Just recently California gun buyers became able to avoid buying a trigger lock by signing an affidavit that they have a suitable gun safe. THAT makes a lot more sense than requiring everyone to buy a device they may not need.

I don't object to making effective child-safety devices available. It's the "mandatory" part I object to.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JHS Donating Member (68 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-15-03 09:53 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. Why
Why is making gun locks mandatory a problem if it saves little kids' lives? Isn't it worth the inconvenience?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-15-03 10:01 AM
Response to Reply #4
5. The problem is it DOESN'T always save kids' lives
Edited on Tue Jul-15-03 10:04 AM by slackmaster
In my case it would make no difference if I left guns all over the house. (I would never do that because they are too valuable and I wouldn't want someone to steal then abuse them.)

Kids don't come in here often. When they do I make damn sure the guns are put away, as well as dangerous chemicals, sharp objects, medication, etc.

Making me pay $10 for a trigger lock is an inconvenience and financial hit on me with no offsetting benefit in public safety.

BTW if you look for the stats I believe you will find that only about 100 children under 14 are shot accidentally in the US. That's still too many, but a lot less of an issue than swimming pool safety if the real concern is saving lives.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bread and Circus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-18-03 06:07 AM
Response to Reply #5
24. A friendly word of advice...
I am saying this to be helpful. I am not
against Kerry and I am for gun safety.
However, you should not press this issue,
it is quite peripheral to the overall goals
of the left.Work on the underlying
social problems that contribute to
gun violence (for the most part): poverty,
inequality, substance abuse, domestic violence,
and lack of education.

First, if you start touting your candidate as
"a gun control" candidate you will motivate the
NRA in such a fierce way it will make your head
spin. I know they are already motivated, but you
don't need to give them ammunition.

Second, you can save more lives by concerning your-self
with fundamental underlying social problems. Gun violence
is a symptom of a disease, not the disease itself.
Hammer away at education funding, equal opportunity,
fighting institutional racism, and so forth.

Gun control is a battle the left needs to not fight
in order to win the war.

Peace, prosperity, and justice will save lives more
than trigger-locks.

Again, I respect the actual points of what gun control
legislation aims to do, it is just that by painting
our candidates into the gun control corner only empowers
Bush.

The problem with us on the left is that we get hung up
on, dare I say, "small issues", and fail to see the big
picture. If you want your guy to win the big one in 2004
don't force him to run too far left in the primaries. Don't
paint him into a corner.

With sincere respect and hope for the future. :)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
valniel Donating Member (145 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-18-03 11:01 AM
Response to Reply #24
26. Agree Wholeheartedly
I agree wholeheartedly. But sometimes you must treat the symptoms to prevent the patient from dying, before you can cure the underlying decease.
Likewise with gun violence and the underlying social problems. Gun violence, and the spread of illegal firearms, is a current problem, that needs to be addressed now. Fixing the underlying social problems is directed toward future generations.
Both issues needs to be addressed.
That said, I agree that an aggressive gun control agenda is counter productive, but there is near universal agreement on preventing criminals and juveniles from acquiring firearms.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bread and Circus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-18-03 12:05 PM
Response to Reply #26
27. The simple question is...
Do you or don't you want a democrat in
office? I know I do. That's why we
need to stress peace, prosperity, and security
as the issues. If we as a collective get
bogged down on divisive issues, then we will
lose again the same way we have since 1994. Gun control
is a divisive and inflammatory issue in America.
It may not seem that way in DU but it is on
"mainstreet and the backwoods" of America.
I agree with you that we
need to tackle the important stuff.

I order to do that, you have to win office. You
can gain centrist votes talking about peace,
prosperity, education, health care, and government
accountability but you only stand to
lose votes if you get too heavily invested
in gun control as an issue. It is not worth it.

That's just my take. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DrFunkenstein Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-15-03 10:48 AM
Response to Original message
6. What Would Micheal Moore Think Of This Issue?
It is hard to watch Bowling For Columbine and come away saying, "I think we should leave it up to the states." What good are gun laws if criminals can go to the next state over and come back and sell them illegally?

I know alot of people here willing to turn a blind eye on this issue because it makes their candidate more "electable." Then get pissed when people call their candidate "unelectable." I wish people would be a little more honest about this whole phenomenon.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
killbotfactory Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-15-03 12:02 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. Isn't trafficing guns between states already illegal?
It's my understanding that you cannot buy guns out of state, and criminals are prevented from buying guns to begin with.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gottaB Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-18-03 05:42 AM
Response to Reply #7
23. this is an old argument
but the reasoning I don't think has changed much.

Here is what Charles Schumer said on News Hour in the wake of the 1997 SCOTUS decision striking down part of the background check provision in the Brady Bill:

I do agree that the vast majority of law enforcement officials will continue to enforce the Brady law. They realize that its good law enforcement. And while Mr. Fotis represents a small group of pro-NRA police, the major police organizations throughout America, much more represented by the police chief, the FOP, the NAPO, all of them have supported the Brady bill and will continue to strongly, but, unfortunately, even if you got 1 percent of the jurisdictions not enforcing the law, as you said before, there is a weak link.

And lets say some sheriff in South Carolina County refuses to enforce the law. You could have gun runners, go buy hundreds of guns at a time in his jurisdiction, transport them up to New York or Buffalo, or Washington, or Philadelphia, and seldom illegally. And the reason weve needed a national law is very simple; it may be that in the sheriff on the show in Arizona they dont have a huge crime problem, but were one nation, and this is where the Supreme Court decision was wrong. And if you dont have enforcement uniformly across the country, then youre not going to have any Brady law at all. In my city, New York City, 90 percent--over 90 percent--of the guns used in crimes are sold by dealers out of state, 65 percent from states with weak gun laws like Florida, Georgia, Virginia, and the two Carolinas.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DrFunkenstein Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-18-03 12:14 PM
Response to Reply #23
28. That Is Exactly My Concern With "Leaving It To The States"
Thank you for the quote, gottaB.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kwolf68 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-15-03 01:06 PM
Response to Original message
8. woo doggie


I love seeing Dean's fan club following him around like a tail on a jackass.

Dean is opposed to federal regulations of firearms, which taken to its logical extreme could repeal Brady, and the assault bans, cop killer bullets...all federal laws.

I could live w/ Dean's right-wing stand on this issue, but then I hear he comes out for the death penalty, for factory farms and has a spotty environmental record.

Just what the **** is the reason to vote for this guy again?

Hey, if Dean would run on a platform of tax cuts for the rich he'd be a damn Republican.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
killbotfactory Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-15-03 03:20 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. He's not against all federal regulations of firearms.
He supports the current measures plus instacheck for closing the gunshow loophole, and then having further gun laws up to the states.

There is nothing spotty about his environmental record. He just didn't go far enough for the left-wingers in his state, but he made progress closing landfills, he preserved thousands of acres of land, he put in emission standards that are more strict than Kyoto, promoting the use of electric cars, confining sprawl grouth, starting the first state energy efficiency utility which has drastically reduced greenhouse gas emissions... etc.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DrGonzoLives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-16-03 08:57 AM
Response to Reply #8
16. Woo-hoo! Now I'm right-wing too!
I hope Dean does win, so you can vote for Bush in 2004.

Oh, and don't bother finding facts before you rant. It makes what you say so much less entertaining.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JHS Donating Member (68 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-15-03 09:31 PM
Response to Original message
10. Kerry - Gun Control Advocate/Hunter
I already pointed it out once but I want to again stress that John Kerry received "F" from the NRA, and 100% from The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence. As a Progressive and Democrat, this issue matters to me. Also, I live in a city that has a bad problem with crime and random violence, so it matters.

It is also interesting to point out that Kerry is a hunter, so even though he has a great record on gun control issues, he also understands what guns mean to hunters in rural states. This combination seems perfect to me. I grew up in a rural state, where hunters get worked up about guns. My current life in the middle of a major city has shown me the need for gun control. I think Kerry has balance that is going to appeal to many people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Romulus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-15-03 11:00 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. almost didn't respond to this
but I bet you a bucket of beer that the problems you perceive of "crime and random violence" while living "in the middle of a major city" are already addressed by current firearms laws, i.e. no unlicensed carrying of handguns (if even allowed in your state), the federal law against convicted felons being within smelling distance of firearms, and laws against firearms being in proximity to the dealing of illicit controlled substances.

FYI: the people in "rural states" of whom you talk don't necessarily associate their firearms with "hunting." The Second Amendmend has jack **** to do with "hunting." Somehow I doubt Massachusetts John really "understands" rural Democrats in the rest of the country if that is your evidence. Any 100% rating from the CSGV is the kiss of death for anybody's national candidate in America.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JHS Donating Member (68 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-15-03 11:16 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. I have to disagree . . .
Edited on Tue Jul-15-03 11:27 PM by JHS
First, if crime and gun problems are addressed by current federal law, then current law is not sufficient. We have a problem where I live and in a lot of other cities. Every year, teenagers kill each other on the street; the crews are out at work. There are a lot of other examples. Something is wrong and not working. It seems to me that while strengthening gun control laws may not completely solve crimes and problems rooted in poverty, inequity, and social injustice, it would clearly help.

Secondly, there sure are a lot of hunters with NRA stickers on their pickup trucks that would disagree and think that the Second Amendment has a lot to do with their right to own and use guns. Hunters appreciate other sportsmen and their understanding of gun issues.

Finally, Kerry might surprise you as far as his overall understanding of rural issues in many areas. For example, take a look at what John Kerry has done on the Senate Small Business Committee. Also, look at Kerrys record on the environment. People in many rural states like Maine really care about the environment clean water, clean air, etc. I think Kerry has a record and proposed policies that will appeal to many rural voters.

I guess I have some beer coming my way!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Aaron Donating Member (489 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-16-03 06:02 AM
Response to Reply #12
13. I think the previous poster meant laws are going unenforced
There are lots of laws against various crimes involving guns and gun possession but if enforcement of those laws isn't fully funded they don't do much good. Meanwhile new laws, if also not fully funded, probably wouldn't do much good either, at least as far as I can tell.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Township75 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-16-03 08:44 AM
Response to Reply #12
15. Kerry will lose rural swing and Dem voters with his gun control positions
GC is a losing issue. It is wrong and it doesn't work.

Look at England and Austrilia if you need proof. There crime rates have sky rocketed after the banned guns, and on top of that they already have licensing/registration. England now enjoys 3x the handgun crime they had before their 1998 gun confiscastion idea.

You mentioned in your post that teenagers kill each other on the street. Well, teenagers can not own guns in any state. Handguns and assualt rifles require an age of 21 for ownership. I really doubt they were using hunting rifles for there crimes.

Take a lesson from Gore in 2k. He should NOT have had to spend time in heavily unionized MI, WV and PA to win them...but he did. Why? Because he tried to push gun control and it cost him big. He may have won MI and PA after spending a lot of $ and time there, but he lost WV, TN, AK, and LA. I am willing to bet FL would never have been close had he not made comments about banning or licensicing handguns on Larry King.

This is why I am supporting Dean, becuase he knows that guns are not the problem. As someone who grew up in a rural union gun loving area (even though my house had no guns), I know that these people believe attacking the 2A is like attacking their religion. Gun control will only lose elections and it will NOT make the US safer.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
valniel Donating Member (145 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-16-03 09:31 PM
Response to Reply #15
20. Kerry's gun control position
Is this going to loose rural swing and Dem voters?

From www.johnkerry.com, under Issues > Crime

Increased Gun Safety:
John Kerry is deeply troubled by the numbers of people - and particularly the number of children - that are wounded or killed by gunfire each year. He supports measures that would prevent children and adults from misusing any of the approximately 192 million firearms currently in circulation in the nation. And he believes that we must enforce existing gun laws, close the gun show loophole, which permits sales at gun shows without a background check, and require that all handguns are sold with a child safety lock.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Township75 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-18-03 08:37 AM
Response to Reply #20
25. Yes, it is.
Ohh, how reasonable. Kerry just wants to support measurers that would prevent the misuse of guns. Well, then gun owners have nothing to worry about :puke:

There is a reason he has a 100% voting record with The Brady Campaign. That alone is going to lose rural voters and gun owners.

He supports measures that would prevent children and adults from misusing any of the approximately 192 million firearms currently in circulation in the nation.
This translates into CA style gun laws. All guns must have a trigger lock on them except when in use. They must be in an area where they are difficult for children to reach.

close the gun show loophole, which permits sales at gun shows without a background check
Closing the gun show loophole by itself will not lose rural or gun owners, but they way in which some people want to do it will. The Leibermann/McCAin model calls for at least a 3 day waiting period for all gun transactions at a gun show. This is a back door method to end gun shows. How? Simple. Gun shows last 2 days. Who would buy a gun at a gun show when they can't leave with it. They would have to purchase it there, then travel to the sellers store to receive it. Why bother? This would end gun shows because no one would buy guns there.

So that in a nutshell is why Kerry will lose rural America and gun owners. In order to beat Bush, we need every vote we can get, and we will not get it when we split our union votes, and throw away rural votes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Romulus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-16-03 09:46 AM
Response to Reply #12
18. I guess so (on the disagreement part, not the beer)
From the CSGV website(click on "About us"):

CSGV supports a ban on the importation, manufacture, sale and transfer of handguns and assault weapons, with reasonable exceptions for police, military, security personnel, gun clubs, and antique and collectable firearms stored in inoperable condition


You had written :Secondly, there sure are a lot of hunters with NRA stickers on their pickup trucks that would disagree and think that the Second Amendment has a lot to do with their right to own and use guns. Hunters appreciate other sportsmen and their understanding of gun issues.

That cockamamee UK/Australian-type gun control platform will never win a US national election, much less a state election. I'm sorry to break to to you, but outside of SF/LA/NYC/MA/NJ/Chicago/DC that platform is a loser, especially with the group of "sportsmen" of which you speak. It didn't even work in MD.

As far as the beer goes - the other posters in this sub-thread addressed that for me. Sorry! :beer:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Aaron Donating Member (489 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-16-03 06:06 AM
Response to Original message
14. Ty for this I hadn't looked it up yet
While I suspect I disagree at least partially with you on this issue, as I support less restrictions on guns -with far better enforcement of those kept, I think we all gain when we are more informed with regard to the candidates.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Romulus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-16-03 09:34 AM
Response to Reply #14
17. same for me
although I disagree with some of Kerry's positions, at least I get to see what he's about. It sure is refreshing compared to the fanatics' threads concerning their same two candidates of choice.

:beer:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RogueTrooper Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-16-03 10:35 AM
Response to Original message
19. Ol' Gun Grabber Kerry
Well, Vermont has one of the lowest violent crime rates in the US. I guess Dr. Dean is way ahead of the curve on this one.

After all, is the gun crime you are concerned about or the guns? Maybe Democrats should find ways to tackle violent crime other than gutting the second ammendment? By being ideologues on this issue we are allowing the right to assault the constitution from all sides.

There is a huge single issue vote out there to be one. People who need a Democrat in the Whitehouse but will not vote Democrat because of this issue. Dean is the only candidate in the race who can get these people drinking our kool-aid.

Howard Dean is bringing new people into Democratic politics: single-issue Independants; former Republicans, disgusted with this adminstration; people who have never voted before.
Who is your candidate bringing to the party?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-16-03 11:20 PM
Response to Reply #19
21. What Democrat will "grab" guns?
Isn't that what the NRA/RNC said about Al Gore? Did you believe that deliberate lie?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dsc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-16-03 11:37 PM
Response to Original message
22. Why I support Dean despite strongly disagreeing with him on guns
Edited on Wed Jul-16-03 11:45 PM by dsc
In 1992 we elected a pro gun control President and a Democratic Congress. All we had to show for that is less than what Dean actually favors on this issue. Dean favors Brady, the assult weapons ban, and closing the gun show loophole. In 1999 we had an event that should have caused the entire country to revolt for gun control. And what did we have to show for it? Nada. If Bill Clinton, the premere politician of the ages couldn't get this done with Columbine to help him then how in God's name do you think Kerry will? We could elect Sarah Brady tomorrow and if the Congress and the people remain the same as they are now then we would be lucky to get all of what Dean favors.

Unless, and until, I can be shown some logical reason to believe that any thing above what Dean favors is even remotely possible on the federal level I will not even think about a candidate's position on guns unless they favor less than this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun Feb 28th 2021, 08:53 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Politics/Campaigns Donate to DU

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


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

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

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

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC