Democratic candidates back off gun control

[Columbia]

Democratic candidates back off gun control
By LANCE GAY
February 2, 2004

Four years after adopting a platform demanding a government crackdown on guns, Democratic presidential candidates this year are back peddling from a decade of party support for federal regulation of firearms.

John Kerry, frontrunner for the Democratic presidential nomination, repeatedly notes in his speeches that he is a hunter, and Wesley Clark says that he has "20-some odd guns in the house." Howard Dean suggests gun laws should be left to states to decide, and Joseph Lieberman has repudiated a 2000 campaign pledge by his running mate Al Gore to license anyone buying a gun.

These views represent a shift in views in the Democratic Party, which over the last decade has pushed tough gun control proposals in Congress. The party's 2000 platform backed mandatory child safety locks for all guns and background checks for all purchases; mandatory gun safety courses for gun-purchasers; and funding for 10,000 prosecutors in states and communities "to fight gun crime."

What are the issues involved, and where do the candidates stand?

... MORE ...

[el_gato]

1. they know its a losing issue

[David__77]

2. Good, and the plank should be dropped.

We should stress gun safety, but in a way compliant with the second amendment. It's important that we are friendly toward gun ownership.

[aquart]

3. I dunno, but as long as the Patriot Act is in force

I like the idea of being easily able to obtain a semi-automatic.

It's an avenue I don't feel comfortable closing off just at this particular moment.

[MrBenchley]

4. Hilarious

As we saw just the other day, ALL of them want to ban assault weapons and close the gun show loophole....

[el_gato]

5. but they aren't going around constantly talking about it

because they know it's a loser

[MrBenchley]

7. Gee, you might have noticed, there's a war and no jobs

the Republicans are desperate for a campaign issue and are trying to use the old favorites.

[el_gato]

8. Gee, maybe we wouldn't be in this position

if Gore had won Tennesee, which he lost because of this loser issue

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MrBenchley]

11. By the way, since you brought up that pantload...

This malarkey got peddled before and exposed as the crap it is....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg& ...

For example, here's the core of an article supposedly telling us what Democrats think and how much Americans pined for guns and feared Gore would take theirs.....

"says James Jay Baker, legislative director of the National Rifle Association."
"says Rep. Bob Barr, R-Ga., who was just elected to a second 3-year term on the NRA board."
"In a letter written to Baker in May, Ashcroft said "
"Republican pollster Bill McInturff asks."

Here's the article in question...

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2003-08-07-pilots-_x.htm

The only Democratic quote is hapless Joe Lieberman...and even then it's not clear that he's endorsing the point of the article.

Here's another on the subject...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic...

Note that the article produced in THAT one as evidence quotes:

"U.S. Rep. Zach Wamp, R-Tenn., boiled the Gore loss down to one word."
"National Rifle Association spokesman Bill Powers said "

And in the same article "Democrats say the Gore national campaign failed to focus enough on Tennessee."

[el_gato]

13. i feel sorry for you bench

i really do

[MrBenchley]

15. Why? Because I can back up what I say

and don't spout rubbish about "they're coming to take my guns away" every other post?

[el_gato]

18. the world is not how you paint it

no matter how many times you repeat the same themes over and over

[MrBenchley]

22. It certainly is

whether you want to acknowledge it or not.

When it turned out ALL of the Democratic presidential candidates were advocating closing the gun show loophole, it was the RKBA side began to ludicrously chant like zombies in a trance..."There is-s-s-s-s-s no gun show loophole..."

[el_gato]

23. like I said I really do feel sorry for you

everything is always framed in an "us vs. them" context
when the reality is much more nuanced

[MrBenchley]

26. Hahahahahahahaha.....

"everything is always framed in an "us vs. them" context "
You mean like screaming "they're going to take our guns" every other post?

[slackmaster]

28. Why do I even bother reading the "Hahahahahaha" posts?

You mean like screaming "they're going to take our guns" every other post?

More like a new Straw Man every other post.

[Crachet2004]

76. Not just Tennessee...

WV for sure and Buckeyeland almost as surely.

[slackmaster]

6. Yes, but they can't make up their minds exactly what is an AW

Senator Edwards has flip-flopped on whether to renew the existing AW "ban" or enact a stricter one.

[Township75]

31. So does Bush, so big deal!

!

[alwynsw]

35. For hopefully the last time

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A SEMI-AUTOMATIC ASSAULT WEAPON UNLESS YOU'RE REFERRING TO THE AUTOMATIC LOADER ON THE MAIN GUN (cannon to the ignorant) ON A BRITISH CHALLENGER TANK, GERMAN LEOPARD TANK, OR A RUSSIAN T-80 TANK.

All man-portable assault weapons are either select fire or automatics.

[mars_clover]

40. The "gunshow loophole"

and close the gun show loophole....

There is no "gun show loophole". All laws regarding the sale of firearms apply inside a gun show as they do outside of one.

Clover

[necso]

10. As unpopular,

as it might generally be with progressives, being very careful on gun control policy is a political necessity. This is a hot button issue with many Americans, who will come out in droves to vote against a candidate seen as anti-gun.

I remember the 2000 campaign when the NRA (or the like) was running nightly "info-mercials" (in California no less) and the sinking feeling that this gave me. If they were spending this kind of money in a state shrub was never going to win, what were they doing where it might matter and what effects would this have?

Let me bore you with another story.

In fall of 2000, I was looking at gun cleaning supplies at MonoplyMart (mea culpa), when some guy came up to me and starting asking me for advice on gun cleaning. Turns out that he had inherited a .22 target pistol from his brother. He went on about how the Dems were trying to take our guns away, how terrible it was, etc, etc. I thought about telling him how useless his gun was as a weapon (single shot, slow to load) and that it was the kind of gun that one could have owned in the former USSR, but I recognized that it was useless, so I gave him some suggestions and walked away. Right then I wrote off our chances in 2000.

Hey, I am a gun owner and would not dream of giving them up. I also believe in compromise and am willing to put up with some gun controls, as it is part of the process of democracy in my mind. Last year, I went as far as modifying some weapons when CA passed some new controls, requiring special registration on certain firearm configurations (not a list I wanted on). There are lots of gun owners who would not go this far and would vote against all their other interests in the name of preserving the "rights" of gun ownership.

Certainly the price of widespread gun ownership (particularly of certain models) is increased deaths. But this is also the price of higher speed limits, tobacco, alcohol, fatty foods ... in short, it is the price of freedom in many of its forms.

As for the assault weapon ban, it is very porous and easily beatable even in CA, with careful (legal) purchase, and this says nothing of easy, after market modifications, the purchase of accessories across state lines ... or of private sales. Besides an assault weapon is a weapon that fires fully automatically (if only in "bursts"). Without special licenses, weapons of this sort have not been available to the public in many, many years.

[CO Liberal]

12. WHAT A CROCK!!!!

From the linked article:

Four years after adopting a platform demanding a government crackdown on guns, Democratic presidential candidates this year are back peddling from a decade of party support for federal regulation of firearms.


From the 2000 Democratic party Platform (http://www.democrats.org/about/2000platform.html). Underlining mine.

FIGHTING CRIME

Democrats believe government's most basic duty is to establish law, order, and freedom and keep citizens safe from crime. When crime is rampant, families are forced off the streets and behind closed doors. When children are ducking for cover, they have a hard time reaching for their dreams. When people are afraid to walk in their own neighborhood, communities are robbed of the basic sense of decency and togetherness. When an overburdened justice system lets thugs off easy, good parents have a harder time teaching their children right from wrong.

Bill Clinton and Al Gore took office determined to turn the tide in the battle against crime, drugs, and disorder in our communities. They put in place a tougher more comprehensive strategy than anything tried before, a strategy to fight crime on every single front: more police on the streets to thicken the thin blue line between order and disorder, tougher punishments - including the death penalty - for those that dare to terrorize the innocent, and smarter prevention to stop crime before it even starts.

They stood up to the gun lobby, to pass the Brady Bill and ban deadly assault weapons - and stopped nearly half a million felons, fugitives, and stalkers from buying guns. They fought for and won the biggest anti-drug budgets in history, every single year. They funded new prison cells, and expanded the death penalty for cop killers and terrorists.

<snip>

Strong and Sensible Gun Laws. A shocking level of gun violence on our streets and in our schools has shown America the need to keep guns away from those who shouldn't have them - in ways that respect the rights of hunters, sportsmen, and legitimate gun owners. The Columbine tragedy struck America's heart, but in its wake Republicans have done nothing to keep guns away from those who should not have them.

Democrats believe that we should fight gun crime on all fronts - with stronger laws and stronger enforcement. That's why Democrats fought and passed the Brady Law and the Assault Weapons Ban. We increased federal, state, and local gun crime prosecution by 22 percent since 1992. Now gun crime is down by 35 percent.

Now we must do even more. We need mandatory child safety locks, to protect our children. We should require a photo license I.D., a full background check, and a gun safety test to buy a new handgun in America. We support more federal gun prosecutors, ATF agents and inspectors, and giving states and communities another 10,000 prosecutors to fight gun crime.

* * * * *

Nothing in the party platform sounds like a "government crackdown on guns" to me. They all sound like reasonable, sensible measures to protect the safety of the public at large AS WELL AS the rights of the individual.

Tell me - is the paper that printed that article a Republican rag???

[el_gato]

14. its a loser issue

and has cost us way too much

[MrBenchley]

16. Good catch

Another outright lie from the "gun rights" side....

[el_gato]

17. gun rights is not a monolithic entity no matter how much you want it to be

but you are free to pretend
i don't care

[CO Liberal]

19. But Pro-Control IS a Monolithic Entity?????

And us pro-control folks are all marchin' in lock-step and takin' our orders from Sarah Brady, Diane Feinstein, and Rosie O'Donnell???

Gimme a friggin' BREAK!!!!!!

Face it - your friends on the pro-gun side have been spreading LIES about the Democratic Party for YEARS - and you pro-gun Dems ain't doing enough to counter it.

And compromising our position ain't gonna get us many votes.

[MrBenchley]

21. All you have to do is look at the NRA enemies list

to realize everybody but a handful of right wing loonies is pro-gun control.

Labor unions, civil rights groups, professional organizations, civil libertarians, women's groups, anyone even vaguely left wing turns out to be an NRA "enemy."

[el_gato]

25. Strawman (but you know that)

I never said "But Pro-Control IS a Monolithic Entity" now did I?

You see CO this is a perfect example of what I'm pointing out here.

I say one thing and in your zero-sum "us vs. them" world it must mean
that I must believe that the flip side of that arguement must be true.


The pro-control is very nuanced here's how: Some approach it from
the "we need more safety" paternalistic attitude, some approach it from
the direction that we have to control the masses to prevent a rejection of fascism, and some approach it from the "why do you want to kill bambi" attitude.

[MrBenchley]

20. Sure it is...

Take a look at the public figures pushing it...

[el_gato]

24. "us vs. them" is the constant theme, but reality is much more complex

[MrBenchley]

27. Actually "they're coming to take our guns"

is the common RKBA theme....supported by denial, distortion and good old fashioned deception.

[slackmaster]

30. And I will bet a bucket of beer those words have never been posted here

Except by those who construct Straw Men.

[el_gato]

32. benchly would rather argue against his preferred opponents

than discuss anything we might present

[MrBenchley]

34. What has been presented, gato?

A lie about the Democratic platform of 2000 and a bunch of hooey about the Democratic candidates in a sotry that admits most Amerricans want gun control....

[el_gato]

36. zzzzzzzzzz

around and around and around we go

sorry I'm a little bored of the merry go round

besides you do a better job of proving my points than I do.

[MrBenchley]

41. gato, tell us, what has been presented?

[slackmaster]

29. The platform does not include prosecuting a smear campaign

Against all gun owners.

Most of the platform makes sense. The platform was constructed with great thought and care, though I don't agree with all of it.

Why would anyone want to jeopardize Democratic political prospects by going above and beyond it?

[andyjackson1828]

33. 2nd Amendment and Kerry

After winning the New Hampshire primary, John Kerry told CNN, "I've been a hunter all my life, and I'm a gun owner, and I've never thought of going hunting with an AK-47. I believe in the Second Amendment." Indeed, while Kerry has almost always voted with the anti-gun lobby, on May 17, 2000, he was part of the 69-30 Senate majority that passed a non-binding resolution urging respect for Second Amendment rights. The resolution, Amdendment no. 3150 by Senator Lott began: "(a) FINDINGS.--The Senate makes the following findings: (1) The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the right of each law-abiding United States citizen to own a firearm for any legitimate purpose, including self-defense or recreation." The resolution concluded that "It is the sense of the Senate that:...The right of each law-abiding United States citizen to own a firearm for any legitimate purpose, including self-defense or recreation, should not be infringed."

http://www.suntimes.com/output/novak/cst-edt-novak02.html

[Columbia]

37. That's good news

But who were the 30 who voted against this resolution? :evilfrown:

[MrSandman]

42. `Assault Weapons Ban Reauthorization Act of 2003'.

Is not an infringement?

From S. 1034

[Columbia]

43. Of course it is

Just goes to show the political doublespeak espoused by our "represenatives" in government.

[alwynsw]

39. C'mon, CO

Democrats believe government's most basic duty is to establish law, order, and freedom and keep citizens safe from crime. When crime is rampant, families are forced off the streets and behind closed doors. When children are ducking for cover, they have a hard time reaching for their dreams. When people are afraid to walk in their own neighborhood, communities are robbed of the basic sense of decency and togetherness. When an overburdened justice system lets thugs off easy, good parents have a harder time teaching their children right from wrong.

And the anti's solution to this is to ban all or most firearms or to put even more restrictions in place? I guess that's why London is so safe for the commonman these days. Didn't we recently discover in the thread about the UN crime study that a Londoner is 8 times more likely to be mugged than a New Yorker? Yup. A near total ban (UK) certainly works better than being overly strict (NY). Oh, yeah. Let's not forget Chicago and their wonderful success with overly restrictive control.

Look at the crime stats for the cities with the most restrictive gun laws in the U.S. - Chicago, Boston, L.A., D.C., Philly, New York, Cleveland, etc.

[MrBenchley]

45. And didn't we also discover

that the UN study involved 2,000 telephone owners picked at random....and was a complete pantload?

[Withergyld]

46. The 2000 number is incorrect

I looked it up, it is easy to find, but I will not do your homework for you.
For a "discussion" of the merits/faults of the UN survey start reading here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=37770#38047

The UN has been conducting this survey anually for at least five years. They obviously place some merit in the results or why would the keep doing the survey??

[slackmaster]

47. It's also a Red Herring

Nobody who has criticized the sample size has presented any proof that the sample set is not adequate for the ongoing task.

[MrBenchley]

48. The 2000 number is absolutely correct

[slackmaster]

49. And your point is...

???

[MrBenchley]

50. And bear in mind that's the approximate sample size

in each country....as we saw in the other thread, only about 65% of that typical 2000 respond....

[slackmaster]

51. Have you read the Methodology part of the study?

only about 65% of that typical 2000 respond....

As real statisticians often ask: What does that have to do with the price of onions?

On what technical grounds is your criticism of the data collection based?

On edit: This will be another "crickets chirping" post. I can whup most other contributors on the nuts and bolts of statistical analysis.

[Withergyld]

60. For the sample size of a typical Gallup Poll see # 59

:hi:

[MrBenchley]

62. And that's why we had to hear about 1989 results

in this idiotic survey....

[slackmaster]

63. No attempt to address the scientific issues here

Why am I not surprised?

It's so much easier to dismiss results one doesn't like as "idiotic" when one dosn't have a legitimate beef with the methodology of a survey or lacks the background to present a credible argument against it.

On edit: Here's a WAV of a shitload of crickets chirping - http://www.brandens.net/files/Sounds/FX/Animals/CRICKETS.WAV

[Withergyld]

64. I wanted to "encourage" you to look up the statistics

Yourself. That is why I put up the 1989 number and not the latest numbers. I guess your 2000 people surveyed figure was wrong??

[MrBenchley]

65. Yeah, surrrrrrrrrre......

And 2,000, as the author himself said, is right..

[Withergyld]

66. talk about poor reading comprehension

This is what the author said "The overall response rate in the 17 countries was 64%. Samples were usually of 2,000 people..."

The author did not say "The overall response rate in the 17 countries was 64%. Samples were all of 2,000 people,

from the Webster online dictionary:
"ALL
1 a : the whole amount or quantity of <needed all the courage they had> <sat up all night> b : as much as possible <spoke in all seriousness>
2 : every member or individual component of <all men will go> <all five children were present>
3 : the whole number or sum of <all the angles of a triangle are equal to two right angles>
4 : EVERY <all manner of hardship>
5 : any whatever <beyond all doubt>
6 : nothing but : ONLY: a : completely taken up with, given to, or absorbed by <became all attention> b : having or seeming to have (some physical feature) in conspicuous excess or prominence <all legs> c : paying full attention with <all ears>
7 dialect : used up : entirely consumed -- used especially of food and drink
8 : being more than one person or thing <who all is coming>
synonym see WHOLE
- all the : as much of... as : as much of a... as <all the home I ever had> "
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=all&x=19&y=18

"Usual
1 : accordant with usage, custom, or habit : NORMAL
2 : commonly or ordinarily used <followed his usual route>
3 : found in ordinary practice or in the ordinary course of events : ORDINARY
- usu·al·ly /'yü-zh&-w&-lE, -zh&-lE; 'yüzh-w&-lE, 'yüzh-lE/ adverb
- usu·al·ness /'yü-zh&-w&l-n&s, -zh&l-; 'yüzh-w&l-/ noun
- as usual : in the accustomed or habitual way <as usual they were late>"
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=usually&x=7&y=17

Note the difference in meaning.

[Withergyld]

52. cite please

The 2000 number is ABSOLUETLY incorrect

[MrBenchley]

53. Been there done that....and 2,000 is correct

From your own....hmmmmmmm...source....

"For the countries covered in this report, interviews were mainly conducted by telephone (with samples selected through variants of random digit dialling). The overall response rate in the 17 countries was 64%. Samples were usually of 2,000 people, which mean there is a fairly wide sampling error on the ICVS estimates. The surveys cannot, then, give precise estimates of crime in different countries."

So in other words, roughly 1,300 people in each country selected at random....that sure seems scientific to me....NOT.

[Withergyld]

54. No it says samples are "usually" 2000

Not "all" samples were 2000
There is a difference between "all" and usually"
:hi:

[MrBenchley]

55. Been there done that...samples were 2,000

and respondents were 65% of that.....

So tell us, how large was the sample for the US?

[Withergyld]

56. In 1989 they called 5,429 people in the US

[MrBenchley]

57. And how many in the US did they call in 2000?

In fact, they called 1,656, and only 1,000 answered...out of a country of 292 million...

And for the record, only 1,996 actually answered back in 1989.

[slackmaster]

58. And how many participants is typical for a national poll in the US?

...Survey researchers have actually conducted public opinion polls to find out how much confidence Americans have in polls -- and have discovered an interesting problem. People generally believe the results of polls, but they do not believe in the scientific principles on which polls are based. In a recent Gallup "poll on polls," respondents said that polls generally do a good job of forecasting elections and are accurate when measuring public opinion on other issues. Yet when asked about the scientific sampling foundation on which all polls are based, Americans were skeptical. Most said that a survey of 1,500-2,000 respondents -- a larger than average sample size for national polls --cannot represent the views of all Americans.

This just shows that innumeracy characterizes the average person's understanding of statistical sampling methods.

http://www.gallup.com/help/FAQs/poll1.asp

On edit: I can already hear the crickets chirping.

[Withergyld]

59. Thanks for the link Slack

From the previous link:
"The Number Of Interviews Or Sample Size Required
One key question faced by Gallup statisticians: how many interviews does it take to provide an adequate cross-section of Americans? The answer is, not many -- that is, if the respondents to be interviewed are selected entirely at random, giving every adult American an equal probability of falling into the sample. The current US adult population in the continental United States is 187 million. The typical sample size for a Gallup poll which is designed to represent this general population is 1,000 national adults.

The actual number of people which need to be interviewed for a given sample is to some degree less important than the soundness of the fundamental equal probability of selection principle. In other words - although this is something many people find hard to believe - if respondents are not selected randomly, we could have a poll with a million people and still be significantly less likely to represent the views of all Americans than a much smaller sample of just 1,000 people - if that sample is selected randomly.

To be sure, there is some gain in sampling accuracy which comes from increasing sample sizes. Common sense - and sampling theory - tell us that a sample of 1,000 people probably is going to be more accurate than a sample of 20. Surprisingly, however, once the survey sample gets to a size of 500, 600, 700 or more, there are fewer and fewer accuracy gains which come from increasing the sample size. Gallup and other major organizations use sample sizes of between 1,000 and 1,500 because they provide a solid balance of accuracy against the increased economic cost of larger and larger samples. If Gallup were to - quite expensively - use a sample of 4,000 randomly selected adults each time it did its poll, the increase in accuracy over and beyond a well-done sample of 1,000 would be minimal, and generally speaking, would not justify the increase in cost. "

Emphasis added

Interesting read about sample size vs accuracy

[slackmaster]

61. People have a hard time grokking large numbers

The Field organization typically polls 500 people (or 500 voters, 500 adults, etc.) selected at random to take a read on attitudes in California to obtain a result with 95% confidence the true value is within a certain spread.

See http://field.com/

"Common sense" might tell you that to achieve a similar result with the whole US, with roughly 10 times as many people, would require a sample 10 times as large, or 5,000. But that's not how it works; you really need a sample only a little larger when your population gets much larger.

People who have not been educated in experimental design and analysis almost invariably have that misunderstanding. Our minds are able to deal well with tens and hundreds and maybe thousands, but not millions or hundreds of millions.

[Cicero]

67. No way they can substantiate this claim...

They stood up to the gun lobby, to pass the Brady Bill and ban deadly assault weapons - and stopped nearly half a million felons, fugitives, and stalkers from buying guns.

... unless everyone who was denied purchase was arrested on the spot and sent to jail for the next 10 years. IIRC, that's the combined penalty for (a) being a prohibited person and attempting to buy a gun and (b) lying on the 4473 form when it asks you if you are a prohibited person and you say no when the answer should be yes.

Later,

[MrSandman]

68. I probably account for two of those numbers...

When the NICS started, I had two purchases delayed. In other words, the sale was approved after the contractor who answers the phone referred it to the FBI for clarification. If the news is correct, that is occurring with some attempting to board commercial airlines, but matching a name on the TSA "red" list.

[Withergyld]

69. There is a difference between denied and delayed

I have been delayed once for a few days, but never denied. I also have a Collectors FFL so I can buy all the old greasy guns I want without a NICS check. I can even buy online and have them delivered to my front door.

[MrSandman]

70. Yeah, but where did they get the numbers from?

They didn't claim to prosecute that many. Before it got to denial, there was a violation in completeing the 4473. A C&R would probably bankrupt me.

[Withergyld]

71. A few months ago I found a study on this ...

that looked a denials in Florida. i will have to dig around and see if I can find it again.

[MrSandman]

72. I'd be interested...

I haven't seen any studies cited so I assumed that delays were included. I didn't mind the delays, but if they are wrongly represented...

NICS is a good thing as it stands. A background check without registration.

ed to add...I did see a study that purported to show that the only significant effect of waiting periods was firearms suicide in 55+ demographic. It did not measure if other types of suicides were static. IIRC, it was one of the CDC surveys.

[Withergyld]

73. I'm looking,

I havent found the reprot I was looking for yet, but this looks interesting:
Opportunities to Close Loopholes in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d02720.pdf

[Withergyld]

74. Found it!

The link in the my previous post has some numbers on NICS delays and denials. This is the study I remember finding.
Felons Who Attempt To Purchase Guns: A Study of Prior and Subsequent Criminal Involvements
http://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles1/nij/grants/194051.pdf

[MrSandman]

75. Thanks, but I worrry about selective enforcement

And equal protection

[slackmaster]

38. I can't think of a finer name for a gay porn star

Than the author of the cited article.

[brothermak]

44. I noticed that as well....

But I didn't want to be the first to mention it.
"Not that there's anything wrong with that."
~BM