America, You Must Not Look Away (How to Finish Off the NRA) ...a letter from Michael Moore

[Mira]

Hoping this is not a duplicate (I looked, of course) I must post it in its entirety, since it is a letter in my inbox, and can't be abbreviated.


America, You Must Not Look Away (How to Finish Off the NRA) ...a letter from Michael Moore

Wednesday, March 13th, 2013

Friends,

The year was 1955. Emmett Till was a young African American boy from Chicago visiting relatives in Mississippi. One day Emmett was seen "flirting" with a white woman in town, and for that he was mutilated and murdered at the age of fourteen. He was found with part of a cotton gin tied around his neck with a string of barbed wire. His killers, two white men, had shot him in the head before they dumped him in the river.

Emmett Till's body was found and returned to Chicago. To the shock of many, his mother insisted on an open casket at his funeral so that the public could see what happens to a little boy's body when bigots decide he is less than human. She wanted photographers to take pictures of her mutilated son and freely publish them. More than 10,000 mourners came to the funeral home, and the photo of Emmett Till appeared in newspapers and magazines across the nation.

"I just wanted the world to see," she said. "I just wanted the world to see."

The world did see, and nothing was ever the same again for the white supremacists of the United States of America. Because of Emmett Till, because of that shocking photograph of this little dead boy, just a few months later, "the revolt officially began on December 1, 1955" (from Eyes on the Prize) when Rosa Parks decided not to give up her seat on a bus in Montgomery, Alabama. The historic bus boycott began and, with the images of Emmett Till still fresh in the minds of many Americans, there was no turning back.

In March of 1965, the police of Selma, Alabama, brutally beat, hosed and tear-gassed a group of African Americans for simply trying to cross a bridge during a protest march. The nation was shocked by images of blacks viciously maimed and injured. So, too, was the President. Just one week later, Lyndon Johnson called for a gathering of the U.S. Congress and he went and stood before them in joint session and told them to pass a bill he was introducing that night – the Voting Rights Act of 1965. And, just five months later, President Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act into law.

In March, 1968, U.S. soldiers massacred 500 civilians at My Lai in Vietnam. A year and a half later, the world finally saw the photographs – of mounds of dead peasants covered in blood, a terrified toddler seconds before he was gunned down, and a woman with her brains literally blown out of her head. (These photos would join other Vietnam War photos, including a naked girl burned by napalm running down the road, and a South Vietnamese general walking up to a handcuffed suspect, taking out his handgun, and blowing the guy's brains out on the NBC Nightly News.)

With this avalanche of horrid images, the American public turned against the Vietnam War. Our realization of what we were capable of rattled us so deeply it became very hard for future presidents (until George W. Bush) to outright invade a sovereign nation and go to war there for a decade.

Bush was able to pull it off because his handlers, Misters Cheney and Rumsfeld, knew that the most important thing to do from the get-go was to control the images of the war, to guarantee that nothing like a My Lai-style photograph ever appeared in the U.S. press.

And that is why you never see a picture any more of the kind of death and destruction that might make you get up off your couch and run out of the house screaming bloody murder at those responsible for these atrocities.

That is why now, after the children's massacre in Newtown, the absolute last thing the National Rifle Association wants out there in the public domain is ANY images of what happened that tragic day.

But I have a prediction. I believe someone in Newtown, Connecticut – a grieving parent, an upset law enforcement officer, a citizen who has seen enough of this carnage in our country – somebody, someday soon, is going to leak the crime scene photos of the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre. And when the American people see what bullets from an assault rifle fired at close range do to a little child's body, that's the day the jig will be up for the NRA. It will be the day the debate on gun control will come to an end. There will be nothing left to argue over. It will just be over. And every sane American will demand action.

Of course, there will be a sanctimonious hue and cry from the pundits who will decry the publication of these gruesome pictures. Those who do publish or post them will be called "shameful" and "disgraceful" and "sick." How could a media outlet be so insensitive to the families of the dead children! Someone will then start a boycott of the magazine or website that publishes them.

But this will be a false outrage. Because the real truth is this: We do not want to be confronted with what the actual results of a violent society looks like. Of what a society that starts illegal wars, that executes criminals (or supposed criminals), that strikes or beats one of its women every 15 seconds, and shoots 30 of its own citizens every single day looks like. Oh, no, please – DO NOT MAKE US LOOK AT THAT!

Because if we were to seriously look at the 20 slaughtered children – I mean really look at them, with their bodies blown apart, many of them so unrecognizable the only way their parents could identify them was by the clothes they were wearing – what would be our excuse not to act? Now. Right now. This very instant! How on earth could anyone not spring into action the very next moment after seeing the bullet-riddled bodies of these little boys and girls?

We don't know exactly what those Newtown photographs show. But I want you – yes, you, the person reading this right now – to think about what we do know:

The six-year and seven-year-old children killed at Sandy Hook Elementary School were each hit up to eleven times by a Bushmaster AR-15 semi-automatic rifle. The muzzle velocity of a rifle like the AR-15 is about three times that of a handgun. And because the kinetic energy of a bullet equals one-half of the bullet's mass multiplied by its velocity squared, the potential destructive power of a bullet fired from a rifle is about nine times more than that of a similar bullet fired from a handgun.

Nine times more. I spoke to Dr. Victor Weedn, chairman of the Department of Forensic Sciences at George Washington University, who told me that chest x-rays of a person shot with a rifle will often look like a "snowstorm" because their bones will have been shattered into fragments. This happens not just because of the bullet's direct impact, but because each bullet sends a shock wave through the body's soft organs – one so powerful it can break bones even when the bullet didn't hit them. A video here shows what the shock wave looks like in the "ballistic gelatin" used by experts to simulate human tissue. (Would Gabby Giffords have survived if shot by a rifle rather than a Glock pistol? Probably not, says Dr. Weedn; the shock wave would have damaged the most critical parts of her brain.)

As horrifying as this is, there's more; much more. Dr. Cyril Wecht, past president of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences, told me this:

The kind of ammunition used by the Newtown killer would have produced very extensive, severe and mutilating injuries of the head and face in these small victims. Depending on the number of shots striking a child’s head, substantial portions of the head would be literally blasted away. The underlying brain tissue would be extensively lacerated with portions of hemorrhagic brain tissue protruding through the fractured calvarium and basilar skull, some of which would remain on portions of the face...actual physical identification of each child would have been extremely difficult, and in many instances impossible, even by the parents of any particular child.

We also know this, according to Dr. Wecht:

In one case, the parents have commented publicly upon the damage to their child, reporting that his chin and left hand were missing. Most probably, this child had brought his hand up to his face in shock and for protection and had the hand blasted away along with the lower part of his face.

Veronique Pozner, the mother of Noah, the six-year-old boy described by Dr. Wecht, insisted that the Governor of Connecticut look at Noah in an open casket. "I needed it to be real to him," she said. The Governor wept.

The pictures showing all this exist right now, somewhere in the police and medical examiner's files in Connecticut. And as of right now, we've somehow all decided together that we don't need to look, that in some way we're okay with what's in those pictures (after all, over 2,600 Americans have been killed by guns since Newtown) – just as long as we don't have to look at the pictures ourselves.

But I am telling you now, that moment will come with the Newtown photos – and you will have to look. You will have to look at who and what we are, and what we've allowed to happen. At the end of World War II, General Eisenhower ordered that thousands of German civilians be forced to march through the concentration camps so they could witness what was happening just down the road from them during the years that they turned their gaze away, or didn't ask, or didn't do anything to stop the murder of millions.

We've done nothing since Columbine – nothing – and as a result there have been over 30 other mass shootings since then. Our inaction means that we are all, on some level, responsible – and therefore, because of our burying our heads in the sand, we must be forced to look at the 20 dead children at Sandy Hook Elementary.

The people we've voted for since Columbine – with the exception of Michael Bloomberg – almost none of them, Democrat or Republican, dared to speak out against the NRA before Newtown – and yet we, the people, continued to vote for them. And for that we are responsible, and that is why we must look at the 20 dead children.

Most of us continue to say we "support the Second Amendment" as if it were written by God (or we're just afraid of being seen as anti-American). But this amendment was written by the same white men who thought a Negro was only 3/5 human. We've done nothing to revise or repeal this – and that makes us responsible, and that is why we must look at the pictures of the 20 dead children laying with what's left of their bodies on the classroom floor in Newtown, Connecticut.

And while you're looking at the heinous photographs, try saying those words out loud: "I support the Second Amendment!" Something, I'm guessing, won't feel right.

Yes, someday a Sandy Hook mother – or a Columbine mother, or an Aurora mother, or a mother from massacres yet to come – will say, like the mother of Emmett Till, "I just want the world to see." And then nothing about guns in this country will ever be the same again.

Pack your bags, NRA – you're about to be shown the door. Because we refuse to let another child die in this manner. Got it? I hope so.

All you can do now is hope no one releases those photos.

Yours,
Michael Moore
[e-mail]
@MMFlint
MichaelMoore.com

[graham4anything]

1. The people we've voted for since Columbine – with the exception of Michael Bloomberg ...

"We've done nothing since Columbine – nothing – and as a result there have been over 30 other mass shootings since then. Our inaction means that we are all, on some level, responsible – and therefore, because of our burying our heads in the sand, we must be forced to look at the 20 dead children at Sandy Hook Elementary.

The people we've voted for since Columbine – with the exception of Michael Bloomberg – almost none of them, Democrat or Republican, dared to speak out against the NRA before Newtown – and yet we, the people, continued to vote for them. And for that we are responsible, and that is why we must look at the 20 dead children.

Most of us continue to say we "support the Second Amendment" as if it were written by God (or we're just afraid of being seen as anti-American). But this amendment was written by the same white men who thought a Negro was only 3/5 human. We've done nothing to revise or repeal this – and that makes us responsible, and that is why we must look at the pictures of the 20 dead children laying with what's left of their bodies on the classroom floor in Newtown, Connecticut. "


(from the above letter from Michael Moore)

[mountain grammy]

49. Oh yes they did, they let the assault weapons ban expire (2004)

and passed laws against holding gun manufacturers responsible for ANYTHING! (2005)
Yes, there is a difference when Democrats are in charge.


http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/21/politics/21guns.html?_r=0

[abelenkpe]

2. K&R

It is sad we haven't already done more.

[mikeysnot]

3. this was the most difficult thing I have ever read from MM.

[Mira]

10. Same here - and there have been many that were tough to swallow

and digest.
As a matter of fact, I posted it, and then read it again more slowly, abhorred at my mental images, and then disoriented, I posted it a second time.

[mikeysnot]

62. I went into the kitchen and hugged my boy

for what seemed like eternity...

[Bay Boy]

4. It seems like the mother of Emmett Till's heroism has been forgotten

it was a very courageous thing she did. I give her all the credit in the world for coming down on racism and hatred and not the mechanisms of racism and hatred

However using that story to further Moore's agenda against gun ownership is disgusting.

[IdaBriggs]

7. Truth hurts, doesn't it? I guess that is why you find it "disgusting."

I found this a painful read - I don't want to see pictures of mutilated children.

More importantly, I DON'T WANT MUTILATED CHILDREN.



ON EDIT: Spelling - doh!

[Bay Boy]

11. I don't want mutilated children either...

...I hope you weren't suggesting that I do. The Emmett Still story was about a racist and the mother's intention was to expose what racists do. The Sandy Hook murders were done by a mentally ill person and illustrate that we need to do more in the area of helping those people. Neither story needs to be about the tool they choose.

[IdaBriggs]

16. The *tools* were what MUTILATED the bodies of the children.

Pretending that it is only about mental illness is playing willfully ignorant.

And "mental illness" comes in too many forms to guard against: the person on medication, and the person who isn't, the man who loses it because of a cheating spouse, and the spouse who is tired of arguing with someone, the drunken fool whose sports team has been insulted, the crack addict desperately in need of a fix, the happy moron shooting off a gun because he isn't paying attention to safety --

The list is endless, and the problem isn't "Mental Illness" -- It is Human Nature.

Take away the tool; it is too damn dangerous. Want to hunt? Stop Hunting People.

Yes, we will still find a way to kill each other - it is what we do. But I can run away from the guy with a knife or a bat; the bullets run faster than me.

[Bay Boy]

71. So you feel if the AR-15

hadn't been available this awful event wouldn't have happened?

[IdaBriggs]

89. If you add the "or other high capacity weapon, then the death toll wouldn't have been as high"

my answer is Yes.

[Mira]

25. We help those people by making sure they can't buy a gun off the back of a truck

which is how we help our children from being blown to bits.

91 percent of the US citizens are in favor of background checks.

[Bay Boy]

79. I'm in that 91%

of people being in favor of background checks. We all know that wouldn't have prevented this tragedy but I still have no problem with it being implemented. If I were to sell a gun I would like to have a good idea that the person buying it from me is not a prohibited person.

[Mira]

12. Mr Bay Boy - we use what we have to make our points

and there is not a paucity of examples, unfortunately.
Emmett Till's story fits, but so would others.

edited to fix a typo

[Tuesday Afternoon]

13. I think you meant Bay Boy

I hope you meant Bay Boy ....

[Mira]

15. I did. HONESTLY, no need to lie. My Freud must have been showing. DANG

there will be yet another ignore on my transparency page. Every time I touch on the subject of guns a new one shows up.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

18. just edit your post... all is fine ... no biggie

[Bay Boy]

23. But the Till story doesn't fit

Mrs Till went after the racists that committed the crime not the tool they used.

[supernova]

195. The Till story fits PERFECTLY with the point being made...

Until the public saw in black and white what had happened to that boy and why, no one really gave it much thought. "Not in my neighborhood, I don't know anyone that could happen to, etc...."

When you are faced with pictures of the aftermath of a tragedy then it has more of a tendency to hit you where you live. It becomes more visceral and not just another news story. Remember seeing the twin towers fall? Remember the anger you felt? That image says with you.

Now do you get the point?

[Bay Boy]

26. I always wanted to be thought of

as a bad boy. Maybe I can change my screen name.

[Mira]

27. Sorry. Sincerely. n/t

[Bay Boy]

86. I wasn't offended

if it was Freudian, so what?

[Bay Boy]

177. What in the Hell does that mean?

Are you wishing me a gun related accident? If so that is rather hateful of you.

[Tab]

186. Your post is what's disgusting.

And it's not that Michael Moore has an "agenda against gun ownership", he has an agenda against gun violence, which is precipitated by allowing assault-style weapons and high-capacity clips to take out large amounts of people. If we can't all be responsible gun owners then restrictions need to be in place. No different than having a (revokable) license for a (registered) vehicle. More so, perhaps, because guns have only purpose, as opposed to vechicles which at least have the main purpose of getting you somewhere.

[libtodeath]

5. As always Michael Moore is saying what our elected officials should be saying

ban all non hunting guns now!

[Crepuscular]

35. functionality fail

What exactly is a non-hunting gun? The AR-15 is one of the most popular hunting weapons around. So is a 12 ga. pump shotgun, which could easily have been the weapon used in the Sandy Hook incident, with equally gruesome results. If you are going to promote a gun control measure and want to be taken seriously, then you might want to define the scope of the regulation in a little bit more precise manner.

[daybranch]

66. Bull.

specifically what is an AR 15 suited to hunt. The caliber is too large for squirrels and birds, yet it is inadequate for deer at the normal distance. What are you planning to hunt dogs or something similar? The Ar 15 may be popular to use for hunting but it is not a hunting rifle. It is popular to use because, you have already spent the money on what is at best a fair self protection/home protection gun. Most hunters of any experience are asfraid to be out there with the AR 15 incompetent and dangerous hunters, shooting large numbers of rounds , many time pretty indiscriminately. As fpr a 12 guage shotgun, it would have taken a lot more time to kill so many. Just because someone uses something for a certain purpose does not mean that is the main purpose . If I drive a tank down the highway, does that mean the roads were intended for tanks? Of course not. I once saw a waterbuffalo shot with an M-60 machine gun in order to protect a Vietnamese soldier who was being trampled. Does this make the Mi60 machine gun a hunting rifle? Of course not.
The AR 15 was basically designed for close in combat. Its limited caliber and weight made it more acceptable to smaller soldiers like the Vietnamese. The point and fire capability unlike the mastery you needed for the longer range and greater accuracy of the M-14 was designed to make it suitable for the Air Force which everyone knew would be non proficient with a real battle rifle.
But while I do not question the suitability of the AR-15 for protection of the home, I do question any neccessity to have magazines larger than 10 rounds and obviously any belt drive or other mechanism such as bump feed which greatly increases its rate of fire. If it is a hunting rifle why would anyone need these capabilities? If it is for home defense, does anyone reallly need them except for mass murder?

[Crepuscular]

100. Don't know much about hunting, do you?

.223 is an increasingly popular caliber used for deer and antelope, as well as being highly popular for varmint hunting. With modern bullet construction using bonded or solid bullets, the .223 is a more than adequete deer rifle and is used by hundreds of thousands of hunters every deer season. In case you didn't realize it, the AR-15 platform is also available in other calibers such as the .308 winchester and the 6.5 grendal, which are unquestionably effective big game cartridges.

Btw, you don't typically use a rifle to hunt birds.

[Hoyt]

112. But there are other alternatives too. If assault rifles were banned, true hunter will continue doing

so, just as well with other guns including shot guns, bows, sling shots, or bare hands.

BTW: "Assault" handguns should be restricted as well, as well as public toting.

[Crepuscular]

115. Yes, that's true

Yes, it's true that hunters could use other weapons, in fact they do. It's equally true that a crazed nut job could use other weapons to kill others, in fact, they often do. Which begs the question, other then the scary looks, what is so special about assault weapons to justify their ban? Because they are used in a very small percentage of gun crimes? Because Hollywood frequently portrays them as being used by bad guys?

[Paladin]

118. Those "Scary Looks" Are Why People Like You Are Buying Assault Rifles. (nt)

[Hoyt]

119. Exactly. In my opinion, that is reason enough to restrict those attracted to them from owning them.

Who -- but an immature/sick/irresponsible/etc individual -- would be attracted to a "scary looking" lethal weapon?

[Crepuscular]

125. Uh-huh

I don't have a crystal ball so I don't know why other people may purchase "assault weapons" but since you seem to think you know why I bought one, let me correct you.

Looks, scary or otherwise, did not enter into my purchase criteria. I bought one about 15 years ago because they are fun to shoot. Period. I don't hunt with it, I don't use it for home defense and if the zombie apocalypse occurs I have other weapons in my collection that would be much more effective but it's fun as hell to plink with and I've put thousands of rounds through it over the years that I've owned it. As far as looks, it's one of the ugliest guns that I own but from a functional standpoint it does everything I want it to do, which is why I'll keep it and continue to use it.

[Hoyt]

127. It's "fun" to do a lot of things, but if detrimental to society, it might be best to restrict it.

I hope/think that most gun cultists can find something else "fun" to do if assault weapons are restricted.

[premium]

128. Hate to burst your bubble,

but yesterday even Nancy Pelosi said an assault weapons ban/high capacity magazine ban is probably a no go.

[Hoyt]

130. So -- do gun cultists have to do things that are legal, but detrimental to society?

Lots of things are legal that most good people still refrain from doing.

One of the biggest problems with gun cultists is that they are always pushing the envelope -- or spirit of law, or human decency -- in their search for "fun" with lethal weapons.

[premium]

132. Pushing the envelope?

You mean like all protests do? Like the Occupy Movement, which I was involved in last summer? The Civil Rights protests of the 60's and 70's?

Forgot to add the link to Nancy Pelosi's statement on Lawrence O'Donnell's show yesterday.

http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/03/12/pelosi-assault-weapons-ban-will-not-pass-congress/

[Hoyt]

133. No, I mean like people steeped in guns who covet/need the most lethal weapons for their lovefests.

[premium]

135. But if they're not doing anything illegal with them.

keep them properly secured while not in use. then why do you care?
I myself don't own any of those style weapons, and probably never will, but I can't see any problem with ownership as long as all the criteria is met.

[Hoyt]

139. Majority of toters and gun accumulators are immature, right wingers & bigots - not good combination.

[premium]

141. How do you know this?

Considering that there are millions of "toters" and gun accumulators. Have you interviewed them all?
Have you gone cross country and talked to every gun owner/toter?

[Hoyt]

142. When one says "majority" -- it does not mean "everyone."

Besides, the majority of gun owners/abusers are right wingers (ie, Republicans). The majority of right wingers are bigots. You figure out the rest. . . . . . .

[spin]

189. While I will agree that most "gun accumulators" are "right wingers" ...

I will point out that that may be because our Democratic Party is recognized as the gun control party as some prominent Blue state Democrats like Dianne Feinstein and Chuck Schumer strongly support gun bans. The Republican Party has been able to successfully use gun control as a wedge issue to win many close elections and help offset the loses caused by many of its positions on other issues.

I will also admit that some gun owners are immature and some are bigots but I know a fair amount of gun owners that you would describe as gun accumulators. Most are well educated professionals as they have the disposable income to own a gun collection while a hamburger flipper rarely does.

Obviously if you have invested a fair quantity of your money in your shooting hobby you would oppose efforts to ban or confiscate some or all of your firearms. This explains why so many gun enthusiasts vote for Republicans even when they largely agree with many positions of the Democratic Party

You would also describe me as a gun accumulator but my fairly small collection of firearms was gathered over my 40 years of target shooting handguns. Some long time shooters like me tend to trade their firearms frequently for new ones, others chose to keep a firearm if it is accurate and dependable. I fit in the latter group so consequently I have a collection of handguns. I also refuse to sell any of my firearms to a person that I don't personally know and he/she has to have a valid Florida concealed weapons permit. Therefore I rarely sell any of my guns.

I fear that once again you are painting gun owners with a very broad brush. Perhaps that is because you only know a few and make up for your lack of knowledge a very active imagination. However it is also possible that you merely enjoy insulting others for your own kicks and grins. If so, I fear this doesn't prove to me that you have a great deal of maturity.

Gun violence is a very important issue in our society. I feel that if we ever wish to make any headway on this issue we first need to stop insulting each other. Perhaps just a little respect will lead to both sides finally be willing to compromise. Mutual dislike and hatred will accomplish nothing and many people will continue to tragically die as a result.

[Hoyt]

193. Same old song. Don't do anything for another decade to make you guys happy.

There will be another 100 million guns on the street to deal with. But you guys really do not care as long as your weapons cache is close by.

[spin]

196. We get nowhere because you guys insist that we have to ban certain guns. ...

Take that off the table and we might make some headway. Many gun owners actually wish to see violent gun crime reduced by passing some truly effective legislation, actually enforcing existing laws and passing some new legislation as long as it had a reasonable chance of working.

We actually did have an excellent chance to make some much needed changes after our recent tragedies. Unfortunately some in the gun control movement immediately decided that it was time for a new assault weapons ban. The media did everything it could to support this plan.

At this time the chances of the AWB passing in Congress are very slim and it will probably not even pass in the Democratically control Senate. It looks like this was a total waste of time and also poisoned the waters for some changes that might have actually accomplished some good.

If nothing positive happens to reduce gun violence in the next decade you will blame gun owners but in reality it was the overreach by some gun control advocates that bears the most responsibility.

MADD (Mothers Against Drunk Drivers) launched a successful campaign to reduce deaths caused by intoxicated drivers but they didn't start out by saying that the sale of whiskey should be banned. Perhaps the leadership of the gun control movement might learn a valuable lesson by looking at the tactics MADD used.

I feel that if the gun control movement simply banned the use of the word "ban" we might see hopes in improving our gun laws in the future. If the recent push had been for "better regulation" many gun owners would not have been so alienated and even offered good ideas and suggestions to improve our laws had they been asked. Of course all the unnecessary insults and even hatred directed at gun owners didn't help in the least.

[marions ghost]

210. You know as you write that

...that gun owners have NO intention of seeing any "headway" made. Oh yeah, so where are those good gun owners offering "good ideas?" All we ever hear is from people saying just what you are saying. Defensive and irrational attempts to cloud the issues, control the conversation, stop any progress. This is what you are about.

"overreach by gun control advocates"-- meanwhile your attitudes hold us all hostage.

You're reduced to arguing semantics.

[spin]

215. Gun owners support improvements to our laws that would work. ...

Gun owners rally in Hartford
Bill Cummings
Published 12:17 am, Tuesday, March 12, 2013

***snip***

Hundreds of hunters and others involved in shooting sports were bused from a staging area at Cabella's in East Hartford for "Lobby Day" at the Capitol organized by the National Rifle Association and the Connecticut Citizen's Defense League.

***snip***

All of the sportsmen interviewed opposed banning the Bushmaster AR-15, the model used by Adam Lanza to kill 20 children and six adults at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown.

They said rifles like the Bushmaster are used for shooting competitions and target practice. They opposed limiting magazines to 10 rounds, higher taxes on ammunition and requiring permits for shotguns and rifles.

But most supported universal background checks and a beefed-up screening process for all gun purchases....emphasis added

Read more: http://www.ctpost.com/local/article/Gun-owners-rally-in-Hartford-4346628.php#ixzz2NWzna42U

Gun owners also support enforcement of existing laws and stronger punishments for those who violate them.

Are gangs a bigger threat than guns in Chicago?
by DatzHott on March 14, 2013 in News

***snip***

It’s an issue that many agree gun control wouldn’t necessarily fix. McCarthy, who was the chief at the New York Police Department before coming to Chicago says, “This is not about telling people that they cannot legally own a firearm. What it’s doing is stemming the illegal flow of gun into our streets. And once you’re caught with an illegal gun, you get a significant punishment, so that you’re not available to commit another crime, and at the same time it’s going to deter you from carrying that gun the next time.”

McCarthy insists that the city of Chicago has comprehensive gun laws, but not stringent gun laws. He says the Chicago Police Department would support a ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, as well as universal background checks and a requirement to report the loss, theft or transfer of a firearm. This is in line with President Barack Obama’s proposed gun legislation, policies that Chicago mayor Rahm Emmanuel fully supports.

McCarthy said, “The fact that people don’t do jail time when they’re arrested with firearms in the city of Chicago,” also drives up the violence numbers. “They get off with probation. The Hadiya Pendleton case is the perfect example, because the accused shooter, Michael Ward, was convicted of unlawful possession of a firearm last January, and if we had mandatory minimums for the possession of a firearm, he would not have been on the streets to commit the crime.”...emphasis added
http://datzhott.com/2013/03/14/are-gangs-a-bigger-threat-than-guns-in-chicago/

Some here on DU have suggested that we not only ban assault weapons but we require existing ones to be turned in. Failure to comply would result in a jail sentence. Perhaps we should first try incarcerating those caught illegally carrying in public and in most cases we wouldn't even need to pass new laws to do so.

Of course a few gun owners like me have other ideas which might not be popular with all. For example I feel we should finally admit that our War on Drugs was lost decades ago and legalize certain drugs such as marijuana. This would take some of the profit motive out of dealing drugs and consequently reduce gang violence which is a major contributing factor to deaths caused by guns. (Of course this will never happen as the pharmaceutical industry makes large profits by selling all sorts of drugs to help those who seek relief from pain and minor depression, many of which end up being illegally sold on the street.)

Smoking cannabis 'alleviates pain and depression'
Puffing cannabis from a pipe can significantly reduce chronic pain in patients with damaged nerves, a study has shown.
2:47AM BST 30 Aug 2010

Patients aged 25 to 77 were asked to smoke 25 milligrams of the drug from a pipe three times a day.

The highest-potency cannabis, containing 9.4% of the active ingredient THC, reduced pain, decreased anxiety and depression, and aided sleep....emphasis added

***snip***

In an accompanying commentary, Professor Henry McQuay, a pain expert from Oxford University, said that getting the trial over regulatory hurdles ''must have been a major nightmare''.

He added: ''This trial adds to the trickle of evidence that cannabis may help some of the patients who are struggling at present.''
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/7972257/Smoking-cannabis-alleviates-pain-and-depression.html

You state, " You know as you write that...that gun owners have NO intention of seeing any "headway" made."

Oddly I don't remember anytime that the media has assembled a group of gun owners and asked them what they would do to solve the problem on gun violence in our nation. Instead they have chosen to talk to NRA representatives. The reality is that only 4.5 million gun owners belong to the NRA out of 80 million. Many gun owners do not have the same views as Ted Nugent or Wayne LaPierre.

The question is what do we need to do in our nation today.

(1) Should we first ban assault weapons and then all semi-automatic handguns eventually followed by all handguns and most shotguns and rifles? Should our nation finally have laws similar to Piers Morgan's England?

or:

(2) Should we just ban assault style rifles and high capacity magazines? What will this accomplish as few of these weapons are used to murder while handguns account for the overwhelming majority of murders?

or:

(3) Should we try to something that we actually reduce needless gun tragedies in our nation but still allows honest, responsible and sane people to own firearms.

There are two sides to the gun control issue and they are miles apart. I feel that if both sides will come halfway to sit down at a table and respectfully discuss the alternatives, we can reach a compromise that will help reduce gun violence significantly. If all we continue to do is to insult each other and never listen to each others' views, we will never get anywhere and many lives will be tragically lost.

[marions ghost]

220. See, no constructive ideas, ya got nuthin

except legalize marijuana.

So give me a list of 6 concrete solutions offered by gun toters. Solutions that have a hope of working, and working WELL, and a hope of getting through congress with gun owners help. It is a pervasive, massive, unprecedented problem. What are the solutions?

Better yet--post your list of 6 concrete solutions as a topic in GD. Just a list is all. Bet ya can't.

[spin]

221. So you feel that universal background checks, coupled with better screening for the sale of ....

firearms would accomplish nothing?

Do you also feel that when a person is caught with an illegal firearm, he should just get parole so he can murder an innocent person as happened in the Hadiya Pendleton case in Chicago that I mentioned? If some in the gun control movement eventually get their way and assault weapons are banned and have to be turned in to the government, would you feel that a previously honest and responsible gun owner who refused to comply should only get a slap on the wrist with a wet noodle?

It appears that the AWB is DOA and probably will not even pass in the Democratically controlled Senate. Your idea has failed so why not try the ideas I suggested and see if violent gun crime falls.

You would not even have to pass new legislation to improve the NICS background check system. This was supposed to happen when the NICS Improvement Amendments Act became law in 2008.

Working to Improve the Brady Background Check

***snip***


POSITION: The Brady Campaign supports strengthening the Brady background check system to make it harder for criminals and other dangerous people to buy firearms. The Brady Campaign supported the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007, which provides for financial assistance to aid states in sending records to the National Instant Check System (NICS).

PROBLEM: Many states fail to supply complete records of prohibited gun buyers to the national Brady background check system or the Brady Law's National Instant Check System. That means many felons, domestic violence abusers, and those who are dangerously mentally ill can walk into a gun store and buy firearms without being stopped.

***snip***

Q. What can states do to solve the problem and improve a state’s ability to prohibit gun purchasers from buying guns?

A. States must submit disqualifying records to NICS and ensure that all disqualifying records are submitted. The result will be that when prohibited purchasers go to purchase guns at a federally licensed dealer they will be stopped by the background check.

Numerous states are now taking steps to report more records to NICS because of the attention given to the issue by the NICS Act, but many states are still not submitting disqualifying mental health records to NICS and many states still are not transmitting all of their felony records. This allows dangerous people to purchase guns even though they should be denied.
http://www.bradycampaign.org/legislation/backgroundchecks/nics

If you read the entire link you will find that even the NRA supported the NICS Improvement Act. Why not push to get the improvements implemented on a more timely basis. After all, the act passed over five years ago.

Many gun owners support universal background checks which is one of the items I suggested. This would require legislation and may be difficult if not impossible to pass. Still I feel it could help to reduce gun violence.

Another suggestion many gun owners support is a crack down on the straw purchase and smuggling of firearms. The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) firmly supports efforts to curb this practice.

Don’t Lie For The Other Guy


What is a straw purchase?
A straw purchase occurs when the actual buyer of a firearm is unable to pass the required federal background check, or does not want his or her full name associated with the purchase, and has someone else who can pass the required background check purchase the firearm for him or her.

Recent and widespread reports of increased cartel-related violence in Mexico have illustrated law enforcement’s need to continue to combat illegal straw purchasing of firearms in the United States. Though most of the firearms recovered in Mexico do not come from the United States, as has
been erroneously reported, Amer- ica’s firearms industry recognizes the importance of deterring any illegal ac- quisition of firearms regardless of the firearm’s origin or location of use.

Fighting Straw Purchasing

The Don’t Lie for the Other Guy (Don’t Lie) program is a public awareness and firearm retailer educa- tion campaign that was developed in 2000 by the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) – the trade association for the firearms industry – in partnership with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) to address the chal- lenges of detecting and deterring po- tential straw purchases of firearms.

***snip***

Billboards, posters, transit signs, public transportation signs, public service announcements, press conferences with federal, state and local law enforcement, and
T educational/warning messages on display at firearms retailer shops sup-
port the program’s no-nonsense mes- sage about the consequences of participating in a straw purchase: “Purchase a gun for someone who can’t and buy yourself 10 years in jail.” These efforts have led to over 1 billion media impressions of the Don’t Lie campaign.
http://www.nssf.org/factsheets/PDF/strawPurchase.pdf

An effort to make straw purchasing a Federal Crime is working its way through Congress. If it received more media attention and support from gun control supporters, it would have a better chance of passing and if it did become law it would probably be far more effective at reducing gun violence on the inner streets of our cities than the AWB.

Senate committee passes federal ban on ‘straw purchases’ of guns; Cornyn and Cruz oppose it
Thursday, March 7, 2013

The Senate took the first legislative step in addressing gun violence since the Newtown school shooting by making “straw purchases” of guns a federal crime — despite opposition from both Texas senators, who argued that gun trafficking is already against the law.

The Senate Judiciary Committee moved a bill making it a federal crime for buying a firearm and then knowingly providing it to someone who would be prohibited, such as those with a history of mental health problems. The bill contains prison sentences of up to 20 years to those found guilty of making such “straw purchases.”

The committee supported the bill by an 11-7 vote, with Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, being the lone Republican to support it. The Lone Star State senators did not see the need for a statute.
http://blog.chron.com/txpotomac/2013/03/senate-committee-passes-federal-ban-on-straw-purchases-of-guns-cornyn-and-cruz-oppose-it/

I fear that you feel that the only effective way to reduce gun violence is to pass the AWB. You will claim that any ideas that I offer are useless as they don't fit into your agenda of banning certain and possibly eventually all firearms.

I will suggest that we try my ideas and see if they work. Is it not better to try something than to merely than just look for someone to blame when your ideas prove impossible to implement?

I will also point out that while violent crime is a serious problem in our nation, the violent crime rate and the murder rate has fallen significantly in recent years.

FBI: Violent crime rates in the US drop, approach historic lows
By Andrew Mach, Staff Writer, NBC News 11Jun 2012 6:17pm, EDT

Violent crime rates in the U.S. are reaching historic lows, according to new FBI data released Monday.

Instances of murder declined overall by 1.9 percent from 2010 figures, while rape, robbery and aggravated assault declined by 4 percent nationwide, according to records from more than 14,000 law-enforcement agencies around the country, FBI spokesman Bill Carter told msnbc.com.

***snip***

This is actually a pretty significant drop, which is fascinating because we’d normally expect crime to go up when we’re in an economic downturn,” Gary LaFree, a criminology professor at the University of Maryland, told msnbc.com, adding that the U.S. is experiencing the lowest crime levels since World War II.

According to FBI analysis, the homicide drop would mean that nearly 280 fewer Americans were murdered last year, which would be the lowest homicide death toll since the mid-1950s.
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/06/11/12170947-fbi-violent-crime-rates-in-the-us-drop-approach-historic-lows?lite

[marions ghost]

223. Too little too late

Y'all have had your chance. There might be a handful of gun owners who will take some responsibility to change things, but not many. Our side has not even gotten support for minimal measures like background checks. You have fought the Brady all the way. Your "laws" don't work. Gun owners are people who love control. And for too long you have controlled what happens in this country. Gun owners are complicit in these murders at this point, because of consistent obstructionism.
-----

What I am for is--

Track all sales of guns and sales of ammo. Massive modern database. Not the pathetic excuse for a database that currently exists.

Prosecute anyone whose gun they own is used in a crime (even if it was resold or stolen). Let a court decide negligence.

Prosecute parents whose child has access to a gun or takes it anywhere. If someone is wounded or killed by a child with a parent's gun, prosecute the parents for murder.

Prosecute anyone whose gun accidentally wounds or kills someone.

Prosecute gun sellers with records of illegal selling or selling to people who then use it to kill people.

Prosecute people who carry guns in public places where they may endanger the public.

Ban assault weapons. Duh.

Turn back barbaric "castle" laws. Just an excuse to shoot first & ask questions later.

I like the idea of guns that only function for the person who bought it. Support all ways to make the gun owner responsible for his gun at all times.

Give the CDC back its role as monitoring and researching gun violence as a public health concern, same as for other threats to the health of the population.

-----------------------

--Do these things and gun lovers can continue to stockpile their damn arsenal & get ready for armaggedon.

[spin]

224. I actually agree with some of your ideas. ...

I will discuss the ones I disagree with.

Track all sales of guns and sales of ammo. Massive modern database. Not the pathetic excuse for a database that currently exists.

Such a database would cost a fortune and accomplish little if anything to reduce violent crime. Long gun registration was tried in Canada and proved an expensive failure. What conceivable value would result because the government had a record of all the ammo I had bought? Do you realize that I can make my own ammunition and many shooters do so every day?

Prosecute people who carry guns in public places where they may endanger the public.

I legally carry a firearm as I have a concealed weapons permit from the state of Florida. If the gun control movement can't pass an assault weapons bill at the national level, how high do you feel your chances would be to pass a law that would ban all legal concealed carry?

Ban assault weapons. Duh.

Obviously I oppose this. Duh.

Turn back barbaric "castle" laws. Just an excuse to shoot first & ask questions later.

Why do you consider legitimate self defense to be barbaric? It almost sounds as if you wish that a home invader would have the full protection of the law to rape and pillage a family. If I encounter an armed and aggressive intruder in my home why should I be first required to attempt to escape before I can defend myself?

I like the idea of guns that only function for the person who bought it. Support all ways to make the gun owner responsible for his gun at all times.

While I fully support responsible gun ownership, the technology to insure that all firearms can only be used by the owner is not reliable or available at this time. It does exist for some S&W revolvers but is extremely expensive.

The Magna-Trigger Conversion

Smart gun technology affords us gun safety add-ons that can help protect others. Are you seriously concerned about the chance of you or others being slain or injured after an assailant grabs your gun from your "safe" holster or from your hand? This happens to many law enforcement officers each year! Of the injured, many are crippled for life.

***snip***

Guns have been modified for police since June, 1976. For convenience, all magnetic rings allow firing of all modified guns. The device slides out for easy gun cleaning, and never requires oiling. Only one moving part is employed. The device is expected to outlast your gun by countless years. The powerful samarium magnets can last for centuries. The tiny stainless steel rings never tarnish, and weigh only five grams (1/5 ounce). You wear the ring on your middle finger for the six-shot guns and on the ring finger for the five-shot guns or the Ruger. Most officers wear a ring on both hands.

***snip***

The cost of the conversion is $350.00 and $60.00 for each standard ring. Shipping is priced according to the shipping policy outlined above. Each order takes three to four weeks to process.
http://www.tarnhelm.com/magna-trigger/gun/safety/magna1.html

[marions ghost]

225. here's another one posted by SoCalDem

--buy insurance for potential mayhem caused by the possession

register/re-register/re-license every 2 years (like smog checks for cars)
.........proves continued insurance
.........proved continued location of the possession

the insurance should be a broad liability policy that would be sufficient to cover burial/medical care/damages ... for each weapon

------

Database needed. The current one is a sad joke.

[spin]

227. I would have no problem with requiring a gun owner to have liability insurance ...

as long as the policy was for me and not each and every firearm that I own. You appear to suggest a policy for each weapon which is obviously an attempt to greatly limit the number of firearms that a person of average income could afford to own. Obviously since your side can't even pass the AWB, you would have no chance of ever getting your idea to become law. In reality the chances of requiring such insurance has little chances of passing even if the policy was for the person and not for each firearm.

The cost of the policy would also have to be reasonable and since there are 80,000,000 gun owners in our nation and only a small fraction of 1% of honest gun owners ever misuse their firearms, this should not be a major problem. In fact the NRA could offer a gun liability policy at a discount.

In passing I should point out that there is no firearm database in Florida. In fact it's illegal.

The 2012 Florida Statutes

790.335 Prohibition of registration of firearms; electronic records.—

The Legislature finds and declares that:
1. The right of individuals to keep and bear arms is guaranteed under both the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution and s. 8, Art. I of the State Constitution.
2. A list, record, or registry of legally owned firearms or law-abiding firearm owners is not a law enforcement tool and can become an instrument for profiling, harassing, or abusing law-abiding citizens based on their choice to own a firearm and exercise their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed under the United States Constitution. Further, such a list, record, or registry has the potential to fall into the wrong hands and become a shopping list for thieves.
3. A list, record, or registry of legally owned firearms or law-abiding firearm owners is not a tool for fighting terrorism, but rather is an instrument that can be used as a means to profile innocent citizens and to harass and abuse American citizens based solely on their choice to own firearms and exercise their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed under the United States Constitution.
4. Law-abiding firearm owners whose names have been illegally recorded in a list, record, or registry are entitled to redress.
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0790/Sections/0790.335.html

[marions ghost]

234. And who wants to live in Florida?

You hold the corrupt state of FL up as a model?

[spin]

238. I actually have no desire to live in another state. ...

Yes, we have corruption in Florida but many states suffer from this problem.

The 8 Most Corrupt States in The US

After a very thorough investigation, the Center for Public Integrity made report cards for each state, judging their level of corruption. A total of 8 US states failed the integrity investigation, earning F’s for their sins. How many states got A’s? Depressingly enough, a big, whopping zero.

States considered at the highest risk for corruption are: Michigan, the Dakotas, South Carolina, Maine, Virginia, Georgia, and Wyoming. The highest scoring state (believe it or not) was New Jersey, earning itself a B+ and sitting proud on top of the list. Jersey’s status at the top may confuse some, given the state’s political reputation, but that reputation has actually played a part in the passage of some tough anti-corruption laws. The same goes for other states you’d expect might be getting an F grade that actually wound up in the top 15: Illinois and Louisiana among them.

So aside from Michigan, states you would expect corruption from are actually better protected against it. In a sense, maybe they know they’re bad and pass legislation to curb it. States you might expect to be idyllic and laid back actually seem to be the most at-risk, perhaps because they’ve never had to guard themselves against it (traditionally speaking).

Read more at http://www.inquisitr.com/207460/the-8-most-corrupt-states-in-the-us/#8c2DlKVyq41Oz1XC.99

If you check out the grades for the states you will find New Jersey was the least corrupt state with a grade of B plus and Florida was the 18th best with a grade of C minus. I was raised in Ohio which got a D and placed 34th. My neighboring state of Georgia was dead last with a grade of F.

I grew up in the snow belt in northeast Ohio and experienced a lot of cold weather and deep snow. Florida does get hit by tropical storms and hurricanes but in the 44 years that I have lived in Florida, I have only been on the outskirts of two hurricanes. We do have alligators and more poisonous snakes in Florida than in Ohio, but if you leave them alone they leave you alone. The summers can be hot but the winters are mild. I only seen snow on the ground one time in Florida, "The Blizzard of 1977" which dropped almost 1/2 an inch. http://www.tampapix.com/snow.htm

[marions ghost]

245. OK so FL is in the top fifth

--re corruption--which has led to absurdly lax gun laws. But if you like it there, great!

IMO FL is a big sinkhole in more ways than one...

But you're right a lot of America is going down the toilet. America is a hard place to live a civilized life, to have any trust in notions of common good. Americans who resort to, and defend guns, have given up on civility. And they control the rest of us.

A gun toting society is a corrupt society. Always. Because arming up comes from fear and social disintegration.
The more guns America has, the more America has failed.

[Mira]

246. I so like how you said that.

It sums up the entire situation and no more needs to be said. We need action to dial it back with legislation and public awareness and pressure.
I remember my horror at the assault weapons ban being allowed to expire. Bringing it back would be step one.

[marions ghost]

247. Yes that is step one

and no small part of the way back to sanity in general.



thanks Mira

[spin]

256. Why do you suggest that gun owners control you? ...

I think the debate is gun control groups are trying to control what firearms gun owners can have.

I own most of my firearms because I enjoy target shooting. My object is to be able use them well enough to keep all the rounds I fire in the center rings of my target and as many as possible in the 10 ring. I usually shoot at distances of 50 feet to 75 feet. It's a challenging sport that requires totally mastering just a few simple elements and intense concentration.

Zen in the Art of Pistol Shooting
Foreword by John Dreyer

Introduction

Volumes of material have been written about acquiring proper physical technique and mental discipline in precision pistol shooting. I have found that most are tremendously valuable to any serious competitor and do a good job of describing the mechanics and philosophy of shooting. However, very few truly explored the ongoing tremendous internal battle of the competitor or the many other spiritual aspects of the sport.

In my journey from Marksman to Master, I learned a great deal about not only punching holes in paper, but about myself and my perception of life itself. Because I was unable to put together the words to relate my experiences, I sought for credible written works that properly illustrated my discoveries both on and off the range. As a result, I collected and dissected over fifty books plus almost that many articles from periodicals and other media on a variety of aspects of life and shooting. After almost a year of research and reflection, I was finally able to assemble that massive and mysterious puzzle of intellect and emotion that encompassed life both on and off the range. Surprisingly, the final piece of my puzzle turned out to be an incredibly simple way of looking at life, an ancient Eastern philosophy called Zen, a Japanese subset of Buddhist tradition.

Shooting as a Zen Art

Deceptively simple in appearance, yet vastly complex is the art of pistol shooting. Without question, its mechanics are simple. As Bill Joyner explains, "Create a machine rest with your stance, grip and breath control. Then with the gun in the machine rest, apply [trigger] pressure directly to the rear until the hammer falls." Attaining the physical prowess to accomplish this task is one thing. However, the mind's influence makes the process a bit more difficult. As Frank Higginson has said, "In shooting, you learn more about yourself than any other sport." This self-discovery that exists in shooting is nothing more than Zen itself.
http://www.bullseyepistol.com/zeninfo.htm

I should also point out a fact rarely mentioned by both sides of the gun control debate because it doesn't sell guns or help the push for strong gun control. The violent crime rate in our nation is falling and is now approaching levels last seen in the late 1960s. Our nation is becoming safer, not more violent.

That doesn't mean that we can't pass new legislation to help insure that only honest, responsible and sane people can buy and own firearms. If we do and we also increase proactive policing as well as better educate our youth and provide good paying jobs, we may live in one of the safest nations in this world and honest, responsible and sane citizens who wish to own firearms will still be able to do so.

[marions ghost]

257. I know that shooting is a sport.

But how do you have respect for a sport whose proponents defend the "rights" of people who want no controls on weapons whatsoever? People who allow atrocities to be perpetrated on innocents to a degree that is unprecedented in our society?

We only want to live in a civilized society where guns are not necessary (ie. where they are limited to sports).

We are controlled by you on a daily basis. People from other countries where there is no gun culture are aware of the difference immediately. They don't know why we put up with it. We are living in fear of gun violence and deeply affected by these massacres. And yet gun enthusiasts Just. Don't. Get. It.

Like I said, the more guns we have in our neighborhoods, the more America has failed.

[spin]

258. I support the current gun laws in the state of Florida. ...

I also support the idea of universal background checks for the purchase of any firearm.

I feel that it might be a good idea to require anyone who purchases a firearm or ammunition to show proof of having completed a firearm safety course. Many other gun owners support reasonable gun laws and have excellent ideas on how our current laws could be improved.

Your suggestion that gun owners who use their firearms for sport want no controls on weapons is false. It is true that gun owners do not want unreasonable and useless laws passed but wish to see laws that are truly effective and are enforced.

Do you honestly believe that if we passed the AWB you would then be much safer? Perhaps you feel that if we banned and confiscated all firearms you would finally be safe. Let's imagine that the ban and confiscation was a absolute total success and even the criminals were disarmed which is like imagining that we can establish a colony on the moon next year. Criminals would simply use knives and clubs.

The UK was able to pass laws like you hoped for largely because there was a much lower percentage of gun owners and firearms in their nation. Unfortunately the UK is far from the utopia that Piers Morgan would have you believe. Violent crime involving knives is a significant problem despite the fact the the UK has some truly draconian knife laws compared to the USA.

UK is violent crime capital of Europe
The United Kingdom is the violent crime capital of Europe and has one of the highest rates of violence in the world, worse even than America, according to new research.
By Richard Edwards, Crime Correspondent 7:00AM BST 02 Jul 2009

Analysis of figures from the European Commission showed a 77 per cent increase in murders, robberies, assaults and sexual offences in the UK since Labour came to power.

The total number of violent offences recorded compared to population is higher than any other country in Europe, as well as America, Canada, Australia and South Africa.

Opposition leaders said the disclosures were a "damning indictment" of the Government's failure to tackle deep-rooted social problems.

The figures combined crime statistics for England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/5712573/UK-is-violent-crime-capital-of-Europe.html

This article points out that gun crime in the UK might actually have increased after the latest gun control laws went into effect.

Gun Crime

Unlike in America, there is little debate between pro-gun control and pro-gun ownership lobbies in the UK. There is general public consensus against ownership of handguns, which is enforced under strict legislation. Guns for sport are more readily accepted, but are controlled by a strict licensing regime.

Background

Despite these strong sentiments, the UK has not averted gun crime by any means.

***snip***

Controversies

Despite the handguns ban imposed under the 1997 Firearms Amendment, research carried out following the implementation of the Act saw a 40 per cent increase in the number of gun crime incidents in the UK.

While the number of homicides from gun crime remained largely static for over a decade, 2007 proved a decisive year for this issue. A wave of gang related incidents were committed by teenagers against other teenagers, with some high profile cases ending in fatalities. London, Manchester and Nottingham were most notably affected.
http://www.politics.co.uk/reference/gun-crime

The above article is fairly long and involved but an interesting and informative read.

[marions ghost]

261. I realize that you

have plenty of arguments. Gun defenders always have a big arsenal of them.

Gun defenders can never imagine a world where guns are useless (except for sport). They'd rather arm up for armageeeeeddddddon.

[spin]

262. A catastrophe of Biblical proportions is possible. ...

For example:

150 Years Ago: The Worst Solar Storm Ever
by Robert Roy Britt, Editorial DirectorDate: 02 September 2009 Time: 09:40 AM ET

On Sept. 2, 1859, an incredible storm of charged particles sent by the sun slammed into Earth's atmosphere, overpowered it, and caused havoc on the ground. Telegraph wires, the high-tech stuff of the time, suddenly shorted out in the United States and Europe, igniting widespread fires. Colorful aurora, normally visible only in polar regions, were seen as far south as Cuba and Hawaii.

***snip***

The solar storm of 1859 was three times more powerful than one that cut power to an entire Canadian province in 1989. Experts say if it happened today – and it could – the result might be unthinkable.

If a storm that severe occurred today, it could cause up to $2 trillion in initial damages by crippling communications on Earth and fueling chaos among residents and even governments in a scenario that would require four to 10 years for recovery, according to a report earlier this year by the National Academy of Sciences. For comparison, hurricane Katrina inflicted somewhere between $80 billion and $125 billion in damage....emphasis added

***snip***

The sun operates on an 11-year cycle of activity. The next peak is expected in 2013. Forecasters recently revised their prediction for just how powerful that peak might be, downgrading it to mild. But the sun is unpredictable, and even during a mild period of activity – such as right now – major flares can kick up colossal storms.
http://www.space.com/7224-150-years-worst-solar-storm.html

How a supervolcano can threaten Earth
By Amanda Sealy, CNN
updated 10:27 AM EDT, Thu August 30, 2012

***snip***

Geophysicist Bob Smith first called Yellowstone a "living breathing caldera" in 1979. He now heads the Yellowstone Volcano Observatory at the University of Utah.

***snip***

With all of this heat just sitting, waiting beneath Yellowstone, what exactly would it look like if it were all to blow? Smith and other scientists all have scenarios and every one is bleak.

In Smith's book, "Windows into the Earth," he says, "Devastation would be complete and incomprehensible." Before the super eruption, large earthquakes would likely swarm the surrounding areas until the huge blast that would erase Yellowstone completely off the map.

After the initial eruption, clouds of gas and rock would burn everything in its path with temperatures reaching to hundreds of degrees Celsius. Ashfall would cover the western United States and also enter the jet stream with the potential to cripple air transportation and threaten the world's food supply.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/30/us/wus-supervolcanoes-yellowstone

But while I do realize that really bad things can happen to our world, I and most other gun owners are not "Doomsday Preppers."

I do usually have a two week supply of nonperishable food in my home, battery powered lights and radios and extra batteries and other supplies such as an emergency medical kit. That's not for an "End of the World as we know it" scenario but merely because I live in Florida and have experience with tropical storms and hurricanes. I personally have no desire to rush to the grocery store at the last minute to stock up on emergency items and find the shelves bare.

Of course I also have firearms and some ammo. I have firearms because I enjoy target shooting. My small supply of ammo is due to the fact that all this crap about gun bans makes it hard to find ammo when I want to go shooting.

If the sun decides to suddenly fry the earth or Yellowstone blows up we all we be in deep shit. I don't lay awake at night worrying about it and I do not want to spend all the money that I have for retirement to prepare for such an event. Chances are such an event will not occur in my lifetime and if it does, I doubt any preparations I had made even if I did spend all my funds would be sufficient.

[spin]

184. While I don't own an assault style rifle I realize they have significant advantages ...

over a more conventional rifle. For example the AR-15:

The Truth About the AR-15 Rifle
Posted on December 18, 2012 by Nick Leghorn

***snip***

With an AR-15, gun owners don’t need a qualified gunsmith to modify or customize their gun. The average shooter can order the parts online and perform the work themselves with little more than a screwdriver, a wrench and a hammer.

In fact, there’s only one part of the gun that an owner has to buy through a gun shop: the “receiver” (pictured above). It’s the serialized part. Technically, as far as the ATF is concerned, it is the gun. I’ve assembled all of my own AR-15 rifles from scratch, having purchased only the receiver through a gun shop.

Everything about the AR-15 platform can be changed to fit the specific end user and their intended use. Long range shooters might add a longer barrel and big scope to the gun for increased accuracy. Those interested in home defense might choose a shorter barrel and add a flashlight to the gun. You can even change the grip to fit your hand exactly and make shooting more comfortable.

***snip***

Hundreds of thousands of hunters use the AR-15 platform (which is often sold in complete configurations specifically designed for hunting). The gun is rugged, reliable, portable and accurate. What’s more, the ability to quickly and easily change the rifle’s caliber offers American hunters a huge advantage.
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2012/12/foghorn/the-truth-about-the-ar-15-rifle/

It is true that some people buy AR-15s as they have been made popular by movies and because of all the publicity they have recently received due to their misuse to commit tragic massacres. Many buy them because they fear they might be banned in the future. Some who expect a ban buy them in hopes their investment will pay off in a nice profit. A few probably buy one as they fear a zombie apocalypse.

But many shooters buy them because they are lightweight, accurate, dependable rifles that can be easily modified to suit the owner's needs. Responsible gun owners will use these rifles for hunting, target shooting and in some rare cases even self defense.

There are an estimated 5 to 8 million AR-15s in civilian hands in our nation and probably 99.99% will never be misused to murder another person. I and many other gun owners feel that we could reduce gun violence in our nation by improving and enforcing existing gun laws far more than if we ban certain firearms such as the AR-15 because they look "scary." I believe our best approach is not to "ban" but to better regulate who owns such weapons. Honest responsible gun owners rarely misuse their firearms. The problem is criminals and some who have severe mental issues.

[Hoyt]

120. You are exactly (well sort of) right. I think ban should cover all semi-autos, including handguns.

[Crepuscular]

124. because

Because. of course, nobody has ever been murdered with a pump shot gun or a revolver before.

Over half of the gun deaths in this country are suicides, is banning semi-autos going to stop those?

[Hoyt]

126. Look, a 10% improvement is significant.

You guys like to argue that if you can't stop all murders, spousal abuse with guns, intimidation with guns, etc., there is no need to crack down. Sorry you guys are wrong.

[Crepuscular]

134. Cost/benefit

I'm not sure what the 10% improvement you are talking about it but it comes down to a cost/benefit assessment.

Like I mentioned in another post, approx. 20 children are killed by dogs every year in this country, hundreds, if not thousands, are also injured, many seriously. Using the logic employed by some of the people in this argument, the benefit that would be achieved by outlawing the possession of dogs as pets, would be worth it, despite the cost to millions of dog lovers, who would no longer have their faithful companions, not to mention the inconvenience of many individuals who rely on service dogs. Our society decides all the time that the relative benefit of any number of things such as dogs, swimming pools, hot tubs, buckets, ladders, or automobiles, outweighs the relative cost to society of the unfortunate number of individuals, including children, who die every year due to incidents involved with those things. It's always sad when someone dies, especially when that individual is an innocent child but unfortunately accidents happen.

As far as the premise that you claim that "you guys" take an absolutist approach, I'd disagree. I think most gun owners would go along with reasonable measures as long as there was some evidence that the measure would have an actual, tangible impact on reducing gun violence and crime. But the sad reality is that much of what is being proposed is purely designed for political showmanship or as a feel good measure, that will have absolutely no impact on reducing crime or the number of people who die as the result of guns.

[Hoyt]

140. So what dollar value do you put on kids shot at Sandy Hook and their families?

And, how much is it going to cost a gun cultists to change their priorities in life to exclude most guns in the interest of society?

Cost/benefit analyses are really a joke when talking about guns in our society.

[Crepuscular]

143. What cost do you place on the hundreds of kids who drown in swimming pools every year?

What dollar value do you place on the kids mauled by pit bulls?

You want to engage in selective outrage over guns but apparently the desire of someone to own an potentially lethal breed of dog outweighs the potential risk to innocent children. You want to employ the idea of something based on the interests of society but only selectively. Why is that? Is a child that drowns or is mauled by a pit bull of no value to society?

[Hoyt]

145. Enjoy your guns and stay.

[GoneOffShore]

202. Sometimes there are no words.

But here are a few that we hear from those who love the gun: Move the goal posts, apples to oranges, false equivalence.

And remember - the perfect is the enemy of the good.

We need to do something to stem the tide of violence.

Are you part of the problem or part of the solution?

As we used to say.

[Crepuscular]

209. Identifying the problem

Identifying the problem is not as easy as you might think. Before a solution is possible, the actual problem needs to be identified. The underlying problems that are responsible for the vast majority of gun related violence in this country have nothing to do with "assault weapons" or even to do with guns in general, those are simply convenient scapegoats. Lack of adequate mental health funding, lack of funding for law enforcement, poverty, the gang and drug cultures that have developed and are tolerated in many of our urban areas........those are the driving forces behind tragic incidents like the 6 month old daughter of a gang banger being shot in the crossfire in a drive by shooting in Chicago. Taking away or limiting the right to purchase firearms from responsible, law abiding individuals, which make up the overwhelming majority of those who own firearms in this country, is not a solution and won't reduce the incidents such as the one mentioned above.

There are some things that might help, though, such as mandatory background checks, a mental health registry that is accessible to NICS, making all firearms transfers go through an FFL and beefing up enforcement and penalties for straw purchases. Those things might be part of the solution. But picking some arbitrary cosmetic feature like a bayonet lug and thinking that banning the sale of weapons with that feature might actually reduce gun crime? Come on, anyone who thinks that is living in la-la land. In this case, the absurd is the enemy of the good, since it shifts focus and support from tangible solutions where there is a lot of common ground, to ridiculous political grandstanding that will accomplish nothing.

[ArcticFox]

200. So maybe all those should be banned too.

Would the world end?

No.

[Hoyt]

203. It will slow gun proliferation because gun culture doesn't get all excited about revolvers, etc.

[ArcticFox]

199. Assault rifles/weapons were designed from the ground up to be maximally effective at killing humans.

[ArcticFox]

198. The AR family and .223 calibre bullets are designed from the ground up for killing

The .223 was chosen because it is lighter than the 7.62mm it replaced, allowing soldiers to carry significantly more ammunition into battle. Its introduction was accompanied by a loosening of marksmanship standards and a "spray and pray" pattern of small-arms combat.

There is nothing about this round that is essential for hunting. Hunting animals is supposed to be a sport; sportsmen are supposed to give the animal a "sporting chance," which includes consideration for aiming and seeking to kill with a single shot. As far as hunting goes, there is no need for anything more than a 3-round magazine.

To the extent that anyone might need anything more than a bolt-action rifle to hunt deer or antelope, they are an inadequate hunter.

[Eleanors38]

239. You know, of course, the .30-06 is a hunting round....

Made popular after billions were served in WW I and WW II and Korea?

[hack89]

250. The military 5.56mm round was derived from the civilian .222 Remington

a very popular varmint hunting round.

[Duckhunter935]

180. you do know

the AR-15 comes in many different calibers, right

Some available calibers for the AR-15 platform are the .223 Remington/5.56x45mm, .45 ACP, 5.7x28mm, 6.5 mm Grendel, .338 Lapua,[14] 6.8 mm Remington SPC,[15] .50 Beowulf and .50 BMG.[16] It is not recommended to chamber the 5.56x45 NATO into a rifle designated .223 Remington, due to the increased chamber pressure in the 5.56mm cartridges; the two calibers are similar, but not identical.

[Hoyt]

201. Useless information, that changes nothing in the debate

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

229. But, but...

.223 Remington/5.56x45mm, .45 ACP, 5.7x28mm, 6.5 mm Grendel, .338 Lapua, 6.8 mm Remington SPC, .50 Beowulf and .50 BMG. It Not to mention 5.56x45 and 5.56mm!!! How can you not be so impressed that you bow to the superiority of the bearer of such wordy and numbery stats?!

[Hoyt]

230. :)

[Duckhunter935]

181. are these hunting rifles?

http://www.remington.com/en/product-families/firearms/centerfire-families/autoloading-model-r-15.aspx

http://www.remington.com/products/firearms/centerfire/model-r-25/model-r-25-rifle.aspx

[Divernan]

8. A Pulitzer Prize to the journalist who can do an expose series w/these photos

accompanying interviews with the parents and police and teachers who lived through this horrific experience, and integrating comparisons with other countries' gun control laws and crime statistics.

[Bay Boy]

9. This is proof that MM only cares about his own agenda

and not the families of the victims. He is more than willing to publish gruesome pictures that would just devastate the mothers and fathers of Sandy Hook.

[Mira]

14. How much more devastated - in your opinion -

could these families become already???
They would probably to a man and woman would do ANYTHING to help prevent this to happen to others.

Michael Moore's agenda, for decades, has been proven to be one to shine a light to help us see. Because we are blind, and acting out of that wasteland of the dark.

[Bay Boy]

19. Then why don't we hear this from the families themselves? n/t

[Mira]

29. All we need to do is listen. They are talking plenty. n/t

[Bay Boy]

76. I understand that they are talking...

...I expect them to and they have every right to. But are any of them saying "It's ok to show pictures of my mutilated child"?

[Robb]

78. Yes.

http://www.dartsociety.org/cms/choosing-sensitive-details-in-one-sandy-hook-story/

[Bay Boy]

136. Embarrassing typo there

you meant to say 'No'. She did not say she wanted to release a photo of her dead child.

[nadinbrzezinski]

109. One of them did describe in graphic detail

The missing lower jaw of her son

I am willing to bet if Noah's mother thought it would make a real difference, she would.

Don't worry, no news editor will run them. Those photos have blood in them, lots of it, and mangled bodies. That scares news editors to no end...take my word on this. A little blood scares them, by the bucketful, they will run away at breakneck speed.

This is not 1957 or 1968. Those photos MM spoke off, our current, corporate run media, will not run. Why? Well, the reasons stated...people might turn against something we like to use to keep them proles divided.

Go ahead, call me cynical.

If she decides to release such photos, or anybody else does, they will have to be released by non media types...our media has a yellow corporate streak running down their back.

[Bay Boy]

137. If they ever do release the crime scene photos

you will hear an uproar EVERYWHERE! Including people at DU.

[HangOnKids]

144. Are You A Mind Reader? n/t

[Bay Boy]

146. Yes n/t

[HangOnKids]

154. What Am I Thinking About You? n/t

[Bay Boy]

156. I'm positive that I know what you are thinking of me.

You are now convinced that I am clairvoyant. At least if you read the thread I started as to whether the photos should be published or not. Am I right?

[HangOnKids]

158. A Smattering Of DU Opinions Does Not Everyone Make

Try again. Remember you said EVERYONE, I saw some folks who did not agree with you. Knock yourself out, I see you are trying really hard.

[Bay Boy]

159. Huh?

I said you would hear an uproar everywhere (including DU) that doesn't even come close to me saying 'everyone' would be against the idea. I will sit here and wait for your apology.

[Bay Boy]

174. It's ok to admit you misread my comment...

...it happens.

[Bay Boy]

216. Still nothing?

How sad.

[HangOnKids]

219. Go Pound Sand

And welcome to ignore!!!

[nadinbrzezinski]

164. And I will applaud them

As a former medic I have seen what both AK and AR type rifles do...and they suck as originally chambered to hunt as well.

Americans are too protected of the damage those weapons do...Hollywood will not go there either with moulage. When they rarely get close people scream. I guess most prefer the fantasy to the reality.

[Bay Boy]

166. I'm not sure what this means:

"and they suck as originally chambered to hunt as well"

Can you explain?

[nadinbrzezinski]

167. The 5.56 sucks to hunt deer

[Bay Boy]

169. I agree...

it is unpowered and has limited range for deer hunting.

[Crepuscular]

183. Not true

I would agree that most ammunition commonly available in for the 5.56 or the .223 is not suitable for hunting deer and if someone chooses to use an inappropriate ammo choice to hunt with, then it would suck as a deer round but that is due to improper bullet design, not an inherent flaw in either the .223 caliber or the 7.62 x 39 ( since you mentioned AK's). Use a proper bonded or even better a solid copper bullet like a Barnes and the .223 is a very effective deer rifle out to 300 yards. Very accurate, very low recoil, allows for easy shot placement if the shooter does his job. It' s just simply not true that those weapons suck as hunting rifles.

[nadinbrzezinski]

97. You have missed their testimony before the State and Federal houses

For example. You also missed the gun nuts trying to silence a father holding the photo of his son, haven't you?

[Robb]

20. Oh, please.

Pull the other one.

[IdaBriggs]

22. The PICTURES aren't why they are devastated and you need to stop playing

stupid.

They are DEVASTATED because THEIR CHILDREN ARE DEAD.

[laundry_queen]

235. I don't think he's playing.

[MynameisBlarney]

24. Aaaaand right on cue...

"Of course, there will be a sanctimonious hue and cry from the pundits who will decry the publication of these gruesome pictures. Those who do publish or post them will be called "shameful" and "disgraceful" and "sick." How could a media outlet be so insensitive to the families of the dead children! Someone will then start a boycott of the magazine or website that publishes them."


Moore totally called it.

[Robb]

30. Gun cuddlers, at least in arguments, tend to lead with their chins.

Moore was simply playing the odds.

[The Blue Flower]

64. His agenda is to save lives

Is that a problem?

[aikoaiko]

17. Yes, because this strategy works so well for the anti-abortionists.

They use the same strategy because they "refuse to let another child die in this manner".



And we were so supportive of this strategy when the war mongers used pictures of the twin towers crashing and falling man to promote war because we "refuse to let another {American} die in this manner"



To potential jurors, please be clear that I am criticizing this tactic and not the goal of reducing gun violence. If DUers want to advocate for this strategy it should be fair to criticize it for what it is -- the use of emotionally charged photos for political expediency.

[Robb]

31. "Gun safety advocates are just like anti-abortionists and Dick Cheney!!111"

Fixed that for you.

[aikoaiko]

37. I wouldn't say that, but you're free to do so.

[Robb]

39. Of course you wouldn't, you might get a post hidden.

[aikoaiko]

42. First I would have to think it to write it, which I didn't.

But you did.

[Robb]

52. So you're going with "I know you are but what am I."

Knock me over with a feather.

[aikoaiko]

105. I'm really impressed with your ability to imagine things I wrote or expressed.

It's a unique talent.

[RZM]

33. That's a good point

We've all seen those awful pictures of bloody fetuses. They may be shocking, but I don't think they change minds. If anything, they probably hurt the cause a little because people understand when others are trying to trick or use them.

Animal rights activists have long done the same thing. People know that factory farms are horrible. They accept that and eat meat anyway. People obviously know that shootings are bloody too.

I'm not even saying the images shouldn't be shown. There's nothing wrong with unvarnished reality. But you have to be careful in how you deploy that reality in service of an agenda, because it's easy to look like you're exploiting a tragedy for your own purposes.

[HangOnKids]

108. Your analogy is an epic fail

Which is why you added the bit "to potential jurors", because you realized what you stated would be alerted on. I have not alerted, I want this to be seen. What a joy you are!! Really, such a JOY!

[aikoaiko]

114. Please do explain why you think the analogy failed.

At least you recognize it as a analogy (unlike Robb) and as an analogy there are important differences between the source and target. For if they were the same or "just alike" then it wouldn't be an analogy at all.

[HangOnKids]

117. No, I have nothing to say to you

Except your analogy failed.

[RZM]

131. What a lame ass move

The very definition of talking shit and not being able to back it up.

[2ndAmForComputers]

191. I'm sorry to inform you there IS such a thing as...

...stupid statements whose stupidity doesn't have to be explained because it's obvious.

[Eleanors38]

241. Sorry to inform you that bloody pictures have been

used in many prohibitionist campaigns & as general propaganda. Little evidence of effectiveness. I think Moore should know better, and probably does. He's just letting his cultural hatred get out of hand, as have some in this thread. I've lost considerable respect for Moore since he has turned from issues of economy and class and focused instead on bombast and the usual culture war. He doesn't have the clout to effect a cinematic change, and he knows American culture enough that most Americans, unfortunately, forget their past with a vengeance.

[spicegal]

21. There are states now considering and/or passing legislation that would allow teachers and

other school personnel to carry firearms, as though that would do any good in a mass shooting against an AR 15. It's imperative that we not forget what happened at Sandy Hook. It doesn't take a lot of imagination to picture the carnage, the horror. Minus the photographs, someone could do a documentary in which parents, forensic experts, anyone who can paint a graphic picture, tells the story in gory detail.

[Crepuscular]

32. Hmmm

Moore may or may not be well intentioned, but the focus of his outrage is misplaced. So called assault weapons are involved in a tiny, tiny fraction of the deaths that are the result of firearms in this country every year. Concern over them is a manufactured crisis designed to make an emotional appeal, when a rational appeal has failed. Many people associate scary black guns with violence because of the way they are commonly portrayed in popular movies but that's Hollywood, not reality. Certainly the incident at Newtown was tragic, nobody is saying that it wasn't but the fact of the matter is that it occurred because a sick individual had a long standing mental health issue that was not properly addressed.

[Robb]

34. Absent a gun, how many children do you suppose he might've killed?

[Crepuscular]

36. An equal number?

Andrew Kehoe managed to kill 38 school children in the Bath, MI school massacre, absent a firearm. Next question.

[Robb]

38. Since Kehoe, the purchase and possession of dynamite has become strictly regulated.

A success story, as you look at the number of schoolchildren dynamited each year since.

Perhaps you should rethink your answer, you may try again without penalty.

[Crepuscular]

40. fuel oil and fertilizer

Maybe you would like to tell the people that died at UW and in Oklahoma City about the effectiveness of the Dynamite ban in preventing crazy people from killing others.

[Robb]

50. You forgot WTC '93 and 9/11.

Please, continue.

[Crepuscular]

55. Continue?

You were the one who was implying that nobody would be killed if assault weapons were unavailable, which is demonstrably not the case. Nothing to continue unless you want to launch another failed premise.

[Robb]

56. How many children were killed by bombs last week in the US?

[Indydem]

68. How many killed by "Assault Weapons"

Hmmm?

[Crepuscular]

72. Zero

The same number as were killed by assault weapons.

More children were killed by swimming pools last year, than were killed by assault weapons, you calling for a ban on swimming pools, too?

[Robb]

73. More kids are shot by guns every week than died at OKC.

That sit well with you?

[Crepuscular]

80. Nope

Which is why I favor regulations that would focus on addressing the underlying problems, such as poverty, gangs, mental health issues, etc., instead of wasting time and effort going after strawmen issues such as assault weapons, that are involved in a minuscule amount of crime.

[Robb]

82. Anything but guns. Got it.

[Crepuscular]

85. Nineteen

Nineteen children killed by dogs last year in the US, does that sit well with you?

Calling for a ban on private dog ownership? I guess not since it does not involve banning guns. Got it.

[DanTex]

93. Wow, that's about 150X less than the number of children killed by guns.

Do they teach math at the NRA indoctrination camp?

[Crepuscular]

98. It's about equivilent

It's roughly equivalent to the number of children killed with "assault weapons" last year. Assault weapons are the focus of MM"s article, hence the focus of this thread. Do they teach you false equivalency at the gun grabber academy?

[DanTex]

103. LOL. As long "equivilent" doesn't mean "equal".

I guess the NRA camp doesn't teach spelling, either.

[Crepuscular]

116. Really?

Never made a spelling error before? It must be pretty amazing to be perfect.

Read my earlier post about Ad Hominem attacks, which seems to be your style when you run out of logical arguments.

[laundry_queen]

236. No, it's more like how

no one argues with Dick Cheney anymore about whether or not there are WMDs in Iraq anymore, instead we just call him an ass. Clue: it's not because we've run out of logical arguments. You can figure the rest out yourself.

[Bay Boy]

84. Absent a gun?

What are you suggesting here?

Outlaw future sales of all guns?

Confiscate all guns that are currently in circulation?

What?

[thucythucy]

41. Concern over children being mutilated by an assault rifle

is "a manufactured crisis"? "Hmmmm."

Do you have any idea how callous and unfeeling you sound?

"The fact of the matter is that it occurred because a sick individual" had access to highly lethal technology, made available to him by his own "law abiding" "responsible gun owner" mother.

Absent that technology--i.e. the "Bushmaster man card"--I highly doubt that little boy's hand and chin would have been severed. I highly doubt so many children (and adults) would have died.

As for the rest of your post--that hand guns cause many times more deaths and injuries than assault rifles--you just made the case for far more comprehensive gun regulation.

And don't tell me it can't happen, that it's "political suicide" etc. etc. Just eight years ago progressive Democrats were told marriage equality was "a losing issue" that would only hurt us with voters. And look how the tide has shifted.

The same thing is happening with gun control. What's sad is how many deaths, how much suffering, it has already taken, and how much more death and suffering will be inflicted before we finally take action.

[Crepuscular]

43. Really?

As callous and unfeeling as it would be to publish pictures of carnage in the national media? The selective nature of your outrage is telling.

You can "highly doubt" all you want but all you are doing is displaying a lack of unfamiliarity with the functional impact of different types of weapons.

You want to make the case for banning all firearms? Go fot it, and good luck. Not going to happen. The likely result will be political overreaching which will result in nothing tangible occurring, which is kind of too bad because reasonable common sense measures that actually could reduce the amount of gun violence, will likely be caught in the political crossfire.

[thucythucy]

87. I would only be in favor of publishing the photos

if the parents approved. Otherwise I wouldn't want it done.

But yes, my outrage over photos being published would not be on the same scale as my outrage over the children being actually shot. This seems odd to you? You think publishing photos of atrocities is as bad as the atrocities themselves?

As for the rest of it, gun regulation (and "banning all firearms" is a typical straw man argument) has been and will be debated on and off DU ad infinitum. We'll never come to a consensus here.

"Reasonable common sense measures"--such as universal background checks, universal registration, licensing, insurance requirements, heavy penalties for unlicensed, unregistered, uninsured and unsecured weapons? I'm all for it.

[Niceguy1]

44. How many

Children are killed by assult rifles per year compared to other methods such as drunk drivers?

[thucythucy]

81. I'm also opposed to drunk drivers.

Most of us can deal with two or more issues at the same time.

[HangOnKids]

110. What is an assult rifle? n/t

[Paladin]

122. An assault rifle is whatever the NY Times says it is, on any given day.

Ted Nugent and Wayne LaPierre don't get to approve the definitions used in the gun debate, anymore.

[99Forever]

45. Once again, Mr Moore leaves the Delicate Flowers scrambling for excuses.

Here they are on this thread already. Singing the same deadly verses of their tired, blood soaked song.

Fuck the NRA.

[Bay Boy]

168. Who are the 'delicate flowers' you speak of?

People on both sides of the gun issue don't want the pictures published.

[99Forever]

170. Run along ...

.. you've already embarrassed yourself enough for one day.

[Bay Boy]

175. Please explain yourself...

...it's the mature thing to do.

[kimbutgar]

46. I want those pictures to be presented to Mr. lapierre the next time he testifies in Congress

Someone should show him the pictures while he is talking and get his reaction on film.

[mwrguy]

178. Wheat paste them to his door.

And to the doors of every NRA member.

Let them see what they did.

[PennyK]

47. Yes

I was doing a cross word puzzle last night, and the clue was "Gun rights organization." I thought about that.
Guns have RIGHTS? Um, they're THINGS.
PEOPLE have rights! Among those being Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

[Eleanors38]

240. You are right, guns are things and don't have rights...

and they have never been tried and convicted for any crimes, either.

[mountain grammy]

54. I think the mental illness was the mother's obsession with assault weapons

and the mental illness of anyone who feels the need to own an arsenal of assault weapons. Innocent Americans are the victims of these mentally ill gun owners spreading mass hysteria.

[99Forever]

57. Bull shit.

What killed those children was massive trauma from multiple GUNshot wounds inflicted from the muzzle of semi-automatic GUN intended only for the purpose of killing.

Enjoy your brief stay.

[Crepuscular]

59. wielded

wielded by a mentally ill individual. You like to leave that part out of the equation, as if an inanimate object is capable of mass mayhem without human participation.

[99Forever]

60. Without your "The Precious"...

... the massacre doesn't happen. Period. End of debate.

Go kiss your guns.

[Crepuscular]

63. Argumenet Fail

See the Bath, MI school massacre and numerous other instances of crazy people killing others without using firearms. End of debate? Because you say so?

[99Forever]

65. What's an "Argumenet"????????

And how does it "fail," Delicate Flower?

[Crepuscular]

67. Really?

You want to start criticizing typo's? Really?

Your argument that heinous crimes that result in multiple people being killed or injured only occur because assault weapons or even firearms are available fails because it's demonstrably false. You claim the Sandy Hook incident would not have happened without a gun. I think the word that you used was "period", implying that it was an impossibility for such an act to occur absent a firearm. Once again, see the Bath, MI school bombing. As I said, Argument Fail.

[Robb]

69. Your logic would suggest disbanding OSHA

...because one time a construction worker fell 20 stories and lived.

Insane proposition.

[Crepuscular]

74. My logic?

The only logic that I employed was pointing out the fact that there are other means of killing a whole bunch of people, besides employing a firearm, based on the fact that it's happend in the past.

Your "logic" would dictate banning, swimming pools, bathtubs, pit bulls, drain cleaner and a gazillion other things that have been the cause of child mortality because after all, if banning them saves the life of a single child, it's worth it, right?

Talk about an insane proposition.

[DanTex]

91. Again with the NRA talking points...

That guns are more deadly than substitute weapons, and that gun availability increases rates of both homicide and suicide, are facts that have been established repeatedly in study after study. The fact that it is theoretically possible to kill a lot of people with, say, a golf club is entirely besides the point.

It is much easier to kill people with guns, which is why when guns are readily available, a lot more people end up dead.

[Crepuscular]

94. Again with the gun grabber shifting of goal posts

MM's purpose for publishing photos of the Sandy Hook carnage is to draw attention to the danger of assault weapons....now you want to morph that argument into an indictment of all firearms and as an excuse to "ban them all".

The fact that it is possible to kill a lot of people with guns is also largely beside the point, if the point is a concern over gun mortality, since overwhelmingly only a few people are involved in individual incidents of gun related violence.

Good luck banning all firearms, have at it. I'm not aware of too many politicians who would be willing to incorporate that ideal into law, so good luck.

[DanTex]

96. LOL. You know, when you put something in quotes, it usually means you're actually quoting something.

You know, like "ban them all". But I get it: intellectual honesty would make your position impossible to defend.

[Crepuscular]

104. Ad hominem

Usually the last resort of someone who lacks a compelling argument. Thanks for giving us a wonderful example.

[DanTex]

107. Note to self: don't use subtety when arguing with gun nuts.

Sorry, my mistake. I have to remember my audience. Let's try that again...

I didn't call to "ban all guns". You put the phrase "ban all guns" in quotes, as if to imply that I did. That is a dishonest argumentative technique, known as a "straw argument".

Clear enough?

[ohiosmith]

121. This post was alerted on! The jury voted 5/1 to let it stand!

AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service

At Wed Mar 13, 2013, 12:17 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

Again with the gun grabber shifting of goal posts
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2499549

REASON FOR ALERT:

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (See <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus#communitystandards" target="_blank">Community Standards</a>.)

ALERTER'S COMMENTS:

Over the top/Inappropriate/NRA talking points.

Gun Grabber is a slur against not only this member but the Democratic Party itself and should not be tolerated at a Democratic Site which Strongly Advocates Gun Control and Regulation. Furthermore, it is a right wing/NRA talking point and includes the straw man of \"banning all firearms\" which is NOT what ANY one is proposing and should not be allowed to stand at our forum.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Wed Mar 13, 2013, 12:23 PM, and the Jury voted 1-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT and said: I will vote to hide any post that uses the term "gun grabber"
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: The post is appropriate in the context of the thread! Leave it!
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[Capt. Obvious]

151. I think all of his posts are being alerted on in this thread

AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service

At Wed Mar 13, 2013, 11:41 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

My logic?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2499358

REASON FOR ALERT:

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (See <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus#communitystandards" target="_blank">Community Standards</a>.)

ALERTER'S COMMENTS:

Swimming pools and bathtubs? Straight out of NRA spokesman LaPierre\\\'s mouth. Parroting NRA talking points on DU = hide, thanks.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Wed Mar 13, 2013, 11:51 AM, and the Jury voted 2-4 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT and said: Gun related posts are a stated violation of the
TOS in GD. LOCK it and HIDE it ALL fer crisakes.

Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: I thought this was a discussion board. Instead of trying to get the post hidden, why doesn't the alerter simply respond to them with the text they wrote in the alert? It may actually result in a conversation.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: meh, talking points and logic sometimes intersect
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT and said: What are we gonna do now? Ban hammers?
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: dumb ass talking points but not worth dumping

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[meanit]

194. And your logic

consists of defining a military style weapon designed to effectively kill in all types of combat conditions as a "tool" like it's a pair of pliers or something. Then you equate it's results to the hazards of swimming pools.

[Crepuscular]

232. Guns are guns

Not a heck of a lot of difference in lethality to the point where a different weapon would result in a different outcome in about 98% of the shootings that occur in this country. You seem to be all worked up about "military style weapons", as if they are the only kind of weapons you can use to kill something.

As far as the comparison to swimming pools, is a child less dead because they drown in the backyard pool as opposed to being shot? Both instances result in tragedy and both are responsible for a lot of dead kids every year but apparently you are only concerned with the fatalities that result from one of them.

[meanit]

264. You want to

relieve the gun of any of the results of what it is designed to do. You use the nonsense argument that swimming pool accidents are no different than a high power, high capacity weapon that was designed for war.
A gun has no other purpose except to shoot at objects or people and cause harm.

[thucythucy]

95. One sign of the true "gun enthusiast"

is the use of the same argument, again and again and again, even after it's been refuted.

And so, for instance, upthread you used the "Bath MI" card, which was a school massacre committed with dynamite, and got the response that as a result dynamite is now heavily regulated.

But here, on the same thread, on the same day, you're yet again using the same argument.

indeed.

[Crepuscular]

102. refuted?

I don't think you understand the meaning of the word. The Bath school massacre was an example of a mass killing that was accomplished with means other than a firearm. The fact that dynamite was used in that particular bombing is immaterial, unless you believe that dynamite is the only explosive which could be employed in a bomb. Since there are many instances of bombs being used subsequent to limitations being placed on dynamite, it's hardly a refutation, unless you don't understand what the word means....which clearly you don't.

[thucythucy]

147. You use the Bath school massacre as an example

of why banning assault weapons like the Bushmaster is an absurd idea. Dynamite was used at the Bath school, it was subsequently heavily regulated, to the point where "personal use" of dynamite is hardly considered a second amendment right. So if you're using the Bath massacre as any sort of analogy to Newtown, it fails for your purposes.

Here, I'll simplify it for you.

If Newtown = Bath then
Bushmaster = dynamite

then the proper response to Newtown is banning, for private personal use, the means used to commit the atrocity, just as happened at Bath. This then is a refutation of your talking point re: the absurdity of wanting to ban assault weapons. Unless what you're saying is, as long as ANY means exist anywhere for killing masses of people, attempting to control any other means is absurd. What about anthrax? What about nerve gas? All are methods for killing masses of people. I guess we shouldn't try to minimize those as well, right?

But then, the Bath school massacre is an NRA talking point, much as "just as many people are killed by cars" and "a hammer can be just as deadly" and "the real issue is mental illness" and "what about swimming pools" etc. etc. etc. We've heard them all.

The tide is turning. Too bad so many innocent people had to die for the change to begin.

[Crepuscular]

152. analogy fail

Let me help you here since you seem to be struggling.

If Newtown = Bath then
Assault weapons = Explosives

Both were school massacres, one involved the use of an "assault weapon", one involved the use of explosives. Clearly, banning dynamite did not prevent subsequent heinous acts involving the use of explosives as evidenced by the bombings at University of Wisconsin and Oklahoma City, among others. Banning assault weapons would very likely have a similar lack of impact in preventing subsequent mass killings, as there are any number of other weapons that can be employed, including the use of explosives, as an alternative. I realize that you don't like the idea that crazy people are likely to whatever means that they can to kill people, if that's what they decided they want to do but unfortunately, that is reality.

You want to address the root cause, I suggest that you put your efforts into supporting better mental health support infrastructure, it's likely to have more tangible results.

[Robb]

153. Is it more fun trolling left-wing boards than right-wing ones?

This is my guess.

[Crepuscular]

172. Wouldn't know, you tell me?

Is an Ad Hominem attack your standard response when you run out of logical arguments?

It's usually what people resort to when they can't make a cogent argument.

[thucythucy]

217. So you're saying the virtual banning of dynamite

for personal use was an improper response to the Bath massacre? Because McVeigh used a fertilizer bomb at Oklahoma City, we might just as well have allowed him to purchase all the dynamite he could ever have wanted? Oh yeah, that makes perfect sense.

This is typical NRA-speak. If we can't prevent each and every single instance of violence or mass violence through the particular measure in question, we might as well just throw up our hands and do absolutely nothing to limit access to technologies of death.

"Better mental health support infrastructure"--no problem with that. But we can, you know, do more than one thing at a time.

[Crepuscular]

231. Did I say that?

An improper response?

I would say a largely ineffective response, from the standpoint of stopping bombings from occurring. If people can't get their hands on dynamite, does it stop them from blowing something or someone up? You might want to Google "pipe bomb" and it will quickly disabuse you of the notion that limiting access to dynamite had an tangible impact on making it impossible for a bombing to occur. Over 12,000 pipe bomb incidents in a decade in this country does not exactly support the claim that banning dynamite eliminated the threat of bombings.

Nobody that I'm aware of is suggesting that we do absolutely nothing, what's being suggested is that we do things that will actually have a tangible impact. Banning "assault weapons" won't reduce the level of violence at all.

[thucythucy]

233. I think it's pretty certain that the banning of dynamite

had a "tangible effect." Did it stop all acts of terrorism? No. But might terrorist attacks have been more lethal had they involved sticks of dynamite rather than crude pipe bombs? Honestly, you have doubts about that? Over 12,000 pipe bombs, and how many of those resulted in mass deaths? As opposed to say, 12,000 sticks of dynamite?

"Banning assault weapons won't reduce the level of violence at all."

Glad to see you're omniscient. Banning certain easily-handled weapons with large magazines used in mass killings will have no impact at all. None. Whatsoever. Won't prevent a single mass killing. Ever. Ever ever. And you know this for sure. Got it.

And they say gun ownership doesn't convey a sense of omnipotence.

[Crepuscular]

237. Doubtful

I'm not an explosives expert but I'd bet that a typical pipe bomb is substantially more lethal than a stick of dynamite, due to the fragmentation effect of the container. It's much closer to a grenade then is dynamite. The centennial park bombing which used pipe bombs injured over 100 people I believe. But if you can show me some actual documentation that banning dynamite had a tangible impact on reducing the threat of bombing, I'll be happy to look at it with an open mind. I base my opinions of facts, not emotion.

As has been pointed out many times, banning assault weapons would stop the sale of certain models of new firearms that have certain features. It does not even come close to banning "easily handled weapons with large magazines", as you implied. Millions of those types of wepons would remain in private ownership and could be bought and sold. So tell us how banning the sale of newly manufactured weapons that have bayonet lugs or adjustable stocks would have a tangible impact on reducing crime?

I kind of doubt you will be able to provide a cogent answer that answers that question. Instead we will probably hear more about "NRA talking points, which is usually an indication that you have run out of arguments.

[Bay Boy]

182. I think you scored debate points in regards to...

...If Newtown = Bath then
Bushmaster = dynamite

then the proper response to Newtown is banning, for private personal use, the means used to commit the atrocity, just as happened at Bath.
--------------------------------------------
But I don't understand why you feel "the real issue is mental illness"
is off base. It's exactly on base. The man (I refuse to say his name) was mentally ill and if
he'd been treated properly those 26 children and adults would still be alive today.

[thucythucy]

218. I think mental health, specifically

the absolute failure of our society to provide an adequate mental health care system that does more for people in trouble than push pills at them, is a good discussion to have. The goal of addressing this failure, along with providing a better social safety net for troubled people in general, and their families and loved ones as well, is a good one.

What I object to are the pro-gunners who want to focus ONLY on mental health as the issue here, as if we can't work toward reasonable gun control measures, AND beef up our mental health systems at the same time. This is what the poster I'm responding to seems to be saying, "No no no, guns aren't the problem, don't touch GUNS, it's ALL mental health." It's a standard NRA talking point, one dwelt on ad nauseum by LaPierre at his infamous post-Newtown presser.

One aspect of good mental health is to keep people like the Newtown shooter from having easy access to weapons that make it a simple matter for him to blast his way into a school and slaughter twenty children. All the kids and their teachers who witnessed this horror, not to mention the families of the murdered, will most likely have mental health issues for the rest of their lives.

So yes, addressing mental health issues is important. But so is gun control. We can, and need, and must do both.

[Bay Boy]

222. The gun control initiative that if it had been in effect at the time

that would have stopped this awful crime is: (I'll let you fill in the blank)

[thucythucy]

226. A ban on civilian ownership

of the Bushmaster "Man Card" so that Adam Lanza's mom wouldn't have had one in her home, along with ample supplies of ammunition in high capacity magazines, obviously accessible to her son.

[Bay Boy]

228. I just can't imagine that

this deranged man would not have still carried out this awful attack if he couldn't have gotten his hands on a Bushmaster or any similar class of weapon. I have no doubts the death toll would have been the same if he had only brought a handgun (or two).

[DanTex]

92. I think you're in the wrong place. The NRA trolls hang out in the gungeon, not in GD.

This part of DU is mostly for progressives. If you are looking for like-minded people to share right-wing talking points with, you probably want to hit the guns forum:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1172
I think you'll like it better there, and also you'll probably last longer there, too.\

[Tommy_Carcetti]

113. Yep, it's mental illness that's the problem. What say you, gun lobby?

http://news.yahoo.com/ga-backs-relaxing-gun-laws-143041490.html


Ga. backs relaxing gun laws for mentally ill

After Conn. massacre, Ga. lawmakers back relaxing gun laws for mentally ill
By Ray Henry, Associated Press | Associated Press – Fri, Mar 8, 2013.

ATLANTA (AP) -- While some states push to tighten gun control laws after the Connecticut school massacre, lawmakers in gun-friendly Georgia want to ease rules preventing some mentally ill people from getting licenses to carry firearms.

Legislators in Georgia's House voted 117-56 on Thursday to allow people who have voluntarily sought inpatient treatment for mental illness or substance abuse to get licenses. The same bill would force officials to check on whether applicants have received involuntary treatment in the past five years before issuing licenses. Georgia also may change its laws to allow people to carry guns in churches, bars and on college campuses, contrary to what's happening elsewhere in the United States.

Judges in Georgia now have discretion over whether to grant a license to carry a weapon to anyone who has received inpatient treatment at a mental hospital or substance abuse treatment center in the last five years, whether it's voluntary or not.

"Simply being hospitalized doesn't make a person a criminal or a threat," said Rep. Rick Jasperse, R-Jasper, the bill sponsor, in a statement. The legislation now heads to the state Senate.
___________________________________________________________________________________________

Do us a favor and cut the bullshit.

[sinkingfeeling]

51. I applaud Michael Moore for writing this. I've thought that the lack of pictures

of our handiwork in Iraq and Afghanistan just lulls us into accepting the murder of innocents.

[madville]

53. I think it would strengthen the NRA

In MM's scenario yet another round of panic buying launches on top of the one currently underway, more people decide to buy a gun "while they still can" and stockpile ammo. The gun companies keep doubling/tripling/etc profits and funnel even more money to the NRA to buy more ad time and back more pro-gun candidates.

[Robb]

58. A fool and his money.

We should abandon our efforts because idiots rush to the stores every time they think the black guy is coming for their guns?

Forgive me if I think your plan is flawed.

[madville]

61. It's not my plan

It just happens that way every single time. Keep trying by all means, what I mentioned above happen to be side effects of those actions though. Look right now, gun/ammo manufacturers and dealers are having record years and they literally can not make the stuff fast enough.

[LittleGirl]

70. WOW, What a letter!

Don't miss reading it. It took me about 5 minutes because the truth of the matter is that I can't read well through the tears of a broken American woman WHO DOES NOT WANT TO SEE THOSE PHOTOS. EVER. I can't because I know it will change me. It might threaten to take away the thought that "All Humans are GOOD and Decent."

[marions ghost]

212. Can you live with "MANY Humans are Good & Decent?"

because that is the truth. All humans are good and decent is just not reality. Don't the vultures in control of the US government convince you of that?

Just because you say "some people are not good and decent" doesn't also mean you must hate them. You can have compassion for such lost souls. But for the most part, they are lost to the Good side of things. They rarely ever recover from such a terrible affliction.

You have to separate them from the majority who try to live by the golden rule. We are not all the same.

I see the "Armed Madhouse" (to borrow the term)
of the current Corporate Powers in US government AS JUST AS
harmful and destructive as demented Adam Lanza.
They would kill us en masse rather than help us.

[Demonaut]

75. I said as much shortly after the shooting, as macabre as it is

stuff the images down the throats of the nra supporters

yes, it would be difficult to view them but this is the handiwork of the high capacity magazines and assault rifle manufacturers.

[Romulox]

77. Come to DETROIT and explain all of that, Michael. You're so out of touch...

Or Washington, D.C.

Residents of violence-plagued D.C. neighborhood feel largely ignored in gun control debate

The gun debate taking place on Capitol Hill has been filled with measured questions on the meaning of the Second Amendment and remembrances of innocents lost in suburban mass shootings. It is a conversation largely swept clean of the sort of gritty trauma that too often marks the streets of Capitol View in Northeast Washington.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/residents-of-violence-plagued-dc-neighborhood-feel-largely-ignored-in-gun-control-debate/2013/03/12/46321718-7f63-11e2-8074-b26a871b165a_story.html?hpid=z1

[Autumn Colors]

83. My first thought about this ...

... was that Moore might be trying to urge a Newtown parent (specifically Veronique Pozner - who has also done some interviews describing the injuries to Noah in addition to the open-casket funeral mentioned above) to come forward and authorize these photos to be published. She's said that she wants the world to know and to see what happened. Might this be his way of encouraging her to go even further in her efforts?

Other Newtown parents have also been very active, i.e. testifying before state legislators, but Veronique Pozner is the one whose action was as bold Mrs. Till's.

[northoftheborder]

90. Such an excellent letter to Americans.

I didn't remember about Eisenhower marching German civilians into the Jewish death camps to make them LOOK at what they had done; the horrid results came about because Germans refused to see what was going on around them, or let their nationalistic fervor get an upper hand. Learning Visually is the most lasting.

[nadinbrzezinski]

99. Won't happen

No news editor in this country will run them. A little blood scares the Jeebus out of them...trust me on this.

The news media of 1957 ran them. The current news media in Chicago would not run the photos of Emmet's broken body either.

And that...is part of the problem. Why we did not have horrific photos of the latest war, and for the most part mangled cars at distance are fine, the mangled passengers...not so much.

Gun violence is almost universally a no-no.

[mwrguy]

129. Then we have to get around the editors

Billboards would not only be seen, but they would generate enough controversy to be a news story of their own.

It would be hard to ignore.

[nadinbrzezinski]

165. I know...I just pointed a reality

[WillyT]

101. K & R !!!

[Hoyt]

111. Formal and informal groups such as "Moms against guns" know something needs to be done.

And for those gun cultists who rationalize their irrational need to arm up because of "gangs and thugs" who might break down their doors or rob them, most of these moms come from the same neighborhood that you wrongly use to justify carrying guns in public, arming up with "assault" type weapons and accessories, etc. These moms understand what is going on, why can't you?

[michigandem58]

123. So his mother can't release the photos?

What am I missing? She understands the impact it has if people see with their own eyes.

[HangOnKids]

138. You Want Michael Moore's Mother To Release Photos?

How weird. Why would she?

[michigandem58]

150. Hardly material for a joke. n/t

[thucythucy]

148. If they are crime scene photos

or autopsy photos, then they might not be hers to release.

[michigandem58]

149. Thanks

Good explanation.

[alfredo]

155. Thank you.

[Milliesmom]

157. Please read, stop the killing

Pass this link around so people will know just how bad it is. The Republicans have time to to try and repeal Obamacare for the 35th time, bill by Ted Cruz (idiot), but do not want or will not vote down assault rifles, large size clips or even background checks. Shame on the republicans again.................


http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/crime/2012/12/gun_death_tally_every_american_gun_death_since_newtown_sandy_hook_shooting.html

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

160. Here's a letter from our county sheriff stating that he won't enforce,

what he considers to be unconstitutional new gun regulations.

What he considers? Is he now a Supreme Court Justice passing judgement on what he chooses to enforce and not enforce?

This is very scary new movement going on in our country by law enforcement, to not enforce laws that they don't personally like.
Any thoughts about this?

http://constitutionclub.ning.com/forum/topics/sheriff-bishop-s-letter

I listened to a two hour presentation from this seemingly normal person in a town hall meeting this last Monday, it's just not gun regulations that he opposes, but I will stay on topic here.

[Blue Idaho]

161. How long can he really remain sheriff if he violates a federal law?

Make it a felony and he will never be allowed to serve as a law enforcement officer again.

[Homerj1]

176. A Sheriff doesn't have to enforce Federal Law

He just isn't allowed to stop federal officials from enforcing it.

[Blue Idaho]

190. Now that I did not know...

Thanks - I think...

[Homerj1]

192. You're welcome

There was a court case involved with what I said but I can't remember ATM.

[mwrguy]

179. Doesn't that make him guilty of obstructing justice?

Throw his ass in prison.

[premium]

185. No, it doesn't.

Local law enforcement officials don't have to enforce federal law, or provide resources to the feds, but they can't interfere with federal agents enforcing those laws.

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

187. He states in the letter that he won't permit the Feds to enforce the law.

[premium]

188. Then he could be arrested for obstruction.

He can't actively interfere with fed. agents enforcing fed. law, but he can refuse to provide any resources, ie, personnel, local holding facilities, intel, etc., etc.

I doubt many local law enforcement agencies will refuse to work with the feds, just the most extreme.

[stevenleser]

253. Not just obstruction of justice, FEDERAL obstruction of justice, potential 5 year prison term.

I hope the Feds push it just on principle. They need to get that guy out of there.

[premium]

255. That's right.

I forgot to add that.
If he actively interferes, the Feds can drop the hammer on him, as I hope they do, but if he just refuses to provide any resources, then there's really nothing criminally they can do, but it would reflect badly on the town/city when it came time for financial or otherwise assistance from the Feds.

[Kingofalldems]

162. Michael Moore is loved by most Democrats

and loathed by republicans. That is all.

[JDPriestly]

163. This is the country in which we raise millions to cure cancer,

to help children suffering from birth defects, a country in which we donate to help poor children in Africa -- and yet we permit this slaughter by bullies in our own country.

What insanity!

[stopwastingmymoney]

173. Kick because everyone should read this.

the images will move us when words fail

[marions ghost]

214. We live in an image culture...

Michael Moore has painted a picture about as well as he can using words.

Thanks to the OP for posting the words in full though. Most powerful thing I've ever read by MM.

[Eleanors38]

243. Which is why this effort would fail...

By now, folks can (and have) found the hundreds of web sites which show the most gruesome carnage; frankly, it's getting routinized and even casual. With our social media, modern game-playing, photo shopping and images made into hoaxes, Americans would duly note and pass by.

Moore knows the moment is passing by as well. What is unfortunate (I guess), he seems to be grasping at some of the oldest and ineffective methodology. And his aim seems to be an attack on the NRA. Have at it, since it is unlikely to move people to act in any meaningful way; likely they will object at the implication that they should be held accountable for not joining a torch-bearing holy war. And I think that is what Moore wants.

[marions ghost]

244. Ridiculous idea

If those images were out, nobody would "pass them by."

we are creatures who respond to images even better than words, especially when the images hit close to home.

[Eleanors38]

248. The world is utterly filled with images...

But their impact on a "mass" audience is undergoing the same fragmentation and legitimacy questions as words & ideas are. Wish it were different myself, but the old mass media model -- and its capabilities to socially legitimize -- is collapsing. Worse, posting pics of dead kids (even if it were accomplished with no pushback) would only diffuse and cheapen the sympathy and passions the effort is supposed to engender, I.e., 'what's next?' in a world which is sick with the latest spectacle. And something, somewhere is always next.

[marions ghost]

251. We're not numb to certain images though

sure we are bombarded with images but some have more resonance than others. And provide evidence.

Far from cheapening anything, it would give meaning to the senseless deaths. At least they would serve to help prevent "the next." At the parents discretion, but I am with Moore on this). Most people are concrete and need to see to believe (which is why the wingers can promote this "Sandy Hook was a hoax" garbage.

[Eleanors38]

252. The "hoax" matter: this & other conspiracy junk...

Is promulgated by and for those who see conspiracy as an "ism," the fact that some even on DU feel compelled to respond to the crap is precisely the dynamic brought on by the deligitimizing of MSM. It's like a movie actor asked to answer in an Ask Me Anything session the charge he crashed a party in HS, got drunk and screwed a woman named " .....Roseann. Remember that?"

Who knows? Who cares? Who benefits? Why the questioner does. For a time. Because for a time he/she was legitimized by getting a fading remnant-celebrity of MSM celebrity, a movie star, to answer to a keyboard punk.

All is leavened, all opinions are the same, all legitimacy is questioned -- and you too can be the new star, for a fleeting time. Until the next legitimacy site is established. As for the passing MSM model Moore depends on...

If a man does away with his traditional way of living and throws away his good customs, he had better first make certain that he has something of value to replace them.

Basuto proverb

[marions ghost]

254. the delegitimizing of MSM...

--is all the MORE reason why you do not want government or anyone in media sanitizing or hiding an issue. If people are to make up their own minds what is important, we have to see it. If we are to construct our own opinions and not have propaganda fed to us, we have to see it. Otherwise we are living in China, where even what you see on the net is heavily filtered.

In this very sensitive case, the wishes of the parents should be the deciding factor. I'm just saying, I think it is
a legitimate argument. Nothing can bring those children back. If I were a Sandy Hook parent, I would want others to see and NOT forget, so that legislative action might be taken and other families could avoid such a nightmare. This is not the same as your child being killed in an accident. This was avoidable and has huge implications for the kind of society we want to live in.

[Eleanors38]

259. I don't think there is any chance these records are...

going to be supressed, by China or anyone else, once they slip the surly bonds of a small-town police force. Then the families will see the memory of their children become arbitrated by every inet punk and bathroom scrawler with a keyboard. It won't help anyone's ax get sharper.

But it will harden an already hateful culture war. And Michael Moore will have done his part by his advocacy of a hoary old bloody flag picture show.

[marions ghost]

260. "Harden a hateful culture war"??

...Nah. It could do just the opposite. Help us find common ground. Seek concrete solutions.

Let's be clear. The war is between gun defenders and those who want a saner, more civilized nation where innocents are not mowed down with regularity (you know, like in other more evolved nations).

This is not really a "culture war"--unless you really do see our entire culture defined as the "gun culture" vs. the rest of us. Maybe you do.

-----------------------------
---Re. "the memory of the children" -- if the parents agree that this nation needs to see the horror that was inflicted, then it would be OK. We are ALL complicit. You and I and everyone with a conscience. ALL complicit. We sit back and shake our heads and then we look away. And we forget. And go on living in fear. Until the next time. What you are suggesting is that we should just be fine with this. If there is any chance that the loss of these lives could bring about change, it will not happen unless America wakes up. Americans need to see what has been done, like what happened at Auschwitz needed to be seen. What happened at Abu Ghraib needed to be seen, what happened in Vietnam needed to be seen.

What we are allowing to go on in this country--is on the level of many of the world's known atrocities to humankind.

We allow it. We are complicit.

[Eleanors38]

263. More like gun-controllers vs. their view of gun culture.

Frankly, who even gave a damn about "gun culture" before the 70s? "Gun control" wasn't even in the Democratic Party lexicon before 1968. As has been pointed out before, gun control is more an outlook than a movement, a mile wide and an inch deep, like a sheen of ice in winter in a border state. Don't depend on "the rest of us."

Again, this is a culture war, and may be part of a larger class war, much more disheartening. I've seen too much of that stuff both in the gun control debate and in general DU postings not to believe otherwise. It's not universal but it is a strong presence, and no doubt duly noted by reactionary forces.

We are all complicit when injustice occurs; injustice is compounded when blame is assigned.

[Oakenshield]

197. Truly Horrific Imagery.....

To really get the point across however, Americans must force themselves to look upon the carnage regardless.

[cantbeserious]

204. Gun Enthusiasts And The NRA Should All Be Shunned From Society As Unfit Citizens

eom

[LAGC]

205. I'm glad you're not serious.

[cantbeserious]

207. We Now All Know That Irony Is Lost On Some At DU

eom

[Peter cotton]

206. Gun Grabbers And The VPC Should All Be Shunned From Society As Unfit Citizens

Sarcasm, if you're wondering.

Both extremes are absurd.

[erwinmary]

208. She is right

I Think..She is Completely right..

[In_The_Wind]

213. I agree with you ~ erwinmary

[img][/img]

[lonestarnot]

211. I do not have to look Mr. Moore; I already know, but you are right it would be good for the

ignorant to see.

[dogknob]

242. kr

[stevenleser]

249. Considering that our opponents are experts at demagoguery, this would fail most spectacularly

This is one of those "I don't think this would work out like you think it would"

The anti-agitprop on something like this practically writes itself.