General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWhat gun fundamentalists are saying about you this very moment
many anti's refuse to spend a moments thought about the victims, and instead seek to exploit tragedies to promote reactionary restrictions on firearm ownership that would have done little or nothing to prevent such tragedies from happening in the first place.
First, I wish to draw your attention to a recent study that shows a clear link between numbers of guns and homicide within the US. http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/09/13/2617131/largest-gun-study-guns-murder/
Now, they say we are "elites" bought and paid for by billionaires. People have been working for gun control for decades, but they are furious that Michael Bloomberg has recently started trying to counter the BILLIONS from the domestic military industrial complex that seeks to put more guns in the hands of more people. Bloomberg has contributed to campaigns for just a few years, and his money pales in comparison to the corporate murder industry that gun evangelists stump for. They insist the gun lobby's billions amounts to "grassroots" organization, but Bloomberg's money is illegitimate. They spew NRA talking points, while claiming we--you, me, and everyone who doesn't think more guns are the answer--are bought and paid for. The very fact that you think the continuous loss of life from gun violence means something is wrong with gun policy in this nation makes you illegitimate and elitist. The majority of Americans are hateful because we don't prioritize their guns above our own children. They insist "their rights trump our dead." Truly, that phrase is from a pro-2a speech they lauded as the best in history. Dead children should not be discussed. They don't matter. If we talk about victims of gun violence we are "using them" for political purposes. Then they turn around and accuse us of not caring about gun shot victims, while they can't let a thread go by without defending a shooter or saying the death really isn't important.
People in poor urban neighborhoods work for gun control, while the gun fundies sit on their rural spreads filled with guns and cars and accuse us of being "elites." I guess having my car shot up and hearing gun shot fire outside the window of my rented apt. every couple of months makes me an elite compared to someone who owns extensive property in two or more states. (I'm guessing this is the GOP definition of elite--if you read a book or value education, you're an elite. That has nothing to do with privilege or income).
These same people work relentlessly to shut down threads about victims of gun violence they insist we don't care about. They send an SOP alert on every thread because they don't want you to know that guns kill people, including children, each and every day. In fact, more Americans have died from gun violence since 1968 than in ALL OF THE WARS in US history. They insist the numbers are not important. Suicide victims don't account (apparently they deserve to die from mental illness). Somewhere in the world, there exist a few countries with higher homicide rates than the US. The fact that more people die in the Congo and Honduras, they insist, means gun violence isn't a problem in the US. Our homicide rate is higher than any other major industrialized nation. Researchers have proven time and time again (see the CSPAN podcast of the recent conference on gun violence at Stanford University) that the key variable distinguishing other nations of comparable wealth is the high level of gun ownership, and that is what counts for our disproportionately high homicide rate. Research does in fact exist, though gun fundies refuse to read it. When they do look at the data, they distort it by claiming it says the very opposite of what it really does. They pretend to sound authoritative, so the uninformed might be tempted to think they know what they are talking about. If you examine their claims and numbers, however, you will find they are often distorted. They participate in a nation-wide propaganda campaign to deceive the American public. I'm not sure how many of them know they are promoting false information, if they lack the capacity to examine evidence, or if their need for self deception is so great they block out everything that doesn't fit their clearly absurd contention that gun proliferation has absolutely nothing to do with homicide. Regardless, take great care before deciding to believe them.
The NRA is currently working to give teenagers access to guns. They want anyone to have access to a gun without identification or training. They recall Democratic politicians, and they lie to the public by claiming the government is trying to take away their guns. Their lackeys on the internet spread their propaganda day after day. They distort data and research, and just plain lie--all in support of the corporate gun lobby. These are largely people who live in rural areas and small towns who work to promote gun proliferation in urban areas like Chicago, hundreds of miles away from them. These are the interests that brought about the end of gun control in DC and imposed concealed carry on Chicago. We are living in the America the gun cabal made. Every blood-drenched corpse is a notch in the belt of the domestic murder industry.
What the gun cabal despises most is democracy. They depend on the domestic murder industry to buy off and pressure politicians to promote their agenda, and the fact someone like Bloomberg tries to counter a fraction of what the NRA and Koch Brothers funnel to Republican politicians enrages them. They can't stand the fact that the American people want background checks, limits on mass murder magazines, or limitations on the kinds of weapons individuals can own. They ignore polling data (except for GOP fav Gallop on gun ownership, which they insist is more reliable than Nate Silver because it tells them what they want to hear.) They refuse to acknowledge the Daily Kos SEIU polling that has consistently shown overwhelming support for expanded background checks (over 90%), limits on magazine sizes, and assault weapons. If it doesn't tell them what they want to hear, they ignore it or insist it isn't valid. Ask yourself what kind of people want to make sure criminals have unrestricted access to guns? Who would want to make sure any and everyone can buy guns online without screening for felony convictions? Why would a law-abiding gun owner avoid background checks? Why would some claim to support background checks yet oppose the actual legislation--a separate amendment dedicated ONLY to background checks that failed early this year? Does that make sense on any level? If you want to know what lurks with your midst on this site, look in on the appropriate groups to see what they are saying about you. You should know exactly what you are dealing with.
Now the truth is these people are not nearly as important as the victims of today's massacre. The problem, however, is it is they and people like them who work tirelessly to make sure NO reforms can be enacted. They are already spreading their talking points in the Gungeon and will soon spread it throughout DU and the rest of the internet. They will do everything they can to misinform you. They stand in the way of the most modest measures designed to save human lives. Remember their core ideology expressed in a speech heralded in the Gungeon: Their rights--their guns--trump our dead. Your children are meaningless.
sarisataka
(18,654 posts)BainsBane
(53,032 posts)what do you mean here?
-Loans do not need to go through a check
sarisataka
(18,654 posts)that under the proposed legislation, letting a hunting partner used your gun would be a felony. I do not know if this was true or fear mongering.
I think that by defining a loan of a firearm, and who is responsible for any misuse during the duration of the loan it would help close fears that average hunters would become law breakers by doing something not at all uncommon. yet if someone gives a person a gun who then commits a crime with it there will be accountability.
Also have a set duration to prevent people from 'loaning' for years at a time.
BainsBane
(53,032 posts)That should be made clear because I read it as someone purchasing a gun on finance. You should specify a short term loan while you are in their presence or something.
sarisataka
(18,654 posts)I was using the term colloquially. Actual legislation would have to be more clear on definitions.
I am merely trying to brainstorm any chance a bottom up approach to gun control since top down is seemingly in a perpetual loop. I do not know if any of the proposals are even feasible, referendums, petitions etc. but maybe something from group think will inspire someone smarter than me to make effective legislation.
BainsBane
(53,032 posts)That was posted about in both gun groups?
sarisataka
(18,654 posts)Appears it was fear mongering
Nothing in this title, or an amendment made by this title, shall be construed--
(1) to extend background check requirements to transfers other than those made at gun shows or on the curtilage thereof, or pursuant to an advertisement, posting, display, or other listing on the Internet or in a publication by the transferor of the intent of the transferor to transfer, or the transferee of the intent of the transferee to acquire, the firearm; or
(2) to extend background check requirements to temporary transfers for purposes including lawful hunting or sporting or to temporary possession of a firearm for purposes of examination or evaluation by a prospective transferee.
Emphasis added. Short term transfers were indeed excepted specifically.
BainsBane
(53,032 posts)Where people can absolve themselves of responsibility for passing on hang guns and assault rifles to others. So the loan provision should only be for hunting and sporting guns, and for very short-term, friendly loans. I wouldn't absolve the gun owner of all responsibility because that makes it too easy to pass on weapons to criminals.
sarisataka
(18,654 posts)are guns that are "loaned" or even more prevalent "lost/stolen". They are issues that should have been addressed decades ago but get lost in the shadow of broader legislation.
BainsBane
(53,032 posts)There is a case we need votes for and no one is around.
sarisataka
(18,654 posts)BainsBane
(53,032 posts)I know everyone isn't the same.
sarisataka
(18,654 posts)and I have thick skin. No harm no foul
Now to bed with me. My daughter broke her arm last week riding her brother's bike without a helmet. If I wasn't so upset about the arm I would have killed her. She needs to go in before school to make up tests she missed.
BainsBane
(53,032 posts)Have a good night.
LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)This is a contest that already ended years ago. A good portion of DU is against gun restrictions, we just lost two state legislators in heavy Obama districts to gun legislation.
It's like debating tactics on a war against another army when our army is fighting itself. We'll huff and puff for a week or two, then business as normal, guaranteed.
BainsBane
(53,032 posts)Who cares? That's a common refrain from you.
LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)when absolutely nothing will have happened, and we'll be talking about something else.
BainsBane
(53,032 posts)DanTex
(20,709 posts)I don't think there's any doubt that the gun fundamentalists have little or no regard for science and reason, or for human life, for that matter. The thing is, there are always going to be ignorant people posting hateful things on the internet.
alcibiades_mystery
(36,437 posts)The debate is over. They're assholes.
BainsBane
(53,032 posts)They support the status quo, the very situation that leads to 32,000 deaths a year from guns and mass shootings like yesterday's.
Bay Boy
(1,689 posts)...are you good with that?
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,182 posts)They were too busy at the gun shows or in line at the gun store.
Because they were scared to death that a couple months down the line, they wouldn't be able to buy yet another AR-15 for themselves. Even though most of them already had one. Or multiple ones.
That's irrational, sick thinking to the max.
BainsBane
(53,032 posts)Why else would they so relentlessly seek to trivialize and discount their deaths? Why else would they seek to censor all discussion of gun violence in GD? They have a clear agenda, and it's to keep people misinformed and uninformed in order to advance their agenda.
Bay Boy
(1,689 posts)and that's not in GD
BainsBane
(53,032 posts)You haven't been paying attention at all. Have a look at the SOP alerts on any given day. You'll see an orchestrated efforts by gunners to lock threads about gun violence. Skinner recently clarified guidelines for the hosts, but you will see gunners continue to complain that such threads are allowed in GD.
Bay Boy
(1,689 posts)...the Gun Control Reform Activism (Group), right?
BainsBane
(53,032 posts)All groups have SOPs that limit who can participate. The vegan group doesn't allow meat eaters, HOF and the other feminist groups don't allow misogynists, and the Gun control doesn't allow those who oppose more gun control. Deal with it. I'm sick to death of you people bellyaching. All the gunners want to do is disrupt and impede efforts on gun control. So there is one tiny section of the internet where they can't cause trouble. The idea that there is anything they want and can't have is completely foreign to them, so they bellyache constantly.
marions ghost
(19,841 posts)unfortunately.
Much of this gun luv is a sickness.
Glassunion
(10,201 posts)Each side frames the argument before the discussion even begins. It's doomed to fail no matter what at that point.
BainsBane
(53,032 posts)The extreme pro-gun forces are backed by a multi-billion dollar industry that corrupts the entire process by buying off politicians and spreading false propaganda to terrify gun owners.
Glassunion
(10,201 posts)That cannot happen.
When folks on one side of the fence come out swinging with - "many anti's refuse to spend a moments thought about the victims, and instead seek to exploit tragedies to promote reactionary restrictions on firearm ownership that would have done little or nothing to prevent such tragedies from happening in the first place." - Let's see, I can identify one baseless claim, two insults, and two instances of a false projection.
Then you have your reaction in your OP where you made projections, and the same claim that they do not care about the victims.
Both you and the person you quoted have framed the debate. At this point the discussion will ultimately end in failure.
You bring up some wonderful points that should be discussed, but the insults from both sides of the argument will always completely block the way of any progress.
I gave up on trying here at DU a while back as I'm just as guilty of these same things.
The Cooking and Baking group is way more my speed now.
BainsBane
(53,032 posts)I myself have been worn down trying to discuss issues with most (but not all) of the pro-gun members. What I find most frustrating is the refusal to consider evidence even when it is presented. They look at a document that says the sky is blue and insist it says red. How do you deal with that?
Glassunion
(10,201 posts)But in a discussion forum it is impossible.
If the rules for debate were followed, then any stumbling block can be overcome. But, the first rule of online forums is to throw out the rules of debate and make it personal.
When you accept the fact that when you post a topic for debate online, it will end in a giant heap of doodoo. You will then begin to realize that you don't have to deal with anything. Since there is nothing to deal with, that will alleviate your frustration.
Bay Boy
(1,689 posts)...to have guns? I thought 18 year olds already could buy guns.
BainsBane
(53,032 posts)They can receive them as gifts but not purchase them. Here is a thread that deals with it.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1262&pid=4036
Bay Boy
(1,689 posts)you can buy a rifle at age 18. Now I'm off to read the link you posted.
Read link and it refers to handguns, which is what I thought was the case in MI
18 for rifles
21 for handguns
maddezmom
(135,060 posts)Just like the DC shooter couldn't have an assault rifle but could buy a shot gun.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3686379
was that in error? an assault rifle is a long gun (and even at that you meant to say assault weapon, slight difference)
maddezmom
(135,060 posts)BainsBane
(53,032 posts)for insisting assault weapons be widely available to the general public. And of course they were supported by the vast majority of pro-gun posters on this site, so much so that they insist the very fact people proposed restricting assault rifles justified the defeat of background checks. To this day, they will insist that is what caused the defeat of the background check amendment, even though they were distinct amendments and everyone knew for months before the vote that Feinstein's assault weapon ban amendment had no chance of passing.
Thanks for the clarification about bans on 18-20 yr olds.
petronius
(26,602 posts)Licensed dealers can't transfer handguns to persons under 21, and can't transfer long guns to persons under 18. {18 USC 922(b)1}
Private sellers can't transfer handguns to persons under 18, and persons under 18 generally can't possess handguns {18 USC 922(x)}
Individual states can set higher age limits, which licensed dealers must follow.
As far as I can tell, there's no federal age limit on possessing long guns...
BainsBane
(53,032 posts)As the Hill article specifies. My mistake.
petronius
(26,602 posts)sellers: the 21-year-old restriction only applies to FFLs. Although some states (like CA) have raised it to 21 for all transfers...
BainsBane
(53,032 posts)Only licensed dealers are required to conduct them?
petronius
(26,602 posts)the sale required a BGC. Just referring to transfers, federal law prohibits licensed dealers from selling a handgun to anyone under 21. However, the minimum age for private sellers to transfer a handgun is 18. So, federal law allows private dealers - but not licensed dealers - to sell handguns to buyers in that 18-20 range. State law can be stricter. Federal law also puts the floor for handgun ownership generally at 18.
BGCs are a separate issue, but you're correct: federal law requires licensed dealers to conduct checks on all* sales, wherever they occur. Private sellers are not required under federal law to conduct BGCs; but again, state law can be stricter.
(* There are some exceptions - e.g. antique firearms, or replicas thereof.)
BainsBane
(53,032 posts)I was just asking generally.
marions ghost
(19,841 posts)will be rejected by the gun lobby. But thanks for putting it out there.