The Democrate need to GIVE UP on the Gun Control battle, it is beyond fixing!

[VoteProgressive]

It comes down to this; the gun control battle is a lost cause for the democrats. And continuing to fight this fight can only hurt us and not help us.

Now, I am not a NRA, 2nd Amendment rules, gun nut. I never have been. I own 3 guns (pistol and 2 shotguns), shoot them and have my Concealed Carry license (Kansas / Utah). I do not carry, except when I think there is a major need to. I do have a handgun in my bedroom, in a push button safe that I can open in 10 seconds. There are over 500 thousand possible combinations so the kids cannot ever get to it. The rest are locked up in the basement. I have never needed a gun in my life and do not personally know anyone who has. But I know there have been many who have needed one.

The issue with gun control now is simple…..there are too many guns in the hands of the bad guys to fix the problem at this point. There are over 70 million handguns in the USA. At this point, even if you stopped the sale of all new handguns tomorrow, the bad people would still have them, steal them and use them. There is NO WAY to stop it. So that means that the bad guys will acquire the guns and the good guys cannot. That would not work.

Like it or not, Conceal Carry has not caused many issues. Many, including me, predicted in 1987 that the Florida law would cause many issues with CC people pulling guns out when not needed. This has not been the case. It seems that the CCW citizens seem to be an honest bunch of people. It makes sense because they must be criminal free to obtain the license. So the CCW laws have not increased crime. There are various opinions about if it has reduced crime (arguments go both ways) but no one can prove it has increased crime at all. So there is no logical reason to stop the expansion of CCW at this point. I tend to believe it has caused a moderate reduction in crime. I think the deterrent factor also helps. Criminals interviewed by the FBI say that they are more worried about an armed citizen than the police.

Now, as more people get their CCW, that means more handguns are purchased. And as more people own guns, then it means more guns are stolen from cars and homes. You cannot possible stop it. And as they are stolen, then more guns end up in the hands of criminals. But as long as the criminals have them you need to let the honest citizens have them.

Since there is no solving this problem by banning anything, the dems need to stop letting the GOP use it against. The pro-gun crowd is in general an anti-dem bunch. Walk through any gun show parking lot and the bumper stickers are like a tea bagger party. The NRA has convinced them that dems are evil and they want to take your guns away. Many of these gun lovers seem like they are working class people who should like the dems more than the GOP. But the NRA has been extremely successful in making them hate the Dems. We need to take that advantage away from them. They need to stop trying to fix a problem that cannot be fixed at this point.

The NRA now spends millions to defeat GREAT dems over a single issue; GUNS. If the dems just did not resist this simple issue, it would take the money away from their opponents. If the Dems started getting A ratings then the NRA would stop spending more money on GOP candidates than they do on Democratic candidates. It will take years to get to this point, but we need to start as soon as possible. It is not a battle we can win. The NRA is now a right wing organization. We can change that in the next 10 years if the dems just back off the gun control issue.

Now, there are some simple things to do, I think, to make the gun issue better. The first is to hold parents/gun owners responsible criminally for any unsecured gun that end up hurting someone. If a gun owners gun is found by a child and injures a child then the gun owner should be charged with a crime, and go to jail, no doubt about it. Gun safes for a bedroom are $40. Lock up your damn gun. You are welcome to put it on your headboard when you go to bed and then lock it up again the next morning. But if you forget and a child is injured you should pay a severe price. That does not always happen.

If you are a CCW citizen and you accidentally shoot someone you should also pay a criminal penalty. The more of these type shootings that cause someone to serve time, then the more responsible gun owners will notice.

The need for honest citizens to have guns in the USA today is real. The democrats need to recognize this. If they continue to try to ban guns or stop CCW they are giving the enemy the perfect way to keep many working class voters on the GOP side. I hope they learn this lesson soon!

I am new to the DU and this Gun forum but I hope we can keep the discussion of this topic civil. It seems like many people get angry quicker on this forum than any other. I look forward to hearing others opinions about this topic.

[applegrove]

1. Local police need to by Armoured Personnel Carriers these days. There is an arms race

going on between the police and the criminals. Are these not reasons to try for some assault weapons and multiple rounds weapons ban?

[VoteProgressive]

2. You can ban them but I see no way to get them away from the current owners......

I am not sure that is even legal. So that means the criminals are the only one having them.

[GreenStormCloud]

6. NO. You have believed a myth.

Five times as many people are killed by hands & feet than by so-called assault-weapons. That is a fact supported by the FBI. Criminals don't use them because they are too big to conceal. Criminals use handguns, and so do CCW honest citizens, and for the same reason. They are easily carried and hidden.

[applegrove]

10. Body armour and multiple round automatic gun clips would qualify

as things criminals have now that force the police to rearm too.

[X_Digger]

14. "multiple round automatic gun clips" ?!? What the hell is that?

Please to be explaining.. wtf that is.

[applegrove]

18. You know exactly what I mean. You choose to not answer my argument but go nuts on vocabulary.

Not discussing issues is how the NRA rolls. Yawn!(again).

[X_Digger]

19. No, I really don't know..

Are you saying they have full-auto guns? No, they don't.

Are you saying they have multiple round magazines? Yes, but then that's not new. Detachable magazine guns are over 150 years old. (Actually, try 220 years old- the Girandoni.)

When you put together a string of things that don't make sense, and then cut loose with a 'oh, you know what I mean'.. like I mention elsewhere, it's like saying they have "Ford Preludes with 4 by 2 transmissions" -- you string the terms together in ways that don't make sense.

[spin]

56. Seriously, if you want to discuss an issue it helps to know the terminology...

I have to admit that I am also at a total loss to understand what you mean by "multiple round automatic gun clips". It's my guess you are referring to a magazine for a semi-automatic firearm that holds more than 10 rounds.

You can call a magazine a "clip" and that doesn't bother me in the least as I do understand what you mean.

Out of curiosity did you find this term at the Brady Campaign site. I believe that they have recently started referring to standard capacity magazines and hi-cap magazines as "assault clips". I wouldn't put it past them to use a term like "multiple round automatic gun clips".

Whatever that means, it sounds BAD!

[Name removed]

89. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Abq_Sarah]

91. A fantasy?

[rl6214]

22. What is a "multiple round automatic gun clip"?

Standard capacity magazines run all the way up to 19 rounds. Is anything over 19 part of your list? Automatic guns (I assume this is what you are talking about) are heavily regulated, very expensive and NEVER used in crimes. Can you cite when and where criminals used body armour? I'd sure like to see all the times it's used.

[GreenStormCloud]

36. You are wrong again.

It is very rare for a criminal to wear body armor. "multiple round automatic gun clips" doesn't mean anything. I think you are trying to mean "extended magazines". They aren't a big problem. The VT shooter and the Luby's shooter both used standard capacity magazines and reloaded.

[Abq_Sarah]

92. Body armor

Isn't cheap and it isn't particularly comfortable to wear. It's also not foolproof by any means.

[benEzra]

42. Automatic guns are as tightly controlled as bombs. All magazines hold multiple rounds.

Police pistol magazine capacities have been static for decades, and have been declining slightly in recent years as police have shifted from 15- or 17-round 9mm's to 13- or 15-round .40's.

[Name removed]

61. Deleted message

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

[Taitertots]

96. "multiple round automatic gun clips"

Only after we get the shoulder things that go up and the heat seeking bullets.

[Kennah]

104. That which concerns you is nothing new

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/history/famous-cases/john-dillinger

"Meanwhile, Dillinger and his gang pulled several bank robberies. They also plundered the police arsenals at Auburn, Indiana and Peru, Indiana, stealing several machine guns, rifles, and revolvers, a quantity of ammunition, and several bulletproof vests. On December 14, John Hamilton, a Dillinger gang member, shot and killed a police detective in Chicago. A month later, the Dillinger gang killed a police officer during the robbery of the First National Bank of East Chicago, Indiana. Then they made their way to Florida and, subsequently, to Tucson, Arizona. There on January 23, 1934, a fire broke out in the hotel where Clark and Makley were hiding under assumed names. Firemen recognized the men from their photographs, and local police arrested them, as well as Dillinger and Harry Pierpont. They also seized three Thompson submachine guns, two Winchester rifles mounted as machine guns, five bulletproof vests, and more than $25,000 in cash, part of it from the East Chicago robbery.
...
At the Lincoln Court Apartments, the FBI found a Thompson submachine gun with the stock removed, two automatic rifles, one .38 caliber Colt automatic with twenty-shot magazine clips, and two bulletproof vests. Across town, other agents located one of Eddie Green's hideouts where he and Bessie Skinner had been living as "Mr. and Mrs. Stephens." On April 3, when Green was located, he attempted to draw his gun, but was shot by the agents. He died in a hospital eight days later.
...
From Rhinelander, an FBI task force set out by car for Little Bohemia. Two of the rented cars broke down enroute, and, in the uncommonly cold April weather, some of the agents had to make the trip standing on the running boards of the other cars. Two miles from the resort, the car lights were turned off and the posse proceeded through the darkness. When the cars reached the resort, dogs began barking. The agents spread out to surround the lodge and as they approached, machine gun fire rattled down on them from the roof. Swiftly, the agents took cover. One of them hurried to a telephone to give directions to additional agents who had arrived in Rhinelander to back up the operation."

[armueller2001]

11. What do you consider the difference to be between "assault" weapons and "normal" weapons?

Also, are you suggesting a ban on magazines larger than 1 round?

[applegrove]

13. I'm not doing the NRA dance. I know the dance because the pattern is repetative

so I would be a patsy if I participated.

[X_Digger]

15. You realize your statements sound like this, right?

"They've got Ford Preludes with 4 by 2 transmissions!"

Just like a car person would look at you like you're not making sense, when you repeat things like "multiple round automatic gun clips", we look at you the same way.

[rl6214]

23. You gotta say what you mean

We can't read minds.

[Straw Man]

32. Too late.

I'm not doing the NRA dance. I know the dance because the pattern is repetative

so I would be a patsy if I participated.

You were a patsy straight out of the gate, but for the other side.

The "multiple round automatic gun clip" is a hyperbolic creation not unlike the "shoulder thing that goes up." In other words, it is a verbal embodiment of fear and loathing that has no real-world referent. "Clip" vs. "magazine" is insignificant here, but "multiple round"? It wouldn't be much of a magazine if it only held one round. And is it the "clip" or the "gun" that is automatic? Neither, I presume: there is no such thing as an "automatic clip," and with exception of the North Hollywood shootout, automatic weapons haven't figured in crime since the days of Clyde Barrow and John Dillinger. Perhaps you mean "semi-automatic," which refers to a technology that has existed for over 100 years and is the most common type of civilian-owned firearm.

In short, you have no idea what you're talking about. Then, when you get called on it, you bleat about the "NRA dance" as if you're somehow morally superior. Sadly, this kind of pride in ignorance is not uncommon in the gun-control community.

Next time you see Edina, give her my regards.

[PavePusher]

62. I'm guessing you want to ban "shoulder things that go up" too, amIright? n/t

[Starboard Tack]

86. Now there's an idea

though I think 2 is more realistic.

[rl6214]

21. Please cite when and where "assault weapons" were used

in a crime. It hasn't happened. You may be able to find one or two obscure incidents but criminals do not use rifles in crimes.

[oneshooter]

44. Ban away! But how are you going to pay for them? n/t

[Name removed]

59. Deleted message

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

[Atypical Liberal]

100. Hands and feet kill more people every year than rifles.

Are these not reasons to try for some assault weapons and multiple rounds weapons ban?

If you go check the FBI's Uniform Crime Reporting data (it is available online), you will see that every year hands and feet kill more people than all rifles combined, let alone assault rifles. This in spite of the fact that the AR-15 is now the most popular center-fire target rifle in America.

[Warpy]

3. Nope, nothing can be done except licensing to be able to buy ammo

or the gear to make ammo. Even that won't stop bad guys from getting it on the black market, but they'll have to pay enough for it that maybe a few of them will think before they shoot and the rest will be slowed down considerably.

[VoteProgressive]

4. I think there are so many rounds out there already tht it might not help much.....

and you would have to stop all black powder sales. Cases can be reused. And lead is easy to obtain. It would be hard to do. And if we try to do it it will cost us votes.

[RSillsbee]

9. Are you aware that Americans purchased over 1 BILLION rounds of ammunition in 2010?

There are an awful lot of rounds out there all ready

[AtheistCrusader]

29. My bad, I've been putting in a lot of range time.

[Glassunion]

39. I guess I bought the other half... My bad too...

Who could pass up on PMC .223, 20 rnd box for $5.99?

[benEzra]

37. Actually, that number is too low by a factor of nine or ten.

An average year sees around 9 billion rounds sold, I think.

[RSillsbee]

77. Ok, well since I THOUGHT I was quoting you

I'll go w/ your estimate

[benEzra]

107. LOL (n/t)

[benEzra]

40. Ammunition restrictions would almost exclusively affect lawful shooters.

A violent criminal could go his entire career on a couple boxes of ammunition, whereas I'll go through that in the first 20 minutes of a single USPSA match, or in half a visit to a shooting range. Many shooters go through thousands of rounds a year.

No thanks...

[GreenStormCloud]

48. HELL NO!!! N/T

[aquart]

5. Thank you for your concern.

It really is just the worst thing when people in a free society disagree.

[VoteProgressive]

8. You sarcasm is noted but I still do not understand what your point is.

[Dogmudgeon]

7. Guns are not synonymous with Violence

But they do make the commission of violence much easier and more casual.

On the other hand, it is never a bad time to promote solutions to violence and hostility. The recent Presidential initiative against bullying, for example. Liberal RKBAers could unite behind conflict-reduction efforts and get only a minimum of flack.

--d!

[Starboard Tack]

90. Nice post

[Zoeisright]

12. Sixty thousand dead Americans every year say you're fucking wrong.

[X_Digger]

16. Umm.. where did that number come from?

http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_sy.html

Approximately 30k people die each year in the US from firearms- and over half those are suicides.

ie.. for 2007- 17,352 suicides, 31,224 'all intents'.

[rl6214]

25. Millions of gun owners say YOU"RE fucking wrong.

[VoteProgressive]

27. Please provide where that number cams from! I would like to know!

[AtheistCrusader]

30. I know, let's take gun-related murders, plus suicides and accidents, and then double it. That'll sou

nd scary as hell.

[billh58]

78. I believe that you

misread the stats. Around 30,000 Americans are shot to death each year (includes homicide, suicide, and accidents) and an additional 65,000 suffer some type of gun injury.

http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2000/09.28/firearms.html

In 2005, U. S. automobile deaths were down to around 34,000, and an additional 5,000,000 (yes, 5 million) were injured in vehicle accidents. (Consider the high exposure rate to vehicles 24/7)

http://www.losangelesinjurylawfirm.com/Personal-Injury-Blog/2010/November/Statistical-Trends-in-U-S-Automobile-Accidents-P.aspx

The following stats come from various sources, but appear to be close estimates:

U. S. population: Estimated at around 310,000,000
Number of guns owned by U. S. citizens: Estimated at around 280,000,000
Number of gun owners in U. S.: Estimated at 45,000,000
Registered vehicles (passenger, trucks, and motorcycles) in U. S.: Estimated at around 270,000,000
Number of drivers in U. S.: Estimated at 200,000,000

[Taitertots]

97. LOL, Two seconds on google and you could have gotten the right numbers

Which leads me to believe your opinions about guns are based on less than two seconds of research/thought.

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

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

[X_Digger]

20. You're terrified of things you don't see??!?

Concealed.. not seen..

:shrug:

[rrneck]

24. Cite to evidence? nt

[rl6214]

26. "Because every day, a thug with a Concealed Carry license

walks into a coffeeshop or a movie theatre and terrifies people"

You have NO FUCKING CLUE!

Concealed means, well, CONCEALED. You have no idea when someone is carrying. Do you just go curl up in the corner and cry because you just know someone around you is carrying?

"Black people across the nation live in greater fear because of Conceal Carry."

Gun control was initiated to keep guns out of the hands of black people.
Again, you have no fucking clue.

"But the truth is lost on people who'd rather rape their own mothers with a razor blade than go to the movies without a gun."

WOW, you are just one sick individual.

[VoteProgressive]

28. The number of CCW carriers and their arrest records are tracked....

Are you saying a lot of them commit crimes?

[AtheistCrusader]

31. You know there's a slight difference between CONCEALED and OPEN carry, right?

[Callisto32]

33. I have a question for you.

It is about this statement. "Now, there are some simple things to do, I think, to make the gun issue better. The first is to hold parents/gun owners responsible criminally for any unsecured gun that end up hurting someone. If a gun owners gun is found by a child and injures a child then the gun owner should be charged with a crime, and go to jail, no doubt about it."

This is a pretty blanket statement, and I would like some clarification.

I'm going to present a situation:

My wife and I have no children yet, and I own multiple firearms. I do NOT keep all of them locked up, as a general rule. While my wife is not a shooter, I have taught her the manual of arms for all of my weapons, and she knows/follows general gun safety rules. I lock up my "unsecured" weapons whenever certain, not all, people come to visit. For example, when my adult, CCW holding friends come over, I don't much bother with locking up my "unsecured" weapon My firearms are secured in the sense that they are within my locked dwelling.

If some 17 year old breaks in here, steals a weapon, and then hurts someone with it, would I be held responsible for that misuse? Do I, in your mind, have a duty to place my firearms under multiple, increasingly difficult to defeat layers of lock?

[VoteProgressive]

34. No, I am not talking about burglary. I am only talking about if....

someone is in your home legally and hurts themselves or someone else with your gun. Children. Under 18.

But I think you should be more careful with your gun even now.

You could be out of town and have no idea when some kid might be invited over to your home. Maybe your wifes sister (or any relative) comes over with the kids and you did not know they were coming. So many cases of accidental death are from "I never expected" type situations.

I will never have a gun accessible, when I am not 5 feet from it, without a combination, keypad or key between the kid and the gun.

[bvar22]

35. Why waste time with Health Care and Economic Justice issues,

when we can shoot our wad on GUNS & Abortions?

I guarantee you that the handful of RICH people that are running BOTH political parties
don't really give a shit WHO gets a gun or an abortion,
and are very happy to have the difference between the two parties defined on those issues.



Who will STAND UP and represent THIS American Majority?
Platitudes, Rhetoric, Empty Promises, and Excuses are meaningless now.

"By their WORKS you will know them,"
And by their WORKS they will be held accountable.

[Katya Mullethov]

38. But I love him Momma !!!

He dont mean none of that .

[Glassunion]

41. +1. well thought and well said.

[felix_numinous]

43. I agree with Michael Moore,

and with his message (that has since gotten lost) in the movie Bowling for Columbine--that American CULTURE causes violence in society. We are saturated with violent images, games and movies from the time we are young.

You can track the increase in violence with the rise in violent media, it is presented with no context, no follow up, and in way that glorifies and romanticizes it. Remember--he said Canada has just as many guns but with a fraction of the violence.

Why does this message get lost---oh I know violent media SELLS. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$ And people ridicule and poo poo the idea that violence in media can influence people--well we know propaganda works, why not all the gratuitous violence? I am advocating censorship, but practicing our first amendment in a socially responsible way, that is, to acknowledge human nature somehow.

Where do you think these violent shooters get their ideas, hate radio, they want to go out in a blaze of glory, and they think they are heros doing it. The people killing gays, abortion doctors, violence against women, and racial violence are all glorified in the media somewhere (or in the pulpit, but that's another source of brain washing). Our media is being used to manipulate the most vulnerable minds, in order to destabilize our society--to create an unsafe society.

Why? If we prove we do not deserve our second amendment rights, if we are goaded into some atrocious act of violence, which may just be a matter of time, we may lose this right.

[X_Digger]

47. How do you explain the drop in violent crime since 1993-4?

[felix_numinous]

50. The point is to compare our violent crimes

with those of other countries, it is much higher. Did you see the movie I am referring to?

[X_Digger]

57. That's not an answer..

If media, etc are the cause of violent crime, then why has violent crime dropped? The media isn't any less violent.

re B for C? Full of bullshit..

3. Animated sequence equating NRA with KKK. In an animated history send-up, with the narrator talking rapidly, Bowling equates the NRA with the Klan, suggesting NRA was founded in 1871, "the same year that the Klan became an illegal terrorist organization." Bowling goes on to depict Klansmen becoming the NRA and an NRA character helping to light a burning cross.

This sequence is intended to create the impression either that NRA and the Klan were parallel groups or that when the Klan was outlawed its members formed the NRA. Both impressions are not merely false, but directly opposed to the real facts.

Fact: The NRA was founded in 1871 -- by act of the New York Legislature, at request of former Union officers. The Klan was founded in 1866, and quickly became a terrorist organization. One might claim that while it was an organization and a terrorist one, it technically became an "illegal" such with passage of the federal Ku Klux Klan Act and Enforcement Act in 1871. These criminalized interference with civil rights, and empowered the President to use troops to suppress the Klan. (Although we'd have to acknowledge that murder, terror and arson were illegal long before that time -- the Klan hadn't been operating legally until 1871, it was operating illegally with the connivance of law enforcement.)

Fact: The Klan Act and Enforcement Act were signed into law by President Ulysess S. Grant. Grant used their provisions vigorously, suspending habeas corpus and deploying troops; under his leadership over 5,000 arrests were made and the Klan was dealt a serious (if all too short-lived) blow.

http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html

Oh.. "he said Canada has just as many guns but with a fraction of the violence. "

Actually, that's not true, either.

http://www.nfa.ca/firearms-ownership-and-use-canada

When the Liberal government of Pierre Elliot Trudeau wanted to bring in legislation to regulation firearms ownership in Canada, its Solicitor General Warren Allmand, commissioned a survey through Statistics Canada to find out about gun ownership in Canada. It is probably one of the most thorough scholarly works ever done on the subject. The survey results were cleared to be released to the public in 1981 in a report by the University of Toronto’s Criminology Centre. The University of Toronto still publishes the report.

For example, there has long been discussion both from all sides of the firearms issue as to how many firearms there are in Canada. The Stenning-Moyer report at table one makes an estimate that in the firearms owning population of persons over 15 of 16,914,000 (labour force) that there were nearly 2.5 million firearm owners of all types with a frequency of ownership for the country of 14.6% (table 1, p. 9) or about 1 person in 7 owning firearms in Canada.

Neither the number nor the rate is anywhere close to the US.

[spin]

58. Here's an interesting article for you to read ...

The most violent country in Europe: Britain is also worse than South Africa and U.S.
By James Slack
Last updated at 12:14 AM on 3rd July 2009

Britain's violent crime record is worse than any other country in the European union, it has been revealed.

Official crime figures show the UK also has a worse rate for all types of violence than the U.S. and even South Africa - widely considered one of the world's most dangerous countries.

The figures comes on the day new Home Secretary Alan Johnson makes his first major speech on crime, promising to be tough on loutish behaviour.


The U.S. has a violence rate of 466 crimes per 100,000 residents, Canada 935, Australia 92 and South Africa 1,609.emphasis added

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html#ixzz1H9so7Gjx

It could be argued that the reason that the violent crime rate in Great Britain is so high is because of their draconian gun laws.


Joyce Lee Malcolm wrote an interesting book on this subject, Guns and Violence: The English Experience

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41GT5PaPoCL._SL500_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-big,TopRight,35,-73_OU01_AA300_.jpg

from the reviews at Amazon.com

Product Description
"Behind the passionate debate over gun control and armed crime lurk assumptions about the link between guns and violence. Indeed, the belief that more guns in private hands means higher rates of armed crime underlies most modern gun control legislation. But are these assumptions valid?

Investigating the complex and controversial issue of the real relationship between guns and violence, Joyce Lee Malcolm presents an incisive, thoroughly researched historical study of England, whose strict gun laws and low rates of violent crime are often cited as proof that gun control works. To place the private ownership of guns in context, Malcolm offers a wide-ranging examination of English society from the Middle Ages to the late twentieth century, analyzing changing attitudes toward crime and punishment, the impact of war, economic shifts, and contrasting legal codes on violence. She looks at the level of armed crime in England before its modern restrictive gun legislation, the limitations that gun laws have imposed, and whether those measures have succeeded in reducing the rate of armed crime.

Malcolm also offers a revealing comparison of the experience in England experience with that in the modern United States. Today Americans own some 200 million guns and have seen eight consecutive years of declining violence, while the English--prohibited from carrying weapons and limited in their right to self-defense have suffered a dramatic increase in rates of violent crime.

This timely and thought-provoking book takes a crucial step in illuminating the actual relationship between guns and violence in modern society."
http://www.amazon.com/Guns-Violence-Joyce-Lee-Malcolm/dp/product-description/0674016084/ref=dp_proddesc_0?ie=UTF8&n=283155&s=books

And just who is Joyce Lee Malcolm?

PROFESSOR OF LAW JOYCE LEE MALCOLM is a historian and constitutional scholar active in the area of constitutional history, focusing on the development of individual rights in Great Britain and America. She has written many books and articles on gun control, the Second Amendment, and individual rights. Her work was cited several times in the recent U.S. Supreme Court opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller.

Professor Malcolm has previously taught at Princeton University, Bentley College, Boston University, Northeastern University and Cambridge University. She was also a Senior Advisor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Security Studies Program, a Visiting Scholar at Massachusetts Center for Renaissance Studies, and is a Bye Fellow at Robinson College, Cambridge University.
http://www.law.gmu.edu/faculty/directory/fulltime/malcolm_joyce

I found Bowling for Columbine a good movie worth watching. As usual Michael Moore made some excellent points. It has always amazed me that our society glorifies unnatural activities such as violence while it censors natural activities such as sex.

[felix_numinous]

84. I just wanted to say I am reading all the interesting responses

in this discussion. I am very open to information. There are 2 issues here that often get mixed, rates of violence and gun violence.

I know that most well balanced people can watch a lot of violence and play violent shooting games and not display violent behavior. What I am most concerned about is all the increased use of media to inspire hate in our society, the fundamentalist extremist inspired behavior we are seeing on the Right, and it seems the most vulnerable people to this kind of media are people who are stressed out and who are the least well informed or well educated.

[Starboard Tack]

88. Oh statistics! Don't you just love them

Violent crime in the UK includes pointing a squirt gun at someone,
30 gun deaths a year next to 30,000 in the US
Try again.

[spin]

101. Obviously you are unfamiliar with knife crime in the U.K.

GOING SOFT ON KNIFE CRIME WILL PROVE A FATAL MISTAKE
Friday March 4,2011

***snip***

A wave of stabbings among youths in our cities would only be halted if people knew that the normal sentence for being caught in possession of a blade would be a custodial one, he said.

The Conservative manifesto even raged against a situation where: “Almost four out of every five people found guilty of a knife crime escape jail.”

So millions of voters will be deeply disillusioned to learn that the proportion of offenders caught with knives who were sent to prison actually fell during the last three months of 2010. It will not take long for the word to get out among gang members that the crackdown they were led to expect has not in fact taken place.

Law and order is a key priority for millions of voters and the policies being peddled by Justice Secretary Kenneth Clarke will undermine rather than bolster public safety.
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/232447

Letters: Knife crime needs to be cut down
Feb 24 2011 Uxbridge Gazette

ALTHOUGH alarming to read of another stabbing in Hayes, it seems to be becoming a regular occurrence all across the UK, and is not confined to just this area (Five arrested after stabbing, Hayes and Harlington Gazette, February 16).

Only last week in the national press, there was outrage after a teenage thug who knifed three lads, leaving one fighting for life, walked free with just a fine and referral order, making a total mockery of the system.
http://www.uxbridgegazette.co.uk/west-london-news/letters-to-the-editor/2011/02/24/letters-knife-crime-needs-to-be-cut-down-113046-28230244/

True scale of violent crime rise revealed
By Tom Whitehead, Home Affairs Editor 10:00PM GMT 08 Mar 2010

Violent attacks are estimated to be 44 per cent higher than they were in 1998 after research on the way police record them allowed comparisons for the first time.

The study, by the independent House of Commons Library, shows violence against the person increased from 618,417 to 887,942 last year.

The devastating review comes despite repeated claims by the Government that violent crime has come down substantially since it took power.

It is the first time such a trend in police recorded crime can be made because a change was made in counting rules in 2002 which ministers have always insisted meant figures before that date were not, therefore, comparable.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/7400372/True-scale-of-violent-crime-rise-revealed.html

[Starboard Tack]

102. I am very familiar with it having spent 20+ years there

Has nothing to do with firearms though. Different issue. In fact it makes my point. More violent society, fewer homicides. Much easier to shoot someone than stab them. Imagine if the hooligans and skinheads had access to guns.

[X_Digger]

103. You mean like this?

2001: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/1440764.stm

Handgun crime 'up' despite ban

A new study suggests the use of handguns in crime rose by 40% in the two years after the weapons were banned.

2003: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/2640817.stm

Gun crime has risen by 35% in a year, new Home Office figures show.

There were 9,974 incidents involving firearms in the 12 months to April 2002 - a rise from 7,362 over the previous year.

2007: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6960431.stm

According to Home Office figures, there were 59 firearms-related homicides in 2006-07 compared with 49 in the previous year. That is an increase of 18% in just one year.

2011: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-12776492

The number of people injured in shootings in Nottinghamshire has risen for the second year running, the BBC has learned.

One person was killed, three seriously hurt and another six injured in 2010 compared to one fatality and five injuries in 2009.

Police released figures following a Freedom of Information Act request.

2011: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-suffolk-12776706

A man arrested after two men were shot at a travellers' site in Suffolk was already on bail after an earlier shooting there, the BBC has learnt.

The victims, both from Essex, were found dead at Willow Park in Beck Row, near Mildenhall, on Tuesday night.

[Starboard Tack]

105. Exactly " 59 gun related homicides"

Now with 5 times the population in the US that would translate to less than 300, rather than 30,000.
Thanks for making my point again.
You are going up and up in my estimation. Love your water tank btw. Very cool

[X_Digger]

106. Point being, an increasing number of criminals are getting their hands on guns..

Which underscores a criminological tenets- namely, that firearm use by criminals is a demand-driven phenomenon, not a supply-driven one.

Thanks re the tank- it turned five years old a couple of months ago.

[PavePusher]

63. Really? I watch "violent" media quite often, am in the military...

and have seen violence in real life.

The last time I struck someone outside a dojo or not in self-defense was over 26 years ago.


Stupid violence has happened throughout history. How do you explain that? Was it a product of T.V. and time travel, perhaps?

[DWC]

45. Double edged sword

Every individual "Right" in a free society has an equal and off setting individual "Responsibility". Failure to meet that responsibility carries individual penalties.

It is just that simple.

Semper Fi,

[Tuesday Afternoon]

46. edit subject line: We need to give up because it does NOT need fixing. K&R

[VoteProgressive]

53. It might have needed fixing, but no way to fix it now.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

55. I see the Unreccers have arrived full force

we will continue to lose :(

[VoteProgressive]

68. I agree, but it is a hard concept to get if you are really anti-gun....

And I understand the anti-gun people more than where. I REALLY wish we didn't need them. But we do at this point.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

71. I am not sure I understand you but, if I do, I respectfully disagree

as you know I think that the anti-gunners hurt the Dem party as bad as the anti-abortionists have hurt the Rep party.

People of all parties, it is time to move past these 2 issues.

[VoteProgressive]

74. I don't mind anti-gunners.....

But the democrats need to drop it as a political issue. At some point the GOP will drop gays as a political issue. Both causes hurts the parties.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

76. uhm. alright.

whatever.

[VoteProgressive]

79. How about you and just agree to disagree and quit communicating???

[Tuesday Afternoon]

81. If I reply to this does that mean we are still communicating

just trying to make sure I understand...

you say gays

I say anti-abortionists

no biggie

[lawodevolution]

49. People don't want their children to be involved in a gun accident

Which is why gun safety should be taught in schools including the value to having a gun safe

[DWC]

51. People don't want ANYONE to be involved in a gun accident

Yes, gun safety should be taught in schools but MUST be taught in the home. People have the Right to have children. They have the Responsibility to educate them.

Semper Fi,

[VoteProgressive]

54. Any child gun accident is the gun owners/adults fault! Period!

[PavePusher]

64. If only the world was as black/white as you wish..... n/t

[VoteProgressive]

52. I disagree. We don't teach ladder safety or chain saw safety. And school is....

Not for gun safety!

[spin]

60. With more than 300 million firearms in our country ...

it should be obvious that most people will encounter a firearm or someone handling a firearm in their lifetime.

If a person has a little knowledge of gun safety, they are better prepared to handle the situation in a safe and rational manner than if their knowledge of firearms is based on movies and TV.

Firearm safety should be a mandatory class in high school. The reason it isn't is that those who oppose firearm fear that if children are exposed to firearms they might forget all the anti-firearm propaganda they have been taught and might actually develop a healthy interest in owning and using a firearm.

Forbidden items and forbidden knowledge are always attractive and to younger people "cool". If a mandatory gun safety course was taught in a typical high school, the teachers would make it so boring that none of the students would have any future interest in firearms.

I really enjoyed reading Shakespeare until I was exposed to Macbeth in a high school English class. I have never read anything by the Bard of Avon since.

[VoteProgressive]

67. Not worth the fight it would cause....

Some parents do not want their kids exposed to guns. It would not fly.

[PavePusher]

70. If it save only one life....

it would be well worth it. Right?

[VoteProgressive]

72. Mandatory 24 hour defensive CCW training would save one life! Want that also? Nt

[PavePusher]

75. Not particularly, unless we put similar requiements on all our Civil Rights.

I was merely parroting an oft-used phrase trotted out to justify many abbrogations of Rights, liberty, freedom and justice, by all slices of the political spectrum. It's as much a stupid pablum for this as for anything else.

[VoteProgressive]

80. I see your point! nt

[spin]

82. Some parents also don't want their kids learning about sex in school ...

and refuse to take the responsibility to teach their own kids.

The results are often sad.

[YllwFvr]

108. i believe the eddy eagle program

teaches safety without ever letting the kids even see a gun or replica gun. Never took it myself so its just hearsay really

[PavePusher]

65. I'm guessing your schools didn't have shop classes or FFA or equivalents...? n/t

[VoteProgressive]

66. Voluntary classes only.not required.

[PavePusher]

69. Frankly, basic tool-using and safety should be required courses.

The savings in emergency medical costs alone would probably pay for it and more.

Not to mention that we should be teaching actual competence in schools, not mere feel good/socializing.

[PavePusher]

73. I'm not seeing that there is a "problem" that needs to be "solved".

"If a gun owners gun is found by a child and injures a child then the gun owner should be charged with a crime, and go to jail, no doubt about it."

"If you are a CCW citizen and you accidentally shoot someone you should also pay a criminal penalty. The more of these type shootings that cause someone to serve time, then the more responsible gun owners will notice."

Can you cite to evidence that these are actually a statistically significant problem? And that we actually need to ramp up additional/more severe punishments for it? It has been demonstrated repeatedly here that crime and gun accidents are going down under our current laws and enforcement. Removing restrictions on obtaining, keeping and carrying firearms does not seem to be negatively affecting this trend.


You are, I think, trying to stir up a tempest in a teacup, in perspective to the far bigger root problems our nation has today. in medical terms, you're trying to fight the fever, while ignoring the infection causing it.

[billh58]

83. And I believe that

we, as a nation, need to "give up" framing the argument as either gun control, or as unrestricted RKBA "rights." Neither group of hard-liners is correct in judging the Middle American view on the subject of gun ownership.

All enumerated rights in our Constitution allow for "reasonableness," and the Second Amendment is no exception. There are a few unreasonable prohibitionists who would ban all private ownership of guns, and a few unreasonable fundamentalists who would repeal all restrictions on the use of firearms. Both of these radical camps are in the minority, and neither of them will ever get their tunnel-visioned demands met by Middle American voters.

I don't believe that any reasonable person has a problem with what Americans do, or keep, in the privacy of their own homes -- as long as it is not harmful to others. I don't believe that any reasonable person has a problem with the common sense regulation of the use of firearms in the public venue.

I DO believe that ALL reasonable people believe that strictly enforcing laws aimed at keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and other unstable citizens is a desirable goal. I further believe that this goal is entirely consistent with values of Liberal Democrats.

The constant name-calling, vitriol, and juvenile taunts seen on this forum on a daily basis does absolutely nothing to address the real problems which contribute to the world record of 30,000 deaths a year from gun shot wounds.

We have managed to drastically reduce the number of automobile-related deaths in the past few years through improved safety standards, education, and stepped-up enforcement of DUI laws. Why can't we take the same approach with reducing gun deaths?

[Starboard Tack]

93. Very well said. I agree 100%

[felix_numinous]

99. +100

Reasonable, responsible, that is the key. This is a very difficult subject to discuss and you expressed yourself much better than I did. I usually trip up by dragging in other subjects, but you nailed it.

[felix_numinous]

85. Is second amendment rights being threatened by false data?

Is part of propaganda to saturate us with violent news, examples of irresponsible use, and hatemongering in order to disrupt society so we lose our right to bear arms? I am still trying to figure this out.

Freedom comes with responsibility, I think that RESPONSIBLE USE should be the message of the left regarding guns, drugs--and the freedom of speech (no hate speech). Law abiding citizens need to be represented, we need to make our case for deserving to have these rights, we earn it every day.

Living in a free society comes with risk, right to bear arms comes with risk, the right to free speech means some people will abuse this right, the right to drink and take drugs means we know some people will not be responsible, so that is what the laws are for, not for innocent citizens.

I apologize for my earlier post, it detracted from the subject.

[Starboard Tack]

87. So refreshing to see someone talking rationally and responsibly here

How do you feel about college kids going to class armed?

[GreenStormCloud]

94. Don't you mean ADULTS?

Kids can't get CCWs.

[Starboard Tack]

95. You and I have had this conversation

My question was to the OP, who appears to be a very rational individual.

[VoteProgressive]

98. Define kids!