Pew poll finds support for gun rights at 21-year high

[NaturalHigh]

WASHINGTON — For the first time in 21 years of measuring public opinion on gun ownership, the Pew Research Center has found more Americans favoring gun rights than gun control, with marked differences between people of different races and political parties.

In a survey taken for the nonpartisan organization earlier this month, 52 percent said it was more important to protect gun ownership rights, while 46 percent said it was more important to control gun ownership, the Pew center reported Wednesday.

Also, 57 percent of those polled said gun ownership does more to protect people from becoming victims of crime, compared with 38 percent who said it does more to endanger personal safety, according to the center.

http://newsok.com/article/5374799

[Fred Sanders]

1. Fear and mass paranoia are at all time highs, so of course folks do as they are told by the mass

media and grab them some guns...more guns than folks, I hear.

Did the faux Fearbola media ratings scam not teach Americans anything?

And the merchandising skills of the domestic arms dealers is also getting better, did you see the giant Santa clutching an assault rifle at that gun runner store?

What next, Baby Jesus clutching a Luger in the manger?

"Luger, the official gun of killing sin."

Catchy, no?

[kioa]

5. Using fear-mongering to take advantage of ignorance is the basis of gun control arguments

The more people learn about guns, the less they support gun control
The more people learn about gun control, the less they support gun control

Life in the USA isn't scary & restricting innocent people's rights isn't effective.

Society has increasingly supported individual social rights, be it pro-choice, same sex marriage or gun rights.
Woe be to the politician or party that tries to stand against this trend.

[ileus]

7. Jesus as a Jew wouldn't be fond of the Luger...

[Eleanors38]

8. "Mass media" has been agitprop for gun banning

for decades. Now it isn't?

The public has for years seen, read and heard the agitprop of MSM; slogged through hat & cane "academic" gyrations, and grown tired of the culture war. They now see gun-control for what it is: A highly elitist outlook which in the end relies on prohibitionism as a quick-fix to societal problems.

We've been here before.

[NaturalHigh]

10. Very true.

Hopefully the old-school gun ban proponents are all close to retirement, and people will new gun banners as the poison pills that they are.

[sarisataka]

14. Wait a sec

people are running out to grab them some guns...

but,
we were told in GCRA

Despite the high number of guns estimated to be in the U.S., indications are that gun ownership is actually on the decline. The long-running General Social Survey, maintained at the University of Chicago, has been asking about gun ownership since its inception in the 1970s. It has found that the number of people who say they have a gun in their home is at an all time low – hovering around 30 percent, from a high of 50 percent in the 1970s.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12627039

Now how can we mesh these claims?

-either people are experiencing "Fear and mass paranoia are at all time highs" and buying guns, so the falling gun ownership is false
or
-all the guns are being bought by only a few people, so the majority of people have not changed their views on guns, so the support for gun rights claim is false {we will overlook that guns do not have rights, people do}
or
-nothing has changed and GC support has always been overstated

which is it?

[Fred Sanders]

16. The best armed civilian nation is killing itself with guns at the highest rate, you are missing the point, silly.

[sarisataka]

17. I'm all for reducing deaths

But it would be silly to take advice from a source that gives different, contradicting, summations of the problem on a daily basis.

[beevul]

18. I can't think of one person who isn't.

Just because we disagree on the means, doesn't mean we don't want to see deaths from shooting reduced. If anything, its our friends on the other side of the issue, who seem to have decided that only gun related methodology is acceptable as a means of addressing it.

Its almost like...they're just interested in getting the guns.


Where have I run into that sentiment before...

[sarisataka]

19. You may recall

some who are less concerned with the number of deaths just want to pick who dies

I have often wondered about that, it should be assumed that they are potential terrorists

Maybe if a few of these jackasses get taken down maybe some of the others stop being such assholes.

and of course the infamous "let their bodies rot in the streets" solution.

[beevul]

20. Oh yes.

Kinda hard to square that with caring about life, I think.

[NaturalHigh]

25. They don't truly care about life, at least not all lives.

I've long believed that gun-grabbing types would be far more pleased with a story about someone being killed with a gun than someone with a gun protecting himself / herself. The first story fits neatly into the agenda. The second, even if no shots are actually fired, is more problematic for the "guns are evil and gun owners are bad" crowd.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

23. Chicago alone has hundreds of homicides a year despite decades of being a gin grabber's paradise.

It accounted for nearly 5% of the nation's entire gun homicide rate even though it is only 1 of dozens of major cities in America. Gun prohibition is a failure.

Meanwhile, there are between 500,000 to 3 million defensive gun uses annually but only a few hundred result in an actual lethal shooting. That tells us that while people want a gun to defend themselves they are not looking to kill if they can avoid it.

Any irrational fear mongering belongs to the grabbers.

[Fred Sanders]

26. 30000 annually bodies buried in the ground riddled with gun shot would beg to differ...but they are dead.

Over 1 million dead in the last 30 years, you do not hear them screaming? Millions more families lives shattered by the lethality of a gun, you do not see their grief?

No other civilized country tolerates these preventable deaths and suffering, these routine mass murders and crazy deaths by firearms by children and infants and drunks and idiots.

But you keep on trucking and worshipping inanimate metal tubes of death useable by 3 year olds, you keep on thinking it makes you important, writing skills and logical aptitude sure are not going to do it.

[NaturalHigh]

27. Do you even care about the right to self defense?

Is it okay with you that I have a firearm in my home to protect my family, or is that somehow offensive?

[Fred Sanders]

28. Since studies prove you and your family are now much more likely to be killed, yes, the logic is

highly offensive.

You live in a forest?

[NaturalHigh]

29. As I posted upthread...

I've long believed that gun-grabbing types would be far more pleased with a story about someone being killed with a gun than someone with a gun protecting himself / herself. The first story fits neatly into the agenda. The second, even if no shots are actually fired, is more problematic for the "guns are evil and gun owners are bad" crowd.

[Fred Sanders]

30. Take it up with the scientists and with the statistics, I am not the expert.

[NaturalHigh]

33. That's okay. You've pretty much proven my point.

[sarisataka]

31. If you needed any proof

Just read the threads about the woman who killed her husband and his daughter. The only laments are that only two (presumed) gun nuts and dead instead of three

She forgot to kill herself as well.

And of course the note that if we just violated people's rights pre-crime no one would be dead. I guess the abrogation of our 4th Amendment rights is just ok in the name of preventing terrorism.
Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

[NaturalHigh]

32. I tried reading a few of those.

It's like reading a really bad novel, though; sooner or later I just can't stomach any more.

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

52. Nonsense, there ARE no guns killing people regardless of the circumstances

whether that is self defense or the victim of an attack, if guns are put in well regulated militias as our constitution requires.

I do love the constant use of the word "grabbers" from your side, it is cute.

sigh

[NaturalHigh]

53. Your point is not very relevant.

I have the right to protect my family from a knife-wielding assailant just as much as someone with a firearm. If someone breaks into my house, I'm not planning to see what kind of weapon he has before defending my family.

Re-read the OP. People recognize that law-abiding citizens have the right to own firearms. The courts have finally started to rule the same way. Since your desire seems to be to take away people's guns, I would say the term "grabber" is accurate. Fortunately a majority of our citizens recognize the right of self defense and see that the 'turn them all in" philosophy is an infringement on that right. Don't blame me if you don't like it; take it up with the courts.

[sarisataka]

56. What is your view

of the constant penis references-
Cute?

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

57. Big pickups, multiple guns, when owned by so men are almost always

substitutes for something they lack...

It is true of all people, both men and women, we all do it in one way or another, but those who choose to use guns to fill a void in their life put others in jeopardy.

[sarisataka]

58. Can you cite statistics?

Has there ever been a study that compares gun/truck ownership to genital size?

If the term 'grabber' is offensive (I personally think it is inaccurate so do not use it), though it is not hard to find comments from gun control proponents who wish to seize guns with or without compensation, I think it is only fair that some proof should be offered up to show an inverse correlation between gun ownership and penis length.

I can think of many things that people use to fill their lives which put themselves and others at risk.

Your statement begs the question, how many people own guns to fill a void and how many do so by conscious choice? Before answering consider is your estimate based on verifiable facts or prejudicial assumptions

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

59. And we are now at the end of the discussion.

My desire is to simply enforce the 2nd amendment, we could then act like most civilized societies and put an end to this madness like they did in Australia.

Where an act of a gun shooting is huge news since it rarely happens. Or Britain, etc.

Gun enthusiasts are willing to risk the lives of everyone so they can have their what, not sure what to call it, fun I guess.

Arguing about it is a waste of both our time, I will work for the enforcement of the 2nd amendment, i will vote for people who know how to read the 2nd amendment who dont have the NRA breathing down their necks.

If I win, thousands of lives are saved, if you win their lives are not saved.

I sincerely dont want to argue with you, you will never change your mind.

As long as you are JUST as passionate about saving women from back alley abortions, as long as you are JUST as passionate about voting rights and economic rights, I suppose we have to work together, right...

[sarisataka]

60. I've never seen it as win/lose

because I do not see it as a game.

I too wish to enforce the Second Amendment, as written, supported by SCOTUS decision, President Obama, the Democratic Party platform and the majority of U.S. citizens.

Australia made the news because of the large number of hostages; it would be noted had it happened in any country. As for 'civilized' let us see the Australian perspective, August 2013

* Conservative estimates say there are more than a quarter-of-a-million illegal firearms in Australia.
* Gun ownership in Australia is back at pre-Port Arthur massacre levels.
* Carrying a gun is becoming more common and ingrained in outlaw culture.
* Gun amnesties barely put a dent in the number of weapons.
* Innocent people are being caught up in gun battles.
* There has been a steady increase in gun-related crimes over the past seven years.
***
So far this year, there have been 39 people shot on Sydney's streets. Fourteen of those were in July. Two men were shot dead this week. One had survived another shooting just days before being killed.
***
In the seven years from 2005 to 2012, gun murders across Australia almost doubled. The incidence of guns used in kidnappings trebled. The total number of crimes in which a firearm was used rose from 823 in 2005, to 1217 in 2012, an increase of 47 per cent.

http://www.news.com.au/national/is-australia-staring-down-the-barrel-of-a-gun-crisis/story-fncynjr2-1226690018325
The 'civilized' has put an end to nothing, just a temporary diminishment.


So what is it you truly are risking? Per the CDC (their long demanded gun study):

7. Guns are used for self-defense often and effectively. “Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year … in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008,” says the report. The three million figure is probably high, “based on an extrapolation from a small number of responses taken from more than 19 national surveys.” But a much lower estimate of 108,000 also seems fishy, “because respondents were not asked specifically about defensive gun use.” Furthermore, “Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was 'used' by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies.”

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/2013/06/handguns_suicides_mass_shootings_deaths_and_self_defense_findings_from_a.html
If you "win" we can see a minimum increase of 200,000 crime victims and greater injury among victims. Of those, how many thousand will end up homicide, by means other than firearm, offsetting the reduction in firearm related deaths. To me it seems a very steep price to pay for a very narrow benefit.

I would much rather put effort into the base causes of crime causing a drop in overall victims, gun or other, than put a massive effort into a narrow focus that will result in more victims.


So if you wish we can end this discussion. You find the term 'grabber' cute; I will find penis references, gun humper, ammosexual, gungasm, (remind me- which side has an objectum sexuality disorder) and all of the other terms of 'endearment' puerile. You can vote for people who read the Second Amendment as you do, I vote for people who support the People- Al Franken was my most recent choice. It means I may vote for people with somewhat differing views, vis a vis guns but that is fine; I am not a single issue voter. Their support of social programs dovetails with my goals of the greatest good.

Some words to ponder:

"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action, according to our will, within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others."-- Thomas Jefferson

"Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government's purposes are beneficient...The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding."-- Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis

"Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom." -- John F. Kennedy

Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters.-- Daniel Webster

It is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties. We hold this prudent jealousy to be the first duty of citizens and one of the noblest characteristics of the late Revolution. The freemen of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise and entangled the question in precedents. They saw all the consequences in the principle, and they avoided the consequences by denying the principle. We revere this lesson too much ... to forget it -- James Madison.

You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the great struggle for independence. -- Attributed to Charles Austin Beard (1874-1948)

IMO we have ignored Maqdison's advice I bolded too much already. That is the root of government intrusion into privacy and an increasingly active police state. It seems counter intuitive to cede more power a hope for greater security and less intrusion.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

62. "My desire is to simply enforce the 2nd amendment..."

So you say but --

* The militia has never been exclusively comprised of the National Guard. Even today Federal law recognizes the militia as being both organized (the Guard) and unorganized: all able-bodied males 18 to 45 and all able-bodied females 18 to 55 with prior military experience.

* In order for the militia to function the people have to have access to arms. Hence the clause the grabbers willfully ignore.

* Even if the Federal constitution did not enumerate the RKBA the various states have been admitted into the Union with their own versions of the RKBA. That cannot be wished away.

If I win, thousands of lives are saved,

Chicago, Washington DC and Mexico would like to have a word with you.

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

63. That last remark, on a DEMOCRATIC message board, wow.

Anyway, you do understand that if you enforced the 2nd amendment the way it was written

EVENTUALLY nobody would have guns outside of the well regulated militia.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

64. "That last remark, on a DEMOCRATIC message board, wow."

There is nothing un-Democratic about the fact DC, Chicago and Mexico -- in spite of their presumptive ban on private gun ownership -- suffer higher rates of violence with their more gun liberal neighbors.

Your assumption that less guns = less death is observably false. It is no more sustainable than saying, "no drug legalization = no drugs."

Anyway, you do understand that if you enforced the 2nd amendment the way it was written EVENTUALLY nobody would have guns outside of the well regulated militia.

I refuted that statement and all you did was restate it. Restating your argument doesn't make you correct, it means the refutations remain unchallenged.

[NaturalHigh]

65. That last remark (wow) was entirely correct.

Chicago, Washington D.C., Mexico City...criminals have guns, but very few of the good guys do.

[beevul]

66. Read the preamble to the bill of rights...

Read the preamble to the bill of rights, take some constitutional theory, and get back to us.

The only entity amendment 2 restrains is the one it was designed to restrain:

The Federal Government.

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

67. THe Heller decision written by Scalia is wrong, and the arrogance of gun folks

is something to behold.

To dismiss the debate the way you do, stunning.

Anything by Scalia is not only a mistake but usually a disgrace.

The only thing I will ever say on a gun forum of Democrats again is, sure hope you will vote for the Democrat NO MATTER WHO IT IS

[Nuclear Unicorn]

68. Do you have any facts or just name-calling and argument by assertion?

[DonP]

69. Cool, what other decisions should we ignore at your behest?

So, Heller and McDonald are "wrong" based on your extensive legal resume?

All those law school professors must be wrong too.

Better spread the word to the other gun control fans here, that keep quoting Scalia's comments here on "regulation is allowed" as Gospel. Or didn't you get that memo? It's kind of hypocritical to slam Scalia, then turn around and use his opinion as an argument for more gun control.

Wow, good thing we have a resident legal expert like you to correct all the misinformation that comes from SCOTUS.

It's just a shame that nobody beyond you actually cares what you think about a legal opinion that's now the law and a precedent.

But feel free to start petitions to repeal the 2nd anytime now. There is a process for amending the Constitution, but sadly most gun control supporters are too lazy to actually do anything beyond whining online about it.

BTW, you keep saying you're through discussing/debating gun issues, but you don't seem to go away. Can't make up your mind?

Be careful, some people that stick around actually learn things like facts down here in the Gungeon and start to rethink their preconceived notions on the issue. Others, not so much, and they just continue to revel in their ignorance.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

70. re: "...feel free to start petitions to repeal the 2nd..."

Thousands of years have gone into the evolution of government. Our current Constitutional Republic is the latest proven example of government which satisfies best the goals named in the Declaration. Numerous changes namely additions have been made such as those recognizing equality across the lines of race and gender have been made. Protections have been added to preclude abuses.

IMHO subtract from this at the possible peril of the people.

America's Founding Fathers drafted the world's first written constitution more than 200 years ago. The legacy of that historical document is evident today in the constitutions of most of the world's democracies, and it continues to influence drafters of the very newest constitutions.
...
...Today, of the 192 independent nations of the world, all but a very few have such a constitution or are committed to having one.

http://iipdigital.usembassy.gov/st/english/article/2004/04/20040402110801maduobba0.7845575.html#axzz3MHAAREZE

The example provided by our Constitution has done immeasurable good for the world to increase the freedom enjoyed in many, many countries. I'm quite sure the cause of freedom, how it is protected, maintained and balanced against the intrusions of government will continue to evolve.

Deleting the 2A will do nothing to change the right of governments, societies and individuals to protect themselves. Realizing that such rights are inherent is a first step. Laws don't grant them. Laws against them don't make them go away.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

74. "Laws don't grant them. Laws against them don't make them go away."

O Brava!

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

78. My pleasure

thanks

[DonP]

87. I know, "Pre-existing rights", but it's fun to tweak their nose sometimes

The control "fans" are all such hypocrites.

They rant online but never actually do anything to support their flapping jaws and rely on 1%ers like Bloomberg and Gates to pay the bills for gun control pushes.

In all my years here on DU I don't think of one that's ever done anything in the real world to put their money and time where their mouth is. And every new one thinks he/she is the first one smart enough to confront the evil gun owners. Pfeh!

So much easier to make penis references than knock on doors and do the hard work to support your POV.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

90. I know that you know

My apologies for picking your comment to reply to. I know you're on board with how rights work. I'm just a little extreme about anyone even sarcastically validating the idea that somehow the Bill of Rights is a valid target for limitation.

[beevul]

71. What I said isn't based on anything from Heller...

What I said isn't based on anything from Heller or Scalia, its based on a clear understanding of the theory behind our system of government, and the words of the preamble to the bill of rights itself:

THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution'

http://billofrights.org/

"To dismiss the debate the way you do, stunning."

Facts are facts buddy. Arrogance has nothing to do with it.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

75. "What I said isn't based on anything from Heller..."

You'd think that a legal scholar of his professed caliber would know something like that.

[sarisataka]

76. Would you, could you,

Vote for a "pro-gun" Democrat?

I quite regularly vote for Democrats who favor more gun control than I think is effective.

Fell free to answer in that other forum since this one is so traumatic. I think I know your answer but doubt you will state it.

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

77. Most democratic politicians are pro gun, they have to be to get most of you to vote for them

i wouldnt know where to answer other than here unless you have another thread going

Both Hillary and Liz are I am sure, Bernie maybe not, dont know

[sarisataka]

79. Both of my Senators

Franken and Klobuchar favor magazine limits and "assault rifle" restrictions. That doesn't bother me though I consider both to be feel-good laws that would have no measurable effect. I do agree with then about benefits from background checks, training and limitations on those with DV conviction or restraining orders.

Both do agree that gun ownership is an individual right and self defense is a valid use of a firearm. If that is pro-gun then I believe your bar is rather high.

One could ask why most Democratic politicians need to be pro-gun if support for gun control is so high. Could it possibly be that they actually believe gun ownership is an individual right?

FYI- Bernie Sanders:

37 Key Votes
Date Bill No. Bill Title Vote
4/17/13 S Amdt 711 Prohibits the Sale of Assault Weapons
Amendment Rejected - Senate (40 - 60) Yea
4/17/13 S Amdt 714 Limits Firearm Magazine Capacity
Amendment Rejected - Senate (46 - 54) Yea
4/17/13 S Amdt 715 Public Safety and Second Amendment Rights Protection Act
Amendment Rejected - Senate (54 - 46) Yea
4/17/13 S Amdt 719 Authorizes Reciprocity for the Carrying of Certain Concealed Firearms
Amendment Rejected - Senate (57 - 43) Nay
3/23/13 S Amdt 139 Prohibits the United States From Entering into the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty
Amendment Adopted - Senate (53 - 46) Nay
12/22/09 S Amdt 3276 Senate Health Care Bill Amendments
Amendment Adopted - Senate (60 - 39) Yea
7/22/09 S Amdt 1618 Authorizing Concealed Firearms Across State Lines
Amendment Rejected - Senate (58 - 39) Nay
5/12/09 S Amdt 1067 Allowing Loaded Guns in National Parks
Amendment Adopted - Senate (67 - 29) Yea
2/26/09 S 160 Washington DC Voting Act
Bill Passed - Senate (61 - 37) Yea
2/25/08 S Amdt 4070 Prohibiting Funds in the Bill S 1200 from Being Used to Decrease Gun Ownership
Amendment Adopted - Senate (78 - 11) Yea
9/26/06 HR 5092 Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives
Bill Passed - House (277 - 131) Yea
6/28/06 H Amdt 1156 Trigger Lock Amendment
Amendment Adopted - House (230 - 191) Nay
10/20/05 S 397 Firearms Manufacturers Protection Bill
Bill Passed - House (283 - 144) Yea
4/09/03 HR 1036 Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act
Bill Passed - House (285 - 140) Yea
7/10/02 HR 4635 Arming Pilots Against Terrorism Act
Bill Passed - House (310 - 113) Yea
6/18/99 H Amdt 215 24 Hour Background Check Amendment
Amendment Adopted - House (218 - 211) Nay
6/18/99 H Amdt 216 72 Hour Background Check Amendment
Amendment Rejected - House (193 - 235) Yea
6/18/99 HR 2122 Mandatory Gun Show Background Check Act
Bill Failed - House (147 - 280) Nay
2/24/98 HR 424 Minimum Sentences for Gun Crimes
Bill Passed - House (350 - 59) Yea
3/22/96 HR 125 Gun Ban Repeal Act of 1995
Bill Passed - House (239 - 173) Nay
5/05/94 HR 4296 Regulation of Semi-Automatic Assault Weapons
Bill Passed - House (216 - 214) Yea
11/23/93 HR 1025 Brady Handgun Bill
Conference Report Adopted - House (238 - 187) Nay
11/10/93 H Amdt 390 Instant Background Checks for Gun Purchase Amendment
Amendment Adopted - House (238 - 192) Yea
11/10/93 HR 1025 Brady Handgun Bill
Bill Passed - House (238 - 189) Nay

NRA rating F

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

80. Still pro gun, really.

You see I have no doubt, at all what the 2nd amendment says.

Any gun outside the locked up and well regulated militia, including for police, is unconstitutional.

I bet you wont get either of them to say that.

[sarisataka]

81. I wouldn't expect that

e]though if they truly believed that I would expect them to say so.

You of course are entitled to your opinion but you should realize history, politician's statements, public opinion and court rulings all say you are wrong

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

86. One court ruling by a madman and his buddies, Scalia and company

I cant help it if more than half of the public insists on owning weapons for no reason other than immaturity.

I cant prevent that.

Someday, like with the silly belief in god, humankind will evolve beyond the need for immature playthings like guns and god.

If climate change doesnt wipe us out first.

[sarisataka]

88. Utopia

it is a wonderful notion. Since it appears to still be several thousand years off I will deal with the real world.

I have no doubt we can survive climate change. It may put the test the adage that death is not the worst thing that can happen to us.

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

89. Utopia? Australia and many other places have it now, or as close to it as you can get.

[sarisataka]

91. Reality check

* Conservative estimates say there are more than a quarter-of-a-million illegal firearms in Australia.
* Gun ownership in Australia is back at pre-Port Arthur massacre levels.
* Carrying a gun is becoming more common and ingrained in outlaw culture.
* Gun amnesties barely put a dent in the number of weapons.
* Innocent people are being caught up in gun battles.
* There has been a steady increase in gun-related crimes over the past seven years.
***
So far this year, there have been 39 people shot on Sydney's streets. Fourteen of those were in July. Two men were shot dead this week. One had survived another shooting just days before being killed.
***
In the seven years from 2005 to 2012, gun murders across Australia almost doubled. The incidence of guns used in kidnappings trebled. The total number of crimes in which a firearm was used rose from 823 in 2005, to 1217 in 2012, an increase of 47 per cent.

http://www.news.com.au/national/is-australia-staring-down-the-barrel-of-a-gun-crisis/story-fncynjr2-1226690018325

There were 1.9m violent incidents in England and Wales in 2012-13, with just over one in fifty adults victimised, according to the latest figures from the Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW), released today.

http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2014/feb/13/violent-sexual-crime-statistics-england-wales-2013

The FBI released Crime in the United States, 2013 today, which shows that the estimated number of violent crimes in 2013 decreased 4.4 percent when compared with 2012 figures, and the estimated number of property crimes decreased 4.1 percent. There were an estimated 1,163,146 violent crimes reported to law enforcement last year, along with an estimated 8,632,512 property crimes.

http://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2014/november/crime-statistics-for-2013-released/crime-statistics-for-2013-released
*In England/Wales violent incident on the Crime Survey includes personal robbery so is more analogous to our violent crime category than Scotland Yard's violent crime reporting.

[NaturalHigh]

93. You have a very high opinion of yourself.

What makes you think you know more than that half of the public that owns firearms? Who are you to judge us as immature?

Who are you to decide that those of us who believe in God are "silly"?

Your arrogance is astounding.

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

94. Arrogance to not believe in an invisible man in the sky? Arrogance to want guns to be locked away

so people dont get killed on a daily basis?

Are you sure arrogance is the word you meant to use?

[NaturalHigh]

95. Well, I don't want to get a jury hide.

There are other words that I would like to have used.

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

96. Why does it anger you so when someone doesnt believe in your god?

[NaturalHigh]

97. That doesn't anger me at all.

It does rile me a bit when people such as yourself declare anyone who believes in God to be "silly." That's just inflammatory baiting on your part.

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

98. The belief is silly, not the person.

I know more about Christianity than any random ten rightwing xtians combined do, given my history that was forced on me.


While there is of course no god it would be nice if the people who allege to believe in said god would act even remotely like Jesus did.

You may be one of those people, there are so few though the odds are against it.

I respect any religious person who keeps politics out, completely. JW do that...I respect them

[NaturalHigh]

99. That's your opinion to which you are more than welcome.

Frankly I still think you phrase it as you do to insult people, but that's also your right.

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

100. I phrase it out of frustration that we still have people who think like this, which includes people

I love dearly.

So no, it is NOT meant to insult you, it is meant to express frustration at the lack of evolving, but I do it with people I love, in fact if I didnt care about you at some level, I wouldnt argue with you either.

[NaturalHigh]

84. The courts don't seem to agree with you.

[oneshooter]

92. "I have to remind myself NEVER to respond on the other gun board again,"

Just can't keep away, can ya.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12627534

[NaturalHigh]

85. YOUR arrogance is stunning.

When you post YOUR credentials to interpret Constitutional law, maybe I'll consider why you have anything to say about AMERICANS' Constitutional rights. Until then, I will consider you just one more keyboard lawyer who thinks he knows what's best for others whom he considers less enlightened.

[Straw Man]

34. Studies?

Since studies prove you and your family are now much more likely to be killed, yes, the logic is

highly offensive.

You mean the studies that didn't control for the legality of the firearm or any prior history of drug use and other criminal behavior?

I believe that the odds are in my favor.

[DonP]

61. Funny, ain't it?

Last edited Wed Dec 17, 2014, 10:23 PM - Edit history (1)

The Kellerman Study is now over 20 years old, has been revised by the author several times to correct his obvious errors, when called out by peers. A Google Search shows more critiques of the original study than support on the first page alone.

But for gun control fans it's still the "be all and end all" Gospel. Notice how none of them quote the President's requested study by the CDC last year, funny that.

The Kellerman Study "proves", beyond any doubt, that if you are a Crack Dealer with a family in Seattle in 1983 you are very likely to be wounded or killed by a firearm in the hands of a "friend" or "business associate".

[beevul]

35. Doubtful.

"30000 annually bodies buried in the ground riddled with gun shot would beg to differ"

Doubtful, since 20000 of those 30000 people, committed suicide.

To people that are able to think, that means they wanted to die, and chose to pull the trigger.

So yes, fred, I doubt that most of the suiciders would be begging for anything.

Oh, by the way, are you going to continue, in the future, pretending that suicides and homicides are the same thing?

[Straw Man]

36. Let's see ...

But you keep on trucking and worshipping inanimate metal tubes of death useable by 3 year olds, you keep on thinking it makes you important, writing skills and logical aptitude sure are not going to do it.

In your little screed maligning others' writing skills, I see two comma splices, the use of a numeral where the number should be spelled out, a failure to hyphenate, and the use of an adjective where the adverb form should be used.

Irony is a cruel mistress.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

37. More than half of gun deaths are suicides. Japan has no private gun ownership yet nearly

twice the suicide rate. Presumably you list Japan among the "civilized" countries.

[oneshooter]

44. In Japan, if a man kills his wife and child, then commits suicide

it is counted by the police as three suicides. Thus the murder rate is kept low, and the suicide rate is extremely high.

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

51. Appeals to the base fear of all, some more susceptible than others.

The more evolved a person is, the more secure in their person-hood, the less they feel the need to clutch a gun.

The simple fact is someone who likes guns SOLELY for the recreational value, i.e. target shooting or hunting, must now admit that individual gun ownership outside a well regulated militia, has created far more harm than the value of the recreation.

An evolved and secure adult would be willing to give up their recreation for the betterment of all.

Right?

[NaturalHigh]

54. An evolved and secure adult should be willing to give up rights?

No thanks. You go ahead and be as evolved and secure as you want. Just don't expect the rest of us to follow down that road.

[Duckhunter935]

2. "any day now"

seems to be going the other way than controllers would want

[NaturalHigh]

3. It seems that way...

and I certainly hope that's true. Gun control is one of the things that got Clinton's ass handed to him in the 1994 midterms, and I can't see that it has been a winning issue anywhere ever since. It certainly didn't do Democrats any favors in Colorado.

[DonP]

11. Haven't you heard? Clinton was wrong.

We've had several folks here tell us, in no uncertain terms that his acknowledgement in his book, that gun control was a major factor that cost him the mid terms and Al Gore a clean win in the 2000 election, was just pure BS.

Why would one of the best politicians the Democrat party has turned out in the last half century know anything about winning and losing elections? Certainly anonymous gun control fans online must be smarter than Bill, right?

[spin]

21. In my opinion gun control really hurt the Democrats in the midterms. It wasn't ...

just the fact that Obama's popularity dropped.

[NaturalHigh]

22. I'm sure that's true.

It's always been a losing issue.

[stone space]

4. Cool

&list=RDfCtD3OJ-_Es#t=9

[Straw Man]

12. Ladies and gentlemen, the Gun Prohibition lobby speaks.

Crude, classist propaganda that must have taken at least five minutes to produce.

[DonP]

13. Another cartoon, by somebody else, presented as actual thought

That simple level of "discourse" seems to be a pattern with the gun control crowd, doesn't it?

Well, as long as that's their best argument, we don't have much to worry about.

[blueridge3210]

24. When all you have is a hammer................(nt)

[NaturalHigh]

15. Cool story bro.

Is that from a Ren and Stempy cartoon or something?

[ileus]

6. This is why our party can't afford to continue to be regressive on a basic human right.

[Eleanors38]

9. Liberals are at their best by being liberal.

[Matrosov]

38. Credit to the RKBA propaganda machine

Sadly the RKBA advocates are doing a much better job staying active and marketing their position than control advocates.

Many in the RKBA crowd are single issue voters whereas too many control advocates are 'seasonal'. It's something they care about when there is a major shooting in the news but they have a difficult time keeping focus long enough, and they just wander off to some other issue while the RKBA propaganda machine keeps going and going and going..

[beevul]

39. "too many control advocates are 'seasonal'."

"too many control advocates are 'seasonal'."

The rights that you and people like you want to see limited so badly, are exercised year around.

And valued year around.



I'm not surprised you pro-control folks haven't figured it out yet.

[NaturalHigh]

40. "The RKBA advocates are doing a much better job"...

I certainly hope so.

[DonP]

41. Control "advocates" do seem to be easily distracted

"We need more gun control ... ooh look a squirrel"

Well, except for Bloomberg, he pays people to stay interested for him, right Shannon?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

42. "the RKBA propaganda machine"

Are suggesting the people are incapable of making up their own minds? Someone must be there to guide them, forcefully if need be, to adhere to what someone else says is best for them?

That sounds like a system of government wherein the citizenry should never willingly disarm.

[Matrosov]

43. Thank you for illustrating my point

"That sounds like a system of government wherein the citizenry should never willingly disarm."

Because of course once the citizens are disarmed, then the next step would be to place them into reeducation camps, like in North Korea.

Wait, was it reeducation camps? Perhaps the next step would actually be to cede sovereignty of the United States to the UN.

Huh, I could've sworn I heard something about President Obama then turning this into an Islamic caliphate and executing all Christians.

I'm actually not sure what the next step would be, because the RKBA propaganda machines offers so many different apocalyptic scenarios. If one doesn't scare you into sending some money to the NRA and voting Republican, maybe another one will.

Conservatives in general have a proud tradition of being effective at scaring people away from change. Granted they've lost many of the battles over time - our society no longer thinks treating African-Americans and homosexuals like normal people will result in our women being raped (African-Americans) and our children being molested (homosexuals) - but with the way control advocates have been fumbling around, I'll admit I doubt the RKBA propaganda machine will lose its effectiveness any time soon.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

45. Because some people deal in wild CTs there's no such thing as a tyrannical government?

Thus far you have shown disdain for people and a willingness to fabricate wild tales to support your need for control.

[Matrosov]

48. Fabricating?

What exactly am I fabricating? The theory about the reeducation camps, which started circulating before President Obama was even sworn in, and people were claiming anyone who wasn't a liberal or socialist or even communist would be sent to a FEMA camp, which were stocked with coffins for the political dissidents who'd need to be executed?



The US handing its sovereignty to the UN? That was a popular one especially during the Clinton years, when people were even forming militias left and right in case 'President Stalin' wanted to give control of the country over to the UN, as part of his supposed plans to help form the New World Order.

There are still people who insist President Obama is Muslim-born Manchurian Candidate from Kenya. I'd love to dismiss all these as wild theories from a few crazies, but it's a little difficult when you've overheard them at the grocery store more than once or when right-wing acquaintances even email you about them.

No doubt it's a great motivator for people to arm themselves even more. Companies like Smith&Wesson are thanking their lucky stars that such propaganda is floating around out there and has done a great deal for their sales.

My disdain is for the typical 'I got mine so f**k you!' attitude. There are tens of thousands of gun deaths every year and firearms are used in many more crimes. If we were talking about some other kind of object, it'd have been banned long ago. Yet since we're talking about guns, gun owners figure that hunting and plinking and SHTF wet dreams are more important than the rights of the countless victims of gun violence.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

49. You fabricated the connection between my reasons for the RKBA and the wild CTs offered by others.

I didn't deny those CTs, I acknowledged them but the reason of the CTers are not my reasons.

There are tens of thousands of gun deaths every year and firearms are used in many more crimes.

Is it really about lives lost? Really? Because I'm guessing the slightest nudge will send this line of argument to a spluttering doom.

[Matrosov]

72. A tyrannical government

A tyrannical government was your reason for the RKBA. I was providing examples of the kind of stories people have been spreading to make others fear we're already on our way to having a tyrannical government. That kind of fear, whether it's the fear of the murderer around every corner, of the police itching to kick down your door, of the government wanting to imprison or even execute you, is what helps keep the RKBA movement strong.

Of course it's about the lives lost for me. What other reason would I have? Hoping the disarmed citizens would then be sent to those FEMA camps so they all vote Democratic? If everybody stuck to shooting deer and paper silhouettes rather than shooting each other, then I couldn't care less about firearms and about who had them.

But between the countless people shot and killed in places like Chicago every year to the supposedly response gun owners who can't even follow basic safety rules or confess to wishing there'd be a SHTF scenario here they could use their guns, I see firearms as a dangerous component of our society. The wild estimates of hundreds of thousands of lives saved with gun, which are based on miniscule sample sizes and have yet to be backed by a steady stream of stories about school shooters and would be attackers stopped in their tracks by the many supposed "good guys with guns" (of course the resident trolls from ARFCOM, TFL, and all those other fun sites, will tell me it's all because the MSM is over run by pinko commies) have yet to convince me otherwise.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

73. "A tyrannical government was your reason for the RKBA."

That does not mean every manifestation of illegitimate government is the same as the silly scenarios you seem to assist I subscribe to in spite of my posts to the contrary.

For example, African Americans often armed themselves to defend themselves against the Klan, the civil authorities often being part of the robed mob.

There is also the Battle of Athens (Tennessee).

Numerous battles in the nascent labor movement involved workers arming themselves against already armed strike breakers hired by the owners and granted license by civil authorities.


In which of these episodes would you have preferred to see the civilians disarmed?

[kioa]

46. There doesn't have to be a "next step" when your initial step takes rights away from innocent people

The American people shouldn't have to surrender freedoms because of your irrational fear.

Your fear doesn't supplant other's rights.

Neither guns nor life in the USA is scary. You don't have to give up freedoms & you certainly don't have to take rights away from innocent people in order to be 'safe'.
Get out more. Stop allowing Bloomberg to take advantage of your ignorant fears.

[upaloopa]

82. That seems to be a relatively new talking point

I've seen it in a couple of threads now.
You used it on me I think.
Scary scary scary. Like turning anti gun talking points back around.
It is interesting just to read these threads.
Not taking any side just to watch the progression of the arguments over time.
Scary scary scary seems to reduce the other sides opinion to mental illness I guess.

[kioa]

83. The fear necessary to support infringing on the current rights we have isn't a 'talking point'

It is a fact that Bloomberg attempts to capitalize on.

"Scary scary scary seems to reduce the other sides opinion to mental illness I guess."

It's not mental illness. It is ignorance.
That's why gun control has less support with areas with more guns per capita.

[DonP]

47. Gun owners embrace "change"

In roughly 20 years we've gone from 1 state with legal concealed carry to 50.

The stupid, so called "Assault Weapons" ban expired 10 years ago.

3 more states have gone "constitutional carry" in the last few years.

The 9th Circuit struck down much of California's ban on legal carry.

Jim Crow era gun control laws have almost all been eliminated from the law books.

Heller and McDonald shut a bunch of ignorant gun control people up, always a good thing.

SCOTUS and our President both stated that gun ownership is an individual right and the whole false "militia interpretation" went away.

That's only a few of the changes we embrace.

[ileus]

50. Finally folks are starting to take a progressive stance on the 2A.

And that includes lots of us progressive democrats...

[Socal31]

55. Not surprising.

Legal exercise of the 2nd is not a (R) v (D) issue. Why it gets framed as one is beyond me.

Can you imagine how different congress would look if our otherwise elect-able politicians didn't decide to pick and choose rights in the South?

[nykym]

101. Not so fast

Carroll Doherty, Pew's director of political research, has now reportedly "acknowledged the flaw" in the question. Mother Jones reported:

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/12/19/pew-admits-flaw-in-poll-being-used-to-attack-st/201960

[NaturalHigh]

102. Thanks for that.

It really doesn't change the basic premise of the OP that support for the right to own guns is high, but yes, the question does make a difference concerning what restrictions people would support.

[Duckhunter935]

103. "academics from the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research"

Funded by Bloomberg

Carroll Doherty, PEW's director of political research, acknowledged the flaw. "Is it a perfect question? Probably not," he told Mother Jones. "This is in no way intended to say there's not support for background checks and some measures aimed at specific policies either [in Congress] or in the states. Mr. Webster is right to put it in context."

Doherty told Mother Jones that Pew "has asked that same question in surveys since 1993, with the aim of tracking general public sentiment on gun policy over time."

Best to ask the same question to track trends

[nykym]

104. Statistics can be made to say whatever is wanted

It doesn't really matter it's what you want the public to see.

Mr. Pew and his immediate heirs were politically conservative, as were most of the causes that PCT supported in its early years. In recent decades, however, leftwing staffers have taken control of the organization, radically transforming its ideology and funding philosophy. Particularly responsible for this change was the late neurosurgeon Thomas W. Langfitt, who served as PCT's President and Chief Executive Officer from 1987 through 1994.

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/funderprofile.asp?fndid=5213