Survivors of Jan. 8 aid gun controls

[ellisonz]

Tim Steller Arizona Daily Star | Posted: Friday, January 6, 2012 12:00 am

Seven survivors of the Jan. 8 mass shooting are lending their stories to the gun-control cause in a new video released Wednesday.

A group called Mayors Against Illegal Guns produced the video, which supports a bill, the Fix Gun Checks Act, that would increase the reach of the background checks required for some gun sales now.

"I'm going to work for this cause to hopefully keep other people from having to go through the horror we went through," survivor Mavy Stoddard says in the three-minute video's only mention of the gun-checks issue.

-------

That bill would require background checks for virtually all gun sales, even those between private individuals, not just those by licensed firearms dealers as currently mandated. It would also cut federal funding to states that do not adequately comply with reporting requirements.

Read more: http://azstarnet.com/news/local/cc3ce108-8a9d-5873-9f56-2ccd598805ec.html#ixzz1iiwfwDwp

Bill text: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s112-436

Do you support or oppose this bill? Do you think the victims of the Tucson shooting merit special consideration of their views? Would anything they say effect your views of the "gun control" debate? Do you think the Tucson shooting incident and the lack of any Congressional action to improve our gun control laws shows anything about the political dynamics involved?

I should add this so posters understand the reception they got in November from Senate Republicans:

Yet, two weeks later, he and his wife joined about 10 other survivors visiting congressional offices in Washington, D.C., part of a delegation representing Mayors Against Illegal Guns. Roger, a self-described liberal, says the mission was to change federal law by closing a perceived loophole that allows firearm purchases at gun shows without background checks.

"McCain and Kyl stood us up," he adds, referring bitterly to Arizona's two U.S. senators. (Republican Sens. John McCain and Jon Kyl did not respond to requests for comment.) Roger says the group was instead shunted to young legislative aides, including one who kept checking his watch as survivors told their stories: "You're just wrung out emotionally from talking to these guys and reliving it all," he says. "I've become a little more cynical."

The group also appeared at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on the proposed firearms bill. Roger says the ranking minority member, Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, focused instead on the Arizona gun-smuggling scandal known as Operation Fast and Furious and appeared to send text messages as shooting survivor Patricia Maisch gave emotional testimony.

---------

At one point during their Washington trip, Roger almost exploded with fury until Mavy Stoddard, another shooting victim, came to his side. "She says, 'Roger, I can tell you're really angry. You need to channel that. ... We need to make a little lemonade out of this big batch of lemons we got.' "

http://www.azcentral.com/12news/news/articles/2011/12/14/20111214tucson-shootings-couple-who-escaped-bullets-cant-escape-horrible-memories.html#ixzz1iXAk0jS0
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002119422

Six people were killed in the attack; all but Christina-Taylor Green died at the scene of the shooting. The deceased are (in alphabetical order by surname):

Christina-Taylor Green, 9, of Tucson. Green was accompanied to the meeting by neighbor Susan Hileman.[38][112] Because her date of birth was September 11, 2001, she had appeared in the book Faces of Hope: Babies Born on 9/11 (page 41).She was the granddaughter of former Major League Baseball player and manager Dallas Green.
Dorothy "Dot" Morris, 76, a retired secretary from Oro Valley; wife of George, who was wounded.
John Roll, 63, chief judge of the U.S. District Court for Arizona, named to the federal bench by President George H. W. Bush in 1991.
Phyllis Schneck, 79, homemaker from Tucson.
Dorwan Stoddard, 76, retired construction worker, died from a gunshot wound to the head; his wife Mavy was wounded.
Gabriel "Gabe" Zimmerman, 30, community outreach director for Giffords, and a member of Giffords' staff since 2006. Mr. Zimmerman was the first Congressional staffer killed in the line of duty.

In addition to the six dead, thirteen other people were wounded by gunshot in the attack, while a fourteenth person was injured, but not by gunshot. Gabrielle Giffords and two other members of her staff were among the surviving gunshot victims.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Tucson_shooting#Victims

[ileus]

1. You'd think we'd have all sorts of new laws by now....

oops

[Nuclear Unicorn]

2. Loughner was never declared mentally unfit

How would closing the loophole have stopped him, thus sparing his victim?

Honest question.

It seems the real focus in this instance would be to make sure people like Loughner are not left unreported, untreated and/or free to roam.

[ellisonz]

3. "make sure people like Loughner are not left unreported, untreated and/or free to roam."

How would you propose to do that?

I think they're clearly of the opinion that "closing the loophole" might stop something like this from happening again.

[friendly_iconoclast]

6. They may be of that opinion, but they're wrong. Loughner went through the NICS to get his guns.

The trouble was his family couldn't be arsed to have him committed for evaluation, which they could have done under Arizona law, and which he clearly needed.

[ellisonz]

15. Do you think NICS is effective if it doesn't stop someone like Loughner? n/t

[LAGC]

18. Nope.

I've long said: there are certainly people who shouldn't own guns, but the government does a piss-poor job of determining who those people are.

There are convicted felons I know who I would trust having guns, and there are a few folks with no criminal record at all that I feel really shouldn't own one.

But no gun control scheme devised so far can fairly and accurately stop the wrong people from getting a gun.

[TheWraith]

118. The NICS is certainly effective.

The problem is, you're confusing "effective," and "100% effective in every case, every time." Condoms are an effective means to prevent pregnancy. They fail approximately 0.8% of the time. The fact that they don't cover every single case, every time, is not proof that they don't work. There is NO such thing as a system which is going to be 100% effective 100% of the time. Everything is fallible, including and especially people. There are ways to improve things, such as stronger reporting standards for states, but the reality is that if someone is not on the record as mentally ill, there is no practical way for the NICS to tag them. That's not a failure of the NICS, it's a limit on the reality of human knowledge.

[ellisonz]

155. Dude couldn't get into the military...

...but he could get a gun. Seems to me like we ought to believe we have a lot of work to do...

[We_Have_A_Problem]

160. Different standards for different things

First off, there are MANY things which will disqualify one from military service, and most of them have precisely nothing to do with one's ability to function in society.

Second, joining the military is not a right and as such it has a completely different set of standards.

Don't actually let little things like facts divert you from your cause though.

[Atypical Liberal]

162. No system is going to stop everyone.

Do you think NICS is effective if it doesn't stop someone like Loughner? n/t

This depends on your definition of "effective".

A system does not have to be 100% effective to be considered effective.

[E6-B]

177. HIPPA Medical Privacy and 4 th Amendment.

Medical records and mental health records are sealed by HIPPA laws. Individual privacy is also in the 4th Amendment. Good luck trying to get laws in place to stop crazy people.

[gejohnston]

7. That probably is their opinion

and it is understandable, but it is not based on logic or reason.
Speaking to your OP, what do you expect our opinions of the politicians? Since none of us are Republicans, we didn't vote for them if any of us happened to be in Arizona.

[ellisonz]

14. Why do you think it's not based in logic or reason?

Are they not just as capable of logic or reason as you and I?

I expect better. I expect a productive debate and not avoidance of a discussion of how the system failed in this case, and continues to fail to curb illegitimate access to firearms.

[gejohnston]

27. the law did not prevent it

Neither would Canadian or Dutch law. Yes they are capable, but not this issue right now.

[PavePusher]

10. Face facts, it wouldn't.

That asshole wasn't in the system, he bought his gun from a licenced dealer with a background check.

The proposed "solution" has nothing to do with the incident.

[ellisonz]

13. You think they don't know that?

You're actually making a really good case for stricter gun control IMHO with comments like that.

I think if anything it shows how flawed the system is in meeting the threat to civil society from people such as Loughner. He may be an asshole, but the system didn't stop him. I would also note that there was a gentleman with an open carried handgun in the same shopping complex and by the time he got there it was too late. Do you think public servants should arm themselves or have armed protection to in order to safely meet with their constituents? I think that's a reasonable question in light of many of your previous comments.

[PavePusher]

16. Gosh, you do know how to miss a point.

The system was only "flawed" in that no-one had tried to get this guy into it. That's not a system problem, it's a people problem.

The nearby carrier was not open carrying, he had a small pistol in his pocket. He never actually drew the weapon. I don't even know why you bring it up, unless somehow you feel he was at fault for not being prescient and closer at the time of the attack.

Public servents can make their own choices. I doubt being armed at the time would have helped Mrs. Giffords in this instance, the shooter seems to have taken everyone completely by surprise. This does not mean other circumstances will be the same.

[ellisonz]

22. Your snark aside...

This is a system problem. He was able to get a gun anyway, a simple police interview would have disqualified him most likely. I agree that there was a "people problem," but to my knowledge Pima Community College could not have forced a hearing, the parents didn't seem to take an active role in his life, and the military just rejected him without any further sort of effort. When will you admit that it's not just the mental health system that failed here but gun control?

Well you've previously have been an advocate of allowing citizens to carry just about anywhere, so I found it interesting that he was in the area, and wanted to see if it impacted your thoughts on the matter at all. If Loughner's gun had not jammed, or if he had another firearm he probably would have gotten into a gun fight. When I went to town hall with my Congressman, in Hawaii of all places, Charles Djou had a Hawaii State Sheriff to protect him. From what I don't know, but it just shows perhaps the level of fear that is now out there. Try to miss that point; I agree with the Tucson victims in the story, something has to change, and the resistance to reform is disgraceful.

[PavePusher]

30. No, because a "police interview" is not a judicial or medical decision.

Gun control had nothing do do with any of this.

And I find it fascinating that you continue to advocate a police state, and approve of armed protection for officials but not for Citizens.

Fascinating, like a train wreck.

[X_Digger]

32. He supports the Patriot Act, too.

So this should come as no surprise.

[ellisonz]

35. And you oppose the types of firearms regulations...

...describe in the OP among others. You're indifferent to the pleadings of victims, of mayors, and many of your own party to enact effectual gun control reform.

[friendly_iconoclast]

39. I'll listen to the pleadings of victims, up to a point.

And that point is where what they claim ceases to be factually accurate. The rest of it, like the OP, is so much Lovejoyism and moral posturing- no different than
what you'd get from the likes of Rick Santorum or Pat Robertson.

[ellisonz]

41. Then stop your act and listen to these ones. Do something for them...

...rather than yourself. Is it really too much to reconsider your beliefs in light of this tragedy and the many like it?

"To denounce moralizing out of hand is to pronounce a moral judgment." - H.L. Mencken

Even H.L. Mencken thinks such a proposition that moralizing is "so much Lovejoyism and moral posturing" is not respectable.

Also, I would ask you to kindly refrain from such comparisons unless you would me to make them in kind.

[friendly_iconoclast]

45. Why don't *you* listen to the father of one of the victims, John Green?

Or does the "special pleading fallacy" apply to him because he does not agree with your approach?

"We don't need anymore restrictions on our society"

"If we live in a country like the United States, where people are more free than anywhere else, we are subject to things like this happening."

[ellisonz]

46. That's from 2 days after the shooting. He practically breaks down crying on the phone

Shame on you for trying to use someone in that condition to make a point. Fuck Fox News, scum of the Earth. That you think this is anything less than exploitation is very revealing of your lack of objectivity and consideration.

The Green family is very shaken up by this as you can imagine, so much so that her mother has even written a book about her family's struggle:

Roxanna Green's goodbye to her daughter is among many heartbreaking moments in the mother's book, "As Good As She Imagined," about Christina-Taylor's spirited life, the shock of her death and her family's struggle without her.

---------

The book describes how the family leans on each other in dealing with her death and the injustice of it.

Green's mother said in an interview that she avoids thinking about the shooting.

"I try not to go there," she said. "If I go there, then it's going to be a waste of energy and painful. I'll be sidelined. I can't go there, but sometimes I do. It's human nature. You just try not to. I won't be able to be a good mother, a good wife or very productive."

http://www.wbtv.com/story/16423003/mother-of-tucson-shooting-victim-writes-book

BTW - I would hazard that Mr. Green is a Republican; we are not more free than anybody else. I don't think he or the Green family wants to deal with the reality that Jared Lee Loughner was able to purchase a semi-automatic handgun and two 33 round extended magazines without any trouble. I wonder if at that point Mr. Green even knew the details.

Christina Green-Taylor didn't get up that day and go to see her Congresswoman and expect that the system would fail her so horribly.

Fuck Fox News.

[friendly_iconoclast]

56. So some special pleading is more relevant than other special pleading?

[Tuesday Afternoon]

63. ***and crickets ***

[ellisonz]

75. ***really***

[ellisonz]

76. If you can't see how that's different...

...from consideration with a full range of facts made months after the act, I really have to question your understanding of journalistic ethics.

Do you remember how slowly some of the news trickled out after the shooting or were you too busy spinning already?

[friendly_iconoclast]

78. I refer you to the video linked to in post #68

How long after the Luby's massacre was survivor Suzanna Gratia Hupp's testimony recorded?

[ellisonz]

81. Whatever you say dude...

Just saying, using tape from Fox News the immediate aftermath of the Tucson shooting in which you can hear the Father's anguish is pretty low...and since you can't defend that you're going to go digging back to pre-Brady Bill 1991. Auwe! Auwe! Auwe!

[friendly_iconoclast]

84. Work that genetic fallacy.

If I'd been able to get it somewhere else, I would have. But if you can use Mayor 0.1%'s puppet .org as a source, why not Fox?

And Suzanna Hupp still feels the same way:

http://www.suzannahupp.com/

Why I Fight Against Gun Control

I made the most stupid decision of my life when I decided, several months before the Luby’s shooting, to stop carrying a revolver in my purse in the event that I would be caught and lose my chiropractor’s license. That decision left me unarmed at the time when I most needed a gun. I’m not mad at the guy that killed 23 people that day. How can I be mad at a rabid dog? I don’t blame guns. I blame politicians that legislated away my right to carry a gun to protect myself and my family.

Still think some survivor testimony is more equal than others?

[friendly_iconoclast]

83. John Green seems a decent sort:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/parents-girl-killed-jared-loughner-recall-ordeal-meeting/story?id=15288414

Parents of Girl Killed by Jared Loughner Recall Ordeal, Meeting with Gabrielle Giffords and Mark Kelly

...The Greens met with Congresswoman Giffords and her husband, Mark Kelly, over the Thanksgiving holiday, they said. Giffords and Kelly gave the Greens' son, Dallas, a model rocket signed by Kelly, an astronaut.

"We just kind of hugged each other and supported each other and said, you know, we're all in this together," John Green said. "We wanted to make sure they didn't harbor any guilt."

"It was nice to tell her in person that, you know, we love her, we're praying for you, and we hope you get better every day," Roxanna Green said....

[AtheistCrusader]

115. You picked the wrong batch of victims, for the legislation you referred to.

One might say, your aim sucks.

[ellisonz]

37. "and approve of armed protection for officials but not for Citizens."

That is a lie. I've never denied the rights of citizens to self-defense. Our officials obviously need armed protection, or were Giffords, the Kennedys, and Lincon not enough?

As Bill Clinton said, there are people in our society who believe that the current system of "madness" is acceptable, you are clearly one of them with your advocacy of a supposed right to carry a weapon in the presence of the President of the United States. If you wish to claim, I approve of a so-called "police state" then you clearly approve of anarchy and insurrection.

I'm simply proposing an expansion of systems we already have in place. Why do you not care to acknowledge the injustice done to these people?

Jared Lee Loughner was able to purchase a semi-automatic pistol and two 33 round extended magazines with not so much as a personally addressed question; if this doesn't compel you to believe in taking action to remedy this situation, I fear what would.


By John Cole, The Scranton Times-Tribune - 1/10/2011

[PavePusher]

58. " If you wish to claim, I approve of a so-called "police state" then you clearly approve of...

anarchy and insurrection."

Utterly incorrect, of course.

You are the one who wants to suspend Civil Rights due to some undefined proximity to a public servent. And the Tucson shooting had nothing to do with politics, and everything to do with a mentally ill person who no-one wanted to deal with. The cartoonist is wrong to the point of insulting accusation, and you seem to agree with him.

Shame on you.

[ellisonz]

79. I guess the USA Today editorial board is shameful too...

Our view on guns: Porous laws help lunatics get their hands on deadly weapons
Updated 1/12/2011 4:15 PM

After Saturday's mass killings in Arizona, the question was as familiar as it was painful: "How did a crazy person like that ever get a gun?"

And the answer was the same as it has been after more gun massacres in the USA than anyone cares to remember: The laws that prohibit people with mental problems from buying guns are, so to speak, shot through with holes.

Under the federal law used in most states, the only people barred from purchasing a gun because of mental-health reasons are those who've been committed to a mental institution, or ruled mentally defective, by a court. Even then, states aren't required to report those findings to the federal database checked by gun stores.

---------

A far easier call is to reinstate the ban, which expired in 2004, on the sale of assault weapons and the high-capacity magazines like those used by Cho and Loughner. Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, D-N.Y., whose husband was gunned down in a mass shooting on the Long Island Railroad in 1993, is trying to restore the ban on such magazines. It will be an uphill fight against the powerful gun lobby.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2011-01-11-editorial11_ST_N.htm?csp=34

[PavePusher]

103. Yep, they are flaming idiots off on the wrong trail.

The problem is not that the laws have "holes"; they don't. The problem is that no-one who knew what was happening cared enough to apply the laws.

[AtheistCrusader]

114. Well, they at least made an error.

The states ARE required to report it, but the penalty for non-compliance is weak, as we have discussed.

[benEzra]

121. Defining "high capacity" as "anything over 10 rounds" is very intentionally misleading.

That is like defining "late term abortion" as an abortion that occurs after detectability of fetal heartbeat. Both bait-and-switches are done for similar reasons, of course---to make pretty extreme measures sound reasonable and mainstream. In the case of >10-round magazines, you are talking about roughly a quarter billion magazines owned by 40+ million people. These are not fringe items.

Over-10-round rifles hit the civilian market in the early 1860's; over-10-round pistols have been pretty common since the 1930s and became dominant in the 1970s-1980s. Standard magazine capacity for a full-sized 9mm pistol is 15 to 20 rounds; the most popular civilian rifles typically hold 30 small-caliber rounds. We'll keep them.

Even gun control advocates have been backing away from the 10-round limit for a while:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/13/obama-gun-control-arizona-shooting_n_835103.html

“Actually, I like this,” emailed Jim Kessler, a former director of policy and research at Americans for Gun Safety. “There will be a knee-jerk reaction among some who will say, “Why no clip ban?” But I think on both substance and political grounds, a high-capacity clip ban is the wrong way to go. There were roughly 12,000 gun homicides last year, and I’ll wager that less than 10 were caused by bullets 11 through 30 in someone’s magazine. The problem is bullets 1, 2, and 3 –- not 11, 12, and 13."

Of course, USA Today is the same paper that opened the debate on the "assault weapon" fraud in 1989 by declaring the debate over, so they don't exactly have a very thoughtful track record on the issue.

[E6-B]

179. 10 round limit and Gabby is still shot in the head with 1st shot

The first shot fired hit Gabby in the head. 10 round limit would have not helped her.

[E6-B]

180. 10 round limit and Gabby is still shot in the head with 1st shot

The first shot fired hit Gabby in the head. 10 round limit would have not helped her.

[one-eyed fat man]

23. The flaw in the system

Was his momma worked for the sheriff. She made sure her little sweetie's dope problems weren't a big deal. Face it, he showed up for a physical where he knew well in advance he was going to be tested for drugs and still pissed hot.

After the shooting everyone who knew him who could find a news team with an open mic was eager to tell how they just "knew it was Jared."

His family knew he was nuts and failed to have him treated or committed. Apparently school officials thought he was nuts and expelled him.

Just no one thought he was actually crazy enough to do anything about it. Hinckley's parents thought he wasn't that crazy either.

So you tell us how you make Jared's mother pay for not reporting her son? Crazy people don't live in a vacuum. Who do hold responsible for letting them loose on the streets?

[ellisonz]

25. I've said before and I'll say it again...

...a simple police screening for mental health and criminal intent would stop people like Loughner from legally buying a firearm; and yes, it'd be reviewable by the Courts. Consider this, just about everyone has to go through physical screening to board an airplane, but the physical bar to owning a gun is much lower.

I don't think you can fix people, but you sure as hell can fix the gun control system.

[hack89]

26. So police have medical training and can diagnose mental illness?

I didn't know that.

[ellisonz]

29. Obviously, some training would need to be done...

...but I don't think it's unfair to say they couldn't make a basic determination. Police officers do that everyday. They wield pretty substantial power...any final determination would be up to the Courts, as it is now.

[friendly_iconoclast]

33. And how would you "train away" malfeasance and misfeasance?

Like the Philadelphia cops deciding that Pennsylvania state law does not apply in Philly when it comes to guns?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=337582#337597

http://articles.philly.com/2010-09-03/news/24974037_1_gun-cable-workers-license

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=346718

http://articles.philly.com/2010-11-03/news/24954327_1_controversial-gun-license-bus

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=369573

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=396956

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=417674

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=422804


Or getting away with killing your brother because your Mom is on the police retirement board?

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-6209793-504083.html


That's just too much deference to authority...

[ellisonz]

34. Better than the anarchy we have now...

Besides, without examining your spam, I'd imagine none of those link demonstrate any failure that isn't already existent in the NICS system which is equally dependent on local authorities to determine who faces criminal charges and who is insane. In short, you have no reasonable objection to such a proposal and so you are attempting a whitewash.

This attempt at distraction and distortion isn't even clever; in fact, it's rather base.

[friendly_iconoclast]

36. You refuse to look at evidence offered, but claim I "have no reasonable objection"

Uh-huh.

Meanwhile, we are supposed to take on faith that the cupidity of the two examples given, and that of Chicago...

http://sync.democraticunderground.com/11726386#post7

7. "How much longer until Chicago politicians pass another law..."

We're already on our third version of it now and they are still fighting it in court.

Daley rammed through a new set of laws a day or two after the McDonald decision. They were equally unconstitutional. Things were included like you must qualify at an approved Chicago gun range, then they outlawed any gun range in the city limits. That was the Ezell case IIRC?

That got thrown out at the appellate level and now there are another set that still requires training at an approved range and no range permits have been issued.

The price tag to taxpayers is going to run at least the same as DC. if not higher. because they won't simply obey the court rulings and keep thinking they can come up with some cute game that will let them keep their defacto gun ban. But as usual, it's not like it's their money and every alderman, state representative, state senator as well as US representatives from Cook County is considered a "peace officer" and is allowed to carry concealed. So they covered their own ass...

...really, really, cross-my-heart-and-hope-to-die won't happen with other police departments if they're given power to vet gun licenses.

Sorry, I'm not going to buy it. However, I would suggest a purchase to you:

http://www.amazon.com/Obedience-Authority-Stanley-Milgram/dp/006131983X

And, since you're fond of cartoons:

[ellisonz]

40. Fear-mongering. And yes, we know you don't care about "the children"

Is it any wonder that Chicago attempts desperate measures when all allowed else fails?

Also, your reference to Milgram merits a cartoon:



"Sorry, I'm not going to buy it. However, I would suggest a purchase to you:"

http://www.amazon.com/Ricochet-Confessions-Lobbyist-Richard-Feldman/dp/0471679283/ref=sr_1_14?ie=UTF8&qid=1325919904&sr=8-14

In Ricochet, a onetime NRA lobbyist and avid Second Amendment defender unmasks the inner workings, influence, and goals of this highly secretive political behemoth. From internecine warfare, media manipulation, and executive bankrolling to gun control bills and school massacres, Richard Feldman, former NRA regional political director and lobbyist for the firearm industry, exposes the NRA as a cynical, mercenary political cult obsessed with wielding power while exploiting members' fear in order to maximize contributions.

Among the many dirty little secrets that Feldman exposes are the phenomenal salaries received by CEO Wayne LaPierre and other high-ranking NRA officials. These generous remunerations, which place NRA executives among the highest-paid officials of any tax-exempt organization, are funded by biannual "crisis du jour" fund-raising drives, in which members are exhorted to donate additional funds to fend off the latest alleged threat to their Second Amendment rights.

Looking back over his long association with the NRA, Feldman reveals the inside stories behind the organization's responses to the Bernie Goetz subway shootings, the Assault Weapons Ban, gun control legislation, the Oklahoma City bombing, the Long Island Railroad shootings, and Feldman's own voluntary gun-lock agreement. He explains how the NRA's inflexible positions have placed the nation's most prominent representative of law-abiding gun owners in increasing opposition to law enforcement, gun makers, and moderate Republicans. The upshot is that the NRA is not an effective advocate for its members' interests. Obsessed with fund-raising, scare-mongering, and wielding political power, NRA leadership undermines commonsense solutions that would protect gun-owners' rights while reducing accidental shootings and gun violence.

Ricochet is not for gun control advocates: It is a wake-up call for gun owners who cherish their Second Amendment rights. The message is that the NRA has betrayed your trust, misused your hard-earned donations, and strengthened the hand of those who would take your guns away. Read this hard-hitting exposé to discover how this has happened and what you can do about it.

[friendly_iconoclast]

44. "Is it any wonder that Chicago attempts desperate measures when all allowed else fails?"

We wouldn't want that handgun-free, low crime paradise that was Chicago under the Daley regime to be lost, now would we?

Please, don't piss on my leg and tell me it "It's raining"...

[ellisonz]

47. Chicago is not an island.

Please don't spit in my face and tell me it's not selfishness.

[friendly_iconoclast]

55. Looks like Chicago should have adopted Texas-style gun control years ago

Gotta harsh the mellow here, brah- Chicago's murder rate is nearly twice as high as the next-largest city, Houston
You know, the one in supposedly "gun-happy" Texas?

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/table-6

The first figure is population, the second is the number of murders in 2010

Houston 2,280,859 269

Chicago (per US Census Bureau) 2,695,598 435

And look, the differential got even worse last year!


http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/Houston-homicides-continue-5-year-decline-1698962.php

by Doug Miller / KHOU 11 News

khou.com

Posted on December 28, 2011 at 8:36 PM

HOUSTON -- Once notorious as the murder capital of the nation, Houston will apparently finish this year with the lowest homicide rate in the city’s modern history.

Houston approaches the end of the year with fewer than 200 recorded homicides -- 195 with three days left in the year—a historic threshold for a city that used to regularly log more than triple that number of murders. The city hasn’t seen this few killings since 1965. And it’s a dramatic decline from 1981’s historic high of 701 homicides.

"It’s incredible," said Capt. David Gott, who heads the Houston Police Department’s Homicide Division. "Even more remarkable on top of that is that it’ll probably be our lowest number per capita in our recorded history."

The city’s homicide statistics have been dropping for years -- 267 in 2010, 287 in 2009 -- despite a growing population during the economic recession. Theories trying to explain the decline abound, but police officials generally agree they’ve developed better tactics and resources for fighting crime and catching criminals whose offenses might otherwise escalate to murder....

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-12-29/news/ct-met-chicago-crime-stats-1230-20111230_1_gang-violence-fewer-murders-crime-numbers

Chicago is close to ending 2011 with fewer murders than last year, police say

December 29, 2011|By Jeremy Gorner, Chicago Tribune reporter

Chicago is close to ending 2011 with fewer murders than last year, which saw the lowest number of those violent crimes in nearly a half a century, according to the Police Department.

From January through Tuesday, there were 423 murders in Chicago compared to 431 through the same period last year, according to preliminary statistics released by the department.

The statistics represent a steady decline since 2008, when the city had 513 murders. A year later, that number was down to 459....

Who was it that said ""...the only possible reason for gun control is precisely to counter gun violence."?

Oh yeah, that was you:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/11724799#post48

[GreenStormCloud]

73. Neither is El Paso, TX

El Paso Population: 649,121, 2010 census. It is the sixth largest city in Texas and the 19th largest city in the United States. In 2011 it had a mere 16 murders. El Paso has more guns than people.

Chicago population: 2,695,598 murders: 467 (2005 numbers)

[one-eyed fat man]

49. So you won't hold his momma responsible?

They didn't have him treated for mental illness. They didn't lock him away. If they had a vicious dog they let run free and it bit someone who would you blame?

All of these wackos, still living at home, Hinckley, Cho, Loughner, all apparently nuttier than fruitcake, if you believe what the papers say, all shielded from hospitalization by their parents.

There is pretty clear evidence he was an unlawful user of marijuana. Pretty obvious, that wasn't the only laws he was willing to break if it suited him.

[ellisonz]

53. How does one "hold his momma responsible?"

[one-eyed fat man]

66. You keep saying the "system" failed.

Well, who better observe his behavior than those closest to him?

If the kid had a broken arm and his parents didn't take him to see a doctor they would be charged with neglect.

Here the kid suffers from mental illness, who is responsible to get him treated?

Had Loughner been committed to a mental institution would he have been able to commit his foul deeds?

Or is the ability to evaluate whether or not a schizophrenic is a danger to himself or others beyond what a lay person, like a parent, should be reasonably be expected to figure out?

[ellisonz]

88. So the parents should face criminal charges?

He wasn't a minor at the time of the shooting. Furthermore, the most extreme and noticeable aspects of his schizophrenia may not have developed until after he was 18. How would you prove that in a court of law? How is this an effective measure for public safety?

Schizophrenia symptoms usually develop slowly over months or years. Sometimes you may have many symptoms, and at other times you may only have a few.

People with any type of schizophrenia may have difficulty keeping friends and working. They may also have problems with anxiety, depression, and suicidal thoughts or behaviors.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0001925/

[one-eyed fat man]

101. That's interesting

Loughner was still living at home and his parents had his whole life to observe his behavior. Certainly if there was a change they would have been in the best position to spot it.

Funny how you don't expect them to be able to diagnose schizophrenia, but you insist that the police be given the authority to make decisions about mental fitness.

[DonP]

123. The second paragraph is the key question to control oriented people

They refuse to hold the ones actually responsible (morally, ethically or legally) for not reporting a potential mental health issue (Loughner's parents, Hinkley's parents, Cho's faculty advisor etc.) but think that with a weekend or two of training, the cop on the beat will be able to spot a bi-polar person in the produce sections of the supermarket.

That's an easy out and a dangerous one, considering the track record of the police in respecting civil rights in many cases. Perhaps the Chicago and Oakland police can cooperatively produce the new training modules, complete with new batons, Bear sized pepper spray canisters and a title for the 3-ring binder "Just Say No ...To Gun Ownership"?

[AtheistCrusader]

112. He was living under their roof.

As his parents, they had the power to commit him for mental health evaluation.
As his parents, they were informed by the school why the school threw him out for violent outbursts, and were aware what the college demanded before they would allow him back in.
They paid his bills, as he was unable to hold down a job, yet somehow he managed to purchase two very expensive handguns. Interesting.

I would certainly say they bear some responsibility. They were the only entity that had the power to prevent this tragedy.

All they had to do was commit him for evaluation. This trips the background check, and he buys no firearms. The mother's job is public, and it is known that her job's health insurance covers this type of treatment and evaluation. There was literally NOTHING stopping them from doing it, but they just didn't.

[ellisonz]

138. He was a recluse.

Your argument wouldn't even begin to hold up in Court.

[AtheistCrusader]

141. We shall see.

And his parents are 'odd' as well.

Recluse my ass.

[ellisonz]

143. "Recluse my ass."

Yeah he was, are you saying all the reporting is wrong? Very few people had meaningful contact with Loughner at all in the 6 months before the attack.

Jared Loughner's lonely world before attack

by Sean Holstege - Jan. 5, 2012 11:14 PM
The Republic | azcentral.com

He was a portrait of isolation, a nobody. Only his parents and a small circle of old friends ever knew him.

Then, he strode into a crowd on Jan. 8, 2011, with a semiautomatic pistol in his hand. By the time the gun ran out of bullets, he was assured of exploding into the public's consciousness.

Thousands of news articles have examined the life of Jared Loughner, accused of killing six people and wounding 14, including U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, at a Safeway store north of Tucson. He has pleaded not guilty.

---------

But one clue reveals his consuming thoughts at the time: his Internet postings. His videos and online rants, plus new scraps of investigative evidence, portray a young man at the end of a road, in his childhood room, tapping out messages to an indifferent world.

Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2011/12/23/20111223jared-loughner-lonely-world-before-attack.html#ixzz1itvvoXEQ

Would you care to walk back your words? He had become so isolated his Father chased him the morning of the attack because he saw him with a black bag.

What is your experience dealing with the mentally ill? You don't seem to understand how someone can be all alone even under the same roof as their family. My experience dealing with the mentally ill is extensive; they will shut you out and prying your way into that world can be very difficult.

[AtheistCrusader]

144. I do have experience with the mentally ill.

And we got him the help he needed. Because something was CLEARLY WRONG.

He was his parent's dependent, in every sense of the term. He couldn't even hold down a job. His parents knew that he was thrown out of school for violent threats. His parents knew he couldn't hold down a job for the same reason.

His parents FAILED to uphold their basic responsibility: the care and well being of their child. For that, countless others have suffered.

[ellisonz]

147. And our gun control system failed to stop him...

So you want to put the parents on trial?

[AtheistCrusader]

148. The parents are the reason Loughner wasn't denied the purchase of a firearm.

They had the power and means to have his mental health evaluated, and flagged as an ineligible buyer.

No one else did.

[AtheistCrusader]

146. I also find it highly interesting that you seem totally unaware that

"http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/12/us/12loughner.html?_r=1&hp"

1. The police had been called to his house several times. The cops knew the family by name.
2. "The new details from Mr. Gutierrez about Mr. Loughner — including his philosophy of anarchy and his expertise with a handgun, suggest that the earliest signs of behavior that may have ultimately led to the attacks started several years ago. "


If OJ Simpson couldn't be held criminally liable for the deaths of his wife and friend, but could be held liable in civil court, guess what these two morons are lined up for?

[PavePusher]

127. Petard, own, hoisted with, one each. n/t

[ellisonz]

140. Gibberish. n/t

[AtheistCrusader]

113. Klebold and Harris as well.

A clinical sociopath, and a manic-depressive. (Columbine)

[benEzra]

122. I guarantee that gun-control advocates wouldn't be satisfied with that.

Look at the way they demonize holders of carry licenses. I *did* have to pass a mental health records check, Federal background check, state background check, FBI fingerprint check, take a class on NC self-defense law, etc. to get an NC carry license, but that doesn't stop you guys or the gun control lobby from demonizing people like me. You'd do exactly the same if the same criteria applied to simple ownership, and you'd turn a blind eye to abuses that result in unnecessary denial of ownership.

[Straw Man]

156. Yup -- the slippery slope is very real.

I had to undergo pretty much the same thing for a NY State carry permit -- I consider it essentially a clean bill of legal and mental health. Yet more than once on here when I have expressed a strong opinion, I have gotten snide comments about my fitness to carry a firearm. The operative criteria for proponents of the "simple police screening" seem to be something along the lines of "I don't like your attitude, boy -- no gun for you!"

[ellisonz]

192. "I don't like your attitude, boy -- no gun for you!"

So who wouldn't you let walk around public with a loaded weapon?

[Straw Man]

200. I'm sorry -- what's your question?

[div class = excerpt]So who wouldn't you let walk around public with a loaded weapon?
Nobody -- I am allowed to do so. The ultimate decision was made by a county judge, based on his review of my application, a background check, and four character references, as required by the laws of my state.

[ellisonz]

182. Where have I demonized you?

The only demonization in that regard is toward those who believe they have a right to carry on a plane and in the presence of Federal officials including the President of the United States. Do not pigeonhole me, sir.

Do you think you should not have to face these requirements? What do you propose instead?

[benEzra]

186. Here's how the gun control lobby likes to portray people like me,

who have jumped through exactly the hoops you advocate:

http://www.bradycampaign.org/reports/heatonyourstreet?s=1



I don't see too many gun control advocates criticizing smears like that, or calling for more nuanced distinction between criminals and peaceable citizens with CHL's. On the contrary, I see them (here and elsewhere) doubling down on the meme, often with sexual innuendo thrown in for good measure. The recent NYT hit piece on NC carry licensees is another example.

My apologies if you're not in that camp. But that is, unfortunately, the mainstream view in the gun control movement, that non-elites cannot be trusted to carry guns or own {scare term du jour} even if we pass a background check and whatnot.

Do you think you should not have to face these requirements? What do you propose instead?

I'm more or less OK with the requirements to obtain a carry license as they stand; they are onerous but not subjective. Not ideal, perhaps, but I'm not agitating to change them. I would like to see the NC license valid in all restaurants here (including those with wine lists), not just the Baptist-approved ones, though.

[ellisonz]

191. Do you think it should be easy to get a CCW?

Do you think everyone should walk around with a gun all the time? Do you understand the potential consequences for a bad shooting on your part?

[benEzra]

193. Yes, no, and yes.

If by "easy" you mean "within easy reach of a mentally competent adult with a clean record who chooses to obtain one", yes. I do not believe in means testing, or limiting the right to the wealthy, influential, or politically connected, as is the case in places like NYC, CA, or NJ. Shall-issue CCW has a very, very good track record nationwide.

No, I do not think "everyone should walk around with a gun all the time." As I said, I believe mentally competent adults with clean records should have the choice to carry; those who do not wish to do so, those who consider themselves incompetent to do so, and those who are legally disqualified from doing so obviously remove themselves from that category, and for them that is a good choice. No more than 5-10% of the population currently takes advantage of carry licensure in shall-issue states, and that is fine with me. Heck, I don't carry all the time myself, though I do choose to carry more than 50% of the time when and where allowed, as is my choice.

Yes, I do understand the consequences of a bad shooting on my part. That's why I have put a lot of thought into the subject, have bothered to become rather well informed on firearms and firearms law, and why I have put a bit of effort (finances permitting) into attaining halfway decent competence with a firearm, including shooting local USPSA and CQB matches when I can. I also put some thought into my choice of primary carry gun, a S&W 3913 Ladysmith 9mm (yes, a woman's gun, and one of the most accurate and reliable small semiautos on the market), carry a Kimber pyrotechnic pepper spray, and maintain a very nonconfrontational demeanor.



I have weighed the options as a competent adult and long ago chose the path that works for me. Your choices obviously differ from mine, and I respect them.

[ellisonz]

194. "Your choices obviously differ from mine, and I respect them."

Thank you.

[gejohnston]

195. statistically

the cops do it more than CCWs do. The reason being the CCW does not have to figure out who the bad guy is. Cops sometimes do.

[one-eyed fat man]

203. Here just to prove you wrong

Ayers Kaserne, 27 July 1975. I was fortunate enough to salute and shake hands with the Commander in Chief. If President Ford was concerned that all our vehicles were fully combat loaded, and we were carrying weapons, he didn't mention it. He climbed aboard our tank and saw all the weapons and ammunition. He shook hands and talked with each of my crewmembers.

The Secret Service did about have apoplexy however, when the German tank crew from our sister unit asked him if he'd like a beer, and being a good German tank crew, the loader produced a bottle of Tücker from the turret. President Ford accepted the beer and drank it.

As for airplanes, the only concern I have when carrying firearms is the affect on weight and balance. I'll be seventy next year, and this past flight physical the doc put a limitation on it requiring "corrective lenses for near vision." As long as I can fly my own plane I don't have to put up with "TSA Theater."

[We_Have_A_Problem]

204. It may surprise you to learn this...

...but there was a time, not so long ago, when carrying a firearm on a plane was not uncommon. I don't mean checking one with your baggage, I mean having one in your carry-on. Yes, within MY lifetime - although perhaps not within yours.

As far as being armed in the presence of federal officials, it seems you have this idea that they are somehow royalty, or of any otherwise elevated and exalted status. Frankly, I find the very idea that you believe my rights are subject to restriction merely upon the presence of a public servant to be revolting. I do not disarm simply because there might be someone around who works for me as a public servant on the federal level. In fact, unless it is within a private venue with the Secret Service providing absolute security, even the POTUS can feel free to go fuck himself if he thinks for one moment he is superior to my rights. Yes, I have been armed and in range of numerous presidents - and NOT as a member of any protective detail, law enforcement or as an active duty member of the armed forces. Just as J. Random Citizen.

[ellisonz]

207. Yeah...shit kinda fell apart in the 60s and 70s...

And we gained our senses.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

209. Spoken truly like someone who obviously knows nothing about the time n/t

[E6-B]

181. It is lower because......

There is no right to fly on a commercial air plane.

[SteveW]

128. Problem with your reasoning, here...

You said:

"I would also note that there was a gentleman with an open carried handgun in the same shopping complex and by the time he got there it was too late. Do you think public servants should arm themselves or have armed protection to in order to safely meet with their constituents? I think that's a reasonable question in light of many of your previous comments."

First of all, the individual in question most likely armed himself for self-defense, not resolving a shooting which did not involve him, though he did rush to the scene. Carrying weapons is eminently a self-defense issue, not a way to solve social problems, however much gun-controller/prohibitionists choose to otherwise frame the practice.

I can't speak for whether public servants should arm themselves, that is their choice. If they so choose to arm themselves, I have no problem with that. Do you?

Once you get beyond armed bodyguards standing immediately by (as the ardent gun-controller Jodie Foster had), you move beyond self-defense, and the carrying of weapons has less meaning as a means to prevent, thwart or mitigate a mass-shooting. The gentleman you mentioned was well away from the scene.

[Atypical Liberal]

163. Should they carry guns? I would.

I think if anything it shows how flawed the system is in meeting the threat to civil society from people such as Loughner. He may be an asshole, but the system didn't stop him.

Yes, the system is flawed in that it can only screen people that are stored in its database as being prohibited persons. I'm all for improving the database of prohibited persons, provided we don't destroy anonymous firearm ownership and as long as we don't create a government database like the "no-fly list" that has no recourse to the due process of law.

I would also note that there was a gentleman with an open carried handgun in the same shopping complex and by the time he got there it was too late. Do you think public servants should arm themselves or have armed protection to in order to safely meet with their constituents? I think that's a reasonable question in light of many of your previous comments.

If I were a politician making public appearances you can bet your ass that not only would I have armed security but I would be armed myself. Every town hall meeting I've ever gone to had some looney-tune come out of the wood works. The last one I went to some guy honestly got up and wanted our Congressman to do something about "chemtrails".

Most people are so apathetic about the political process the only people that show up are those with a passion. Often they have the wrong kind of passion.

[oneshooter]

90. You mean Loughner the Democrat volunteer for Gabrensky?

[AtheistCrusader]

116. Run his parents into jail as an example for others.

Probably criminal negligence.

Fuck, they even had the insurance that would have complely covered his treatment and evaluation.

They knew something was wrong that morning. The father was chasing all over hell and back looking for him. Did either the father or the mother call the cops? Fuck no.

They did NOTHING.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

5. This bill would be...

...of marginal usefulness as congress has only the power to award/withhold funding from states based upon compliance.

State level initiatives targeting particular weaknesses in specific states would be a better use of resources.

The federal government has no authority to pass a law requiring one private individual to do anything special regarding a sale to another private individual.

Your questions:
Do you support or oppose this bill?
I am undecided.


Do you think the victims of the Tucson shooting merit special consideration of their views?
They are voters and free people able to speak and vote as they see fit.


Would anything they say effect your views of the "gun control" debate?
That would depend on what they had to say. It's certainly possible.


Do you think the Tucson shooting incident and the lack of any Congressional action to improve our gun control laws shows anything about the political dynamics involved?
Somewhat.

[X_Digger]

8. Have YOU read this bill?

[div class='excerpt']The term ‘adjudicated as a mental defective’ includes an order by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority that a person, in response to marked subnormal intelligence, mental illness or incompetency, be compelled to receive services
...
Each college, university, or postsecondary institution that receives Federal funds under this Act or any form of financial assistance under any Federal program, including participation in any federally funded or guaranteed student loan program, shall develop and implement, not later than 1 year from the date of enactment of this section, a mental health assessment plan that, at a minimum, includes
...
a procedure for making involuntary referrals for such students to State or local mental health authorities for mandatory evaluation

Nope, not enough due process. Do you really want to place that power in the hands of colleges?!?

[div class='excerpt']MEMBERS OF ARMED FORCES- For a current or former member of the Armed Forces, an inference that a person is an unlawful user of a controlled substance may be drawn based on disciplinary or other administrative action within the past 5 years based on confirmed use of a controlled substance, including a court-martial conviction, nonjudicial punishment, or an administrative discharge based on use of a controlled substance or drug rehabilitation failure.’.

Do you understand what a nonjudicial punishment is? Or what the definition of controlled substance is in relation to USC 921 is? Effective result? If a grunt gets in a bar fight and spends the night in the mil drunk tank and gets busted a stripe for that? Loss of rights for the next five years.

[div class='excerpt']Sec. 932. Background checks for firearm transfers by unlicensed persons

Overreach of congressional power- intra-state commerce.

[div class='excerpt']Background Checks Through Licensed Dealers- A licensed dealer who agrees to assist in the transfer of a firearm between unlicensed transferor and an unlicensed transferee shall--
‘(1) enter such information about the firearm as the Attorney General may require by regulation into a separate bound record;

Registration? Illegal per current federal law, and a non-starter.

[div class='excerpt'] Purchase Permits Confirming Background Checks- An unlicensed transferor may transfer a firearm to an unlicensed transferee if the unlicensed transferor verifies that--
‘(1) the unlicensed transferee has presented a valid permit or license that allows the unlicensed transferee to possess, acquire, or carry a firearm;

LOL, CHL holders are exempt.

Yeah, not gonna happen.

[SteveW]

129. "...as the Attorney General may require..." Pheww. There goes the 5th. As usual. nt

[iverglas]

9. I don't want to divert your thread

but I think you will find this interesting.

More faceless victims ...

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/story/2007/04/17/qc-quebecvictim20070417.html

Victim from Quebec was 'proud Canadian, dedicated to French'

A French teacher originally from Montreal was one of 32 people killed by a gunman at Virginia Tech in Monday's tragedy, state police have confirmed.

Jocelyne Couture-Nowak, who taught French in Virginia Tech's department of foreign languages, died in the shooting incidents on the sprawling campus Monday morning.



... "She was dedicated to everything to do with life and living, a very non-violent person," Parker added, "and it's just not a way such a person should pass.

"I think if everyone could follow her vision of a non-violent society and a passion for life, that this would be a much better place for everybody."

And what her family is doing in response:

http://www.vtnews.vt.edu/articles/2011/09/090511-cals-emeritusnowak.html

BLACKSBURG, Va., Sept. 5, 2011 – Jerzy Nowak, professor of horticulture in the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences at Virginia Tech, has been conferred the “professor emeritus” title by the Virginia Tech Board of Visitors.

... From 2008 to 2011, Nowak served as founding director of the Center for Peace Studies and Violence Prevention and became a member of the faculty in the Department of Sociology in the College of Liberal Arts and Human Sciences. In this new role, he facilitated transdisciplinary research, education, service learning, and outreach for the purpose of violence prevention and the promotion of peace.

http://www.collegiatetimes.com/stories/14228/tech-reflects-on-peace-violence

... the ultimate goal is shifting beyond simply reacting to violence to building a capacity to prevent such crimes from occurring in the first place.

"My personal mission is to foster creation of a safe school environment, and I believe strongly that this is an obligation of any society," Nowak said. "People cannot learn when they are stressed and afraid, and that comes from kindergarten to the doctoral studies."

In the comments section there, swarmed by the usual suspects, it is noted that Ken Stanton, vice president of leadership at Students for Concealed Carry on Campus at Virginia Tech, had posted at opencarry.org, in response to a question about attendance at an event organized by the Students for Non-Violence club on campus -- "I won't be able to attend, but can one assume that non-students who do attend can OC?": ""While we talk about legality a lot, I'm not an attorney and can't make any recommendations on that. We definitely do not want any open carry, but if you consult your attorney and decide you wish to carry concealed, that's your decision."

Some things just beggar belief.

[friendly_iconoclast]

12. I've no doubt of Prof. Nowak's sincerity, but his proposals will fare as well as...

the Kellogg-Briand Pact and the Washington Naval Treaty did. Not that his viewpoint is unique- vide:

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/davidswanson/1285

[iverglas]

17. maybe you need to actually read

a little about the Centre and places like it. They aren't actually bell-bottomed hippies sticking flowers into the barrels of guns. They're doing work that I'm quite sure few hereabouts would have no understanding of, because it involves kinda heavy duty theory and actual research and suchlike.

http://www.cpsvp.vt.edu/undergraduate.html

There is such a vast vastness of information out there in the world, and in particular on the internet these days. It's completely overwhelming, actually. But if one takes an interest in something, one can, in a couple of hours, at least get a general grasp of what it is about and what is going on in relation to it.

Here's the academic program instituted by Nowak's centre:

http://www.cpsvp.vt.edu/undergraduate.html

Here's something a little more advanced:

http://www.munkschool.utoronto.ca/trudeaucentre/

(You won't have heard of the Munk School of Global Affairs
http://www.munkschool.utoronto.ca/
but any serious academic in the field of political science in the US will have, for example.)

Established as a degree program in 1985 and as a centre in 2001, the Trudeau Centre gives a select group of undergraduates-drawn from Canada and around the world-the practical knowledge they need to advance the cause of peace. Students pursue either a major or a specialist degree in a multidisciplinary undergraduate program. The Centre also provides a study-abroad program to augment classroom work, opportunities to conduct original research in the field, and direct engagement with some of the world’s top researchers on the causes and resolution of violence.

Scholars associated with the Centre work within and beyond the traditional purview of international affairs, studying interstate war as well as major conflict inside countries, including revolution, insurgency, ethnic strife, guerrilla war, terrorism, and genocide. They seek to identify the deep causes of this strife—from poverty, resource scarcity, and weapons proliferation to competing claims for justice and failures of foreign-policy decision making.

You'll find peace and conflict studies programs at all levels at universities all over the world, including the US.

I'm smelling anti-intellectualism, not an uncommon scent around here. Myself, rather than jeer at a novel idea, I generally try to find out more about it. I learn a lot of really neat shit along the way.

[petronius]

20. I think you mangled something there, Rocketfingers.

"They're doing work that I'm quite sure few hereabouts would have no understanding of..."

Insults work better when you don't accidentally say the near-opposite of what you mean.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

31. overlooking that, I appreciated the info and the links

sometimes, I think we take iverglas the wrong way.

of course, then again, -I- could be the one wrong.

[iverglas]

60. wowsers

Here I just looked at my post when I clicked on it from "my posts" to see the replies, and what was the first thing I saw staring me in the face but that dumb typo. Gosh, thanks. And thanks for your own erudite reply to the content of my post, of course!

[SteveW]

130. Yeah, whatever happened to "dog food?" nt

[friendly_iconoclast]

21. More a cynicism about how the world actually works.

Just look at what passage of the Volstead Act in the US was supposed to achieve vs. what it actually accomplished.

The Kellogg-Briand Pact, for example, originated with two countries that were hip-deep in colonialism- a colonialism enforced with military power. So it was
carefully worded to exclude that variety of militarism from its provisions. The Washington Naval Treaty was violated by Japan and Germany within a couple years of going into effect. In other words, my two examples were perfect examples of what Mark Twain called "fine words" -they buttered no parsnips.

I thoroughly support multilateral efforts to actually do something to make the world better- I simply refuse to conflate the production of paperwork and verbiage with actual accomplishment- see "Dethier's Fallacy", or (sadly) the Kyoto Protocol. I firmly believe, for example, if the United States had joined the League of Nations much of the bloodshed of the 1930s and 1940s might have been averted.

[ellisonz]

24. Better cynicism than irrationality...

The League of Nations could not have stopped Hitler. He was a madman who played on the fears, greed, and paranoia of everyday Germans. Not to distract from the story, but since you're going to make such bold claims as that I feel it is my duty to throw them to the rubbish bin in which they belong, and I say that as a full supporter of internationalism. Even assassination might not have stopped Hitler after the germ of Nazism had been spread. How exactly do you think the League of Nations would have stopped the bloodshed of Hitler, Mussolini and Japan?

We have a ban on slavery and that works semi-well. Where would we be if there was no formal ban on slavery? Obviously, legal efforts at protecting and advancing society have some efficacy, otherwise people would not continuously propose them. Progress is possible.

I'm not quite understanding where you're going with all these random examples, but it suffices to say that it shows little evidence of any actual point about the necessity of good governance.

[spin]

11. After a quick read of Bill S 436...

it has my support.

edited to add...

Although after reading X Digger's reply #8, I can see some potential problems that would have to be sorted out.

[rl6214]

19. How would this new bill have stopped loughner, he went thru the background checks.

Do you support or oppose this bill?

I have no problem with making sure everyone goes thru a background check but it is not possible to enforce and private sellers have no access to the system.

Do you think the victims of the Tucson shooting merit special consideration of their views?

NO

Would anything they say effect your views of the "gun control" debate?

NO

Do you think the Tucson shooting incident and the lack of any Congressional action to improve our gun control laws shows anything about the political dynamics involved?

I think it shows most politicians believe it is a losing cause.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

28. BRAVO

Sanity lives.

[aikoaiko]

38. the good, the bad, and the ugly

This proposed law seems to have very little relation to Jared Loughner's shooting rampage, but there is a thin connection.

The Good.
But that thin connect is a good point of the legislation. Beefing up university/college plans for addressing mental health concerns including plans for involuntary referrals to authorities is a good thing and will probably help identify people who mentally unstable. 17 - 25 years old is definite window for the appearance of certain disorders. Loughner's college had one and kicked him out of college, but there wasn't an apparent hand off to state or local authorities.

I also like the beefed up data gathering for NICS. States and federal agencies must supply the required information in a timely fashion for NICS to work.

The Bad.
The definition of mentally adjudicated includes being forced to be to take counseling, medication, or compliance with medication regimen, but it should really be about being a danger to oneself and others.

Also, I appreciate the attempt to define drug abusers, but it is too inclusive. Mere arrests without convictions shouldn't disqualify someone.

The Ugly.
Requiring that every sale go through a FFL (if one doesn't have a license) is ugly. At least this law doesn't mention the disingenuous gun show loophole. This is a significant reduction in liberty for gun owners. I really don't know how many shootings this would prevent. I realize why people want this, but it is a big loss for gun owners. I can't see going along with this unless the other side gives up something big - like no federal firearm bans, manufacture moratoriums, and importation bans.

[ellisonz]

42. You think this should be...

...a political negotiation for the gun lobby?

"I can't see going along with this unless the other side gives up something big - like no federal firearm bans, manufacture moratoriums, and importation bans."

[aikoaiko]

43. You may not realize this but all laws are political negotiations.

Welcome to democracy where compromise is often useful.

and I don't know why you would bring up "the gun lobby" when I was talking about gun owners.

[ellisonz]

48. I don't see how you view this as a "loss of liberty" for gun-owners.

I think if anything having effective gun control protects the rights of legitimate owners.

Let's be honest, we're not going to see "gun owners" going to Capital Hill and throwing money around, we are going to see the NRA pulling strings.

I don't see how this is an appropriate issue to demand a political trade-off like the one's you're proposing.

The gun lobby is selling you out. Wake up: http://www.amazon.com/Ricochet-Confessions-Lobbyist-Richard-Feldman/dp/0471679283/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1325924534&sr=8-1

You're smart enough to realize when you're being lied to by a special interest; let me be clear, they are lying their asses off and have no shame about it.

[gejohnston]

51. and you are not?

"You're smart enough to realize when you're being lied to by a special interest; let me be clear, they are lying their asses off and have no shame about it."

Can you show us a claim by the prohibition/increased control lobby that isn't a lie, distortion, or logical fallacy?

[ellisonz]

54. Yeah, I wouldn't answer that question either...

...with such an agenda because the writing is all over the walls. When the NRA's own lobbyists are saying they're crooked, it's not exactly defensible. It's okay, you can keep your head in the sand. The behavior of the NRA-backed Senators is disgracefully telling on the face of the matter on its own. Want an interesting read, there it is...the NRA only cares about money.

[ManiacJoe]

57. Nice dodge of the question.

By the way, you did not ask a question so no answer was expected.

[ellisonz]

85. See above. The question was...

"You think this should be a political negotiation for the gun lobby?

[gejohnston]

65. Actually

I did answer your question. You either need to read between the lines or get your own head out of the sand.
I'll have to read the book before I give a real direct answer.

[GreenStormCloud]

71. Only cares about money? A LOT of NRA backed legislation was passed last year.

They are an extremely effective pro-gun rights lobbying organization. That is why gun owners join them - because they are effective.

[ellisonz]

82. Yeah effective for the most extreme views of gun owners...

[GreenStormCloud]

104. Yes. Your side is losing, My side is winning. N/T

[ellisonz]

133. Good thing your side is majority Republican. n/t

[GreenStormCloud]

153. No, that part is sad.

If the national Democratic Party would drop gun control completely and accept shall-issue concealed carry and castle-doctrine and no-retreat-needed we would win a lot more close elections.

[DanTex]

59. This is the old "both sides do it" BS.

The bogus "centrist" claim that progressives and Democrats are just as dishonest as Republicans and conservatives. That the influence of unions is just as bad as the influence of corporations. That evolution and creationism are both "just theories". Etc.

It's simply not true that the gun control advocacy groups are even close to as dishonest as the NRA. In fact, the whole demonization of the Brady Campaign, VPC is all pretty silly. I'm sure that you can point to some examples of exaggeration, as you can with any group, but nothing even close as the steady stream of absurd lies from Wayne LaPierre about how the Obama administration is running a massive conspiracy to destroy the second amendment, etc.


From what I can tell, the facts and statistics cited here, for example, are correct:
http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/gunviolence?s=1

DID YOU KNOW? In one year on average, almost 100,000 people in America are shot or killed with a gun.

In one year, 31,593 people died from gun violence and 66,769 people survived gun injuries (National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (NCIPC)). That includes:

12,179 people murdered and 44,466 people shot in an attack (NCIPC).

18,223 people who killed themselves and 3,031 people who survived a suicide attempt with a gun (NCIPC).

592 people who were killed unintentionally and 18,610 who were shot unintentionally but survived (NCIPC).

Over a million people have been killed with guns in the United States since 1968, when Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and Robert F. Kennedy were assassinated (Childrens’ Defense Fund, p. 20).

U.S. homicide rates are 6.9 times higher than rates in 22 other populous high-income countries combined, despite similar non-lethal crime and violence rates. The firearm homicide rate in the U.S. is 19.5 times higher (Richardson, p.1).

Among 23 populous, high-income countries, 80% of all firearm deaths occurred in the United States (Richardson, p. 1).
Gun violence impacts society in countless ways: medical costs, costs of the criminal justice system, security precautions such as metal detectors, and reductions in quality of life because of fear of gun violence. These impacts are estimated to cost U.S. citizens $100 billion annually (Cook, 2000).

[beevul]

67. Oh really?

"It's simply not true that the gun control advocacy groups are even close to as dishonest as the NRA."

Uh huh...

Witness the lies:

"Glock handguns are "not suited for hunting or personal protection,” said Paul Helmke, the president of the Brady Campaign."

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/10/opinion/10collins.html?_r=3&hp


"We're not a gun ban organization. We don't push for gun bans" - Helmke - 2008.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-helmke/nra-gun-licensing-and-reg_b_110778.html

Did I mention the brady nunch submitted an amicus in favor of the DC handgun ban, and have pushed the assault weapon ban at every turn?

Did I mention their original name was "handgun control inc"?, and that their mission was the banning of handguns?


And then there are these facts:

This is a group that has deliberately included adults in thier "child statistics" to inflate them. No organization that has a legitimate intent to reduce gun violence would do such a thing.


This is a group that claims to want to prevent gun violence, yet gives grades on a per state basis based on how much they restrict guns rather than how high or low the level of gun crime/gun violence is in that state. Again, no organization that has a legitimate intent to reduce gun violence would do such a thing.


This is a group that claimed that civilian owned 50 caliber rifles which are esentially never used in crime could shoot down aircraft, which is a huge lie, and used that false rationale for stamping thier feet and screaming ban at the tops of thier lungs.

Again, no organization that has a legitimate intent to reduce gun violence would do such a thing.


This is a group that opposes concealed carry, even though police as a group are convicted of a larger number of crimes than CCW holders.

Once again, no organization that has a legitimate intent to reduce gun violence would do such a thing.


This is a group that claimed that "assault weapons" were the choice of criminals, in spite of the fact that ALL rifles - which 99 percent of so called "assault weapons" are - are used in less than 3 percent of all firearm homicides, and used that false rationale for stamping thier feet and screaming ban at the tops of thier lungs.

Once again, no organization that has a legitimate intent to reduce gun violence would do such a thing.




Those things I posted, are a special interest group doing more that just spouting rhetoric. Clear verifiable lies and dishonesty, is what they are engaging in.




Oh, and it gets even more interesting:

It would appear that dennis k. burke was at least at one time, communicating with the brady bunch:

CREATOR: Dennis K. Burke ( CN=Dennis K. Burke/OU=OPD/O=EOP [ OPD 1 )
CREATION DATE/TIME:22-APR-1997 10:22:18.00
SUBJECT: Re: Brady Checks
TO: Elena Kagan ( CN=Elena Kagan/OU=OPD/O=EOP @ EOP [ OPD 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TEXT:
Bruce thought it was a good idea but I never heard back from Rahm. I
will call Handgun Control to find out the lastest developments in Houston
- - it might still be timely.

http://www.clintonlibrary.gov/_previous/KAGAN%20E-Mail%20RECEIVED/ARMS%20-%20Box%20008%20-%20%20Folder%20009.pdf

And theres a rumor going around that burke is or was a member of the brady bunch.

That could lead to some interesting revelations about the bradys involvement and influence in government, and possibly an indirect hand in fast and furious too.

[DanTex]

119. LOL! You couldn't even make it through the first example without fabricating a quote!

Awesome! So let's go to the tape, shall we? Here's what you wrote:

"Glock handguns are "not suited for hunting or personal protection,” said Paul Helmke, the president of the Brady Campaign."

Note the quotation marks, indicating that this is an excerpt taken from the NYT article. But let's check the actual article.

Loughner’s gun, a 9-millimeter Glock, is extremely easy to fire over and over, and it can carry a 30-bullet clip. It is “not suited for hunting or personal protection,” said Paul Helmke, the president of the Brady Campaign. “What it’s good for is killing and injuring a lot of people quickly.”

In the words of pro-gunner hero Rick Perry... Oops!

Now, I'm sure they didn't teach you this at the NRA Center for Journalistic Integrity, but if you're going to insert your own words into an excerpt, you're supposed to use brackets, as in &quot Glock handguns are) "not suited for hunting or personal protection,” said Paul Helmke..." But never mind that. The more important point is that if you are going to modify a quote from an article, you have to do it honestly, and not omit any key details.

You know, details like the "30-bullet clip" (I know, magazine...). This was an article about Loughner, and one big controversy was the fact that we was able to kill so many people without reloading because he used a high capacity magazine.

Anyway, beyond the delicious irony that you had to fabricate a NYT quote in order to try and accuse Helmke of dishonesty, this and the other examples of "lies" aren't actually lies, they are just things you disagree with. Maybe you think that a 30-round magazine is essential for hunting and self-defense, but the fact that Helmke disagrees with you doesn't mean he's lying. Or, for another example, how can the fact that the Brady Campaign opposes concealed carry be a "lie"?

And then we have the loony conspiracy theories about Fast and Furious. Those are my favorite!

[gejohnston]

125. "not suited for hunting or personal protection"

you could hunt small game with that. Why is it not, other than concealment, suited for personal protection?

[beevul]

149. Explain how it would be any different.

""Glock handguns are "not suited for hunting or personal protection,” said Paul Helmke, the president of the Brady Campaign."


Yep thats what I said.

But I'll change it just for you (not that it changes helmkes level of dishonesty either way)

“not suited for hunting or personal protection,” said Paul Helmke, the president of the Brady Campaign, referring to a 9mm glock handgun.

Do you suppose helmke thinks that 40 cal, or other non 9mm caliber glock handguns ARE suited for hunting and personal protection?

So what you point out, is a distinction without a difference, but I'll give you credit for taking the best you have, and running with it.

"Now, I'm sure they didn't teach you this at the NRA Center for Journalistic Integrity, but if you're going to insert your own words into an excerpt, you're supposed to use brackets, as in &quot Glock handguns are) "not suited for hunting or personal protection,” said Paul Helmke..." But never mind that. The more important point is that if you are going to modify a quote from an article, you have to do it honestly, and not omit any key details."

Your punctuational lesson is noted. As I said, credit is given to you, for taking the best you got, and running with it. LOL.


"You know, details like the "30-bullet clip" (I know, magazine...). This was an article about Loughner, and one big controversy was the fact that we was able to kill so many people without reloading because he used a high capacity magazine."

Except helmke wasn't talking about a clip, in the quote in question, was he. Here, I'll use the excerpt you were so kind to provide (thanks btw) :

Loughner’s gun, a 9-millimeter Glock, is extremely easy to fire over and over, and it can carry a 30-bullet clip. It is “not suited for hunting or personal protection,” said Paul Helmke, the president of the Brady Campaign. “What it’s good for is killing and injuring a lot of people quickly.”

You do see the subject of that paragraph is the GUN right, and not the clip? The only people who the magazine is controversial to, is people like you, who wish to use its presence as a hammer to try to restrict and or ban them. You'll turn a blind eye to the fact that cho used STANDARD capacity mags, and killed even more. In any case, the subject which helmke is referring to, is the gun. The thing he said isn't suitable for self defense, is the gun. There, you see? Reading comprension isn't so hard, with a little help, is it.

"Anyway, beyond the delicious irony that you had to fabricate a NYT quote in order to try and accuse Helmke of dishonesty, this and the other examples of "lies" aren't actually lies, they are just things you disagree with. Maybe you think that a 30-round magazine is essential for hunting and self-defense, but the fact that Helmke disagrees with you doesn't mean he's lying. Or, for another example, how can the fact that the Brady Campaign opposes concealed carry be a "lie"?"

WOW. Get some reading comprehension. Again, helmke was talking about the GUN, not the magazine, when he said "not suited for hunting or personal protection”. That would be why so many law enforcement officers carry glocks, right, because they're not suitable for personal protection?

Here, lets apply more reading comprenehsion to what I wrote, don't worry, I'll help you through it:

"We're not a gun ban organization. We don't push for gun bans" - Helmke - 2008.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-helmke/nra-gun-licensing-and-reg_b_110778.html


That is a factually incorrect statement.In other words, a LIE. The proof? The brady bunch submitted an amicus in favor of the DC handgun ban. If that isn't "pushing for a gun ban", what is?

More proof:

http://democrats.oversight.house.gov/images/stories/MINORITY/630%20gun%20forum/Paul%20Helmke%20Testimony06302011_PH.pdf

Here is their lieing republican former leader stumping for a ban in front of a house committee roughly six months ago:

"Number Two – We need to prohibit the sale of military-style semi-automatic assault
weapons and assault clips."

http://democrats.oversight.house.gov/images/stories/MINORITY/630%20gun%20forum/Paul%20Helmke%20Testimony06302011_PH.pdf

Lieing and outright dishonesty: check.

Then I wrote:

This is a group that has deliberately included adults in thier "child statistics" to inflate them. No organization that has a legitimate intent to reduce gun violence would do such a thing.

Including adults in "child statistics to inflate the numbers and make them look worse than they actually are: Dishonesty - check.


And I wrote:

"This is a group that claims to want to prevent gun violence, yet gives grades on a per state basis based on how much they restrict guns rather than how high or low the level of gun crime/gun violence is in that state. Again, no organization that has a legitimate intent to reduce gun violence would do such a thing."

If you can't see the dishonesty inherent in this, I'm afraid I can't help you.

Then I wrote:

This is a group that opposes concealed carry, even though police as a group are convicted of a larger number of crimes than CCW holders.

Both facts. CCW holders generally aren't responsible for "gun violence" in any statistically meaningful way - and remember, statistics are IMPORTANT to the bradys, important enough to add adults into "child statistics - yet they're against CCW.

The only reasonable conclusion one can come to, is that they're against CCW for reasons having little to nothing to do with "gun violence", and that their "mission", is much broader than they state it is.

Dishonesty on their part: check.

"This is a group that claimed that "assault weapons" were the choice of criminals, in spite of the fact that ALL rifles - which 99 percent of so called "assault weapons" are - are used in less than 3 percent of all firearm homicides, and used that false rationale for stamping thier feet and screaming ban at the tops of thier lungs."

Yep, this claim was bullshit every time it was made, repeated, ad nauseum. In the era in which this was a popular meme, the most commonly used crime gun was a revolver, iirc. But that didn't stop them and their sycophants from chanting the not-reality-based meme, now did it. Maybe you weren't alive for it, or weren't politically active or paying attention during that era. Well, many of us were.


Dishonesty on their part: check.

And I wrote:

"This is a group that claimed that civilian owned 50 caliber rifles which are esentially never used in crime could shoot down aircraft, which is a huge lie, and used that false rationale for stamping thier feet and screaming ban at the tops of thier lungs."

Perhaps it was VPC that did this...And yet... The bradys DO want it banned, thats a fact. The rifle in question, is responsible for essentially NO gun violence in America.

Why then, do the bradys even touch on it?

Because they have a mission which far exceeds "preventing gun violence", thats why.

Dishonesty on their part:check.


Look, man, if you're going to attempt to defend the indefensable, you're going to have to try much harder than that. You'll at least need to accurately read and comprehend what they're saying. Besides, just about everyone here knows how dishonest the brady bunch is. Its been pointed out a hundred times or more. I'm basically preaching to the choir here, and only a very few hardcore truth denialist gun ban supporters would assert anything to the contrary about the brady bunch and their deciet, dishonesty, and outright lieing to the american people, or defend any of the above.

Ultimately, those people are free to self identify themselves as such, by doing so.

[DanTex]

152. Actually, he was specifically talking about a Glock with a 30-round magazine.

A little googling turned up this article, where they actually emailed Gail Collins to clarify.
http://blogs.investors.com/capitalhill/index.php/home/35-politicsinvesting/2348-what-is-a-high-capacity-clip

We did e-mail Collins to ask her, “Did Mr. Helmke expand on what he meant by (the Glock is not suited for personal protection)? What does he consider to be ‘personal protection’? And what guns are suitable for that?”
Collins responded with an e-mail saying: “The reference was to a Glock equipped with a high-capacity clip.”

So, you're wrong. Again. Not too surprising.

Honestly, I'm not really interested in going through the long list of talking points that you picked up on gun blogs and memorized. I picked the first one just to demonstrate that pro-gunners usually can't make it through a sentence without fabricating something. The idea that gun control advocates are consistently dishonest in any way remotely comparable to the NRA is pure fiction, and most of these supposed cases of dishonesty, as this example demonstrated, are at worst exaggerations and more often simply statements like this one that pro-gunners happen to disagree with. But having a different opinion is not the same thing as lying.

[beevul]

154. More obfuscation.

"Collins responded with an e-mail saying: “The reference was to a Glock equipped with a high-capacity clip.”


Thats just more obfuscation.

The context of the quote in question is CRYSTAL CLEAR:

Loughner’s gun, a 9-millimeter Glock, is extremely easy to fire over and over, and it can carry a 30-bullet clip. It is “not suited for hunting or personal protection,” said Paul Helmke, the president of the Brady Campaign. “What it’s good for is killing and injuring a lot of people quickly.”

Could helmke be referring to " a Glock equipped with a high-capacity clip"? Possibly.

Are you willing to give this proven liar of a republican the benefit of the doubt? I'm not.

And then there was this from your cited article:

IBD wrote back:


Thanks for the reply. But I need to ask about the preceding sentence, which was “Loughner’s gun, a 9-millimeter Glock, is extremely easy to fire over and over, and it can carry a 30-bullet clip.”

So were Helmke’s remarks only in reference to the high capacity clip? Or was it also to the fact that a Glock is easy to fire over and over?

That leads to two other questions: 1. Are guns that are easy to fire over and over also not suited for personal protection? 2. What constitutes a “high capacity clip”?

Collins didn’t respond to that e-mail. That’s unfortunate, because it would be nice to know if she has a problem with guns that are easy to fire “over and over.” After all, the title of her column is “A Right To Bear Glocks?” — not “A Right To Bear High-Capacity Clips?”

One also wonders how she defines high-capacity clip, since many of the Glocks police use have clips that can hold up to 15 bullets and some up to 17.

Alas, don’t ever expect gun-controllers to define it, since that might undermine the nice rhetorical weapon (no pun intended) that they’ve got.



"The idea that gun control advocates are consistently dishonest in any way remotely comparable to the NRA is pure fiction, and most of these supposed cases of dishonesty, as this example demonstrated, are at worst exaggerations and more often simply statements like this one that pro-gunners happen to disagree with. But having a different opinion is not the same thing as lying."

If you say so:

"We're not a gun ban organization. We don't push for gun bans" - Helmke - 2008.

The brady camp submitted an amicus in favor of the DC handgun ban. Fact.

"Number Two – We need to prohibit the sale of military-style semi-automatic assault
weapons and assault clips." (6ish months ago)

http://democrats.oversight.house.gov/images/stories/MINORITY/630%20gun%20forum/Paul%20Helmke%20Testimony06302011_PH.pdf

And remember, that wasn't just a lie republican helmke told, it was the mother of all lies.

[gejohnston]

92. more Paul Helmke lies

"gun manufactures are putting orange tips to make them look like toys"

[gejohnston]

93. when was this and how did he come to that number?

U.S. homicide rates are 6.9 times higher than rates in 22 other populous high-income countries combined, despite similar non-lethal crime and violence rates. The firearm homicide rate in the U.S. is 19.5 times higher (Richardson, p.1).

Since our murder rates is about 4.8/100K and Europe's averages about 1/100K?

[DanTex]

120. That's it? Whining because the data is a few years old?

Can you show us a claim by the prohibition/increased control lobby that isn't a lie, distortion, or logical fallacy?

I've shown you plenty of such claims, all factual and backed by citations, and the only objection you've come up with is that some of the numbers are a few years old.

BTW, I hope you realize that those preposterous DGU estimates that pro-gunners like to trot around are from a survey that was performed in 1993. Because I've never seen you complain that that data is out of date. Hmmm... I wonder why. Could it be that you're just trying to find nits to pick, and that you'll defend any piece of pro-gun propaganda no matter how absurd? Or maybe it's the time you spent at the Wayne LaPierre Institute for Intellectual Honesty.

[gejohnston]

124. it is still dishonest

It is also lazy. Since you put suicide in it, what should Europe do about their rope violence problem? Granted, their murder rates are lower but not their suicide rates. If you want to combine murder and suicide as "violence" Europe, Japan, and South Korea are all more violent than we are.

No but you accuse respected criminologists of dishonesty or sucking their jobs. Oh that's right, he works at a public university (and doesn't take money from echo chamber foundations) so he must be less competent than some Yale economist that does take money from advocacy groups.

I thought you went to the same IIH. LaPierre and Helmke (and his replacement) teach at the same school.

Citations has nothing to do with logical fallacies.

[AtheistCrusader]

110. Suicides are 'gun violence'? Who knew! Are suicides by hanging 'rope violence'?

By automobile CO asphyxiation 'car violence'?

Yawn

[aikoaiko]

62. Your failure to recognize the loss of liberty in most gun control laws is why you've been failing.

Gun owners, and even non-gun owners, are no longer willing concede liberties because of anecdotes or good intentions.

You're unwillingness to give even a little shows to me that your goal is cumulative loss of liberty for gun owners rather than a reduction in gun violence through possible smarter gun laws. What I asked for wouldn't increase gun violence, but you're still opposed to it because of some commitment an anti-gun agenda.

Yes, I know the NRA is manipulative, but I no longer buy the lies and manipulations of the Brady Campaign, VPC, and misguided but well intentioned anti-gun rights advocates. I once believe them. The AWB sounded like a good idea to me at the time and then I was faced with the ridiculousness and failure of it. It really changed my perceptions of gun control advocates especially as they still clung to failed legislation. Now I side with liberty.

[ellisonz]

77. What about the loss of liberties of the victims?

"What I asked for wouldn't increase gun violence" - you don't know that, please demonstrate how any of those ideas is an appropriate quid pro quo in this context. How is that not special interest politics at its very worst?

The AWB failed because gun manufacturers deliberately sought to undermine it and because it wasn't extended.

You side with the narrow interest of a small segment of society.

[friendly_iconoclast]

80. Yeah, those evil gunmakers undermined it by obeying it...

And where was the support by the majority of Congress to have it extended? Absent, that's where.

[aikoaiko]

86. I'll explain it to you.

I asked for things that would not increase gun violence. I assume this is not obvious to you because you are not familiar with the sillier gun laws in the US that infuriate me and other gun owners.

For example, since 1986 we have have a ban on selling newly manufactured full auto weapons to non-leo civilians. Up until 1986 these were available to own under the strict rules of the 1934 NFA act. We know that these legally owned weapons are hardly ever used in crimes. Not before 1986 or after. We have no reason to think that getting rid of this ban would cause an increase in gun violence. This ban came about as a quid pro quo exchange for fixing some of the worst parts of the 1968 gun laws.

Other bans simply keep foreign made weapons out of the US only because they aren't made here. If the company set up shop in the US, we could purchase these firearms. Or some rifles and shotguns are banned because they don't appear to have a "sporting purpose". So the firearms are sold in the US without a pistol grip, but they still get sent over and the pistol grip (and other parts) are added later. We used to be able to bring in parts kits (everything but the receiver), but even that got chipped away and barrels were also excluded. These are just stupid laws aimed at antagonizing collectors and the so called "gun culture". There is no reason to think that more variety in rifles will cause an increase in crime.

You ask why this is appropriate for quid pro quo. If gun restrictions want to see any help from someone like me then you have to show good faith and get rid of some of the stupider laws that have no bearing on reducing crime. Do you think a criminal cares where a receiver and barrel is US made when he acquires a AK semi-auto clone?

[ellisonz]

87. You're against the full auto ban...

...cry me a river. You don't need full auto to hunt, target shoot, defend yourself, or train for military service (which the SCOTUS says is not connected to ownership). The only thing a full auto is really used for to my knowledge is killing a lot of people real fast.

What do you need a pistol grip for? Again, no real purpose but killing a lot of people real fast.

I don't think you should be able to buy AK's so I really could care less what a criminal cares about. Letting the AWB expire was stupid and politically motivated.

[friendly_iconoclast]

89. And the "need" canard pops up again...

Banning something because someone deems them unneccessary is ridiculous. Pistol grips on long guns are not dangerous, unusual, or uncommon.

[ellisonz]

91. Just enables you to fire from the hip...

Thus making for an easier and more unsuspected attack on a crowd.

"Banning something because someone deems them unneccessary is ridiculous."

Then sawed-off shotguns should be legal too?

[friendly_iconoclast]

94. Thank you, you've confirmed your ignorance of ergonomics.

You've never actually tried to fire a long gun with a pistol grip from your waist, have you? People that claim guns with pistol grips are easier to fire from the hip have never tried firing a gun with a pistol grip from the hip. I have (at a gun range), and found out the human wrist doesn't bend like that.

But it's not necessary to believe me- you can perform a very simple experiment to see for yourself. All you will need is a tape gun (or handheld scanner) and a broom.

Something like these:







Try holding one of those down at your hip and keep it pointed ahead of you. How did it work?

That represents a long gun with a pistol grip. The broom represents the "traditional" long gun.

Try again with the broom. See how much easier that is?

[ellisonz]

136. You can find dozens of youtube videos of people firing quite easily...

...from the hip with a pistol grip. Funny you need three images to make an attempt at distorting fact that they make firing from the hip after concealment much easier.

[PavePusher]

142. You can do it....

but it is awkward and difficult to control, impossible to actually have any accuracy.

And it's certainly not the reason for having one.

A pistol-grip makes it easier to use when fired from the shoulder, as designed.

Please, stop flaunting your ignorance, it's embarrassing.

[friendly_iconoclast]

145. "After concealment"? Do people often conceal rifles in your area?

Anyway, your point is moot. Despite Josh Sugarmann's bloviating about the "menacing" appearance of some of them, rifles of any
variety are used less often then hands and feet to kill people. After all, isn't "...the only possible reason for gun control is precisely to counter gun violence."?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/11724799#post48

And does not the fact that "You can find dozens of youtube videos of people firing quite easily..." indicate that pistol grips are not "unusual" and
"in common use"?

[We_Have_A_Problem]

157. Oh for fuck's sake

Pistol grips do not make "firing from the hip" easier, and in fact the whole concept of "firing from the hip" is nothing but pile of Hollywood bullshit. It is not done in real life. Period. Its an excellent way to miss what you're shooting and lose control of the gun. Its pure bullshit.

Additionally, would you please explain to us exactly how you would conceal a rifle? Please consider an average sized human being in that explanation, not some 9'6" 600lb mutant.

[ManiacJoe]

95. Now your ignorance is showing.

Pistol grips on rifles do not make it easier to fire from the hip. They actually make it more difficult. Pistol grips make it more ergonomic when firing from the shoulder.

Yes, short barreled shotguns (and rifles) should be (and actually are) legal to own, at least at the federal level. Your state laws vary....

[aikoaiko]

98. Don't mean to freak you out, but new short barreled shotguns are already legal.

With the proper paper work and fee.

You've just about run your course, haven't you.

[Pacafishmate]

99. Why shouldn't they? Why shouldn't I be able to own something just because

someone else might do something bad with that same item? Having to justify need is moronic. What if you had to justify need every time you wanted to take advantage of the freedom of speech? Justify your need to not be searched. Justify your need to not incriminate yourself at trial.

[AtheistCrusader]

108. Wrong as usual.

You should try firing one of these weapons before you go spreading your unfounded opinion, as if it were fact.

[ellisonz]

134. I have no desire to fire a gun.

From what I can tell, they serve no real purpose other than to fire from the hip on most weapons. You can find many youtube videos of people using pistol grips and firing from the hip.

[AtheistCrusader]

135. Show me one of them HITTING something.

'From what I can tell'

Come back when you have some actual experience and tell us all about it.

[ellisonz]

137. When you're firing into a crowd...

...accuracy doesn't really matter.

[AtheistCrusader]

139. Which of course, assumes a fully automatic weapon.

Not something you would hold at waist height to fire.

I mean really, what the fuck would be the benefit? No control over the recoil? Why WOULDN'T you put the stock to your shoulder in that situation?

You watch too much fucking TV.

[one-eyed fat man]

205. Learn everything you know about guns from "A-Team" reruns?

http://www.nbcchicago.com/station/as-seen-on/Warzone_Weapons_Assault_City_Streets_Chicago.html

NBC Chicago uses machine guns in deceptive story

In a story which aired in Chicago, the NBC affiliate uses the tragic death of a 14 year old girl from a stray bullet fired during a gang fight to conflate machine guns with semiautomatic firearms.

The "expert" who enabled and coordinated the deception was the Special Agent in Charge of the Chicago office of the ATF, Andrew Traver. It should come as no shock as Agent Traver has also been a shill for the Joyce Foundation, the VPC, and the Brady Campaign.

The clip opens with a close shot of an AK firing a burst. Then we get treated to great footage of machine guns blasting in war zones. We break into tragedy and a chrome plated AK, as the latest in pimped out gang goodies. Good footage of ATF agents firing controlled bursts of machine gun fire into vest clad mannequins. Gotta emphasize that "cop killer" bullet business.

Cap it all off the dramatic footage of the hapless NBC reporter as she engages targets a few yards away with a full-auto AK. While we get to see the reporter firing wildly "off the hip," it should be painfully obvious with her technique (at one point someone has to keep her from falling over backward) she is not responsible for the technical inaccuracies of the clip. Certainly, SHE did not direct the action. That brings us back to Agent Traver, a former Naval gunnery officer. How better to give 'credibility' to a massive and deliberate lie than to have an expert carefully stage an elaborate and dramatic illusion? It should come as no shock as Agent Traver has also been a shill for the Joyce Foundation, the VPC, and the Brady Campaign.

If you pay attention to the clip, the depth of the deception should be more apparent. At one point, an ATF agent is shown firing controlled bursts in to a vest clad mannequin. Contrast his technique to the reporter's. She is dangerously set up to shoot like she has seen on TV or the movies precisely because the minimal control would give the dramatic footage of bullets randomly striking all over the range and backstop.

The politics of the fight come to this: The TV footage of machine guns firing while talking about semi automatic firearms is not accidental. It is not from confusion, it is not from ineptitude. It is deliberate. The clear intent is to mislead the public to draw incorrect conclusions. It is bait and switch in its most reprehensible form.

Similar fraud aired by CNN.

&feature=related

This is not unlike the fraudulent piece CNN aired where, a deputy fired what was described as "a AK-47, the Chinese version," which is "currently banned."

Viewers saw bullets fired into a pile of cinder blocks and chunks of the cinder block flying off, leaving a big hole in one block. Then, the deputy fired into a bullet-proof vest. The CNN reporter observed that the bullets "clearly fired right through" the vest.

Second, they set up the next model to be tested: "This is an AK-47 also, but a civilian model. It has some differences and right now this only has a clip of 10 in the magazine -- or 10 rounds in the magazine. So this is a big difference than the 30 rounds in the previous magazine."

Viewers then saw the deputy fire four shots toward the cinder blocks, but nothing happened, not even a speck of the cinder block flew off, never mind any hole being created. The very clear implication: The illegal model punches right through cinder block with devastating and deadly force, but the legal model can't even cause a speck to fall off. Similarly when fired at the vest clad mannequin, nothing happens.

The deputy deliberately missed the targets with the legal weapon. In other words, the demonstration, in which the legal assault weapon caused no damage to the cinder block and failed to penetrate the vest, was very misleading and very possibly an outright fabrication.

Frame by frame analysis proved the story a sham and CNN was forced to "clarify" the report. CNN claimed in it's defense the camera operator didn't realize the sheriff's employee had switched targets and was firing into the ground....

The most charitable analysis would be that the CNN bureau chief (someone who had covered wars fought with real military weapons) was as naive as the girl in Chicago and was duped by Sheriff who arranged the demonstration.

[beevul]

151. Oddly enough, a traditional stock is better suited for hip firing...

Oddly enough, a traditional stock is better suited for hip firing, than a stock with a pistol grip.


Simple ergonomic fact.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

158. Let me get this straight....

You have no desire to fire a gun, yet you feel free to pontificate about how a pistol grip on a long gun serves no real purpose but to do something nobody actually does, and consider YouTube your primary source?

Uh - yeah ... and you wonder why we don't take you seriously...

[ellisonz]

164. Well then I expect to hear from you...

...on no topic other than those direct to you already so no more pontificating about the meaning of Militia since you have no direct experience in what the Founding Fathers were talking about. Those who live in glass houses should not throw rocks.

Are you saying you're smarter than all the Democratic legislators who voted for the AWB including a ban on the new production of pistol gripped weapons? C'mon let us here how you really feel about so many of our Democratic legislators judgment.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

165. You can expect whatever you want.

You're probably not going to get it.

Am I smarter than all the Democratic legislators who voted for the AWB? Quite probably. No, I take that back - I personally know some of the legislators who voted for it and I know for a fact I'm smarter than some of them. I am at the very least far more informed about firearms. Regardless of if I am or not, I can still read and understand English and as the law was questionable on its face and didn't actually DO anything, I never would have voted for it.

I have no problem whatsoever questioning the judgement of ANY politician, regardless of party affiliation. Do you stupidly believe politicians are above reproach and are never wrong?

Incidentally, the AWB did not ban production of firearms with a pistol grip. Not even close. It would help your arguments if you actually knew a little of what you're talking about.

[ellisonz]

167. Then you should run for Senate...

[We_Have_A_Problem]

171. Why?

I don't WANT to. Besides, I'm not exactly the political type - far too blunt, direct and intolerant of stupidity to last long in the political arena.

Do you really believe politicians are the smartest people in the country ellisonz? Is that what you think is a primary qualifier?

Politicians are people like anyone else. Some are very smart, most are average, and a few (Sheila Jackson-Lee comes to mind) are so stupid as to make me seriously question how they are able to remember to breathe. Either way, as an American citizen, I have the legal, moral and ethical right to question them whenever I damn well please.

[gejohnston]

166. what about the Republicans that voted for it

like John Kasich? The only senators who did not vote for it were five:
http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/node/7123
Republicans voting against:
David Durenberger (MN),Mark Hatfield (OR)

Democrats voting against:
Paul Simon (IL), Russell Feingold (WI)

Not voting: Byron Dorgan - Democrat (ND)

How about the Republicans that introduced a return of it?
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-6257

[ellisonz]

168. The Dems probably wanted a better written bill...

I agree, it should be written better to stop the gun industry from slithering around it in their infinite attempt to make money off you by selling you shit you don't need.

[gejohnston]

170. there was no slithering

it was a predictable reaction to an absurd law. Look, the whole thing was Bill Bennett's idea. So, yeah I am smarter than the brain father of that stupid shit.

As far as "infinite attempt to make money selling shit you don't need." I have two answers:
that is what industry does. You don't need TVs, DvD players, iPads, fuzzy dice, etc.
You have no business telling me what I need, esp. since it is on a subject you know nothing about.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

172. Slithering around it?

If a law were passed making it illegal for car manufacturers to sell a vehicle which had anything more than 250hp and two or more features such as being painted red, having a rear spoiler, wheels larger than 16x8", dual exhaust, chin spoiler, body-color mirrors, body-color bumpers, or tinted glass, would GM be slithering around the law if they produced a car with 400hp, made it only available in white with no rear spoiler?

Of course not - they'd be meeting a market demand - and following the letter of the law.

If, to extend that analogy further, fuel capacity were limited in the case of certain types of cars (analogous to limiting handguns to a 10 round capacity), would manufacturers doing everything they could to make those cars more and more fuel efficient be considered "slithering around" the law? Again, of course not.

There is nothing wrong with a company making something to fill a market-driven need. That's how capitalism works. Just because you may not like the product doesn't mean others share your opinion.

[PavePusher]

188. "selling you shit you don't need"....

Yeah, great basis for legislation there.

, if I must...

[PavePusher]

187. "shoulder thing that goes up" - That is the general level of knowledge....

of the people who vote for such bans.

Stupid fucking people shouldn't be allowed to make rules on things they don't understand.

[E6-B]

185. If you shot from the hip you would know.....

Every once in a while I do some dumb fun like empty a 'clip' and shoot from the hip. One of the most safe places is standing directly behind my paper target because none of th bullets hit it.

[SteveW]

131. More corrections about "firing from the hip," including guns...

Any gun can be fired from the hip, though handgun posture would be comical and subject to self-injury.

The proper way to fire a semi-auto carbine (or a full-auto carbine) is from the shoulder; that's why the "thing that goes up" is provided. Firing from the hip is Hollywood crap, and there is little evidence that it enhances some sort of killing spree.

[DragonBorn]

159. Totally Wrong

I don't know where this canard started but it's completly wrong. I find that firing from the hip with a pistol grip to be far more uncomfortable than firing from the hip with a standard stock. I think this image of hip firing come from the movies, with almost no basis in reality. I don't know how hip firing makes it easier to attack an unsuspecting crowd, maybe you can elaborate. If anything, if someone was shooting at me I'd rather they fire from the hip, much less chance of hitting me. Just look at videos of people who know what their doing cops, SWAT, military personnel, or target shooters; not one of them will be firing from the hip if their being even remotely serious.

There is a place for hip shooting, but its typically done with shotguns at "self defense ranges" at or under 21 feet as a very specific type of training. Or duels at 12 o clock noon. =)

[ellisonz]

169. The issue is concealment. n/t

[We_Have_A_Problem]

173. Concealment? OF a RIFLE?

You have huge problems out there on the islands with people concealing 3-4' long, 5-7lb rifles with a pistol grip? Seriously?

Ellisonz, you are without question the first person I have ever seen even remotely try to imply that a pistol grip on a rifle assists with concealment. Hell, you're the first person I've ever seen suggest that people are concealing rifles!

[ellisonz]

174. It's called a trench coat. Willful denial on your part...just admit - it's shortened in many models.

We don't have your problems as much because as a cultural issue gun violence is frowned up; fists are not. "Ho braddah, you like scrap, I like fo scrap." Not "I'm going to put a bullet in your fucking head." We have more sense than the Mainland...plus we're the heck are you going to run to, it's an island! Plus you can't really bring guns into the state via car trunk like you can on the Mainland. I'VE never felt unsafe in Hawaii; I've been an intern park ranger, a civil process server, and been around most parts of the island at all hours of the night.

Hawaii State Law Summary

Last updated October 6, 2011

In its publication Gun Laws Matter: A Comparison of State Firearms Laws and Statistics, LCAV ranked each state based on a review of state laws in 25 different firearms-related policy areas. Hawaii ranked 4th out of 50 – having enacted some of the strongest gun violence prevention laws in the nation. Among other things, Hawaii:

Requires any person who is in the business of selling or manufacturing firearms to obtain a state dealer license, which must be renewed annually;

Bans most assault weapons and large capacity ammunition magazines;

Requires all firearm purchasers to obtain a license;

Imposes child access prevention requirements upon gun owners;

Requires the registration of most firearms;

Prohibits the sale of “unsafe handguns;”

Regulates the possession and sale of ammunition; and

Restricts the open carrying of handguns and long guns.

Hawaii does not, however:

Limit the number of firearms that may be purchased at one time;

Regulate 50 caliber rifles;

Require unlicensed firearm sellers to conduct a background check on a purchaser; or

Require the permanent maintenance of records of firearm sales.

Local governments in Hawaii retain authority to regulate firearms and ammunition, and local licensing authorities in Hawaii have discretion in determining whether to issue a license to carry a firearm.

Hawaii ranks 50th among the states in number of gun deaths per capita. In 2007, 36 people died from firearm-related injuries in Hawaii. In 2009, Hawaii supplied the lowest number of crime guns to other states per capita.

http://lcav.org/states/hawaii.asp

[gejohnston]

175. however

check out your actual murder rates. Hawaii is 43. Remember, most of those gun deaths are suicides. Who is lower?

44-Minnesota
45-North Dakota
46-Wyoming
47-Idaho
48-Iowa
49-Vermont
50-New Hampshire

If USVI and Puerto Rico (both have gun laws similar or stricter than yours) were states, they would be first and second place respectively. USVI is 60/100K or 30 times yours.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

202. I'm aware of a trench coat

Regardless of movies from the Wachowski brothers and Quentin Tarentino, that kind of thing really does not happen.

In real life, it is extremely difficult to conceal a rifle.

I know you don't own a rifle, but to test this out, go down to your local Lowe's or Home Depot, grab yourself a 2x6, cut it down to about 3-1/2", and see how well you can conceal that block of wood - and walk. Then bear in mind that is lighter and a little thinner than an actual loaded rifle.

Hiding a rifle under your arm wearing a trench coat is going to require concealing a straight and heavy piece of wood and steel that is longer than the distance from the underarm to the hip on probably 99% of the people ever to live. That measurement is about 40% of your overall height - which would mean even to be able to do it would require one to be about 84" tall - that's 7'. Shoving it down your pants leg? Same thing - know many people with a 36" femur? If it doesn't stop just short of the knee its going to cause a damned odd walk.

If you really are of the belief that this is a common practice, by all means, let us see some information to support your claim. A few news stories involving someone using a concealed rifle with a pistol grip indiscriminately firing into a crowd from the hip would be a very good place to start.

I respect your desire to not own a firearm and you're free to hold that belief. However, do not think that your own fears, which appear to be based on nothing but fantasy, carry any weight in a real world discussion. If you're going to use them as justification for why we should all be disarmed, be prepared to support them with actual facts.

[ellisonz]

206. You keep responding...

...Why you do, I don't know, as minds are pretty made-up.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

210. I respond in the hopes...

...that someone who is reading this forum and has the wisdom to refrain from commenting on topics of which he is ignorant, has some factual information to take away from the discussion rather than the garbage you post.

Yes, my mind is pretty made up. I don't deny that. However, I arrived at the conclusion I did by careful study of the issue (from both sides) and taking the time to actually educate myself using facts, not emotion and fantasy.

[E6-B]

201. That post is funny

[Simo 1939_1940]

212. +1

It is truly amazing that anyone would suggest that a modification that PROTRUDES from a rifle would aid in concealment.

[Simo 1939_1940]

176. When I read this "firing from the hip" nonsense

the first thing that went through my mind is how it would feel to fire my Remington 870 (equipped with pistol-grip stock) from the hip.

Hard to imagine that it wouldn't do serious damage to my wrist. SURE AS HELL wouldn't want to try it to find out.

[aikoaiko]

96. This is why you and those like you have been failing lately.

You can't even recognize or accept a good compromise when one is offered.

Look at the history, full auto weapons owned under NFA 1934 are not used in crimes let alone "killing a lot of people real fast". You're making shit up to cling to your unnecessary laws.

And you wonder why someone like me is incredulous of your claims to be interested in reducing gun violence.

[DonP]

100. They really don't mean "compromise" do they?

Gun controllers are always quick to say "gun owners aren't willing to compromise". Compromise suggests that each side is willing to give something up to get some of what they want.

I have yet to get an answer from any gun control suporter to the question, "OK, what are you willing to give up to get ... registration, AWB etc.?"

They have no intention of ever giving anything up. Not the 1986 bans, nothing from '68 or '34 either. It's always about what can they add on and get away with.

That's why there's no point in even bothering to consider anything they propose seriously, it's totally a fraud.

They think they are on the moral high ground and see gun control largely as some kind of "holy war" against the "barbarians".

[Simo 1939_1940]

213. "They think they are on the moral high ground and see

gun control largely as some kind of "holy war" against the "barbarians".

So true - and a large part of why this issue is so damaging to Democrats IMHO, as we become viewed as hypocrites.

[gejohnston]

97. ummmmm

Actually, full auto isn't really good at that either. They are very good at turning money into noise. Have you ever seen the movie "Brewster's Millions"?
In the military, they are used for suppressive fire. That means to make the other guy keep his head down.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suppressive_fire

The pistol grip canard, is that a Brady talking point or did you see that in a movie?

The fact that the AWB had no effect on crime either way means it was stupid theater and absurd.

[PavePusher]

102. Pistol grips provide a more ergonomic grip, and thus better control and safety.

Why should they be banned? What is your justification? In what way would they enable/promote crime?

Fuck need, justify yourself.

[GreenStormCloud]

105. The U.S. does not have a Department of Needs.

I don't have to justify my wants to you.

[AtheistCrusader]

109. If you could care less, that means you care a lot.

Not very good at this, are you?

[E6-B]

178. AWB is a solution to non-existent problem, like bayonet attacks.

The AWB failed because it was a solution to a non- existent problem.

Al Gore lost the election because 'small segment of society' voted him down. He paid the price of Bill Clinton's AWB.

Seriously, how many bayonet attacks did the AWB stop?

[AtheistCrusader]

111. When you spout off nonsense calling for a safety feature to be banned, you are not protecting the ri

ghts of legitimate gun owners.


Ergonomic features like a pistol grip on a rifle are SAFETY features, not 'dangerous' whatever you've imagined they are in your mind.

Try firing a 'normal' rifle from the shoulder, and then from the hip. Then fire a rifle with a pistol grip from the shoulder, and good luck trying to fire it from the hip.

[oneshooter]

150. He says that he has never fired a firearm, and dosen't want to.

Sounds to me like he is a hoplophobe to me.

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

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=hoplophobe

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[E6-B]

183. What you call sell out I call a good job done.

We NRA have to raise money, we don't have billionaire donors, just regular joe and bubba working guys.

[ellisonz]

196. Someone has to pay Wayne LaPierre's $900,000 dollar salary...

Also - I'm not sure if the NRA makes their finances public - I couldn't find much on opensecrets. I'd guess though that the NRA gets a lot of big money donations too...

[friendly_iconoclast]

197. That's less than $0.25 per NRA member. Paul Helmke costs about $5 per BC member....

...going by his stated salary (in 2008) of $249,999 listed here:

http://www.bbb.org/charity-reviews/national/law-and-public-interest/brady-center-to-prevent-gun-violence-in-washington-dc-1136

and their membership of ca. 50,000

Who's getting better value for money?

[ellisonz]

198. Million Dollar Man...

Who's he supporting for President this year BTW?

[friendly_iconoclast]

199. I don't know, ask an NRA member.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

211. So what?

Does the fact that he earns nearly 7 figures a year bother you? Seems to be he pretty well deserves it. As far as who he supports for President - ask him. That is a personal choice he has every right to make.

[pipoman]

50. MAG is a lazy organization..

who prefers dishonesty over results. They know that the fictitious 'gun show loophole' cannot be addressed as it would be unlawful. The commerce clause forbids the federal government from enacting laws which hinders or regulates 'intra-state' commerce. It is that simple. MAG is lazy because they fail to lobby for individual states to enact private sale checks. It can't and won't happen at the federal level and MAG knows it.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

64. do you mean MAIG?

[pipoman]

69. No, I really mean MAG..

they ceased to be relevant when they failed to concentrate on the 'I'.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

70. aha. got it.

how convenient of them. thanks.

[pipoman]

74. To be more

exact, I believe the good mayor's perception of illegality and the general consensus perception differs. In some cases these mayors take a position of doing what they believe their constituents want regardless the legality or constitutionality of their methods or enforcement. They are rogues.

[AtheistCrusader]

107. I prefer IMAG given the number of them under indictment or in jail.

[pipoman]

117. I like it..

[SteveW]

132. Or simply MG. As in Mayor's Guns. nt

[GreenStormCloud]

68. Luby's mass shooting survivor aids pro-gun rights.

[friendly_iconoclast]

72. Shame on you! Don't you know that's the *wrong* kind of victim testimony?

Only the kind that supports the OP's argument is valid (see my reference to John Green upthread, and the response to that)...

[AtheistCrusader]

106. This bill would have done nothing for the people in Tuscon.

He bought the guns legally from a store. He was not adjudicated mentally unfit. He was not forcibly incarcerated for a mental health evaluation for a period of time that would have tripped the reporting requirement.

Bill is useless, uninteresting bullshit.

[SteveW]

126. The problem with this approach:

"Our opinion is that the most effective way to reduce gun violence and to prevent the kinds of incidents that we saw in Tucson is look at the guns themselves and reduce the level of firepower in the hands of civilians," Rand said.

Rand of the VPC not only sees Schumer's bill as ineffective, she wants legislation to support "her opinion." And that "opinion" is not based on a serious theory that banning semi-auto handguns (owned by tens of millions) and "large capacity magazines" will stop anything.

The biggest problem is that the gun-control groups want wholesale BANS. They are on record for that, and they continue to push for that.

NOTE: a so-called "universal" NICS requirement has been discussed here before. As I recall, very little input was received by gun-controller/banners. Perhaps Rand's position sums up why.

[Atypical Liberal]

161. I do not support this bill because it destroys firearm ownership anonymity.

Do you support or oppose this bill?

No.

This bill requires all firearm transfers (with few exceptions, such as gifts between immediate family members) to go through a dealer or law enforcement agency.

This requirements means that dealers and/or the government will have a record of all firearm transfers, and, consequently, they will have a list of all firearm owners. This is not acceptable.

Do you think the victims of the Tucson shooting merit special consideration of their views?

No. I suspect victims of violent crime are going to have a hard time being objective.

Would anything they say effect your views of the "gun control" debate?

No.

Do you think the Tucson shooting incident and the lack of any Congressional action to improve our gun control laws shows anything about the political dynamics involved?

Yes, it shows that thanks to groups like the NRA the political cost of supporting gun control is so high that most politicians won't touch the issue. I am a member of the NRA for precisely this reason.

[E6-B]

184. When ever I see crap like this, I buy another gun.

Roger wasn't shot with a gun bought thorough the 'loop hole'.

[PavePusher]

190. "I got food poisoning from spinach, so I want to ban apples."

That's the thought process involved with this type of proposal.

[ellisonz]

208. Oh so wiser one than so many others...

*we shall have no law giver of death spewer regulation before you of infinite wisdom death spewer one*

*you are all knowing unlike those loathers of death spewers who try and control the death spewers trade*

*we bow to your taste in death spewer regulation - teach us who to cling to our death spewers objects*