How Do Gun Advocates and the NRA React to Gun Massacres and Killings?

[jpak]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/judge-h-lee-sarokin/nra-gun-lobby_b_1401525.html

When innocent people are gunned down in schools or offices or when someone like
George Zimmerman shoots and kills Trayvon Martin, how do members of the NRA and gun-advocates truly feel? I really want to understand. I think I understand the desire to have a gun for self-defense or sport. But when a gun owner sees statistics such as these, how do they react?

From Legal Community Against Violence: Gun Violence Statistics

Introduction

The United States experiences epidemic levels of gun violence, claiming over 30,000 lives annually, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. For every person who dies from a gunshot wound, two others are wounded. Every year, more than 100,000 Americans are victims of gun violence. In addition to those who are killed or injured, there are countless others whose lives are forever changed by the deaths of and injuries to their loved ones.

Gun violence touches every segment of our society. It increases the probability of deaths in incidents of domestic violence, raises the likelihood of fatalities by those who intend to injure others and among those who attempt suicide, places children and young people at special risk, and disproportionately affects communities of color.

---

Why is it that every regulation is fought and every effort to expand the number of guns and where they can be carried and concealed is supported? The example I always hear is that if a car kills someone you don't ban cars. But if there is something that can be done with the car without banning it, such as regulating who drives it or how it is made and sold, why would anybody fight that? I also have heard the argument that regulations only affect law abiding citizens and not the criminals who will ignore them anyway. But many deaths are caused by persons who have obtained and own the weapon legally.

<more>

[Glassunion]

1. Are these questions rhetorical?

Why is it that every regulation is fought and every effort to expand the number of guns and where they can be carried and concealed is supported? - They are not.

The example I always hear is that if a car kills someone you don't ban cars. But if there is something that can be done with the car without banning it, such as regulating who drives it or how it is made and sold, why would anybody fight that? - Simple, motor vehicle violations do no result in felonies, however there are legislators pushing laws where simply failing to register would result in a felony. Make it a felony to not register a vehicle or have a license and then we can have this conversation.

I also have heard the argument that regulations only affect law abiding citizens and not the criminals who will ignore them anyway. - This is true for the most part. My question to this: Can you convict an illegal gun owner for failure to register their firearm?

But many deaths are caused by persons who have obtained and own the weapon legally. - By "many" do they mean statistically significant and where are the numbers to support the claim?

[Tuesday Afternoon]

2. Considering our demographics, total population diversity, state of economy, lack of social programs,

religious diversity, bullying, the ill-begotten War On Drugs and other socio-economic factors, I think you are making a mountain out of a microscopic, miniscule molehill.

30,000/313,298,000

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA

[TheWraith]

4. Most important word there: drugs.

Or more accurately, the vast, VAST black market created by the banning of drugs in the world's largest economy. Anyone who fails to recognize that as the single largest factor in most murders in the US is woefully unaware of history.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

8. agreed. Drugs and how we address the issues involved.

[lastlib]

14. Tell that to the families of the people who DIED!!!

Tell them their loved ones' lives are insignificant.

I DARE YOU!!!


It is PAST TIME to PUT AN END TO THIS MADNESS!!!

[gejohnston]

15. then put the bong down

until the WOD ends, or at least grow your own.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

43. Inappropriate

....and just rude.

He's outraged about 30,000 dead people killed by guns and YOUR reaction is tell HIM to put the bong down.

Begs the question what are you smoking.

[gejohnston]

47. what's even more rude

is giving the gangsters the money to buy the guns to shoot each other, and point the finger at me.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

56. So we can track the money but not the guns.....

.....thanks to your aversion of any attempt to do so.

[gejohnston]

58. the money movement is obvious

all economies are demand driven, that is why Reganomics does not work. No demand, nothing happens.
If you can track the guns, good luck. It does not seem to work for any other country.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

59. Oh guns are tracked

Usually after a crime is committed rather than before.

[gejohnston]

60. that is the way it works everywhere

even places with registration. Do you think gangsters in the UK and Jamaica register their machine guns? Or here in the US, like USVI, who doesn't have Texas and Virginia to scapegoat? Flog the theater if you want, I prefer working together for real solutions.

[Callisto32]

26. This baffles me.

The false equivalency I mean.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

27. If you were a regular participant to this SAFE HAVEN you would see that I am in threads

offerering my condolences to these families.

NOW THEN: YOU MAY GO STUFF A SOCK IN THE REST OF YOUR MADNESS!!!

[virginia mountainman]

38. Everytime a mass killing happens..

Seems to be a few folks only answer is to take away the guns from those whom did not do anything wrong.

I dare you to come and take them......

[fightthegoodfightnow]

45. Really?

You dare us? Really? Let me jump in my car. Your chest pounding just brings out my testosterone. I heard Texas just enacted gun legislation to enable deer hunters to hunt with silencers....coming soon to Virginia. LOL.

No one is going to take your precious guns. Doesn't mean that reasonable gun control laws cannot be enacted.

[gejohnston]

49. So what is wrong with Texas becoming more European?

Do you have the same problem with the French, Finns, and Norwegians? They let you use silencers for hunting. The Finns demand it in some areas.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

50. Oh Nothing Other Than

....why exactly do we need THIS law?

They could be used already without the law (correct?) and regardless criminals ignore laws anyway....we really don't need gun laws.....NOT.

But on another note, let's not seriously call this type of hunting a 'sport' anymore.....what next....a law to tie up all the Bambis so we can really call it a fair hunt.

[gejohnston]

52. it is a Texas hunting regulation

has nothing to do with gun control. In Florida you can have all of the 30 round magazines you want, just don't be hunting with it. Florida limits magazines to five rounds for hunting.

some places in Finland and France requires silencers because of noise pollution.

But on another note, let's not seriously call this type of hunting a 'sport' anymore.....what next....a law to tie up all the Bambis so we can really call it a fair hunt.

has nothing to do with it.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

53. Texas has such a problem with hunting and noise they NEED this law

LOL.....that's all I can do.....waiting for that law to tie up those Bambi to really even things up.

Seems gun laws are ok with you when they are NOT needed.


.

[petronius]

54. Part of the reasoning was that it could reduce noise complaints around

hunting areas, yes. And it allows hunters to protect their hearing a little better. It doesn't affect any state or federal gun control laws relating to the possession of suppressors - all it is is the wildlife commission realizing that there was no real reason (from a conservation, resource, humane hunting, or safety perspective) for a law currently on the books, so they got rid of it (note that it was already legal to hunt hogs and non-game animals with suppressors)...

[PavePusher]

65. "let's not seriously call this type of hunting a 'sport' anymore"

What type of hunting are you refering to?

[X_Digger]

74. "could be used already without the law (correct?)" -- No, you're not correct.

Possessing one in Texas is perfectly legal. Using one at a gun range or anywhere else was legal, except for hunting.

Let me guess, you think a 'silencer' makes a rifle silent? Your ignorance is showing again. The drop is from 150-160db to 115-120db. A suppressor makes a painfully loud shot that is capable of doing permanent damage to a person's hearing only as loud as a rock concert or a jackhammer.

Few hunters use hearing protection in the woods (they need to hear game approaching), so this is a hunter protection measure.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

75. Oh THAT IS SOOOOO RICH

I must have hearing damage from a gun cause less than 30 minutes ago you implied you were no longer going to respond to my posts.

Re-read your post...was it legal prior or not??

[X_Digger]

76. You apparently also suffer from reading comprehension issues..

I said I was done responding to you on that topic- your flogging a gun control shill's student movie project.

If you start regurgitating the same straw men on this topic, I'll stop responding to you here as well. Feel free to make yourself look stupid if you want me to stop pointing out your ignorance.

It was not legal to hunt with a suppressor before this wildlife commission rule change.

It would have been legal to take the same gun to the range and shoot all day long. Just not while hunting.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

77. Right

...because you don't know anything about schilling guns.

How many times do you have to call me stupid before you start to feel good about yourself?

Sure it gives you a competetive edge hunting Bambi with that silencer.....you can now use a gun in populated areas to avoid noise complaints .....and folks no longer have to worry whether it's a dear or a human being shot.

[X_Digger]

78. Supressor != Silencer (a la hollywood)

There is no competitive 'edge' to hunting with one. Deer startle at the slightest noise, a suppressed rifle *still* is loud.

When you make asinine comments that demonstrate your lack of knowledge, expect to be called on it.

[friendly_iconoclast]

83. Factual accuracy mustn't be allowed to interfere with Higher Truths.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

84. Missed Opportunity for You

Could have stopped after the first sentence.

Your second sentence suggests I'm not the one who needs to worry about what you think constitutes an 'asinine comment.'

[Starboard Tack]

55. "So what is wrong with Texas becoming more European?"

That, my friend is the funniest post ever. Love it. I am literally laughing my ass off right now. I think Texas's chances of becoming European are right behind those of Kasakhstan. They use silencers out of politeness in Europe, not so much in Texas. Damn you are funny at times. Happy egg day!

[gejohnston]

57. thanks

Happy egg day to you too. I try.

[PavePusher]

64. They aren't "silencers", as they do not at all silence the sound of a shot.

But we know that you know this. So stop playing the disingenuous fool, you don't wear it well.

[AtheistCrusader]

39. Given that suicides aren't really the same thing, the issue is even smaller

than the poster you are all outraged with granted.

The Department of Justice pegs lawful Defensive Gun Uses (against attackers of all types, not all have guns) at between 60,000 and 100,000 per year, depending on the year.

What protection would you offer those people if you 'put an end to this madness'?

[spin]

61. Don't expect a reply from those who oppose gun ownership ...

concealed carry, shall issue concealed carry laws or wish to impose draconian laws on gun ownership.

Over 800,000 residents of Florida have concealed weapons permits but let one cop wannabe do something really stupid and suddenly all people who have carry permits are racist rednecks who only carry firearms out of fear or for an opportunity to blow someone of a different race away.

The fact that 60 to 100 thousand times a year firearms are used for legitimate self defense will be totally ignored by those who dislike honest citizens owning firearms or legally carrying them. The more important fact to them is that one fool who, in my opinion at this time, thought he was a cop or a vigilante might have confronted an innocent individual and killed him is far more important. That one incident proves beyond all doubt that all people who carry concealed are cop wannabes or vigilantes and also that the Florida "Stand Your Ground" law gives everyone in Florida the right to start a fight and then blow the other person away without reason and escape charges by claiming that they feared for their life. The fact that this is totally false is totally irrelevant. The main street media who hates firearm ownership, concealed carry and especially the "Stand Your Ground" law helps foster this view.

And if all concealed carry laws, castle doctrine and "Stand Your Ground" laws were repealed many people would view this is as progress and the main stream media would not publicize any stories that would indicate that an armed person could have saved his life or the life of another person if the laws would have remained in place. Instead they would have emphasized any story where a criminal misused his firearm and would editorialize that the only solution to the problem was the banning and confiscation of all firearms.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

42. Such disregard for human life

Heck ...we lose more on any give year to guns than we ever did at the peak of the Vietnam war.

But according to you....that's not so bad.

WTF!!

[Tuesday Afternoon]

46. where is your data? link please. as for the rest of your comments about me, personally -

[krispos42]

62. And let's not forget this

[Tuesday Afternoon]

63. oh, I didn't. It is mentioned in the text body of the message:

the ill-begotten War On Drugs

[TheWraith]

3. By lying and ghoulishly trying to exploit it to make political hay for their pet cause.

Oh wait, that's what the Brady people and their allies do. Like the lie that "gun violence" claims 30,000 lives a year, when it's actually less than half that. Or deliberately conflating legal gun owners with murderous criminals. Funny how for some people, it's okay to say that a legal gun owner is the same as a murderer, while if someone were saying that a black kid with skittles is the same thing as a burglar, you'd see how ludicrous and insulting that is to law abiding citizens. Or creating the false analogy of guns and cars, even though guns are subject to far more regulation than cars ever have been or ever will be. When someone drives drunk, you don't see people demanding a permanent ban on cars with an automatic transmission as "homicide vehicles."

[ileus]

6. where's mike2020 with his this and that and here's what I recommend posts?

[movonne]

7. owning guns is one thing but allowing them is bars, schools, churches and

just about anywhere they see fit...guns should be regulated like cars...take a test, get a license....if misused then taken away from owner until they get more instructions, fined....

[gejohnston]

10. that would not change criminals killing other criminals

you can own a car without licencing and registration, just don't drive it on public roads.
Or you can regulate cars the same way you regulate guns
no interstate car sales by private individuals
felons can not get inside any car, including a taxi
those convicted of domestic can not get inside any car, including a taxi
must be 21 to buy a small car
must be 18 to be in a large car
must be 18 to drive
background check to buy a car
the feds can inspect dealer's records at anytime without a warrant

Those are just a few of the federal regulations.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

31. you think someone would offer a counter argument ---

Bueller, maybe.

[Remmah2]

34. Guns vs Cars

I can drive my car to Canada and Mexico. I can put it on a ship and take it to Europe.

I can own as many cars as I can afford.

I can let my kids and sisters borrow my car.

Driver education is taught in many schools.

Pretty much any time a car is misused you get a ticket, most of the time it gets pleaded down to a parking ticket and a fine. And you get to drive home.

Wal-Mart does not sell cars.

Why should the government regulate what goes on in my temple/church? There should be a separation of church and state. The church/temple should be able to make the rules on firearms/no firearms. My church does not tell me what kind of car to drive.

[ileus]

5. I heard Karl Rove was going to be the next president of the NRA.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

9. bwahahahaha

[CreekDog]

11. by expressing sympathy for the gun rights they think will be imperiled as a result

from what i have seen, at least when posting in LBN.

sympathy for the victim? i think that's usually posted in the invisible font.

[lastlib]

16. Remember Bush' charming, soothing words after VA Tech?

First words out of his mouth: "I support the right of the people to bear arms." NOT ONE WORD of sympathy or care for the VICTIMS!!

[CreekDog]

17. wow, I think he posted in LBN!

[Common Sense Party]

24. I'm no Bush fan, but you are completely incorrect.

I looked it up, and those words do not appear in his comments after the shooting:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-04-16-bush-text-shootings_N.htm

Somebody steered you wrong, I guess.

Here is the text:

Our nation is shocked and saddened by the news of the shootings at Virginia Tech today. The exact toll has not yet been confirmed, but it appears that more than 30 people were killed and many more were wounded.

I have spoken with Governor Tim Kaine and Virginia Tech President Charles Steger. I told them that Laura and I and many across our nation are praying for the victims and their families and all the members of the university community who have been devastated by this terrible tragedy.

I told them that my administration would do everything possible to assist with the investigation and that I pledged that we would stand ready to help local law enforcement and the local community in any way we can during this time of sorrow.

Schools should be places of safety and sanctuary and learning. When that sanctuary is violated, the impact is felt in every American classroom and every American community.

Today our nation grieves with those who have lost loved ones at Virginia Tech. We hold the victims in our hearts, we lift them up in our prayers, and we ask a loving God to comfort those who are suffering today.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

28. now. now. don't let facts get in the way of a good rant.

we have to let emotions run this thread. forget trying to have intelligent discourse in this place.

[Common Sense Party]

32. What was I thinking?

My bad.

[oneshooter]

37. A good rant? How about a bald faced lie, more typical of the gun grabbers.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

41. I gotta give this place a break. I am tired of being told that day is night and black is white-

Tired of other DUers making broad brush smears on people that post in this group. Just tired of it all. Life is too short as it is and this is unproductive. I don't think anyone is changing anyone's mind and I am really not worried about 2A. Seems to me that most of the country understands. It is only when I come here that I feel like I am not a good Democrat because I understand 2A and what it means to the constitution and how it theoretically makes us all equally responsible for defending this nation as individuals and that as my castle is an integral part of this nation I deserve the right to defend it.

[eqfan592]

22. Way to dehumanize those who don't agree with you.

Firstly, this is a political discussion forum, so when topics are posted, the idea, generally speaking, is to address the possible political ramifications of that topic.

Secondly, sympathy for the victims of crime is regularly expressed by people on both sides of the discussion here. To imply otherwise is disgusting, pure and simple.

[ileus]

12. I bought a box of 40 for my sig and 350 rounds of 22 for the kids

[Hoyt]

13. First thing some gun obsessed want to know is what kind of gun was used.

I guess they want to make sure they have one in their collection/cache.

[Remmah2]

18. Swwwwwwwwwwwwwwwing batter batter batter...................

Strike three.

Are you a mind reader or and OCD bovine excrement professional?

[ileus]

19. what would be better to know is the type of ammo and where the hit was.

I was wanting a kel-tec pf9 as my biking/hiking firearm, but with the ruger LC9 out now I'm thinking the PF9 is out because it's rumored to be a 6000 round gun and it's worn out. Fit and finish is much nicer on the ruger, plus if you like manual safeties the ruger has one.

I shot my first pf9 4 years ago, I've looked at them several times since. Nice little sidearms.

[Hoyt]

20. Really happy for you.

[Remmah2]

33. The first person to inquire about "what kind of gun was used"?

After the police (needed for professional purposes.)

It's usually the media. And they usually get it wrong. And it's used for political/social engineering purposes. So screw the media. Personally I'm interested such that media stories and be corrected and people interested in the truth can make informed decisions.

Thanks to the internet many media stories are disected and the truth comes out. This is why the gun prohibition movement is falling apart. The pen may be mightier than the sword, but truth is nuclear.

[AtheistCrusader]

40. It gives us clues as to how the weapon might have been acquired, and helps us see through the media

FUD about 'it was an automatic assault weapon' blah blah blah.

Pardon us for seeking actual facts relevant to the issue.

[sarisataka]

21. How Do Gun (control) Advocates and the Brady, VPC... React to Gun Massacres and Killings?

By jumping at the opportunity to use the victim's deaths to promote their own cause. Putting out inflated numbers of murders.

From VPC website under "Concealed Carry Killers":

Concealed Handgun Permit Holder: Name Not Provided
SUICIDE
Date: Between July 1, 2009 and June 30, 2010
People Killed: 43
Circumstances: Between July 1, 2009 and June 30, 2010, Michigan State Police report
that 43 Michigan concealed handgun permit holders took their own lives. In their annual
report, the Michigan State Police do not release the victim’s name, the exact date of the
suicide, nor the type of weapon used in the suicide.

-one instance of many in their "ongoing research project to identify killings from May 2007 to the present involving citizens legally allowed to carry concealed handguns."
-"the gun lobby has been successful at hiding the truth about crimes committed by concealed handgun permit holders by forcing most states to keep secret the identities of permit holders. As a result, until recently, the false claims made by pro-gun advocates regarding these "upstanding community leaders" have been left unchallenged."
-" killings involving persons with concealed carry permits or who committed a killing in public "
all quotes from VPC.ORG

i.e. Suicides (likely in the home) are considered violent crimes by people who are not upstanding community leaders and "in public" means anywhere in the U.S.A.

I think the VPC should look into understanding depression more...


Now-
How Do Gun (control) Advocates and the Brady, VPC... React to Gun Massacres and Killings? in already "gun free zones"- see above...

How Do Gun (control) Advocates and the Brady, VPC... React to individual Gun Killings, or justified defense against crime involving a firearm?- *chirp, chirp*

[Common Sense Party]

23. "I really want to understand." I stopped reading there.

I knew you weren't sincere up to that point, so the whole post is likely to be just as dissembling.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

29. and - silly me -

I knew when I saw the Username and -still- I tried to bring up salient points for discussion.

signed

A. Knucklehead Dumbass

[Simo 1939_1940]

25. I agree with Jon Stewart & Charlton Heston on this one.

Gun owners and the NRA are under no obligation to "speak out" when gun violence occurs. Stewart admits to being a knee-jerk at one time - and admits he was wrong.

Scroll to the 7:00 point in the vid:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-august-19-2010/extremist-makeover---homeland-edition

[Tuesday Afternoon]

30. thanks for the link.

[Simo 1939_1940]

35. Another member reminded us of this striking footage a while back.

Don't remember who it was, or I would have attributed. (and thanked him/her)

[fightthegoodfightnow]

66. Why Would Anyone NOT Speak Out Against Gun Violence Regardless of their Gun Ownership?

Talk about a major disconnect!

[Simo 1939_1940]

71. The major disconnect is yours.

The less than courageous author of this thread pukes out the same tired, jive-ass line gun owners have heard so often -- which is that somehow the NRA (and gun owners generally) OWE the rest of the public some sort of statement of outcry against the criminal use of the firearm.

Why don't you send Jon Stewart a letter telling him how full of shit he is, and informing him of the "major disconnect" he suffers from.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

72. Wow

You state you are a 'jive ass gun owner' who doesn't owe anyone anything.

Fine......i'll let your sanctioneous, arrogant, indifferent, and racially insensitive words speak for themselves.

By the way, I wasn't talking about gun owners speaking out about gun violence.....I merely asked how anyone could not. Evidently, you can't. Good luck with that approach.

As for Jon Stewart....give me a break....we are not the Nazi party.....reasonable people ...even liberals and progressives, including you and me, can disagree. If that makes you puke, so be it...grab both ankles and bend over.

[Simo 1939_1940]

87. Learn to read, fer chrisakes......

I didn't state that I was a "jive ass gun-owner". I referred to the "jive-ass line that asserted that gun owners had a special obligation to speak out when criminals abuse guns -- a position that only antis with blind hatred for guns and gun owners embrace.

I was attacking that position.......not your post.

And the fact that you're able to spin anything I've said into "racial insensitivity" proves that your words speak for themselves. Obviously gun owners feel deep sadness......just like everyone else.......when criminal monsters abuse firearms. It's the implication from the gun restrictionists that we don't that is so absolutely sickening -- an example, perhaps, of why "gun control" continues to lose popularity.

edit: removed closing sentence.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

89. Huh?

You write:

Obviously gun owners feel deep sadness......just like everyone else.......when criminal monsters abuse firearms. It's the implication from the gun restrictionists that we don't that is so absolutely sickening -- an example, perhaps, of why "gun control" continues to lose popularity

Obviously? Why do think it's so obvious if you think gun restrictionists think otherwise? I'm trying to think of a post that expressed the sentiment you expressed.

And who said anything about a special obligation?

[Simo 1939_1940]

98. The sentiment has been expressed over and over in this forum.

Surprising you haven't noticed - but stick around. It's only a matter of time before you do. Jon Stewart addresses the horseshit re. the special obligation.......again, a theme that repeatedly surfaces here. (And I agree with you that Dems are entitled to disagree - the reason I suggested you contact Stewart was to demonstrate the courage of your convictions. The track record of the pro-restriction side of the debate is that they are all talk an no action.)

[Atypical Liberal]

36. How I react.

Here is how I react:

The United States experiences epidemic levels of gun violence, claiming over 30,000 lives annually, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. For every person who dies from a gunshot wound, two others are wounded. Every year, more than 100,000 Americans are victims of gun violence. In addition to those who are killed or injured, there are countless others whose lives are forever changed by the deaths of and injuries to their loved ones.

My first reaction is that it isn't fair to include suicides in the number of annual firearm deaths. There are only about 13,000 firearm deaths annually when you exclude suicides.

First of all, it isn't fair to penalize people because some people commit suicide with firearms.

Second of all, anyone serious enough in their attempted suicide to use a firearm is probably going to find another way.

But my largest thought is this: It doesn't really matter how many criminals use firearms every year to commit crimes. It's simply unfair to penalize the overwhelming majority of firearm owners for the actions of less than 5% of them.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

44. Wow

Do something about your 5% then.

And 5% is a huge number of guns.

[Atypical Liberal]

70. They aren't "my" 5%

Do something about your 5% then.

They are not "my" 5%. I'm not responsible for the actions of criminals. But hopefully those people will be put in jail for their crimes.

And 5% is a huge number of guns.

We are talking about gun owners.

In 2010 there were about 1,200,000 violent crimes in the United States (a 6% decline from 2009).

There are between 40 and 80 million firearm owners in the United States.

Even if every single violent crime (firearm-related or not) was committed by a firearm owner, that would mean that only 1.5% - 3% of firearm owners could be involved.

That means that every year 97% - 98.5% of firearm owners aren't involved in violent crime every year. They can't be - there aren't enough violent crimes to go around.

And when you consider only violent crimes committed with firearms, that number declines even more.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

73. Got it

What's the value of even one life to you?

Evidentally, you've done the math and it's just not that much.

[Straw Man]

79. "If it saves even one life ..."

Apply that logic consistently, and you'd ban automobiles and swimming pools. Not to mention alcohol. Prohibition -- those were the days!

[fightthegoodfightnow]

85. Using Your Logic

We'd never have seat belts or fences around pools or laws to prevent drunk driving.

[Straw Man]

126. Wrong again.

Using Your Logic

We'd never have seat belts or fences around pools or laws to prevent drunk driving.

Using my logic we'd have firearms safety education in schools. (Why don't we?) We'd have laws against using firearms while intoxicated. (We already do.)

[Simo 1939_1940]

100. And if the logic were applied consistently, it would also take into

account lives saved because the victims had the ability to defend themselves with firearms.

But of course those lives don't matter.

(Edited for spelling)

[Atypical Liberal]

80. Depends on whose life we are talking about.

What's the value of even one life to you?

Evidentally, you've done the math and it's just not that much.

It depends on whose life we are talking about. Not all life is of the same value. For example, I'd place the life of Martin Luther King Jr. far, far, far higher than that of, say, Charles Manson.

But I'm not sure what this has to do with the topic at hand - the tiny percentage of firearm owners involved in violent crime every year. Even if every single victim of violent crime in the United States was a Nobel Peace Price laureate, it would still not change the fact that 97% - 98.5% of firearm owners aren't involved in violent crimes every year.

[X_Digger]

81. It's even smaller than that..

8% of violent crime involves firearms..

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/glance/tables/firearmnonfataltab.cfm
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2009

There were 326k non-fatal violent crimes involving firearms in 2009, along with 9k firearm homicides. If we assume 80M firearm owners, that's four tenths of a percent.

99.6% of all firearm owners are *not* involved in violent crime each year.

[Atypical Liberal]

82. I make it about 26%

99.6% of all firearm owners are *not* involved in violent crime each year.

...with firearms.

Good data though.

There were about 1,300,000 violent crimes in 2009, per the FBI UCR. If there were 326,000 non-fatal violent crimes involving firearms, and 9000 firearm homicides (I did not check your data), that is 335,000 firearm-related violent crimes, or about 26% of all violent crimes.

Given 40-80 million firearm owners, that means that 99.16% - 99.58% of firearm owners are not involved in firearm-related violent crime every year.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

86. They Call that Moral Relativism

.

[Atypical Liberal]

96. I don't think that means what you think it means.

Moral relativism means that all viewpoints are equally valid and that there is no absolute right or wrong as such concepts are relative to specific social groups.

This has nothing to do with what I am saying which is that not all lives are of equal value.

In fact my position could be considered the opposite of moral relativism. A moral relativist would say that a serial killer could be considered a good person relative to some group of moral standards while a Nobel Peace Prize winner could also be considered a good person relative to some other group of moral standards.

I'm not claiming that at all.

I'm claiming that some lives aren't worth shit. Our lives have value according to how we apply ourselves to the betterment of our community as defined by our own spheres of influence. Some people make the world within their spheres of influence better, and some make it worse.

My feelings follow that of Union Sergeant Kilrain from "The Killer Angels" (Gettysburg):

"There is no "divine spark". There's many a man alive no more of value than a dead dog. Believe me. When you've seen them hang each other the way I have back in the Old Country. Equality? What I'm fighting for is to prove I'm a better man than many of them. Where have you seen this "divine spark" in operation, Colonel? Where have you noted this magnificent equality? No two things on Earth are equal or have an equal chance. Not a leaf, not a tree. There's many a man worse than me, and some better... But I don't think race or country matters a damn. What matters, Colonel... Is justice. Which is why I'm here. I'll be treated as I deserve, not as my father deserved. I'm Kilrain... And I damn all gentlemen. There is only one aristocracy... And that is right here. "

[fightthegoodfightnow]

97. That's Your Take

I'll accept your argument as it relates to your point of view as expressed in your post. (SORRY but I stopped at 'worse" and did not view your Gettysburg address.

My argument is that so many so call right wing gun and Christian advocates who espouse the notion of "Thou Shalt Not Kill" also believe as you do that all life is not equal.

I wlll call that moral and situational relativism.

[Atypical Liberal]

101. Again I don't think you understand what "moral relativism" is.

I'll accept your argument as it relates to your point of view as expressed in your post. (SORRY but I stopped at 'worse" and did not view your Gettysburg address.

This is not the "Gettysburg Address". This is a scene from the movie "Gettysburg", which is based on a book called "The Killer Angels". It is about the Battle of Gettysburg in the American Civil War.

This is a monologue from Sergeant Kilrain about how there is no "divine spark" in men that makes all men equally valuable, as Colonel Chamberlain suggests.

It's a great movie and I highly recommend it.

My argument is that so many so call right wing gun and Christian advocates who espouse the notion of "Thou Shalt Not Kill" also believe as you do that all life is not equal.

I wlll call that moral and situational relativism.

Most religious nuts are the exact opposite of moral relativism. Moral Relativism is the idea that there is no fixed right or wrong - that right or wrong is a concept relative to a particular group of people.

For example, we think cannibalism and virgin sacrifice is wrong, but the people who practiced them might have thought it was right. Accepting this as kosher would be "moral relativism".

Most religious nuts are the exact opposite of this. They believe that there is only one true moral code - theirs, of course - and that no one else's viewpoint can be right.

None of this has anything to do with firearms or the fact that some lives are worth more than others.

I still hold that the value of our lives is best described by what we contribute to society. The more we contribute, the more valuable we are. The less we contribute, or worse, if we tear it down, the less valuable we become.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

104. But

...you write 'Most religious nuts are the exact opposite of moral relativism. Moral Relativism is the idea that there is no fixed right or wrong - that right or wrong is a concept relative to a particular group of people.'

Then how do explain Santorum's support for the death penalty while claiming to be pro-life all in the name of 'thou shalt not kill.'. That's moral relativism. Right is right when it fits their notion of life or their notion of situational morality.

You are right....we are off topic so I'll retreat with my head over looking my shoulder......you never know when the next attack will come.

[Atypical Liberal]

124. That is not moral relativism. That is simply being logically inconsistent.

But you write 'Most religious nuts are the exact opposite of moral relativism. Moral Relativism is the idea that there is no fixed right or wrong - that right or wrong is a concept relative to a particular group of people.'

Then how do explain Santorum's support for the death penalty while claiming to be pro-life all in the name of 'thou shalt not kill.'. That's moral relativism. Right is right when it fits their notion of life or their notion of situational morality.

That is not moral relativism. That is simply being logically inconsistent.

As an aside, we all know that the conservatives are not actually pro-life by any sense of the definition. They are anti-sex. Unwanted pregnancy and disease are punishments for having sex. They want those things to stay around to use as a club to beat people who have sex with. Anything that prevents unwanted pregnancy or disease is terrible for them because it allows people to (gasp) have sex without consequences. They are all about death - death penalties, wars to protect profits, you name it.

Again, moral relativism is the idea that there is no fixed concept of right and wrong, that what you consider wrong someone else might consider right, and that consequently all points of view are equally right. You can consider the philosophy of moral relativism to be the ultimate pinnacle of being open-minded.

This is about as far away from the mindset of religious nuts as you can get.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

125. Again-Off Topic

.

[Simo 1939_1940]

88. Your "logic" continues to amaze!

Our 5%?

Since when does a group of non-criminals assume the responsibility for controlling criminals simply because they own the object that the criminal abused?

Applying your "logic" to all violence, those who enjoy eating steak should "take care of" the problem of murder by stabbing.

Should building contractors & carpenters "take care of" the problem of murders using hammers, perhaps?

[fightthegoodfightnow]

90. Yea

...go ahead....equate a gun with a hammer and question my logic.

That 5% of gun owners belongs to a gun community.....

[X_Digger]

92. Struck a nerve did he?

Rub some of this on it, I'm sure it'll help..



The average gun owner are no more responsible for what criminals do with them than an average car owner is responsible for what drunks do with cars. Or chefs who own knives as opposed to soccer hooligans stabbing each other in your beloved UK.

The analogy is apt. The fact that it made you squeal only proves it was spot on.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

93. Not according to Post 6

Gun owners were breaking the law already.

[X_Digger]

94. Post #6?!?

Check your number, there. I think you missed, again.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

95. Nah

....

[LAGC]

48. The same way knife-owners react when some gangbangers stab each other on the street...

...they go on cutting up their steak dinner.

[Simo 1939_1940]

51. Pitch perfect. NT

[fightthegoodfightnow]

67. WHAT A GREAT THREAD

You are completely correct when you write

Why is it that every regulation is fought and every effort to expand the number of guns and where they can be carried and concealed is supported? The example I always hear is that if a car kills someone you don't ban cars. But if there is something that can be done with the car without banning it, such as regulating who drives it or how it is made and sold, why would anybody fight that? I also have heard the argument that regulations only affect law abiding citizens and not the criminals who will ignore them anyway. But many deaths are caused by persons who have obtained and own the weapon legally.

[gejohnston]

69. kind of but

Why is it that every regulation is fought and every effort to expand the number of guns and where they can be carried and concealed is supported?

Not every regulation, just stupid local ones.

The example I always hear is that if a car kills someone you don't ban cars. But if there is something that can be done with the car without banning it, such as regulating who drives it or how it is made and sold, why would anybody fight that?

guns are already regulated more than cars, including how it is made and sold.

I also have heard the argument that regulations only affect law abiding citizens and not the criminals who will ignore them anyway. But many deaths are caused by persons who have obtained and own the weapon legally.

but not as often.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

68. To the Gun Control & RKBA group regulars

I say that because I see over 60 responses in this thread, none of which are written by the OP author.

However, in response to:

Why is it that every regulation is fought and every effort to expand the number of guns and where they can be carried and concealed is supported?

...I ask what would be the ultimate goal, a semi utopian compromise I call it, of someone asking this question? Many of those who are pro-control generally tell anyone with whom they discuss the topic that tighter controls are needed and this is an obvious fact.

I ask what is the goal because I feel asking that asking a pro-control person how much control is needed is like asking how much money they need; the answer is always: MORE.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

91. Correct

Much more.

I'm tired of the indifference so many have toward gun violence and gun accidents.

I'm tired of so many thinking the public safety needs of rural Texas are the same as Manhatten.

I'm tired of gun advocates expanding their rights through truly absurd and unnecessary legislation mandating things like the right to carry a gun where alcohol is served or in schools and churches.

I'm tired of picking up a paper as I did today and reading about a six year old being killed with a self inflicted gun shot because Daddy put his pistol in his son's backpack.

I'm tired of gun advocates always wanting more legislation that does nothing but expand the likelihood justice will not prevail.

More? Sure, more accountability and more control. You bet.

[Simo 1939_1940]

99. And I'm tired of all of your whining and inaction.

If you really gave a damn you'd educate yourself on the subject of gun violence. But you can't be bothered.

I'm also tired of your mischaracterization of the attitudes of others. There's a world of difference between indifference and refusal to engage in unproductive hand-wringing. You apparently are incapable of seeing the distinction.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

105. Use the Ignore Feature

....and you can make me go away away from your 'reality'.

I'm tired of the gun violence others find either indifferent or unproductive in doing anything about it.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

102. Sorry...

...that you're tired. Try a 5 hour energy.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

106. Not if you shoot empty cans ...

....and miss.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

107. What are you talking about? n/t

[fightthegoodfightnow]

108. Ok...two can play

What are you talking about....oh never mind......gather some empty cans and start practice shooting to perfect your marksmanship......I'll bring the empty cans of ......REDBULL.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

109. okay

[creekside408]

103. a Pink Pistols perspective

I am a member of the Pink Pistols, a gay civil rights group which supports the right of people to defend themselves from criminal attack. One of our mottos is "Armed gays don't get bashed!"

We encourage responsible law-abiding citizens, but especially those who have been victims of hate violence, to legally carry concealed firearms for self defense. Where this is not permitted, we actively advocate for changes in law and policy.

Violence is committed by people, not weapons. One of the causes of "disproportionate [e]ffects [on] communites of color" is that many gun control laws are rooted in racism and discrimination. Those laws that make it more expensive and more difficult to own a firearm disproportionately disarm the poor and disadvantaged -- which is exactly what their advocates intended. California's law against concealed handguns was intended to disarm Mexicans; California's law against loaded firearms was intended to disarm the Black Panthers. Both laws served only to disempower ordinary people and privilege criminals and the police.

We fight certain pieces of gun legislation because we are sick of the "death of a thousand cuts." The NRA by policy fights all gun legislation because the NRA was badly burned by past "progressive" efforts and compromises, in which the NRA made major concessions only to see these "reasonable measures" attacked again and again.

"Saturday night special" laws make it impossible for a working person to own an inexpensive handgun. "Waiting periods" disarm domestic violence victims who suddenly need a firearm for protection from someone bigger and meaner. Transport regulations and efforts to ban ranges and restrict access to publicly owned ranges make it difficult to practice, target shoot and hunt. The pinnacle of this stupidity is to be found in New York City, Chicago, Washington D.C. and my own beloved San Francisco, where the criminals are heavily armed, knife attacks are common, the average person is disarmed and both burglaries and murders occur with impunity.

This is life and death to the members of the Pink Pistols. Many of us have survived unlawful criminal attacks, some by luck and some by foresight and preparation. I march with the Pink Pistols because I do not want to attend any more funerals of people killed because they love differently. I oppose ridiculous gun laws for exactly the same reason.

I was a college member of Democrats for the 2nd Amendment at UC San Diego. We were literally laughed out of a Congresswoman's office. I will never forget that; it is a major part of why I distrust Democrats.

As for how I react to massacres -- I am ashamed that no one working there was trusted to save the lives of their co-workers.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

110. Well.....

....this militant HOMOsexual disagrees.

What do you know about where I live? Apparently nothing.

If you distrust Democrats as you say, you are on the wrong board.

[gejohnston]

111. I doubt he or she is a member of the

Log Cabin Republicans. Trusting them and voting for them are two different things.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

112. I saw nothing in that post that supports the Democratic party

In fact, just the opposite......

[gejohnston]

113. doesn't mean he or she supports the GOP either

might be a case of voting for the "least worst". For example, when I was in Kansas (still a Wyoming resident) Fred Phelps was a primary challenger against another Dem named Tom Sawyer (really) for Governor. If Phelps, by some slim chance, won the nomination, would you vote for him or Bill Graves? Sawyer beat Phelps by a landslide in the primary.
As a Wyoming resident (stationed at McConnell) I had no say either way.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

116. Ok...you agree with someone who says

...she doesn't trust Dems simply because you agree with her on guns on her first post.

We are not talking about one race but an entire party.

[gejohnston]

118. I never looked at how many posts

Let's ask him or her about Republicans, or Libertarians.
I was looking at what he or she said at face value. I trust most Dems over any Republican. My favorite Dem is Brian Schweitzer when it comes to guns, healthcare, environment.
He is pro gun and trying to get Montana to be the first single payer state. Can't get better than that (from my stand point)

[fightthegoodfightnow]

119. Look at the Profile in that Post

And again---I'm not talking about one race or several......I'm talking about a political party.

[gejohnston]

121. one post and

nothing else. Are you saying he or she was a really good troll? PM and ask him. I did. I'll let you know.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

122. I don't know

I don't care.

But sh@tting on the entire Democratic party doesn't bode well for a warm welcome on your first post. I have more respect for you ....and our party.

[gejohnston]

123. right on nt.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

114. OH AND THAT WAS HER FIRST POST-SHE DOESN'T TRUST DEMS

I'll let someone else do am alert or not. I join the Democratic member of Congress with the same response....laughter....and some wonder why the phrase gun nuts is used.

[gejohnston]

115. this is the first I have seen him or her.

so I was giving her the benefit of the doubt.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

117. Kind of my point

It's her first post and she says she doesn't trust Dems but you trust her.

Why? Because she likes guns?

[gejohnston]

120. I didn't look at the number of posts

I can't imagine Pink Pistols members being Republican unless they are self loathing or so fucking rich, keeping their taxes lower is more important than their self respect.

[fightforfreedom123]

127. ooohoooh

Are the bigots whining again?

Gun Control is gearing up. Bigotry control is gearing up. The more you fuss, the more people question.

[AH1Apache]

128. This troll didn't last long.