When somebody says "Guns don't kill people.People kill people".....

[Are_grits_groceries]

Ha!

[Recursion]

1. We'll get a lot more traction with *those* proposals than we will

with the feature bans that have been the centerpiece of our party's gun policy for the past 20 years.

If this is the direction the party finally wants to go in, I predict we'll finally have some success.

[JackInGreen]

2. I just wanna know why the people are so lethal

We should be putting these non-gun needing dangerous people that kill people in special forces shouldn't we?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

3. And the grabbers want to leave PEOPLE defenseless, not guns.

[gcomeau]

22. As illustrated by all those "defenseless" people in every other civilized nation on earth.

We all mourn for their torment, having to defenselessly deal with their lower homicide rates, lower suicide rates...

A moment of silence for the people of Australia in particular, defenselessly having to endure a total lack of mass shootings ever since the massive reformation of their gun regulations following the Port Arthur massacre nearly 2 decades ago now. Lo, how they yearn for a return to the days when they were able to effectively defend themselves against the lunatics running around their streets with easily obtainable firearms committing a mass shooting about once a year in the good old days when they had proper personal security.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

30. And Mexico and Japan and Korea and Taiwan?

[gcomeau]

33. Cluelessness, or deliberate obtuseness?

Hard to say which your post is. I suspect the latter however.

Mexico? Yes, let's please set our bar so low. "Well, well, well... we're doing better than the developing nation in the grips of a long running drug war! USA! USA!"



Japan? You mean the country with an intentional homicide rate over TEN TIMES LOWER than the United States? That Japan? Yes, mourn for the poor people living in what is universally regarded as one of the safest places on earth to live when it comes to crime concerns. If only they could defend themselves they might be able to do something about this great tragedy they suffer under.


Korea and Taiwan? The countries with homicide rates 5 times and 50% lower than the US respectively? Yes, vigils for all of them are clearly called for. Those poor people.



(And if you're going to pretend as if you have no idea about the cultural factors involved in the suicide rates in that particular region of the world, go play somewhere else and don't waste our time.)

[Nuclear Unicorn]

35. "go play somewhere else and don't waste our time"

Aren't you the cutest little grabber. All huffy and puffy and tuffy.

if you have no idea about the cultural factors

Actually, that was my entire point. Thanks for playing along.

[gcomeau]

37. Your entire point...

...was that you could selectively select really bad examples that showed that you had no leg to stand on in your "guns leave us defenseless" bullshit line of argument?

Well, ok. Congratulations I guess?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

41. The point is, some places have no guns but still violence and suicide issues. Some places have

liberal gun laws and low violence and suicide rates. There's no singular factor as much as you try to push with your huffy, puffy, tuffy routine.

And yes, you do want people defenseless. Your sort get very upset when people defend themselves and you would send innocent people to jail for daring to have a gun.

[gcomeau]

42. Suicide, some. For *highly* cultural reasons.

Violence? Were you under the impression Mexico fell in the "some places don't have guns" category? Because that would be hilarious considering there are tons of guns in Mexico thanks in large part to the idiotic gun laws across their northern border and poor border control.

So congratulations on finding another example of the damage done by your own position.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

54. "Cultural" is still "not gun related."

You're just huffy, puffy and tuffy because it ruins your propaganda narrative.

Violence? Were you under the impression Mexico fell in the "some places don't have guns" category? Because that would be hilarious considering there are tons of guns in Mexico thanks in large part to the idiotic gun laws across their northern border and poor border control.

So you claim a lack of uniform gun control policy is why Mexico is having gun violence problems. Well, there is one thing Mexico does share with the US.

An absolute prohibition on drugs.

They both have federal laws, dedicated enforcement agencies and cooperation. Still, it seems drugs can be produced and distributed almost at leisure. But how can this be if universal criminalization is the Holy Grail you claim?

And here's a wild thought to consider -- but you won't because you're more interested in grabbing guns than saving lives -- that same back and forth interplay between drug producers and distributors against those who create and enforce drug laws is the genesis of the very gun violence you decry. Imagine if we could look at the 8,300 annual gun homicides and filter for those that were gang and/or drug related what would become of that statistic. It certainly seems to comport with statistics that show us that the vast majority of those who commit gun homicides do so from a trajectory of earlier criminal activity.

The spur-of-the-moment killer is as much grabber propaganda as the portrayal of all gun owners as white, southern males.

[gcomeau]

58. How the fuck do you think...

...the uniquely cultural view of suicide in some Asian societies "ruins" ANY narrative on gun violence? In what delusional little fantasy world are you broadcasting that statement from?

And what part of "let's set our bar as low as Mexico" are you having difficulty processing? Devellopping nation with rampant government corruption engulfed in a drug war. Yeah, clearly we should be looking to them for examples of what does and doesn't work in first world devellopped nations rather that at, say EVERY FUCKING FIRST WORLD DEVELOPPED NATION which refutes your every argument.

Imagine if we could look at the 8,300 annual gun homicides and filter for those that were gang and/or drug related what would become of that statistic.

Why would I "imagine" that when we can simply do it? And what happens is that of course, as if you filtered out *any* subset of the homicides involved, the numbers drop but still leaves the US head and shoulders above all the other devellopped nations because the US is still the one with the gun laws written by morons.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

61. If all you want to do is act like a barking jerk then go do it someplace else safe in the knowledge

you have utterly failed to take a single gun off the streets.

[gcomeau]

62. Aww, someone not like having all their bullshit arguments shot down? -eom

[Nuclear Unicorn]

64. Your arguments are obviously carrying the day. Just look how many people are disarmed.

By the way, did you hear Maine just became a no-permit required to carry state? They're not alone and no wild west gunfights despite the promises of the grabbers.

[Hoyt]

28. "Defenseless," Do you really feel that way without a gun or two strapped to your body?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

31. You and your can of beans should start a one-man gun confiscation campaign.

[Hoyt]

32. Better than strapping a gun to my body and living in fear of other citizens.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

36. You do live in fear, Hoyt. You're obviously terrified.

[Hoyt]

38. Nope, i'm tired of seeing Democrats act like George Zimmerman and NRA types.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

40. You're scared of 80 million people who will never harm an innocent.

[GGJohn]

44. Oh, I think we know why you live in fear of armed citizens. eom.

[LanternWaste]

63. I intentionally conflate fear and concern too

I intentionally conflate fear and concern too-- it allows us to better validate our own biases, minimize those of others, and pretend we're more clever than we really are.

No doubt, you'll rationalize it as something else though...

[GGJohn]

65. Do you even know why I made the comment to Hoyt? eom.

[mgardener]

4. Then why......

are they called car accidents instead of people accidents?

[stonecutter357]

5. If People kill people don't give people guns.

[malaise]

6. Well said

By the way it's two weeks since the last mass shooting so we should be on watch today

[BlueJazz]

9. Really..it's like when you don't hear of any plane crashes for awhile. "Any day now.."

[struggle4progress]

7. It just breaks my heart to see those guns abused and accused so unjustly

[joshcryer]

8. Truth.

[Ghost in the Machine]

10. Then *WHY* is it always "GUNZ, GUNZ, GUNZ!!!11!!" instead of "CRIMINALS, CRIMINALS, CRIMINALS"??

By your own logic, you are admitting that we don't have a GUN problem, we have a CRIMINAL problem, which is very true. Our society has broken down so much due to poverty, hopelessness and despair, which leads to depression and mental instability, that people turn to crime just to survive. There is also an element that is SO desensitized that they place NO VALUE on human life, and kill, rob and rape because, as one perp recently said, I didn't have anything better to do". He was caught on video tape, AND confessed with that statement. IMHO, they shouldn't even waste taxpayer money on a trial... walk him out in the woods and put a bullet in his head. It's a hell of a lot cheaper for a piece of shit like that.

Pieces of shit like this are WHY I support the death penalty, but it needs to be swift and sure in a case like this. You have video evidence, DNA and a confession. To hell with spending millions of dollars on trials, appeals and 20 years of housing him, feeding him and giving him free medical, dental and vision services. He'd probably get bored in prison and kill again because, hey, what are they going to do to him, anyways?? Give him more time??

I also support a moratorium on the death penalty for cases older than 10 years, unless there is ample, SOLID evidence and/or a confession. Project Innocence has done an excellent job in freeing wrongfully convicted people, and they need to keep it up. However, over the past 10 years, we have also come a LONG WAY due to the "Surveillance State" and DNA databases that can clear, or convict, an offender.

YMMV...

Peace,

Ghost

[Nitram]

11. Because, Ghost, we already have laws against crimes by people.

But the NRA and the gun lobby have worked to make guns so freely available without background checks, record-keeping or requirements for liability insurance or training in gun safety that anybody can get as many guns and as much ammo as they want anytime they want it.

[Ghost in the Machine]

12. Yes, so let's strengthen and enforce those existing laws, and start prosecuting straw purchasers.

But the NRA and the gun lobby have worked to make guns so freely available without background checks

WRONG! Only private sales between individuals don't require background checks..

record-keeping

WRONG! ANY gun purchased from a licensed dealer requires the purchasers information. It *used* to only pertain to handguns, but now includes rifles, too.

or requirements for liability insurance or training in gun safety

People are required to have insurance on their vehicles too, but millions upon millions of people don't even follow THAT law. What makes you think a CRIMINAL is going to get insurance for a gun that he isn't even supposed to own?? Why should *I* have to have liability insurance on MY gun, when it stays locked in a safe for about 10 months per year and the ONLY thing it gets shot at is targets to check the sights, and an occasional deer... ON MY OWN LAND?? Hell, it's only been out of the safe once in the past 3 years, and that was to show it to a potential buyer. As for gun safety training, it is required to obtain a carry permit... which a CRIMINAL isn't going to bother with anyways, and most States require you to pass a hunter's safety class, which includes safe handling, before you can even purchase a hunting license. You have to show the licensing agent your certificate before you can purchase a hunting license.

anybody can get as many guns and as much ammo as they want anytime they want it.

Partially TRUE! Legal buyers go through background checks before purchases. CRIMINALS, on the other hand, often STEAL their guns, or buy them off the streets, KNOWING that they are stolen. You can't buy a Glock for $150 - $200 without burning your hands up because it's so hot (stolen, in case you are unfamiliar with street lingo). The same for ANY gun. $50 for a .38 Special or .380?? STOLEN!!

There *are* a few brands that are very inexpensive. One that comes to mind is a "High Point". A few years ago, the local gun shop had the 9mm for $99.99 + tax, so $110 out the door. A .380 was $79.99 + tax. They have gone up a little, but can still be found from around $129.99 to $149.99... brand new... and requires a background check, unless you already have a valid Concealed Carry Permit... at least in my State. I don't know how that works in other States though.

Before you mention the "Gun Show Loophole", that doesn't fly in my State either. When you check in, you show the guns that you have, and they have to be secured so they can't be loaded and fired. This is done by having action opened, and a locking tie strap through the barrel and out of the action. If you are a licensed dealer with a lot of various weapons, you have to show your FFL *and* perform background checks. If you are a private seller, with just one or two weapons, then yeah, those rules don't apply. You DO have to check ID's, and record who you sold the gun to, but those records are mainly to protect YOU in case the gun shows up later, having been used in a crime, and is still in your name. You can show *when* you sold the gun, and *who* you sold it to.

I hope this helps clear some things up for you. Guns are NOT going away and, yes, CRIMINALS will continue to obtain them. I know it's not right, but look at it as the same as the "War on Drugs". It has not put a dent into the influx of drugs into this Country, nor has it reduced the demand. The only thing it has accomplished is turning otherwise law abiding citizens into criminals In the States where it's not legal yet, EVERYONE who sells, or buys, a bag of weed is a criminal. EVERYONE in the Country who drives over the posted speed limit is committing a crime, whether they get caught or not. Think about *that* for a little while...

Peace,

Ghost

[Nitram]

13. Ghost, you seem unaware of the fetters the gun lobby has encouraged lawmakers to...

...put on enforcement of gun laws. Provisions inserted at the NRA’s behest make the law nearly impossible to enforce. This is a typical NRA strategy—proposing and supporting meaningless or gutted laws, then publicly arguing that all we need is to enforce them.

The result: they have limited the ATF’s ability to manage its own data in a modern and efficient manner, stripped the agency of autonomy and its ability to make independent decisions, interfered with the disclosure and use of data crucial to law enforcement and gun-trafficking research, frustrated efforts to regulate and oversee firearms dealers, and stifled public health research into gun-related injuries and fatalities. This is a good article on the topic:


https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/civil-liberties/report/2013/03/19/56928/blindfolded-and-with-one-hand-tied-behind-the-back/

[Ghost in the Machine]

14. I am fully aware, having been raised around guns all my life. I have NO USE for the NRA, nor their

stooges in Congress. I am all for certain restrictions, and enhanced sentencing for any crime committed with a gun. I'll never support mandatory registration though, because what's locked in a safe in my closet is nobody else's business but mine as long as it isn't hurting anyone.

See my reply here, to another post...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=7262790

Peace,

Ghost

[Nitram]

15. I also have been around guns all my life, and have no use for NRA.

Where I would politely disagree with you is that I believe we have to give up some privacy regarding our gun ownership in the interest of the common good. The fact is, the NRA probably already has the biggest gun ownership database in the country, and if they have one, the government could access it if they wanted to. The only way to get a handle on gun crime and gun trafficking is to allow guns to be registered and tracked. Perhaps we will have to agree to disagree on that.

[Ghost in the Machine]

18. I can certainly, and politely, agree to disagree with you on the registration issue. The way *I* see

it is, like you said, the Government could access the NRA Database for members names, and guns purchased through a gun shop are already registered to you due to the paperwork in your name, along with the background check. In my State, A CCP holder must also register with the Sheriff's Department *which* weapon they are going to be carrying concealed.

Ok, I got a little off on a tangent, but registration lets the Government know exactly WHO has WHAT, and in the event that they ever DO try to confiscate, the registered ones will be the first people they come after. They can't take what they don't know you have, can they?? Of course, I am also the one who always says that "the logistics of going house to house searching for guns is just too unrealistic, even if they got the military involved. I live in a small town, on 15 acres of land, and there are a LOT of farms and homes with acreage here. by the time the first or 2nd house was searched, the news would be all over the County. People would be burying their guns somewhere on their property. Is the Government *really* going to spend the time combing ever inch of ever piece of land with metal detectors looking for guns??"

MY guns can stay quietly locked away in my safe until I am dead and gone, then my kids can keep them, sell them or turn them into flower vases. I wouldn't be here to know anyways.

Thanks for the polite, civil conversation. I welcome them from different viewpoints all the time.

Peace to you and yours,

Ghost

[Nitram]

19. What worries me is that...

...the paranoid idea that the government will come to take our guns away could well turn into a self-fulfilling prophecy. If the general public decides that because the gun rights movement is unwilling to make any compromises in the name of safety and reasonableness, then we should revert to a stricter interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. If that happened, only a well-trained militia would have the right to carry guns in public - which is what "bear arms" meant until very recently.

I appreciate your willingness to discuss this contentious issue dispassionately and thoughtfully.

[Ghost in the Machine]

24. See? We also have a differing interpretation of the 2nd Amendment...

As it says (with emphasis mine):

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

You see the words "free State"?? Before the Revolutionary War, we were NOT a "free State" and we had no standing Army. AFTER the war, when we had won our independence, we had a battle tested Militia... a standing Army. Our Forefathers had the insight to realize that this "Militia" could stage a Military Coup and take over the Government. That's why they put the clause (again, emphasis mine) "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.", so we wouldn't be an unarmed citizenry unable to fight back against a tyrannical force if they ever dared to try a Coup.

You see the words "the people"?? These are the same "people" as in the Declaration of Independence that starts out with "We, the People...".

That has been, and always will be, MY interpretation. Another thing we can agree to disagree on, but at least give that interpretation a little deep thought first??

Again, I am always happy, and willing, to debate anyone in a civil and courteous manner. I thank you again for being one of those people, and it has been an eye-opening, thoughtful, pleasure to have this discussion with you, Nitram.

Peace,

Ghost

[Nitram]

25. In fact, after the Revolutionary War the Continental Army was quickly disbanded...

...due in large part to the American distrust of standing armies. So there was a very strong distinction between a standing army and a militia. Irregular state militias became the new nation's sole ground army. And contrary to the Tea Party view, militias were actually used to put down several popular rebellions of the People, including Shay's Rebellion, the Whiskey Rebellion, and the Doctor's Riot of 1788. While the wording and punctuation of the 2nd Amendment can be interpreted in more than one way, until very recently it was always assumed to mean that the people had the right to bear arms in a well-regulated militia. The NRA was behind the re-interpretation of the 2nd Amendment to mean that any citizen can carry any weapon at any time.

[Ghost in the Machine]

27. Interesting! I will have to check that out, as I had read differently, but that was a long time ago

I have to leave for a while now, but it certainly has been a pleasure conversing with you.

Peace within, Peace between, Peace among...

Ghost

[Ghost in the Machine]

48. Did you forget about this?

After the war the Continental Army was quickly disbanded as part of the American distrust of standing armies, and irregular state militias became the new nation's sole ground army, with the exception of a regiment to guard the Western Frontier and one battery of artillery guarding West Point's arsenal. However, because of continuing conflict with Native Americans, it was soon realized that it was necessary to field a trained standing army. The first of these, the Legion of the United States, was established in 1791.

{emphasis mine}

It was also in December of 1791 that the Bill of Rights, along with the 2nd Amendment, was ratified and passed.

I believe that I mentioned earlier about our Forefathers having the insight NOT to trust a standing army, thus giving the "right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms". They didn't want the citizens to be unarmed and defenseless in case this standing army tried to pull a Military Coup and take over the fledgling Government.

I will still politely agree to disagree with you, and stick to my interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, and you have every right to stick to your interpretation, which I can respect. We both agree that TODAY is a different story, and something *needs* to be done, but we have to figure out *what* that *something* is, short of abolishing a Right and having complete banning and seizures.

Peace,

Ghost

[hunter]

34. I've been around guns all my life too. I have no use for guns or the NRA.

Piss on both.

[maxsolomon]

23. our problem is larger than just "criminals".

what about pre-criminals? "law-abiding until they're not".

law-abiding gun owners who then use guns to kill loved ones? or are negligent and allow, say, toddlers to get ahold of their guns? or, with suicides, non-criminals?

we don't really have a criminal problem - crime is at a historic low. yes, we have gang violence, yes we still have break-ins.

but what we mainly have is a bunch of irresponsible idiots armed to the teeth. and they aren't criminals. yet.

[Ghost in the Machine]

26. "pre-criminals"?? That's getting close to the territory of the "Thought Police", IMHO...

Yes, they may be law-abiding until they're not, but once they become "not", they become criminals. I can fully agree that we may never know what suddenly triggers (pun not intended) someone to snap and lose control, but that shouldn't be a cause for EVERYONE, the tens of millions of gun owners who never commit crimes, to lose their rights.

I just recently lost a cousin to a gun suicide. He never should have had a gun, but it's understandable living in Broward County, Fl. He and his on-again, off-again wife were pill addicts, and they had young kids. She kept threatening to take the kids away where he would never see them again. My aunt had tried several times to get Family Services involved, but they never did anything.

For the last 3 days before he killed himself, he had tried every day to get himself put into a mental health facility, but they kept telling him that he didn't NEED mental health services, he needed to go to rehab! The 3rd day, after trying again to get placed in a mental health facility in 3 places and was turned down again, he went home. Apparently he and his wife got into an argument again, she threatened to take the kids again, and he snapped. He shot at her with a shotgun and luckily he missed. He then stuck the barrel in his mouth and pulled the trigger.

Several years ago, I had a friend who had stopped by his parent's house for something. I guess he and his dad had been on the "outs" for a while, but I didn't know that. They started arguing really loud, and his father told him that he was a useless piece off shit and to stay out of his life. With that, my friend pulled a pistol out of his pocket, stuck it to his temple, and blew his brains out all over his father. I didn't even know that he had a gun, and he never seemed depressed or suicidal to me.

I don't know what all the answers are, and won't pretend to. What I *do* know is that if we spent the money it costs for ONE MONTH of this ongoing "War on Terror" on Mental Health Services and Substance Abuse Services, we could help a LOT of people. Of course, they would have to WANT the help to start with, and that's where I think legalizing ALL drugs would come into play. Many people want help, but are afraid to seek it because of the stigma, and for fear of losing their jobs. This is just my opinion, but I think if they legalized drugs, there would be a small percentage that would quit using because the main reason that they use recreationally right now is because they are "sticking it to the Man". I actually had someone tell me that once, that *that* was the only reason he used drugs. He would smoke pot, or crack, all day but would not touch a cigarette or alcohol. Figure that one out! I never could...

Peace,

Ghost

[maxsolomon]

29. we agree. he should never have had a gun.

sorry for your loss.

pre-criminal is just my term for people who were law-abiding up to the time they weren't - people who are entitled to gun ownership but have no business near one. like your cousin. like me. knowing I'm prone to depression is the reason i'll never have one.

[Ghost in the Machine]

50. Thank you very much, maxsoloman..

I had a bout with depression before, but it was classified as "Situational Depression", after I was disabled in a job related accident and was told that I could never work again. I was a work-a-holic, worked 6 & 7 days a week, daylight to dark, and was making over 2 grand per week. I also loved what I did, which made it more of a hobby than a job, and I provided very well for my children as a single father. They NEVER heard the words "we can't afford that" until after I was hurt, when they were 10 and 11 years old.

I finally beat the depression by thinking that the whole time I was working, I was a good provider, but not really a good father because I hardly saw my kids. I was fortunate to have my parents nearby, so I never had to worry about who was watching them. I realized that now I had a chance to be a good father and spend quality time with my kids, but I just couldn't provide as well as I was used to.

I hope you take care of yourself and find some healing for your depression. Please just ALWAYS remember one thing. There are more people out there than you may even know about who love and care about you, and they need you and don't want to lose you. Stay strong, my friend, and always fight to live!

Warm thoughts and Healing Vibes are being sent your way...

Peace within, Peace between, Peace among...

Ghost

[Bonx]

16. "Guns don't kill people. People with guns kill people"

Is that better ?

[hay rick]

39. People without guns give you a bloody nose.

I know- still too complicated for some folks.

[Bonx]

49. You should tell them then.

You know, those 'some folks'.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

55. There are no homicides without guns? That is interesting news.

[hay rick]

59. So you would rather meet a deranged or angry person with a gun than one without a gun.

Not exactly what you said but your response already established a low bar of relevancy in this discussion.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

60. The question isn't what I want a criminal to have because neither of us can control other people.

[Iggo]

17. "...you're too stupid to own one."

[GummyBearz]

21. Yes

you are correct... but at this point it is a battle of salesmanship. Telling people they are too stupid to do X because you are smarter is not going to win the battle of salesmanship. The other side has about a 20 year head start on selling their points, and we better damn well catch up on the game. Telling a voter they are too stupid to vote on an issue will not win the salesmanship war. Let me be clear: I don't like it, but that is the game. Lets start CONVINCING people of our side, instead of insulting them.

[pnwmom]

20. And we don't need to send any guns to jail. Just some idiots who use them.n't

[Straw Man]

46. Right.

And we don't need to send any guns to jail. Just some idiots who use them.

And for those who own them but don't misuse them, leave them in peace.

[X_Digger]

43. So no arbitrary magazine limits or "assault weapon" bans, eh? Bravo. n/t

[Straw Man]

45. Exactly. nt

[Recursion]

52. Like I said upthread

If the party is finally moving around to this much more sensible set of proposals, I think we'll do some real good here.

[SunSeeker]

47. We need to protect ourselves.

[friendly_iconoclast]

53. You lot are great at finding cartoons, but piss-poor at finding voters who agree with you

Amusing those that already agree with you does little

[YOHABLO]

51. More regulation on manufacturers in U.S. and heavy tariff on imports.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

56. Criminals who use guns aren't buying from the manufacturers.

[aikoaiko]

57. Except to many gun restrictionists want to ban some guns if not all guns.

[Electric Monk]

66. and cigarettes don't cause cancer, people choosing to smoke them does

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017302671