Stricter State Gun Laws Tied To Fewer U.S. Teens With Firearms
Source: Reuters
Researchers analyzed data on teen gun possession from a survey of U.S. high school students in 38 states and then examined how aggressively each of the states regulated firearm use with policies such as background checks before sales, minimum ages for purchase, bans on military-style assault weapons and limitations on use in public places.
In states with stricter gun laws, 5.7 percent of students surveyed said they had carried a gun in the past month, compared with 7.3 percent of their peers in states with more permissive gun laws. Adolescents were more likely to carry guns if adults in their home owned firearms, the study also found.
"The governments and adults in other developed countries have made it difficult for youth to access handguns, however, our study showed that about a quarter of U.S. adolescents reported easy access to a gun in their home," study co-author Ziming Xuan, a public health researcher at Boston University, said by email.
Approximately 15,000 teenagers aged 12 to 19 die in the U.S. each year and the top three causes are unintentional injuries, homicides and suicides, Xuan and co-author David Hemenway of Harvard University report in JAMA Pediatrics. Most of the homicides and almost half of the suicides involve guns.
Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/state-gun-laws-teens_56001f6ee4b08820d9195720
More gun nuttery = More kids with guns = More dead kids
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
randys1
(16,286 posts)everybody has a gun or nobody has one.
Which future will result in less gun deaths?
BarstowCowboy
(171 posts)randys1
(16,286 posts)Evolution and I are on the same side.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)randys1
(16,286 posts)Your attitude about your gun is the most dangerous part of this issue.
Very dangerous.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)With every single Supreme Court interpretation of the 2nd amendment going back as far as you like, including all regulations that apply to me/them.
Moreover they are stored perfectly safely in my hands. So thank you for your interest.
BarstowCowboy
(171 posts)One could make the argument (understand though, it's not MY position) that evolution would favor an organism that can kill other organisms that are in competition for resources.
yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)I'd vote everyone have a gun. I see bad things happening if we make guns illegal. Only those who cause harm will get them through black market like drugs. I have never owned nor will ever but this fantasy of getting rid of guns will make everyone safer is absurd.
BarstowCowboy
(171 posts)Bad things like what might happen, like 8 dead and 25 wounded last weekend in Chicago?
Kingofalldems
(38,420 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)However, safe storage, reporting requirements for lost/stolen, and Universal Background Checks probably tightly correlate.
bobclark86
(1,415 posts)People almost invariably use cheap $100 handguns to hold up liquor stores and to shoot themselves, not $2,000 AR-15s?
I never understood this: What's so hard about locking up your guns so your kids don't get them? I didn't think that required rocket surgery-level mental effort ...
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Like cheapass tek-9's and crap like that. But yeah, tend to agree. If my AR went missing from my safe, there'd be a fucking congressional inquiry in my household, no doubt.
Not that anyone else HAS access to the safe.
BarstowCowboy
(171 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Oh my goodness you found a video of a child that figured out how to bypass the lock on a 40 dollar piece of shit gun locker from harbor freight that was supposed to be bolted down anyway.
Buy American. Buy Union. Read the fucking manual.
Save a kids life.
BarstowCowboy
(171 posts)This is great, we're finally getting somewhere. If I understand you, you're in favor of banning "Saturday Night Special" safes, and also in favor of mandating minimum standards for gun safes which would include a minimum weight (I believe you referenced a 1,000lb minimum weight), as well as a requirement that they be bolted to at least 3 points of contact, with one point being a floor (I'm assuming it'll be the ground floor so that we can secure it to the concrete, right?), and lastly that we require it to be a Union made safe that's made in America. I think that if we're willing to give this law some teeth by requiring random surprise compliance inspections we'd really be on the right track. You know, most of you gun guys tend to be conservatives who oppose excessive regulations, but you're not one of them, and I think that's refreshing.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Grandma might want to keep her gravy recipe in something. Fine.
But I don't think it would be unreasonable for the FTC to tell them they can't use the term 'gun safe', because it isn't, that thing wouldn't keep out an angry beaver.
And I don't think that safe should qualify for meeting safe storage requirements. And there should be safe storage laws, and reporting laws in case of theft/loss. There are some good and bad examples of attempting to craft such legislation in the US.
IF we're being serious and all.
BarstowCowboy
(171 posts)California has some kind of laws concerning the standards for gun safes, and I believe they also have safe storage laws. My sister married a guy who was from there, and I saw the "safe" that was approved by California DOJ, and it seemed like it was JUST strong enough to keep out one (average sized) angry beaver, but that's about it. Their laws were probably the result of some compromise, but if we could just kick this thing in the ass and get it moving I think we could get a GOOD law requiring storage and some minimum standards for what's considered safe storage. I'd rather have what you'd probably consider completely draconian gun laws, but 7 years ago I didn't think we'd still be having THIS conversation about assault weapons and everyday Joes walking around with their Glock shoved down their pants. There are so many things I thought President Obama would be able to get done, but the lack of progress of common sense gun law reform is probably my biggest disappointment with his presidency.
NutmegYankee
(16,199 posts)You do realize that there is this thing called the 4th Amendment right?
BarstowCowboy
(171 posts)The 4th Amendment protects us from UNREASONABLE searches and seizures. If someone wants to store dangerous items in their house, I don't think that checking on whether they're stored safely is unreasonable. Federally licensed firearms dealers have to agree to have their businesses available for compliance inspections, so it's not like this would be unheard of.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)and I would bet my pension that the SCOTUS would strike that down very quickly as a violation of the 4th Amendment.
What you propose would be an unreasonable search and seizure.
Let's take this further, would you want the same thing for other dangerous things in the home, like rat poison? Bug spray?
BarstowCowboy
(171 posts)Of course you couldn't do compliance inspections right away and without precedent, but with time and will and determination I think we could get much better laws than the ones we have now. It might not be in your lifetime (so your pension would be safe from our bet), but I sense that there is a massive shift in Americans' attitude about this subject, and the NRA can only produce so much astroturf for so long before the people finally get what we want.
If bug spray and rat poison were a big problem, sure, why not have an inspection regime? It would be more practical to just have limits on the sale of rat poison and bug spray though, as well as tracking who is buying the bug spray and rat poison, how much they're buying and verifying that they're using the bug spray and rat poison in accordance with state and federal law. This isn't unheard of, drug stores in Arizona have been tracking who purchases pseudo-ephedrine for years because it was being used to manufacture methamphetamine.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)Yet, here you are advocating for a violation of our 2nd and 4th Amendment rights.
Any other rights you would like to violate?
Somehow, I think you're on the wrong site, what you want is down the hall and to the right, where your views will be much more welcome and in tune with their way of thinking.
BarstowCowboy
(171 posts)GGJohn
(9,951 posts)that's a republican trait, not a LIBERAL trait.
NutmegYankee
(16,199 posts)#2 - the only reasonable search and seizure is one that has a warrant which has "probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." Probable cause for a crime, not just because you want to look inside.
So no, what you just wrote does not value the 4th amendment and is actually incredibly fucked up to read on a liberal website. Go away.
BarstowCowboy
(171 posts)FFL's who operate out of their homes (and that's a LOT of them) do have to have their homes open to inspection.
The ATF doesn't need a warrant to conduct these inspections, they're part of being an FFL.
What I've proposed is controversial to be sure, but I think I'm far from being a fascist who needs to be thrown off of DU.
sarisataka
(18,474 posts)people who have prescription drugs could also have "random surprise compliance inspections" to insure they are properly storing and accounting for their drugs.
Do you really want to go there?
branford
(4,462 posts)The number of items that could, and do, harm children is virtually limitless in most residences and vehicles. We've also all repeatedly witnessed both criminally horrific and blatantly negligent parenting, either personally or on the news.
Parents should have no Fourth Amendment rights if it could save just one child!
For heaven's sake, eliminate probable cause for the children!
The topic of firearms is sadly proof that many liberals and progressive can be just as myopic and tyrannical as the most intrusive Republicans.
BarstowCowboy
(171 posts)BarstowCowboy
(171 posts)We'd be FAR better off if guns were as heavily regulated as prescription drugs. As it stands now, I have to have a need for a prescription drug as determined by a professional who is licensed by the state, and I can only get some many doses of the drug before having that medical professional assess if there are harmful effects and whether or not I need to continue to receive the drugs. I'm not allowed to go to backpage.com and sell my drugs to other people, nor am I allowed to bequeath them to my heirs upon my death. There are laws that prevent people from getting more drugs that they need by doctor shopping, and there are laws that (believe it or not) allow police to seize your prescription medications if they have reason to believe that you're taking them without a prescription.
The short answer to your question is that no, I don't think the police should be allowed to enter your home to verify you are storing your prescription meds properly. This is because your prescription medications, when compared to guns, have very little in the way of offensive capabilities.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)Here's the difference, one is a Constitutional right, while the other isn't.
More people die each year due to drug overdose than die by firearms and auto accidents.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2014/02/07/100-americans-die-of-drug-overdoses-each-day-how-do-we-stop-that/
BarstowCowboy
(171 posts)should be able to do a compliance inspection at your home to ensure proper storage of medicine. The analogy isn't a very good one, because very seldom do you hear about drugs being used as weapons, but he was the one who first made the analogy, not me; I was just responding to it.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)then those that die by a drug overdose aren't as dead as those that die by a firearm?
BarstowCowboy
(171 posts)Those that die by drug overdose almost always do so by their own hand. I'm not real big on the government using its authority to protect us from ourselves. That gets messy fast.
sarisataka
(18,474 posts)from "If someone wants to store dangerous items in their house" to "very little in the way of offensive capabilities"
Every house has dangerous items, drugs, cleansers, pesticides, fuels... So by your original standard, every home could be subject to "random surprise compliance inspections".
Hell, who knows what you are doing with your computer- researching how to make a bomb or buy a stealth plane... Better check that too.
BarstowCowboy
(171 posts)Please allow me to revise and extend my remarks...
"If someone wants to store items in their house that are dangerous to others, and were designed specifically to serve as implements of mass homicide", and then everything else I said.
branford
(4,462 posts)However, for such a regime to become law, you would need to repeal the Second Amendment, all its state constitutional analogs in the vast majority of states, and then convince a majority of voters and their elected representatives to pass such enabling legislation.
Considering the recent trends demonstrating ever increasing support for gun rights and opposing restrictions according to Gallup, Pew and others, the liberalizing of gun rights laws across the country all while crime has dropped precipitously over the last few decades, and the inability to even pass universal background checks in a Democratically-controlled Senate with strong White House support and purported 90% popular approval, to say noting of the fact that despite strong prescription drug regulations, prescription drug addiction and black market sales still remain a terrible scourge on society, such an extreme gun control wish list (including those surprise inspections) will solely remain the subject of purely academic discussions for the foreseeable future.
I would also note that just owning legal products with "offensive capabilities," no less when such products are constitutionally protected, would not justify government inspections of residential premises or come close to providing probable cause to do so, particularly since the rate of crime or accidents among lawful gun owners is statistically minuscule (remember, America has about 80-100+ lawful gun owners and over 300 million legal guns). However, the expressed desire to implement such policies are the reason why gun rights proponents are so impassioned in their opposition to national gun registration and other laws that could ultimately assist in such draconian measures.
BarstowCowboy
(171 posts)I disagree with your assertion that the ATF wouldn't be able to conduct inspections based on the fact that there are so many guns and so few gun crimes, as well as the idea that guns are constitutionally protected.
In 2012, the ATF conducted 13,100 inspections of the 69,000 licensed FFLs. They found enough violations to revoke the licenses of 97 FFLs, or about .85% of the licenses inspected. If they are able to justify doing that many inspections to find that few violations, they could certainly justify inspecting the homes of gun owners, especially if they used a targeted approach to identify gun owners more likely to be in violation.
I know that you are an attorney. I am not, but I do have TV and basic cable. I do know that it is possible to do something called "Legislating from the Bench". It's usually called that by people who didn't get what they wanted to get from the judicial system. I do know that the SCOTUS is charged with determining the constitutionality of laws, and that presidents get to nominate justices to that court, and those nominations are confirmed by congress. So, even though you are technically correct about the amount of work involved in amending the constitution, we both know that the definition of a law can change as the makeup of the SCOTUS changes.
branford
(4,462 posts)including professional inspections, are far different that what is required to allow a search of regular citizen's home, car and similar places. Moreover, FFL inspection usually only concern certain documents and inventory and is still very limited in scope, and when abuses which have occurred, are actionable constitutional violations.
It requires probable cause to search a personal effects and property of citizens, and cannot be based on generalized or statistical risk or simple ownership of a legal item, nor can such searched be permitted simply because Congress or any states deem in good or necessary in any legislation. It requires a specific showing of likely criminality of not just the person who owns the pertinent property, but that the criminality is connected to the property and likely to reveal actual evidence. This jurisprudence is centuries old, and strongly backed by both liberal and conservative jurists.
The cases you hear about on the news generally involve whether certain locations have expectations of privacy, like certain internet sites or data storage hubs accessible to the public, and reflect the law catching-up to technology, or revolve around the contours of determining probable cause under specific and questionable circumstances, such as the extent of a permissible search when a drug-sniffing doge allegedly smells drugs at a traffic stop. These situations have little to no applicability to the suggested discretionary searches of private homes concerning firearms without even generalized documented suspicion of criminality, and to permit such searches would require a wholesale re-imagining of the entirety of Fourth Amendment jurisprudence that would provide a slippery slope that could effectively eviscerate the amendment and destroy a bedrock principle of American civil rights.
I don't need to be a lawyer to advise you that such a suggestion would terrify judges across the political spectrum, has absolutely no chance of happening anytime in the foreseeable future, and if such a legal regime is ever implemented, we have far more to worry about than discussions about gun control.
BarstowCowboy
(171 posts)I accept that we're not going to get to inspections via the legal route, you've made that clear.
If the FDA can inspect farms for reasons of public safety, and if the NRC can inspect nuclear reactors for public safety, then maybe the correct approach will be that of licensing, regulation and public safety inspections instead of crime prevention. Greater minds than mine will have to plot that course I guess, or plot a better course than one I can come up with.
Hearing your unbiased take on the hurdles to banning civilian gun ownership makes it all the more humorous to go to right wing gun fancier sites and read the paranoid ramblings about a UN gun ban and the Chinese Army stomping into the Tennessee hills to take everyone's guns away.
Can you play Devil's Advocate here and lay out a course that you could see leading to a greatly reduced right to own guns?
branford
(4,462 posts)Besides the fact that the Senate has not, and likely will not, even ratify the treaty, and American domestic law already meets or exceeds the treaty requirements to prevent gun trafficking and abuse, the treaty was carefully and intentionally written to avoid any potential disputes with the USA and our Second Amendment. The major signatories had the quite reasonable fear that any international attempts to affect American gun ownership could result in a massive American backlash, including refusal to cooperate in firearm anti-trafficking matters where we now are a world leader, to say nothing of the risk of the loss of funding.
As for playing Devil's Advocate, I doubt the USA will ever entertain anything close to the national gun bans you desire both due to obvious legal impediments and strong, regionally concentrated and entrenched political opinions, at least anytime soon.
However, many gun control policies, including universal background checks, mandatory training, storage requirements, etc., and even some "assault weapon" bans, magazine limits, registration requirements, and more likely pass constitutional muster. Some states have passed these requirements, and the battle for gun control will remain with the states. Public opinion is unpredictable, and it's entirely possible that states with anti-gun popular opinions will pass more and stricter gun laws and that other states will join them.
I'm uncertain what the Supreme Court will do with the many firearm cases on the dockets in lower courts. Since unequivocally establishing an individual right to own a firearm, the court has assiduously avoided further major entanglements with the issue. I expect that thy might tinker a little bit (e.g., resolve the "may issue" versus "shall issue" gun permit dispute), but otherwise generally leave matters to more local sensibilities.
If gun rights advocates begin to lower their rhetoric and expectations, there might also been some room for national compromise. Gun rights proponents have already suggested they would be amenable to improving NICS data collection, coordination and dissemination, and universal background checks might even be a possibility if due care is made to craft legislation that clearly avoids even the hint of a national gun registry or makes simple gestures like lending a gun to a friend at shooting range or leaving a favored rifle to a child in a will all but impossible.
Ichigo Kurosaki
(167 posts)You said: If someone wants to store dangerous items in their house, I don't think that checking on whether they're stored safely is unreasonable.
I, like everyone I know store "dangerous" items in our homes.
Look under your kitchen/bathroom sink or in the laundry room and you will find plenty of "Dangerous Items".
I also have plenty of dangerous knives in the knife block on the counter top.
Dangerous is subjective and I don't want to go down that slippery slope.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)So you're all for just throwing the 4th Amendment out the door?
BarstowCowboy
(171 posts)BarstowCowboy
(171 posts)Although military style assault rifles are not the preferred choice of armed robbers, their ability to accept high capacity clips as well as the other features (handgrip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the stock, forward handgrip, bayonet lug, etc) make it more dangerous, especially when they're in the hands of a spree shooter.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)So, please be more careful to differentiate between a talking point, and a fact.
Paladin
(28,243 posts)Pro-gunners using esoteric terminology to stifle meaningful discussions on gun policy is getting really, really old. In fact, the terms "clip" and "magazine" are still used interchangeably in the Real World. But you knew that already, didn't you?
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)Paladin
(28,243 posts)And I will continue to call out pro-gunners' attempts to stifle gun policy discussions, on the flimsy basis of technical terminology---"clip" vs. "magazine" being a prime example......
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)And rifles just aren't all that dangerous in terms of all firearms out there:
https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/tables/table-20/table_20_murder_by_state_types_of_weapons_2013.xls
Choosing culture war over technical accuracy makes one sound like:
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)But discussion is meaningless when posters like that throw out meaningless buzzwords as if they are facts. They aren't.
Want to have an honest discussion about the issue? You might be surprised how many actual control ideas I'll get behind.
BarstowCowboy
(171 posts)Semi-automatic, fully-automatic, 5 speed automatic, WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE? You don't need much more than a musket to exercise your right to hunt and continue your "traditions", and you damn sure don't need 30 rounds of high-powered military grade ammunition to kill a deer.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)I rather doubt you'd be willing to give up on electronic media because some Luddite
commenter proclaims that we only need a pen and a hand-cranked press to express
ourselves.
And what is this "right to hunt" you speak of?
BarstowCowboy
(171 posts)I don't believe that there's a right to hunt, but it seems like every republican candidate brings up this "hunting tradition" with a wink and a nod when questioned about their stance on gun safety matters. There is no right to hunt, it's not in there, but it seems that "hunting tradition" is code for "I won't emasculate you by taking away your guns".
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)Not only does it make gun control advocacy sound like the last bastion of poorly understood
Freudianism, it's rather sexist towards women gun owners
BarstowCowboy
(171 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)And neither has the Supreme Court, now Or in the last 150 years, found it to be about hunting.
BarstowCowboy
(171 posts)Okay, we both agree it's not about hunting. Now, when do you suppose conservative and red state Democrat politicians will drop the facade and when asked about their stance on the 2nd Amendment will reply,"I support your right to stage summary executions as well as to form small bands dedicated to armed resistance to the U.S. government"? It'll be such a breath of fresh air.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)You know the delta between gun owning conservatives and gun owning liberals (Self-identifying as such) is only 20% right?
Our leaders are doing what the populace wants, believe it or not. That doesn't mean we can't tighten things up a bit though, you know? There are forms of gun control that are not bright line violations of the 2nd amendment.
Purpose is irrelevant. The black letter of the law is relevant. If you don't like it, there's a mechanism to change it. Maybe someday we will. But this is not that day.
BarstowCowboy
(171 posts)I'm not surprised that there are a lot of gun owning democrats, but I'd be surprised if there were a lot of liberal democrats demanding that they be allowed to have military style weapons as part of their basic 2nd Amendment right.
Our leaders are doing what they always do, which is what their donors want, and the NRA has money to donate. Most people are in favor of common sense gun violence prevention, but who's standing in the way? The NRA and all of their bought and paid for congresspeople, that's who.
I have to believe that someday people will talk about privately owned weapons the way people now talk about cocaine being in Coca Cola, or heroin being available over the counter. They'll say,"Yeah sonny, I know you can't imagine it, but I'm telling you back when I was your age you could walk into a WalMart, pick out an AR15 and carry it out with you." Hopefully, the response will be,"Pop pop, what was an AR15?"
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)And that's a much bigger nut to crack than 'military style rifles' that don't get used in crimes anyway.
The NRA is a lot more of a boogeyman than you think. I don't know anyone willing to be a member. Certainly not after they flunked the 'human' turing test during Sandy Hook.
They have less capital, in cash and people, than you imagine.
BarstowCowboy
(171 posts)...and yet he somehow got elected. Twice. The point being that just because no one you know is a member of the NRA, someone out there is sending them money, and they're using it to buy congress people's votes, otherwise we'd have better gun laws.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)So I guess that to exercise the 1st Amendment, all we need are quill pens and hand cranked presses, amirite?
What state allows 30 round mags for hunting? And just what is military grade ammo?
BarstowCowboy
(171 posts)When word processors and bubble jet printers start killing random passers by, I'll be in favor of placing reasonable limits on the free exercise thereof.
No state allows 30 round mags for hunting, which is why I find inconsistency in politicians who defend Americans' "hunting tradition" by standing in the way of legislation that would ban 30 round magazines. Thanks for amplifying my point.
Military grade ammunition is ammunition fired by the military, such as the M855, which the ATF wanted to disallow for sale to civilians, but gun fanciers argued is part of their 2nd Amendment right.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)So, by that logic, then the whole BoR should apply.
You don't think the Founding Fathers anticipated that technology would advance? Including firearm technology?
Just what do you think the benefit of a 30 round mag ban would accomplish?
The VT shooter, Cho, used mostly 10 round mags, with a couple of 15 round mags thrown in, yet he managed to slaughter 32 people,
the Sandy Hook shooter did use 30 round mags, but he reloaded after using half of the mag capacity, so, again, what would be the point of a 30 round mag ban?
What about the 100's of millions of those mags already in circulation?
How do you deal with those?
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)Granted, he was the richest man in North America at the time, but the principle applies
BarstowCowboy
(171 posts)BarstowCowboy
(171 posts)What a 30 round mag ban would accomplish:
It would prevent spree shooters from being able to fire 30 rounds without reloading.
In reference to the previously mentioned spree shooters who didn't use 30 round magazines: I am glad they didn't have 30 round magazines, or else it might have been much worse.
As for how to deal with the 100's of millions (I doubt there are that many) of magazines that are already in circulation: the same way that the Trumpster proposes to deal with "illegal aliens"; one at a time.
If you go upthread I let the cat out of the bag, I don't support the private ownership of weapons. It's not about magazine size or pistol grips to me.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)Let me guess, you support only the police and military having firearms.
Know what they call that? A Police State!!!
Luckily, you're in the tiny minority of Americans, and your minority is shrinking.
http://www.guns.com/2013/10/26/gallup-poll-support-gun-control-waning-opposition-handgun-ban-time-high/
Meanwhile, a majority of Americans — approximately three out of four — oppose a ban on the possession of handguns for everyone who is not a police officer or “authorized person.” As indicated by the chart below, that 74 percent figure is the all-time high for opposition to banning handguns.
But hey, keep up the culture war.
Yep, you're running a great race. See you at the finish line.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)By the time you get to the finish line, the race will be looooong over.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)branford
(4,462 posts)I'd much rather have a relatively civil discussion with someone who is honest about their intentions and reasons, than engage in futile and nasty arguments with people who accuse Democratic gun rights advocates of being "gun humpers," "ammosexuals," and "child killers," all while simultaneously claiming they're really only about improving "gun safety," instead of seeking bans, because they can read the polls as well as anyone else.
It's always better to engage in honest and forthright discussions, no matter the topic or level of disagreement, than waste time with transparent deception and gratuitous personal insults. If compromise is ever needed on actual gun safety policy, it will be with the former people, not the latter, as you will know exactly where you stand and can have an actual dialogue.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)...and there are enough of the latter around to ensure that, even if a control advocate is
not personally a prohibitionist, they will be treated as such by politically aware gun owners.
DashOneBravo
(2,679 posts)Where did your name come from? SWAT?
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Paladin
(28,243 posts)If pro-gun militants get upset about my site name---which they do, on occasion---that's an unintended side bonus.
DashOneBravo
(2,679 posts)I've never heard that the term pro-gun militants. I think it's humorous.
Reason I asked about the name is I interact with LEOs and I've seen a majority of the young ones running around wearing Warrior tshirts and calling themselves operators.
They're peace officers not warriors.
BarstowCowboy
(171 posts)What is a Warrior T-shirt? Does it just say WARRIOR? Do the older cops laugh at them? Are the older cops afraid of them?
DashOneBravo
(2,679 posts)Just more examples of the militarization of LEO's.
You could call it a form of cultural appropriation. 
Paladin
(28,243 posts)I'm neither young, nor an LEO, nor any sort of "warrior."
BarstowCowboy
(171 posts)Paladin
(28,243 posts)I believe I'll call the whole thing off. Sorry for any confusion.
DashOneBravo
(2,679 posts)For some reason I thought you were a former/retired LEO. That's why I asked about SWAT.
Thanks for the clarification.
Paladin
(28,243 posts)BarstowCowboy
(171 posts)Last edited Mon Sep 21, 2015, 10:28 PM - Edit history (1)
I said 'clip' because I knew it would make the most fervent gun clutchers jump to their feet. Congratulations, you're it. I know the difference, by this point everyone knows the difference, but it never gets old saying it and then being corrected as if the difference between the two is really germane to the issue of gun violence.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)And the 'protruding grip' bullshit. That's always good for a laugh too.
Tell me it's for spraying from the hip, go on. I'll let you use my semi-auto shotgun to demonstrate it at the range. I'm not responsible for any broken thumbs though.
BarstowCowboy
(171 posts)If there is no utility, please explain why virtually every military rifle produced since the mid-1960's makes use of the protruding grip, and explain why in this age of smart missiles and cyber warfare we still make sure that the rifles we issue our military have a bayonet lug. Can you explain that to me? If these two features DON'T increase the lethality of a rifle, why are they included in every new design?
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Because it makes the rifle more accurate and ergonomic. That's why.
I'm pretty sure you don't want gun owners (300+ million guns in 90+ million hands) sticking with rifle ergonomics that are inherently less accurate, do you?
You want us to hit what we aim at, right? Or do you want some illusion of safety brough about by restricting them to a less safe design?
Let me guess, you don't like 'flash hiders' and suppressors do you?
BarstowCowboy
(171 posts)If the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is personal self defense (I believe that's your position), then I have to ask, what do you need a highly accurate rifle for? Most self defense engagements take place at very short distances, where the additional accuracy benefits of a protruding hand grip would be so small as to be non-existent, no? If someone is SO far from you that you need all the ergonomic advantages of a modern sniper rifle to hit your target, how are you going to prove your claim of self-defense? Are you going to need the additional accuracy of a protruding grip when you're fighting your tyrannical government, is that what the military accurization features are for?
I'm not like a lot of people, I'm not going to tell you that I object to your guns because of their features, and that I just want to limit your access to certain guns; I don't want you to have guns, period. Unless you're a member of the military on active duty and under close supervision, a police officer or a security officer with a need for a gun (I'm talking about nuclear power plant guards, or protective service details for VIPs) I don't want you to have the power to take human life, EVEN if you can also take an animal's life in furtherance of your "hunting tradition". I rejoice when I hear the statistics about there being 300M guns in 90M hands, because that tells me that even though there are a lot of guns, they're in fewer hands, and hopefully when the time comes to take grandpa's guns the younger generation will have enough common sense to turn them over to the authorities for destruction.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)You're arguing for less accurate guns. That's what you're arguing.
You do run and gun through a residence with a rifle and you tell me if 'benefits are small to non-existent', ok? Modern sniper rifles don't use that configuration at all, so you might want to do at LEAST a little research on this issue before you start running scenarios, ok? The Remington 700 platform is just as ubiquitous as it was 20 years ago. Pistol grips are not a thing.
You have more work cut out for you than you think. The federal 2nd amendment isn't your only opponent here. My state equivalent is the 24th line item of our State Constitution.
The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this Section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men.
In this case, the armed body of men is a paramilitary org, like, in the time that was authored, Pinkerton Security. Today, it would be 'Blackwater' or 'Xe'.
Honestly, I think it is worded better than the federal 2nd amendment. But that's just me. You see, if the federal 2nd evaporated, the state version would still stand. Only 7 states lack language similar to that in their constitutions. Our state laws would keep abortion legal and accessible, even if Roe vs. Wade was overturned.
law is a complicated thing, and it's more of a mess than you might imagine with federal and state powers in play.
When that state constitution says 'defense of himself, or the state' keep in mind, people like me might be the ones that answer the Governor's call to protect our way of life from the very right wing 'omg the gubmint's gonna git us' crazy fucks that it might surprise you; alarm both of us.
As for the power to take human life, if you want to take that away from me, you have to take a lot more than just my hands and feet, to say nothing of my firearms. You have to take away my mind, itself. Any of us has the power to take human life. Hell, good old incitement can do it. You have a poor imagination if you can't think of ways, for sake of argument. What are you really after here?
In any case, I don't think it's cool though, to take things away from people because of potential capacity, rather than intent.
BarstowCowboy
(171 posts)Last edited Wed Sep 23, 2015, 12:17 AM - Edit history (1)
I'm not going to argue whether or not you ought to be able to take human life, it's clearly not going to sway you.
Every single rifle on Barrett's website has a protruding hand grip. The most modern version of the M14 (the USMC DMR) has a chassis with a protruding grip. The SR25 and the MK11 both came with versions that featured a protruding grip. Those are sniper rifles, aren't they?
Anyways, why am I arguing with you when you're doing such a lovely job of arguing with yourself? First you said that a pistol grip aids accuracy when you wanted to defend civilians having them, and then you said modern sniper rifles DON'T use a pistol grip configuration (which is false and easily proven false) which would seem to imply that pistol grips DO NOT aid accuracy. Which is it? Do pistol grips improve accuracy? If so, why aren't they used on modern sniper rifles? And if they're not used on modern sniper rifles, does that mean that the rifles that Barrett produces AREN'T modern sniper rifles? Does that mean that the DMR isn't a highly accurized version of the M14?
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)It will be/is being replaced by the M2010 Enhanced, which is the 700 platform with a bunch of ridiculous space-gun shit all over it, and yes it does have a pistol grip.
I have no opinion on the Barrett products, because I do not own one, and it is not ubiquitous in the army.
My response was informed by the context in which you placed it. Self-defense implies CQB, not laying prone. If you would like, I will no longer make assumptions based on the context in which you placed the line of questioning.
They are, at the least, last to the party. Pistol grips were introduced in Battle Rifles and Assault Rifles going back as far as the Korean war. The army is just starting to broadly apply them to Sniper Rifles as of 5 years ago, ignoring outliers/specialty weapons that appeared earlier.
In certain roles, yes.
There are reams of congressional appropriations testimony on this question, I don't have a summary handy. Short answer is, they will be/are starting to be.
I will admit this point though; I thought you would introduce the 'spray from the hip' talking point when we started this thread fork, and you did not, so I'm essentially arguing against nothing. So, I sure fucked up there.
Edit: I should probably disclose, the army has upgraded some of those M24's to M24E1, which can have either a thumbhole stock or pistol grip. So it's not like they are ALL classic furniture.
DashOneBravo
(2,679 posts)If they'd come up with a way for everyone to use the same ammo. They made a big leap when they introduced the SAW and eliminated the PVT running around with a bipod and his M16 on full auto.
oneshooter
(8,614 posts)DashOneBravo
(2,679 posts)The nice thing about the SAW is it's ability to use M16 magazines if there isn't any belt ammo.
oneshooter
(8,614 posts)McNamera changed the powder used, to save money, which caused the action to carbon up and jam.
Then the SOB was cremated so there is no grave to piss on.
DashOneBravo
(2,679 posts)I don't know if it's any consolation but those stories were passed along. Guys having to break down and clear weapons in the middle of firefights.
That's one of the reasons we were constantly doing malfunction drills and cleaning weapons. So the next generation would not face that.
oneshooter
(8,614 posts)Was issued a M16a1 that would not rock through a 20rd mag, or semi through a 30 rd.
I ended up taping a WP grenade to it and dropping it out of a chopper door. Made a pretty flash when it went off.
Gunny was watching and signed the chit for a replacement weapon, a 12ga Mossberg pump.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)Vietnam was the first use of the M-16A1 in combat and kept jamming, was it a slick you threw it out of?
oneshooter
(8,614 posts)
They were self cleaning when the proper ball powder was used, it was changed to a stick powder and the bolt carboned up.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)Both times I was shot down were in slicks, came back to base several times with holes in my bird.
The Cobra, not so much.
oneshooter
(8,614 posts)Just before the bird flared you put them on.
And 3' to y'all was closer to 6' for us.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)Yeah, I can relate to that, I tried my best to get my bird as close to the ground when doing a hot LZ insertion, but it didn't always work out that way with rounds flying all around and hitting the bird.
Welcome Home Brother.
oneshooter
(8,614 posts)Had a chance to go back 4-5 years ago, all expenses paid. But I turned it down.
Was at Ft.Hood a couple of years ago when they retired the last of their 01 birds. Staff asked me if I wanted a ride. I politely told them "No Thank You. those things tried to kill me three times, and I ain't given them another."
I know what you mean, was glad when I transitioned to the Cobra, much faster, better armed, much nimbler.
I still keep my helicopter certificate current, but I don't fly much anymore, getting to the age where I'm going to be forced to let it expire.
oneshooter
(8,614 posts)and never had to ride on one. Always walked, or had trucks available.
Yea this old age stuff is a pain, for a while I thought I would never get past 25, then 35, then 45 and now look at me.
Not so lean, Not so mean, But still a MARINE
oneshooter
(8,614 posts)BarstowCowboy
(171 posts)oneshooter
(8,614 posts)BarstowCowboy
(171 posts)You're right. You're completely right. My mind has been changed. In order to be consistent I'm either going to have to have my pocket knife destroyed, or I'm going to stop arguing in favor of gun control, or maybe even start carrying a gun, I haven't made up my mind yet, but thanks for showing me the light.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)It's a highly useful tool. Pound for pound, way more useful than the gun I sometimes carry.
But when you need the latter tool, a knife is a shitty substitute, yanno?
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)Whether mililitaries use them or not is a moot point; the question is: Do these features
render a firearm unusually dangerous?
If not, then why should they be prohibited? This is merely another example of what I
posited in reply #28:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=1213205
...regardless of whether said objects are used to cause harm or not.
Think Kim Davis and same-sex marriage, or William Bennett and drugs:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/drug-war-william-bennett-john-walters_55f1ae50e4b03784e27840fb
Different boogeymen, same mindset...
BarstowCowboy
(171 posts)Okay, these things make a weapon easier to shoot over long distances and for longer periods of time, and there is no legitimate civilian need for such features. These features make the rifle's operator a more efficient and therefore a more lethal opponent. They are of such limited lawful utility that there is no legitimate excuse for their being available to the civilian market. Therefore, they should be limited to weapons being transferred to the military, the police, and security forces with a verified need for these types of weapons.
For what it's worth, I agree with you 100% about the war on drugs. I guess the difference is that you rarely hear about a junkie running up to a group of strangers and jamming syringes full of heroin into unsuspecting victims.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)Whether these things are needed or not- and frankly it's not up to either you or the
government to decide what people 'need'- they are demonstrably not dangerous as
far as firearms go Again:
https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/tables/table-20/table_20_murder_by_state_types_of_weapons_2013.xls
That is the standard for what may be permissibly regulated, not some third party's
determination of what they deem suitable for the plebs to own:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those
“in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think
that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition
of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.”
What you seek to ban is in common use, and not dangerous and unusual
BarstowCowboy
(171 posts)What I and so many others are saying is that the lawful utility of assault weapons (and in my case, guns in general) is FAR outweighed by both the harm they cause as well as the potential harm (menace) they pose to peace loving, law abiding (non-delusional) citizens.
Oh, well gee whiz, the SCOTUS already ruled on this issue, so I guess that settles it then. Just like abortion, it's settled law, so I guess everyone will just disband all their ongoing efforts to, oh, I don't know, come up with a new legal strategy or maybe wait for a more ideologically agreeable court, or even a President or Congress that is in favor of common sense gun law reform, but no, you're right, they've ruled on it, so argument over for all time. Anyone watching baseball lately? How bout them Cubs, eh?
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)...I doubt you'll get anywhere against the wishes of 20-25% of the electorate who are
well known to have a high rate of voting.
BTW, I don't even mind the insult directed at gun owners, it's to be expected from you lot.
As I've said more than once:
The gibes of the politically ineffectual carry no sting
DashOneBravo
(2,679 posts)Only make it more lethal when there is a bayonet attached and so far no one has used one.
BarstowCowboy
(171 posts)...but no more bayonets, okay?
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)I mean, I don't even know why we're arguing about this, but the only use I have for a bayonet lug is for a flashlight on one of my rifles, and the bayonet on a US M1917.
That 1917 is a 5-round bolt action 30.06, but the bayonet sticks out a full foot and a half past the end of the barrel, so... bannable or what?
I mean, the volley sights go out past 900 yards and all.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)oneshooter
(8,614 posts)It is a stabbing weapon, not a slashing weapon.
DashOneBravo
(2,679 posts) A lot of people are confused by the terminology and function.
I don't like to play gotcha with terms. It doesn't add anything
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)bobclark86
(1,415 posts)Rifle deaths -- including mostly grandpa's bolt-action deer rifle -- a year: 300
Handgun deaths a year: 11,000
Which is more dangerous, again?
Here's another:
Mounted bayonet deaths a year: 0
BarstowCowboy
(171 posts)If handguns were more dangerous, then armies would make them their primary weapons.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Pistols?
Hell, even mass shooters like the horror that went down at Virginia Tech, and Gabrielle Giffords attempted assassin used pistols.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)...regardless of whether said objects are used to cause harm or not.
Think Kim Davis and same-sex marriage, or William Bennett and drugs:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/drug-war-william-bennett-john-walters_55f1ae50e4b03784e27840fb
Different boogeymen, same mindset...
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)What kind of cultural thing is that?
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Where anything potentially dangerous in the hands of a child should be.
I had child locks on the counter cupboards too, to secure the knives before 2.0 was ready to understand them.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)Hoyt
(54,770 posts)friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)Annoying the control-obsessed is merely a side benefit...
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)GGJohn
(9,951 posts)have the right to keep and bear arms, doesn't it?
But I think we know why it bugs the hell out of you.
BarstowCowboy
(171 posts)BarstowCowboy
(171 posts)I don't accept the premise that mass shooters "overwhelmingly" choose pistols, because there are plenty of shooters who used long arms (the Sandy Hook killer, the guy who shot up the Clackamus county mall, the guy who shot at the firefighters in NY State shortly after the Sandy Hook shooting I could go on), but I will grant that the majority of them use pistols. This is pretty much just a guess, I won't pretend to have deep knowledge into the minds of mass shooters, but I would guess that mass shooters use handguns in order to maintain an element of surprise. If the church members who were slain in Charleston would've seen their killer shamble in with his AK47 strapped to his chest, they probably would've been suspicious of him, doncha think?
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)USDoJ statistics you were provided up thread?
Who is 'putting who on'? You just fucking admitted, per your own anecdotal spot check, that pistols are used more. You're quibbling by how MUCH more without any damn data at all.
Come back when you actually have an argument.
BarstowCowboy
(171 posts)First off, I was attracted to this forum because it's supposedly a place where people can have discussions without going all "keyboard commando" on each other. If your side of the argument is going so poorly that you have to start dropping f-bombs to bolster your point, maybe you should go back to ar15.com and get some echo chamber time. If you want to continue talking to me, watch your mouth or I'll block you.
Secondly, how come you're so into the DOJ stats but your not really into the stats that were mentioned at the start of the thread?
My argument is that it's great that people lock their guns up, but it'd be better if there were no guns in their safes to begin with. My argument is that where you find fewer guns you fewer gun homicides.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)This might be the only time anyone's ever tried the internet tough guy thing with me on DU, and I find it far less becoming of a liberal or progressive than a simple f-bomb without ad hominem attack.
I find the DoJ criminology statistics more valid, certainly with a longer history. The stats in the study in the OP make little attempt to match correlation/causation. Some issues seem obvious, like safe storage requirements. Military appearance, less likely to meaningfully correlate.
Keep in mind, the argument that 'it's handguns not rifles' isn't necessarily my desired output. That's a simple fact. I own quite a lot of handguns as well, and focusing on them is potentially detrimental to my own personal interests, but, good public policy based on sound principles is ALSO in my personal interests, so I weigh the options.
I'm down with that, and a good deal more besides as far as gun control goes. It works for Canada which has arguably the same amount of guns per capita, yet massively fewer gun related deaths. Switzerland has an even stronger case, with much much higher ownership, and much much lower incidence of gun related death. Clearly there is a mechanism and means to gun control that can have an enormous and positive impact on our current firearm related homicide rate.
Potentially true, seems self-evident enough. To achieve that, you'll need to modify the United States Constitution, however. I'm not down with that. I'm a tool-using mammal. Firearms are tools. I don't like the idea of people taking away my tools because some OTHER asshole has been irresponsible, negligent, or outright criminal with the same tool. Especially since there are high-quality examples of developed nations implementing high-quality gun control legislation that allows mammals like me to keep my tools, and yet manage to completely shred the firearm-related homicide rates in their respective countries.
Do you want to talk about potential improvements to United States Firearms Control laws with facts and actual informed recourse, or do you want to sling around empty rhetoric?
Is my use of an 'f bomb' more or less detracting than barging into, what was likely posted as a serious issue about firearms policy, with hopelessly wrong and outdated rhetorical bombast?
You tell me. Or push 'Ignore' if that's just too much work.
BarstowCowboy
(171 posts)If this is the first time anyone has tried "internet tough guy" on you on DU, it's also a first time for me for being accused of internet tough guy-ism. All I "threatened" to do was stop replying to you. I believe to qualify as an official internet tough guy I have to offer you airfare to my location for a bare knuckles boxing match, or threaten to have my cousin visit your home, or something like that.
To me it's all fungible; if we outlaw handguns we'll no doubt see a rise in rifles used in gun crimes. If we ban guns outright we'll see a rise in pitch-forkings. We can't do much about human aggression, but if we can limit the instruments with which people are able to act out their aggression we should probably be able to save some lives. Isn't that worth it?
Canada and Switzerland aren't the US. What works there won't necessarily work here. I am one of those people who believe that poverty and inequity are root causes of crime. We've got a lot more of that here than they have in places like Canada and Switzerland. What's more, we've got a lot of hurdles to overcome before we can start looking at implementing Swiss style policies, with educational and employment opportunities being the most obvious. We've got a different set of problems, and we need different medicine to get the same outcome that Switzerland and Canada have had.
It's too bad that you, a tool using mammal will someday be stripped of those tools, but I have to believe that that's the way forward. We don't make rules (in this case, laws) based on the exception, we make them based on the norms. If you are one of those exceptional people who can use a gun safely and responsibly, you lose your "tool" because of the misdeeds of less exceptional people, and while that might not feel fair, it should be some consolation knowing that your loss would be for the greater good.
Serious question, are you uncomfortable leaving the house without a gun? Wouldn't it be a relief to be able to go to the bathroom in public without having to figure out what to do with your gun while you're taking a dump? It just seems like such a burden for such a small chance that you might one day need the gun. It'd be like lugging a fire extinguisher around all your life in preparation for the possibility of a fire.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)I don't think it's fair to lay this problem at the feet of poor people, since the criminology data simply isn't there to support it.
I leave my house all the time without any firearms.
BarstowCowboy
(171 posts)It's true, when there is a high profile shooting, like the one at the Aurora theater or a Gabrielle Giffords event, it can come from any strata of society, but when we're talking about the bulk of gun crimes, those are usually carried out by disadvantaged individuals in socioeconomically disadvantaged area, and all too often the victim fits into the same category. I guess I could and perhaps should state the obvious, that most poor people aren't criminals, but that's obvious.
If you don't mind my asking, do you always leave home without a gun? I can't remember if you were the one who said that your gun was a tool, but if you were the one who said that, how useful is it as a tool if you leave it at home?
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)1/6th of all homicides (not suicides, though those are technically homicides as well) are gang related. Do we assume those are disadvantaged people joining gangs? Criminologists waffle a great deal on that point.
Last year, the NRA and some other sources were pimping the claim that 80-90% of homicides with a gun were gang related, and that may be true of some hot spots like Chicago, but even a handy Reddit thread tore that claim to shreds with publicly available data.
Economic disadvantage can't be the prime factor. It just doesn't explain it. GDP per capita, Switzerland is our peer. They have MORE guns. They carry rifles around in some contexts. Way more prevalent than we do. But, their controls are actually tighter, their culture more disciplined around it, purpose is different, etc.
There's some combination of factors, and while economic advantage/disadvantage might be one of those factors, it's not the prime mover. I tend to view the common perception of poor people as the problem (not exactly what you said, but in the neighborhood) and therefore justification for banning 'cheap' guns like 'Saturday night specials' as a form of classist warfare on the poor. I'm not poor. I recognize that I am extremely advantaged in our society. I have lots of guns, but statistically speaking, I am FAR less likely to 'need one' to protect myself at all. I view the desire to ban 'cheap' guns as a move to disarm poor people, and that's sad because it seems self evident to me that they have a GREATER justification/need for the ability to protect themselves than I do. It's like the problem with blaming gun violence on mental health. Wrong target. People with mental health issues are far FAR more likely to be victims of violent crime, than they are to perpetrate it.
I sometimes carry, yes. I'm licensed, and carefully observe all laws/ordinances related to it. Have been since my 20's. I invest in a lot of training and time for life-safety equipment and skills, such as search and rescue, FEMA/CERT, first aid/CPR, you name it. Human life is precious to me, so I develop and maintain skills and tools for the purposes of protecting human life.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)Well then the argument could be made that if there were fewer automobiles, there would be fewer vehicle accident deaths.
If there were fewer knives, there would be fewer knife deaths.
If there were fewer drug, there would be fewer drug deaths.
And so on and so forth.
BarstowCowboy
(171 posts)But, there's no way we could get along without cars, and the incidence of people using them as weapons is very small. Most of the time when there is a fatal auto accident it was unintentional, and the parties involved did everything in their power to avoid it.
Some states do regulate what length and types of knives may be legally carried outside of the home in an effort to control knife violence. I would support more of that.
Very seldom are drugs used in an offensive manner. I am not in favor of laws that punish people based on their decision to voluntarily put harmful substances into their own bodies, although I do think it's a shame, and I'd like to see more programs put in place to help people make better choices, and to help people quit using drugs. I think we spend far too much money and ruin many lives trying to enforce the drug laws we have on the books.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)are more dead than those killed by other means?
bobclark86
(1,415 posts)THAT is what is more dangerous.
Skittles
(153,111 posts)oneshooter
(8,614 posts)Except we keep it civil and you get all insulting.
Skittles
(153,111 posts)I don't want to GRAB anything, I just want to make it HARDER TO GET
oneshooter
(8,614 posts)"Grabber" or "Controller" the results from you are the same.
A lot of insults, and no ideas at all.
Skittles
(153,111 posts)IT IS A WASTE OF FUCKING TIME
YOU CANNOT DEBATE PEOPLE WHO REFUSE TO ADMIT THERE IS A PROBLEM
LIKE TALKING TO A TABLE LEG
OVER AND OUT
oneshooter
(8,614 posts)See, I do not need to raise my voice.
Once again, what are your ideas to better control firearms possession in the US.
BarstowCowboy
(171 posts)Just in case I get into another discussion about gun violence, can you give me a citation for your mounted bayonets death figures? Are those for 2014, or all time? Thanks in advance.
branford
(4,462 posts)can readily be found at the Bureau of Justice Statistics and FBI websites.
For weapon use, including break-downs by type of crime,
https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/violent-crime/violent-crime
http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=43
BarstowCowboy
(171 posts)I don't want to waste my time going through the data if it's not there.
branford
(4,462 posts)I would imagine a bayonet would be in the "knives or cutting instruments" category, but if it's actually mounted, "rifes" is also a viable choice under the data sets for most violent crimes.
I did search for any crimes related to mounted bayonets or similar matters in the USA. Apart from some historical cites about war issues and questions about the purpose of the bayonet lug prohibition in gun control legislation, I found nothing remotely relevant. Maybe you would have better luck?
However, given that so few crimes actually involve any type of rifles, "assault" or otherwise, mounted bayonets are relatively rare, and death or sever injury by bayonet would be so unusual as to be clearly newsworthy (particularly because of the bayonet lug inclusion in various assault weapon ban legislation), the rate of mounted bayonet crime is either zero or otherwise statistically insignificant. It's certainly not a public health risk.
BarstowCowboy
(171 posts)I predict that eventually a hipster will go ahead and mount a bayonet assault, just to buck the system and be different. No one except the hipster will be injured.
branford
(4,462 posts)However, the inevitable threads discussing it on DU would be most entertaining.
BarstowCowboy
(171 posts)Perhaps a better measure of a weapon's "danger factor" would be the ratio of wounded versus killed when shot with it. Projectiles fired from rifles generally have more muzzle velocity than projectiles fired from handguns. Of course there are obvious exceptions to this rule, like a very large bore handgun with an unusually long barrel versus a rimfire rifle, but generally speaking rifles impart more kinetic energy to their targets than handguns, so even if they're not used as often as handguns, they're used to greater effect than handguns and probably have a higher incidence of death caused to their victims.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)are fine as long as they have access to gunz, and lots of them.
DashOneBravo
(2,679 posts)friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)Skittles
(153,111 posts)Hoyt
(54,770 posts)DashOneBravo
(2,679 posts)BarstowCowboy
(171 posts)A good definition of a gun fancier might be a person who, upon learning of a mass shooting, asks if anyone's 2nd Amendment rights were violated as a result of anti-gun backlash after the shooting.
Skittles
(153,111 posts)Last edited Tue Sep 22, 2015, 05:17 AM - Edit history (1)
gee, what a surprise
DashOneBravo
(2,679 posts)I find that behavior extremely disrespectful and callous.
DashOneBravo
(2,679 posts)That wouldn't be me.
Alot of us gun owning Democrats live in rural areas and don't own a bunch of weapons.
That's why I asked Hoyt.
Skittles
(153,111 posts)there's a difference between a gun owner and a gun humper
oneshooter
(8,614 posts)someone willing to talk. Grabbers get all insulting.
DashOneBravo
(2,679 posts)oneshooter
(8,614 posts)DashOneBravo
(2,679 posts)My apologies.
oneshooter
(8,614 posts)My apologies. My mistake.
DashOneBravo
(2,679 posts)darkangel218
(13,985 posts)Nor do criminals, who rape and destroy.
Ban/restrict guns even more and see who will win in the end. We are not an island like UK , where banking guns would work favourably. The guns will keep coming across the boarder from Mexico, just like drugs do. Except only criminals would have access to them. Is that what you wish for?
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Somehow, the majority of US citizens do just fine without a bunch of guns. 95+% do fine walking down the street without a gun or two in their pants.
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)They already have em, or buy them on black market. I'm sorry, but you're not making sense.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)darkangel218
(13,985 posts)BarstowCowboy
(171 posts)Do you think that the Fed Ex truck stops at "The Black Market" and delivers a bunch of guns from Smith and Wesson every other Thursday? What he was trying to drive home was that "The Black Market" for guns consists of guns stolen from those who have them only because it's legal for them to do so, and that if it WASN'T legal for them to do so, they wouldn't be there to steal, and then they wouldn't wind up in...THE BLACK MARKET!
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)Last edited Wed Sep 23, 2015, 11:47 AM - Edit history (1)
Are you implying the illegal drugs are obtained from the law abiding citizens as well??
BarstowCowboy
(171 posts)Not only does everyone having a gun make guns more available to criminals, but it gives them cover when they carry a gun. Is states like Arizona where the law allows for open carry of firearms by anyone who can legally own them, cops have to assume that people with guns are carrying them legally. I don't believe that open carry or even concealed carry can be used as a reason for the police to detain someone to investigate whether or not they're carrying a gun legally. On the other hand, if a cop in CA sees someone open carrying or if they detect a (poorly) concealed weapon, they can detain that person and see if they're carrying their weapon legally or illegally. It needs to be that way everywhere.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)Said the moron.
ellisonz
(27,711 posts)More guns = more deaths
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)Gee, what a surprise.
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)Does the same study/results apply to the criminals? Are they less likely to carry guns if "stricter gin laws" are adopted??
oneshooter
(8,614 posts)Every war has it's casualties, and the small and weak are expendable.
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)BarstowCowboy
(171 posts)You could look at it that way, and say that a society that doesn't permit private weapon ownership, and therefore has some "small and weak" people who are preyed upon by larger people is a society that is ignoring the plight of some of it's smaller and weaker people who are victimized.
OR, you could look at a society like the one we have now, wherein people both small and large, young and old are victimized because we allow just anyone to get a hold of a gun and say that THAT society is one that fails to protect its citizens.
sarisataka
(18,474 posts)David Hemenway, Professor of Health Policy at the Harvard School of Public Health and co-author of this study, had this to say of defensive gun users-
They’re somebody to look down at because they couldn’t defend themselves or couldn’t protect others without using a gun -Hemenway, David. "Gun Violence: Harvard School of Public Health on Research Around Preventing Violence". Webcast. Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Retrieved 13 December 2013.
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)And a Harvard professor nonetheless..
BarstowCowboy
(171 posts)Is he saying that everyone who uses a gun to protect him or herself is someone to look down on, or is he talking about people like George Zimmerman, who don't NEED a gun to defend themselves but use one anyways and are shielded by their flimsy self defense claims?
Obviously sometimes, such as is the case with Soldiers at war or was the case with the LA police officers who were involved in the North Hollywood shootout, you NEED a gun to defend yourself and others, and I don't believe that most people look down on people who use guns to defend themselves under circumstances like those.
On the other hand, when I see an old man unload his gun on someone in a movie theater because they won't be quiet and they threw popcorn on him, yes, I do look down on him as pitiful and weak because he only has one level of defense, and that's lethal force.
sarisataka
(18,474 posts)judge for yourself
At best, he is conflating criminal activity with self-defense. At worst he is advocating Darwinism to be the law of society.
Note his use of the words 'defend' and 'protect'. Not typically how one describes criminal activity.
BarstowCowboy
(171 posts)I agree with him. I don't think he's talking about people who defend themselves from other people with guns. I have to believe he's talking about people who bring guns to a fist fight, or people who would normally do the right thing and walk away from a fight who, because they are armed, feel emboldened and choose to engage when they would've otherwise walked away. For instance, that guy Michael Dunn who confronted a car full of teenagers over their loud music. He was a 45 year old guy who decided to get into it with a carload of teenagers over loud music. Does anyone really think he'd have started trouble with 4 young men had he NOT been overconfident, and that that overconfidence didn't come from the fact that he was armed? I think guys like him are scum and should be looked down upon, and I have to believe that that's what this professor meant.
sarisataka
(18,474 posts)To your opinion, naturally and I wouldn't expect it to be anything different.
His words taken at face value indicate a prejudice against any gun use. Criminals using guns, victims defending themselves and even suicides are all perpetrators of gun violence and not differentiated in any way. Logically such a viewpoint would combine those distinct actions under a single total of gun violence. It would show the core of Gun Control is not about victims but about guns.
As Hemenway is also the director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center and the Harvard Youth Violence Prevention Center it would call into question the validity of all gun studies produced by those groups. Since those groups are the source of the overwhelming majority of statistics showing the dangers of gun ownership and debunking of studies favorable to defensive gun uses, it would question if the the base data used to support gun control is simply biased propaganda.
I have attempted to find any follow up questions posed to Hemenway questioning his quote or an elaboration volunteered by him. As best I can tell there is no such clarification so I take his quote as his stance on gun use. My conclusion is he sees little to no difference between offensive and defensive gun use.
BarstowCowboy
(171 posts)The idea isn't to get everyone armed to the teeth so that they can take each other out. The idea is to DISarm everyone so that we're all equally UNarmed, and then ultimately to foster conditions (higher educational attainment and more opportunities to earn an honest living) that create an environment in which there is less crime and less violence, and NO need for every man, woman and child to carry a gun. I don't believe that guns are the root causes of crimes, I believe that they are tools that facilitate crimes and violence, and that their removal from civilian hands is necessary but not sufficient to create "utopia", or whatever you want to call it when you can leave your home any time of the day or night without feeling the need to arm yourself.
One_Life_To_Give
(6,036 posts)It is a poor question because it conflates many different reasons when and where a young person might be carrying. Taking that fall trip to the back woods with Dad, uncle and cousin going deer hunting is not the same as carrying a piece in your pocket on the streets of Boston.
rockfordfile
(8,695 posts)If we had a less gun culture, which the right wing nra promotes, then we would have a less gun related crimes.
The losers who have to carry a gun everywhere they go are the problem. I have one gun and it's in gun safe. I think these republican idiots should stop watching TV. They don't see things in the real world.
It's the gun culture promoted by the nra.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)I'm a very successful farm owner, I'm a retired Army officer, I carry a gun pretty often, I'm certainly not a loser, I highly doubt most CHL holders are losers, but keep it up culture warrior.
branford
(4,462 posts)for American "rural or exurban culture" for many (albeit not all) here and Democrats nationally.
Although I'm a born and bred city-boy NYC attorney, who never owned a gun in my life, I cringe whenever I hear the expression. I know that the sad habit of Democratic condescension and disdain toward non-urban constituencies (including very large numbers of union workers), particularly about an issue as charged as firearms, is one of the main reasons why our party has been decimated in the South and much of the Midewest, and Republicans control the Senate, have their largest majority in the House in generations, and control a clear majority of statehouses and goverorships.
Every fight over "gun culture," and the almost inevitable electoral loss from such battles (See, e.g., Clinton's loss of Congress after the Assault Weapons Ban, Gore's presidential loss in his home state of Tennessee, every national election since 2008, etc.), endangers the entirety of our Party's overall progressive agenda.
You complain about the NRA and "losers who have to carry a gun everywhere they go." In response, what percentage of NRA members and/or those who lawfully engage in open carry are involved with, no less convicted, of an actual crime? You will not like the answer, and I assure you that the demographics of both firearm crime perpetrators and victims really does not reflect well on major, mostly urban, constituencies of our Party, and rarely, if ever, have anything to do with the NRA or its membership (5 million out of 80-100+ million lawful gun owners in the USA).
You choose to own one gun which you appear not carry and keep stored at home. I'm glad you implicitly acknowledge our right to keep and bear arms, but your particular choices may not best suit other law-abiding Americans, including people like hunters, those living in very dangerous neighborhoods or nowhere near law enforcement, or engage in high risk professions. Why would you deny these people, many of whom are certainly not Republicans, the best choice for them, particularly when they generally present a statistically insignificant risk?
BarstowCowboy
(171 posts)I really appreciate your thoughtful contribution to the discussion. You made some great points about how so many democratic politicians get it wrong when crafting their message on gun law reform. I agree with you that when a lot of democratic politicians and opinion makers talk about this issue there is a great deal of perceived condescension, but I don't think we need to hide who we are and how we feel about this.
I don't believe that we're doing right by Americans when we stand idly by protecting our political turf by holding our tongues as one massacre after another piles up. I believe that there is a way to first remove those guns that are most dangerous (assault weapons, then handguns, etc) and let people enjoy the benefits of a safer world. When the conditions are right we ought to then expand the number and types of guns that we can take out of civilian hands, which would inevitably lead to more peace and more safety, and a deeper appreciation for the party that advocates for fewer guns and less gun crime.
I believe that the fatal flaws of the 1994 assault weapons ban were that it banned mostly cosmetic features but still allowed people to own weapons that accepted high capacity detachable magazines and weapons that were semi-automatic. It was doomed to fail because it grandfathered in weapons already owned, and lastly and most obviously it expired after 10 years. Effectively, all it accomplished was to drive up the value of weapons and institute a 10 year stalemate that gun fanciers just had to wait out.
You rightly mentioned that democrats have lost a lot of ground over their bungled efforts at common sense gun law reform, but what you didn't mention was that on the strength of our efforts to turn out young voters, women voters and minority voters we were able to elect and re-elect a president whose election only a decade or so ago many would've never believed possible! These voters aren't the gun owning democrats of old, and they're not going to be swayed by guns as a wedge issue. My hopes for a safer tomorrow lie with this generation of voters, who didn't grow up on guns and hunting, and who frankly are probably a little gun shy after having been exposed to anti-gun messages in popular culture and in the media.
In short, I believe that yes, we can. We can remove guns from the American landscape, and we don't have to accept that they always have been there, so they always will be there.
branford
(4,462 posts)We obviously have very different perspectives about the value and utility of firearms and self-defense.
In any event, you're essentially proposing a gradual banning of civilian ownership of firearms. That's well beyond most of the "reasonable" restrictions offered by many gun control advocates. As I've indicated in other posts, in order to achieve this, you would first have to eliminate the Second Amendment and all the state analogs in the vast majority of states. Despite your claims of changing demographics, all the polls by Gallup, Pew and others clearly indicate ever increasing support for gun rights (and comfort with the liberalization of firearm ownership laws in the states). I cannot envision anywhere near the necessary popular support to achieve your goals anytime soon.
Given the strong regionalism of both gun rights support and opposition and the federalist structure of our Congress, particularly the equal representation of states in the Senate, the legislative arena may prove more difficult for gun control. Recall that universal background checks (with other associated gun control items) did not pass a Democratically-controlled Senate with massive White House support and pressure, and an amendment to allow national concealed carry reciprocity actually received more votes than the UBC bill.
Reversing gun rights victories in the courts like Heller and McDonald will similarly be difficult. Stare Decisis is a powerful force, and associated jurisprudence has already begun to establish firm precedents in the lower federal and state court systems. The same cultural and legal forces that keep abortion legal with a conservative Supreme Court will almost undoubtedly protect gun rights.
Even if I were to personally support strict firearm regulations, despite the fact that our own Justice Department determined that most gun control policies are or would be ineffective or worthless in the USA**, it's still not a hill I would die on. It's unquestionably a big political loser in much of the country, and with each election we lose, the entire Democratic progressive agenda becomes much harder to achieve.
**National Institute of Justice, USDOJ, Summary of Select Firearm Prevention Strategies
https://archive.org/stream/NijGunPolicyMemo/nij-gun-policy-memo_djvu.txt
BarstowCowboy
(171 posts)I am proposing a gradual banning of civilian ownership of firearms, you're right, and we both know that there are plenty of elected officials who share my goal and would use the gradual approach if given the chance, and I hope that someday they do get that chance.
I don't see it as deceptive, as some would say, to use a gradual approach. When you're trying to talk a jumper off of a ledge, or when you're negotiating the release of hostages, you don't come right out and tell the person, "HEY, GET THE HELL OFF THAT LEDGE AND GET IN HERE!", and you don't say to the hostage taker, "Hey, whadda ya say you release all your leverage and then come out here where we can arrest you, or shoot you, or whatever?". Instead, you tell them to just back away from the edge a bit, or to release the women and children, and maybe trade some of their ammunition for food.
The gradual approach to disarmament would just be a way of saying, "Hey, why don't you try some of this disarmament? Oh, you like that? You like seeing years and years between mass shootings? Oh, hey then, why don't I make some more, would you like that?", and so on, until at some point down the road you finally have people coming to their senses and realizing that MORE guns don't make us safer, and that fewer guns should be our goal, and then they demand it instead of resisting it.
You're an attorney, so I'm going to have to take your word on all the procedural barriers that stand in the way. I guess I'm just hoping for some kind of new approach like banning ammunition or some kind of regulatory fix like requiring "smart guns" that will really make a difference and turn this thing around.
branford
(4,462 posts)You are certainly entitled to believe what you will and seek to change heart and minds (and laws) regardless if out opinions differ. Isn't America great!
However, as you acknowledge, many politicians do indeed support bans (or a situation very close to it), yet try to fudge their statements because they know its a big political loser. My problem is when they then demand that gun rights proponents "compromise," and blatantly lie that if compromise is achieved, there will be no further demands for gun control. Most people, including virtually everyone involved in the gun control debate, are not stupid, have been burned before, and do not appreciate such opportunistic and transparent pandering and deception. It irreparably and irrevocably destroys all trust, and makes compromise on matters that may actually improve firearm safety all but impossible.
I would also like to remind these politicians of the definition of compromise. Demanding something now, and then more later, is not compromise, it's surrender. You believe trying certain types of disarmament may prove valuable, and thus change minds. Gun rights proponents similarly believe many of their proposals would increase citizen safety and security, and thus also change minds. Compromise requires real give and take, and you have no more inherent entitlement to try your policies than anyone else, particularly without popular and electoral majorities.
For instance, national concealed carry reciprocity is a highly sought after goal of the gun rights movement, and could easily pass Congress. I would imagine that my side of the divide would be willing to "try" a number of your side's preferred policy ideas, including universal background checks, mandatory training requirements, universal standards, etc., in return for reciprocity. Remember, politics is the art of compromise, and if gun control advocates insist on making the perfect the enemy of the good, for the foreseeable future, there will be no significant gun control achievements, gradual or otherwise.
DashOneBravo
(2,679 posts)