Compiling a short list.

[-..__...]

Name some significant gun control laws passed, and /or victories won within the last 10/15/20 years.

Indicate if the achievement was at the state or federal level.

If nothing of significance comes to mind (examples: assault weapons bans, one gun per month, magazine bans, etc), come to mind, minor ones will do (examples: compelling retailers/chain stores to enact a no firearms policy, persuading newspapers to drop firearms for sale ads, etc).

[jpak]

1. You also need to make a list of the 30,000 vicitims of US gun violence each year

not so short a list

yup

[-..__...]

2. I thought that was your job?

[Tuesday Afternoon]

3. violence ... that would leave out accidents,

Yup!

[jpak]

4. That list is your job

yup

[Tuesday Afternoon]

14. nope. nope. nope. no way, no how. nada.

oh lord, child. you did make me laugh though.

[S_B_Jackson]

20. ...as well as suicides

since there's no violence there either.

Yup.

[Euromutt]

52. Well, that raises an interesting question

Does intentional self-harm (including suicides) count as violence? Some means of self-harm can involve violence, after all.

Which isn't to say firearm suicides can legitimately be counted as "gun violence," if only because the term "gun violence" isn't meant to conjure up this image in the listener.

[Ken_Fish]

8. Gonna name the victims of Alcohol? Longer list(nt)

[jpak]

10. Yeah, like criminals can point a beer can at someone and kill them at 10 paces

stupid

yup

[X_Digger]

11. No, they point a 2 ton vehicle at other drivers while intoxicated. n/t

[jpak]

12. So can a drunk with a gun

yup

[X_Digger]

13. Let's compare numbers, shall we?

37,261 drunk driving fatalities in 2008.

How many 'drunk' gun murders are there?

eta: Oh, and you have some outstanding questions / comments pending..

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=387816&mesg_id=388031

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=387551&mesg_id=387974

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=387857&mesg_id=387971

[jpak]

15. Yup - gun crimes deserve more jail time than other crimes

too bad

yup

[X_Digger]

16. Did you respond to the wrong post- again?? n/t

[jpak]

19. I will not be an apologist for gun criminals - nope

yup

[X_Digger]

25. So you refuse to actually respond to what I said in any of 4 threads, now?

Thanks for showing everyone your true colors.

[jpak]

26. I don't respond to call-outs - which R agin the rules

yup

[X_Digger]

27. How about the current thread that you're participating in?

How many 'drunk' shootings are there? Let's compare to drunk driving deaths.

Got the number handy for comparison?

[jpak]

28. One too many

yup

[X_Digger]

29. So that's a no?

You have no clue, so your bringing it up was just a red herring, yes?

[Starboard Tack]

32. Talking of red herrings

What do guns deaths have to do with vehicle accidents, drunk driving or any other fish?

[X_Digger]

35. You'll notice that reply #1 is not related to the OP..

Why don't you take that up with Jpak?

[AtheistCrusader]

33. Why is that, exactly?

Is it somehow morally different to be shot to death, versus stabbed to death with a screwdriver?

Just because a gun is involved doesn't necessarily change the moral nature of the assault, and I would question, why it would change the sentencing requirements.

[Hoopla Phil]

64. He's got a LOT of outstanding questions pending. LMFAO!!!!

[WatsonT]

41. No they just drive their car in to oncoming traffic

or beat their spouses to death.

But those deaths are like . . less tragic and stuff because guns weren't involved and that makes it ok. Or something.

No wait, it's because the intent behind a gun is evil, whereas budweiser is saintly. Or something.

Or I mean we do not need guns for hunting in this day and age, whereas we need beer to survive.

[Starboard Tack]

31. You seem to be somewhat obsessed with alcohol

Maybe we need an alcohol forum

[MicaelS]

59. Prohibition did not work with alcohol,

All it did was create a new class of major criminals, while making many ordinary people criminals because they wanted a drink. The wealthy and powerful maintained their stocks of alcohol which they stockpiled before Prohibition went into effect. Thus and were able to drink straight through to repeal.

Prohibition has not worked with drugs, it has done the same as alcohol. Made a new class of wealthy criminals, while making ordinary people criminals because they wanted to smoke, drop, or shoot.

Prohibition will not work with guns, the exact same thing with happen with guns, as happened with alcohol. New class of wealthy criminals, of ordinary people made criminals, wealthy and powerful exempt.

[Starboard Tack]

65. I'm not talking about prohibition, but abolition

You know, like abolishing slavery. Worked well for the slaves, not so well for the slave owners.

[X_Digger]

66. A prohi by any other name..

would stink as badly.

[WatsonT]

40. Haven't you had a seperate post for each victim?

Seems like it, along with more than a few editorials on the subject.

[BeFree]

5. Did you know?

Sailors aboard US Navy ships can't carry weapons?

Here they are, trained with weapons, and they can't carry?
Why do you suppose that is?

[Hangingon]

6. Soldier are not allowed to carry personal weapons off duty.

Caused a big problem at Fort Hood. I imagine a ship at sea is a pretty safe place. But, I see news coverage of well armed and equiped sailors going after pirates.

[PavePusher]

7. Actually, they can, but only off-post.

And yeah, that didn't work out very well.

[Hangingon]

9. Son is active duty and he carries off post.

You can carry a personal weapon on post if you are are the way to a range and if it is approved by the Provost Marshall.

[PavePusher]

18. I'm not aware of any base that allows the carry of loaded personal sidearms at any time.

If you are transporting to/from an on-base range, they have to be unloaded and cased.

The rule used to be that personal, off-duty carry on-post was up to the base commander (and usually held to the Chicago standard, i.e. NO).

Post-Ft. Hood, it was changed to be universally no carry, military-wide, no more fiction of commander discretion.

Yeah, let's make everyone less able to stop an attack, that'll work. Massive Military face-palm...

[Hangingon]

22. Yep. You are right.

He uses the skeet/trap club and can take shotguns on post - unloaded. I thing he can take a handgun on post in the car but it has to be unload and cased.

[PavePusher]

23. The part that really sucks....

is that if you live on-post, you can transport your personal side-arm off-base, load and holster it, and carry until you return. (Gun must then be transported immediately to your residence... in theory.) Since I live off-post, I can not carry to base, and must remain unarmed if doing other things going to/from. Really, really stupid.

[Hangingon]

30. Thanks for serving PP

[GreenStormCloud]

17. The typical sailor is not trained in the use of small arms.

They are trained to use weapons systems as part of a crew if they have any weapons training at all. Many have other shipboard duties.

[BeFree]

36. What?

They don't train Sailors how to use a handgun? You got to be kidding.

We do know that even after trained, they are not allowed to carry.
Why is that I wonder? Are they afraid of what the guns will do to morale?

[GreenStormCloud]

38. Waste of time and money.

Why train all sailors in the use of a handgun? The ship will not get within handgun range of an enemy. And the sailor will be somewhere below decks crewing the ship so there won't be any target for his handgun.

[WatsonT]

43. In case they have to board the enemy vessel

and take her as a trophy! Pikes and pistols, like in the good old days.

/they still do broadsides right?

[oneshooter]

51. The last call of "Boarders Away" was on 4 June 1944

A US Navy Task Force captured the U-505.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unterseeboot_505


Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[Kennah]

54. Don't the Coasties do this on a regular basis?

[oneshooter]

56. When they intercept drug runners. But that is not the same as

boarding a enemy man-of-war.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[S_B_Jackson]

21. That's what the Marines are for...

can't have the squids accidentally shooting themselves because they don't know one end of a rifle from another. ;)

[BeFree]

37. Marines

Can Marines wander around the barracks with concealed weapons?
On base? In the mess hall? Where? Where can a well trained Marine carry a concealed firearm?
Can one do so only when there are no other Marines around?

[AtheistCrusader]

34. Negligent discharges damage government property.

Flesh and metal.


In fact, a lot of our training for actual combat troops do not prepare one for the nature of concealed carry in civilian life.
We have other training for that, and a much larger component is legal training.

[WatsonT]

42. Did you know:

soldiers/sailors have many rights severely restricted while serving in the military? And that those restrictions do not apply to civilians?

[BeFree]

46. Yes. I do.

I just find it interesting that the military feels danger from having soldiers packing heat in most places.

[WatsonT]

55. There are other reasons to prohibit the guns

besides which: free societies are generally more dangerous than rigidly controlled authoritarian ones (at least if you exclude official violence).

The military is a rigidly controlled authoritarian society.

Ours is not.

[-..__...]

24. Damn!

This list is turning out to be shorter than I thought.

C'mon... there has to be at least one anti-gun victory to stand up and cheer about.

Anyone?... anyone?... anyone?... Bueller?

[Kennah]

49. Umm, just a clarification

When you say victory, that seems perhaps in conflict with the original post where you asked for legislation that was enacted. Maybe I misunderstood.

[-..__...]

61. By "victory", I mean both legislative and non-legislative.

Legislative is self explanatory.

Non-legislative would be an occurrence not set in law, but a situation where an anti-gun organization persuaded an establishment or institution to change it's policy regarding firearms (as when the Brady Campaigns failed attempt to pressure Starbucks into not allowing open carry).

My question is (in the over all/big picture), what (<b>if any</b>), accomplishments have the anti's achieved in recent (or distant), memory that they could lay claim to?

And by that... I mean what relevant purpose do they serve nowadays?

[Kennah]

68. In asking about victory, I guess what I was asking is ...

... do you mean that the gun control law had a positive effect?

By and large, I don't see a lot of that.

[Starboard Tack]

39. Kinda like compiling a list of cancer cures

[Kennah]

44. Does HR218 count?

I'm guessing not.

[-..__...]

62. The "The Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act"?

Nahh... not really.

Then again it wasn't really a pro or anti firearms bill.

When it was voted on... there were some strange bedfellows.

Traditionally hardcore anti and pro 2nd amendment positions in Congress voted in favor of it.

The ones who won were obviously the police.

Myself... I was vehemently against it then as I am now.

Citizens and law enforcement alike should not be granted special privileges that separate the two.

[Kennah]

45. Domestic Violence Offender Gun Ban, aka Lautenberg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_Violence_Offender_Gun_Ban
1997
Federal

[Kennah]

47. Self delete

[Euromutt]

50. I was going to mention that one

I can't find too much fault with that one, which goes to show that Lautenberg should have quit while he was ahead.

[Kennah]

53. My issue with DV exclusions for guns is ...

... that restraining orders are fairly commonplace during a messy divorce.

Also, while I'm not an advocate of DV, one can be convicted of a misdemeanor in some states and one is prohibited from owning a gun because it's DV.

Misdemeanor assault can be the result of two people yelling at each other, one pokes a finger in the other's chest, and voila DV conviction.

[Kennah]

48. NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007, aka response to Virginia Tech shooting

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Tech_shooting#Government_response
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:H.R.2640:
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-110publ180/pdf/PLAW-110publ180.pdf

2007
Federal

[-..__...]

63. Passed with the cooperation of the NRA...

along with Carolyn McCarthy... imagine that!!!

From a second amendment standpoint... we gained more than we lost, as the legislation granted some form of avenue to relief for the restoration of 2nd amendment rights to veterans previously denied that right...

However... seems like not all the antis aren't on the same page...

The compromise bill would make veterans currently prohibited from possessing firearms for mental health reasons eligible to once again possess guns. Under current law, an estimated 80,000 veterans are prohibited from possessing firearms for mental health reasons. This change to the original bill comes in the wake of recent government and private studies revealing that the number of veterans dealing with mental illness is at an all-time high, with many receiving inadequate care. A recent Department of Defense task force study found that the military mental health system lacks providers and is "woefully inadequate" to deal with conditions such as post-traumatic stress disorder. Moreover, a new study reports that male U.S. veterans are not only twice as likely to commit suicide as men with no military service, but are also 58 percent more likely to kill themselves with a gun than others who commit suicide. A 2000 analysis by the New York Times of 100 "rampage killers" found that the majority (52 percent) had a military background and 47 percent of the killers had a history of mental health problems.

http://www.vpc.org/press/0707csgv.htm

Thing is... it didn't establish any new legislation or restriction that wasn't already in existence (The NIC's check... which was also supported by the NRA).

It simply asked (not required), that the States to report mental health issues to the FBI/NIC's system.

To date... the results of the legislation are hardly glowing...

Ever since the tragedy of Virginia Tech, there have been efforts to improve mental health record reporting in the NICS database. This includes the NICS Improvement Act of 2007. This data reveals that many states are still not providing NICS with the necessary mental health records.

* There are at least 584,985 names in NICS's database of people prohibited based on mental illness:
* 98% of those names come from only 7 states (California, Colorado, Florida, Michigan, Missouri, Ohio, Virginia) plus federal agencies.
o 87% are from California, Virginia, Michigan or federal agencies.
o Fourteen states have not provided any: Arkansas, Delaware, Idaho, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Dakota, and West Virginia.

http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/html/trace/nics.shtml

What's a bit amusing (or odd), here... is that of the 14 states that haven't reported anything... there's an even split between blue and red states.

I/you/we can interpret that several ways (take your pick).

Either they're taking the position of privacy issues over gun control issues... or they're taking the position of gun control issues over privacy issues.

Guess it all depends on priorities.

[Kennah]

69. Whenever the issue of mental health and guns rears up, it's always one of the most complex

I think some on both sides of the gun issue get worried "What's next?" and are we headed towards a Department of Pre-Crime, separate and apart from the gun issue?

Too many people throw around crazy with reckless abandon when there are many subtle shades of distinction within mental illness.

Outside of mental illness, I daresay a lot of thinking people, on both sides of the gun issue, would look at the behavior of many violent criminals, particularly when justifying their actions, and conclude "That person is acting crazy."

[GreenStormCloud]

57. Since you are going back 20 years, the 1994 AWB.

But that was a pyrrhic victory. The AWB died in 2004 after it geatly energized the NRA. Since 1994 we have seen a wave of pro gun legislation.

[Kennah]

58. In terms of concealed carry, that wave started in 1987

[GreenStormCloud]

60. Yes, but it really got going in the mid 90s. N/T

[Kennah]

67. I think the initial surge was over by the time of the AWB

There was still some residual effect, to be sure, but the genie was already out of the bottle before America had even heard the name Bill Clinton.

Bush Sr. was talking, and enacting, an AWB in the late 80s.

I think these are related only insofar as it's under the general heading of guns.

[GreenStormCloud]

70. Take a look at the map. The big surge was late 95 to 2005.

[Katya Mullethov]

71. "Luby's changed everything "

Like 911 , only for the better .

[Kennah]

72. It's complicated

1995 was a big year adding 7 new RTC states: Arkansas, Nevada, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Texas, Utah, Virginia

This was one year after the AWB, but there's a number of factors that figure into why a state goes RTC.

In Texas, I think the issue was in large part Richards v. Dubya. Richards vetoed an RTC bill, at least once, Dubya promised to sign it, and he did.

I know in Virginia they'd been trying for a couple of years, and everything just coalesced in 1995. There was some shithouse stink raised over the fact that Ollie North held a license to carry when it was a May Issue state, his license wasn't renewed a year or so before that, and that helped stir the pot in 1995.

1986
1987 - 1
1988
1989 - 4
1990 - 2
1991 - 1
1992
1993
1994 - 4
1995 - 7
1996 - 3
1997
1998
1999
2000 - 1
2001
2002
2003 - 4
2004 - 1
2005
2006 - 2
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011 - 1