Are you a pro-gun Democrat?

[RoeBear]

Would you be insulted to be called a "pro-gun democrat"?

[Rowdyboy]

1. Too many qualifiers would have to be attached to be honest

There are shades of gray.

[havocmom]

2. agree with Rowdyboy

Just list me as a Democrat who really really thinks we need to get off the gun issue.

[clydefrand]

3. There are guns and there are guns

Who needs guns for warring other than warriors? I have no objections to hunters and gun enthusiasts owning guns, but I do have a problem with guns that are meant only for the purpose of killing humans in wars. I have a big problem with wars, but then we haven't evolved enough I guess to see the senselessness of it.

[slackmaster]

131. Modern weapons of war are not generally available

A provision of the Firearms Owner's Protection Act of 1986 stopped the manufacture of fully automatic weapons for other than police and military use. Other than the highly regulated and very expensive weapons registered under the National Firearms Act (i.e. machineguns), the only weapons of war available to the general public are obsolete for military purposes.

I have several old military bolt-action rifles and a few semiautomatic classics like the M1 Garand. Other than being generally heavier and uglier they are no different than sporting firearms. They may at one time have been weapons of war, but if one really wants to kill people there are a lot of "better" options available. As a collector of curios and relics I can't see original military utility being a reasonable criterion for banning something.

[napi21]

4. I have been a hunter all my life, and have quite a gun collection.

I believe the individual States should impose their own gun laws. There's a big difference between people owning guns in NY, NJ, Chicago,and L.A. and SD, WY, OR, UT etc.

I guess my point is, there should be strict laws in large cities that have a major crime problem, but people who aren't threatened with those problems really don't want anyone messing with their stuff!

It would also be a much easier law to pass at a local level than making people feel they have to have the same rules in Rapid City that they have in NYC.

It's done with air polution all the time. I live in Ga. If you live in or near Atlanta, you are under the emissions laws to have yur car inspected every year. I live about 40 miles outside of Atlanta, and I don't have to have the inspection.

The same thing could be done with the gun laws. Based on the crome rate, there's laws, or not.

[Bowline]

7. In a perfect world your idea would work wonderfully.

However, the places with the worst gun crime already have the toughest gun laws. NYC, Chicago, D.C., Baltimore. All places where it is all but impossible to legally own/carry a handgun yet gun crime is higher there than anywhere else in the country. Banning guns DOES NOT reduce gun crime. It's just reality.

[napi21]

9. I wouldn't use that argument if I were you.

That's exactly the one the NRA would jump on!

"Laws don't work, and taking guns out of an area just permits the crominals to have guns. Let everybody have them, and the criminals won't know who's armed thereby reducing the gun crime."

If I had the perfect answer, I wouldn't be sitting here today, I'd be on MY campaign trail. :)

[Bowline]

16. I certainly don't propose giving guns to everyone...

but it's a proven fact that taking guns away from the law abiding citizens does NOT lower crime nor does it prevent criminals from getting guns. The facts speak for themselves.

[Crachet2004]

17. I agree with you. It should be decided at the state and local level.

I have lived in cities, and can understand why they don't want people carrying guns around with them. I have been in celebratory crowds with as high as a million people attending, and if one person in the crowd starts firing, for whatever reason, and everyone is armed...well, like I say, I can understand gun control in urban areas. But I think even in the cities, you should be allowed weapons for home defense.

But my homebase is WV. Here, it takes an hour to get a cop, if you are lucky. A man was killed-brutally beaten to death by four punks, in his own home-not four miles from here, a couple of weeks ago. It is not a high crime area, but these things happen in the country, too.

I walked down to one of our ponds a couple of years ago and found steaming bear dung on the dike! Yesterday, a buddy of mine told me one came up to him in his garden! He said it was friendly, but what if it got 'unfriendly' all of a sudden? I carry a pistol in the woods...and I have run from my last dog. I am getting too old for that crap.

No, New York city is a different world than many of our rural states...and one size does NOT always fit all, especially on gun control.

And we have lost too many elections fighting a battle that by now is apparent will never be won-at least on a national level.

[Bowline]

18. I wonder why some people insist on pretending the facts aren't the facts.

The places with some of the highest gun crime rates have the strictest anti-gun laws in the nation.(NYC, D.C., Chicago, Boston)

Places with very liberal gun laws have much lower gun crime rates. Alaska and Vermont have NO laws prohibiting carrying concealed handguns. Alaska and Vermont also have very low crime rates. Anybody who can legally own a gun in Alaska or Vermont can carry a concealed handgun. Not everyone does, but everyone CAN.

People don't like to hear facts that disagree with their position, and I'm absolutely certain I'll get flamed for pointing this out, but hey, denial ain't just a river in Egypt folks.

[Crachet2004]

25. Let them flame. When it reaches that point, they know they have lost...

The argument. And what about that high risk of crime country Switzerland? Where everyone is part of a massive militia and required to keep their equipment, including rifle at home? If we would go to the Swiss plan, we would have a much better 'Homeland' defense, cut defense spending down to practically nothing, AND solve the crime problem with 100% efficiency! Getting our military out of everyone's face around the world would also solve, or nearly solve, terrorism.

Plus, we would get to laugh at all the anti-gun people trying to hit the broad side of a barn, with a DI screaming in their face-my bet is on the barn. For my part, a couple of weeks in the woods with a rifle every year sounds like a paid vacation.

But seriously, I live in the most civilized part of WV, but it is still fairly isolated and wild.

[Bowline]

39. You are correct about the flaming.

Regardless of the topic being argued it is usually the last resort of the losing side when all reason and logic refutes their point.

Interesting point about Switzerland, and I believe Norway and possibly Sweden too but I'm not 100% positive, is that civilians are trusted with REAL assault weapons. Fully-automatic weapons with bayonet lugs, folding stocks, and even the dreaded flash suppressor. No blood in the streets, no massacres in church.

[MrBenchley]

26. That IS funny....

[iverglas]

48. the amazing thing is

I have lived in cities, and can understand why they don't want people carrying guns around with them. I have been in celebratory crowds with as high as a million people attending, and if one person in the crowd starts firing, for whatever reason, and everyone is armed...well, like I say, I can understand gun control in urban areas.

-- there are no customs checkpoints between US states, and between US cities and the surrounding areas!

Isn't that amazing??

And the truly amazing thing is -- some people break laws!

Now when you put these two things together, what do you suppose you get?

Why, it couldn't be firearms being imported into areas where it is illegal to possess them from areas where it is legal to possess them could it??

You raise the needs of people in rural areas for firearms for protection against animals. (I'll leave aside the "home defence" crap, which I do regard as crap, your anecdote notwithstanding. Or I'd raise you the stats on women in your state shot dead by their intimate partners, or kids killed when playing with firearms, etc.)

So, how about a system in which qualified ("law-abiding") people in such areas (or anywhere, really) are entirely at liberty to own whatever legal firearms they want -- but they must be licensed to acquire them and they must register their ownership of them, and they are subject to safe storage and transportation rules?

Do you think that this might be a deterrent to people who have access to firearms in those areas, from selling them on to people in the cities where they are *not* needed for protection against bears, and where it is illegal to possess them? Or to people who are prohibited from possessing them?

I'm sure you're a nice person who would never sell that pistol of yours to a shady character from NYC, or leave it lying around in your pickup for such a shady character to steal and take home to NYC. But I'm sure you know that not everybody is quite as nice as you. Some people apparently actually do those things. I mean, how else to explain at least some of those guns in NYC?

Can you not imagine accepting the tiny inconvenience, and paying the negligible fee, for being licensed and for registering your firearms, that might be the cost of keeping some of those firearms out of NYC, and off the streets where the people who've never done you any disservice get shot with them?

Sure, there are some people who will still sell on their firearms, or handle them so negligently that they get swiped and end up on the streets of NYC.

But when they did it, they'd know that if that firearm ended up at a police station in NYC, after being used in a robbery or murder, it might well get traced back to them. And that might just be enough of an incentive for people only slightly less nice than you to keep a firm grip on their firearms.

Anyhow. Do you know of anyone who is actually proposing that you not be permitted to possess firearms for the purposes you describe? I mean, I don't see the need for a handgun, myself -- leastwise not any need that outweighs the fact that about 12,000 people get killed with handguns in the US every year (something like 5 times as many people as are killed with all other firearms combined).

I don't know of anybody who is. (I know somebody here who likes the idea, but I don't think he's actually proposing that an attempt be made to legislate it.)

Essentially, what I've described is the Canadian system. People wishing to own or acquire firearms must be licensed. Firearms acquisitions must be registered. It is not easy to acquire a handgun (it may be done by members of sport shooting clubs or by people who require it for their employment).

And Canada has (roughly speaking) 1/2 the homicide rate of the US -- but 1/8 the firearms homicide rate and 1/15 the handgun homicide rate. And if it weren't for the handguns smuggled into Canada from the US (and also handguns stolen from negligent owners within Canada), that last one would undoubtedly be lower.

Doesn't that sound nice? Are you really unwilling to consider a few minor inconveniences, in terms of your own firearms possession, if the result could be expected to be even a few more people not dying?

Firearms, like people, circulate freely within your country (and all too often, despite the border, into mine). Laws that merely punish firearms possession post facto in the NYCs of the land, when somebody happens to get caught with one (usually after the harm has been done), really don't do much to reduce harm. Isn't that one of the reasons we make laws -- not just to punish people who cause harm, but to prevent harm from occurring?

[goju]

99. I dont think that is effective

I doubt the effects of firearm registration on crime reduction. Here is why. Either you are trying to prevent law abiding citizens from "selling them on to people in the cities where they are *not* needed for protection against bears, and where it is illegal to possess them? Or to people who are prohibited from possessing them?" (thus criminals), or you are trying to prevent criminals from transferring guns to criminals. Either way, I doubt it would take long for those people who are illegally selling guns (thus criminals) to prevent the tracking measures you suggest. Filing off serial numbers or altering the barrel would render any gun untraceable.

And, I wouldnt attribute Canda's homicide rate directly to gun ownership. Correlation does not necessarily infer causation. Im sure you recognize the impact of other societal factors that are likely more relevant than gun ownership on homicide rates ie, poverty, drugs, drug abuse, organized crime etc. All those factors go up in relation to urbanization, where ironically enough, most US homicides occur.

As far as interstate firearms transportation laws, we have those in place already. If your concern is guns going to Canada, then that responsibility belongs to Canada to police its own borders.

No, I dont see registration as a deterrent to criminal activity or a preventative measure in reducing crime. I dont see law abiding citizens selling guns illegally either. If we want to prevent criminals from selling guns, we should focus on the criminal, not the law abiding citizens.

[iverglas]

149. yada yada yeah yeah yeah

I'm sorry, but the same tired old responses ...

And, I wouldnt attribute Canda's homicide rate directly to gun ownership. Correlation does not necessarily infer causation.

No, correlation does not imply causation. But really strong correlations make smart people look for causes.

When it comes to Canada and the US --

- the fact that the difference between the rates of non-firearm homicides is not nearly so large as the difference between the rates of firearms homicides, which in turn is not nearly so large as the difference between the rates of handgun homicides

and

- the fact that all firearms owners are required to be licenced and all firearms to be registered, and the fact that handgun possession is very uncommon and difficult in Canada

-- just, well, cry out for further examination, don't they?

Is there some socioeconomic factor that would make handgun homicides such a much smaller percentage of homicides in Canada?

Well, one might be the lower level of gang-/organized crime-related violence in general, including the lower proportion of homicides accounted for by such homicides.

There are various reasons why there might be a lower level of such crime and homicides in Canada. The higher level of social justice & equity might be one of them. But is there some reason to say, a priori, that the difficulty of access to handguns -- which are the weapon of choice for such crimes/homicides -- is not one reason?


Either you are trying to prevent law abiding citizens from "selling them on to people in the cities where they are *not* needed for protection against bears, and where it is illegal to possess them? Or to people who are prohibited from possessing them?" (thus criminals), or you are trying to prevent criminals from transferring guns to criminals.

Hmm. And where did those FIRST criminals, the ones who transferred the firearms to the second criminals, GET THEM?

Firearms DO NOT drop like lawn darts from the sky. There is ALWAYS a first LEGAL OWNER.

Yes, there are firearms in circulation among criminals in the US that will remain in circulation among criminals until they are somehow -- one by one from individual criminals when apprehended, or in batches when traffickers are apprehended -- taken out of circulation.

But NEW FIREARMS do not get into circulation among criminals BY MAGIC. They come from a "law-abiding gun owner" -- someone who was legally entitled to acquire and possess the firearm -- at some point.

Whether they come from that "law-abiding gun owner" as the result of a straw purchase, an illegal sale or transfer, or theft, it is the "law-abiding gun owner" who has put the firearm into criminal circulation.

How many times does this need to be said, by how many people, before someone decides to stop pretending nobody ever said it and ignoring the fact that IT IS TRUE?

Either way, I doubt it would take long for those people who are illegally selling guns (thus criminals) to prevent the tracking measures you suggest. Filing off serial numbers or altering the barrel would render any gun untraceable.

Yup, that's what's done in Canada with firearms stolen from their legal owners. Firearms that have been illegally imported into Canada for use as crime guns, after being acquired in the US at a gun show, or via a straw purchase, or by theft, or from other criminals, don't tend to have their serial numbers filed off; no need to bother, they aren't traceable anyway.

I'm sure that with all our technology we can, or have, come up with some way of increasing the likelihood of a firearm being traceable. Those firearm-fingerprint thingies are one, albeit not entirely reliable, way. We microchip our pets; why not our firearms? Why not a serial number in a place where it couldn't be filed off without altering the functionality of the firearm? Why not a bar code somewhere inaccessible? I'm not the expert, but I know that experts exist.

As far as interstate firearms transportation laws, we have those in place already.

Yeah, and you have laws against shoplifting already. Funny how many people still shoplift.

Laws that threaten punishment have to be directed at people who are genuinely going to be deterred by that threat of punishment if they are to be minimally effective at preventing the harm that they are meant to prevent.

Threatening bad people with punishment for doing bad things just doesn't work really well.

Threatening less-bad people -- people who actually have something to lose, like firearms dealers and "law-abiding gun owners" -- with punishment might just be a little more likely to prevent firearms being transferred to criminals from non-criminals.

If your concern is guns going to Canada, then that responsibility belongs to Canada to police its own borders.

Yeah, we'll take your neighbourly concern under advisement. Keep in mind that the terrorists you folks down there are so worried about have no beef with Canada, so perhaps, if your concern is about terrorists entering the US from Canada, you could just police your own fucking borders and leave us the hell out of it, 'k? Ditto our fine home-grown substances, and the constant threat of trade/political sanctions we live under if we don't jump when the US tells us to on enforcement.

(And I don't give a shit whether you think possession of drugs should be legal in the US, any more than you give a shit that I think access to firearms should be subject to the restrictions it's subject to in Canada. Border issues always exist between countries with different domestic rules, and might doesn't make right in this instance any more than in any other.)

No, I dont see registration as a deterrent to criminal activity or a preventative measure in reducing crime.

Bully for you. Too bad you can't actually offer fact or argument to support your opinion.

I dont see law abiding citizens selling guns illegally either.

Yup. They spring, fully formed and loaded, from Moses' forehead.

[goju]

159. Check some facts

"There are various reasons why there might be a lower level of such crime and homicides in Canada. The higher level of social justice & equity might be one of them. But is there some reason to say, a priori, that the difficulty of access to handguns -- which are the weapon of choice for such crimes/homicides -- is not one reason?"

I never said availability wasnt one reason. I said I wouldnt attribute lower homicide rates directly to gun ownership. Switzerland has a much greater per capita handgun ownership than Canada, but have far fewer handgun homicides than Canada. So, as you said, "really strong correlations make smart people look for causes". I agree! Its how much effort you put into causation thats important. Thats, thats why I said, societal factors, gangs, drugs, poverty, etc.. might play a larger role in homicide rates than gun control advocates are willing to admit.

"Firearms DO NOT drop like lawn darts from the sky. There is ALWAYS a first LEGAL OWNER."

Lawn darts are illegal! ;)

"But NEW FIREARMS do not get into circulation among criminals BY MAGIC. They come from a "law-abiding gun owner" -- someone who was legally entitled to acquire and possess the firearm -- at some point."

You are almost correct, but not quite. This is the assumption you made, I tried to point it out last time. Here is what you need to know:

"Notwithstanding that most crime guns were bought from an FFL by someone other than their criminal possessor, many crime guns were recovered soon after their initial purchase. A short time from retail sale to recovery in crime, known as time-to-crime, is an indicator of illegal diversion or criminal intent associated with the retail sale. The presence of short time-to-crime guns also shows that many firearm offenses, including violent offenses with firearms, involve new guns."
http://www.atf.gov/firearms/ycgii/1999/states/newyork.pdf
I guess I need to restate the fact that criminals dont obey laws, even if they have an FFL. Assumptions are killers.

But lets look how effective criminalizing handguns and the registration/tracking program has worked in New York:
http://www.atf.gov/firearms/ycgii/1999/states/newyork.pdf
Page 16 and 17 clearly show that despite gun control efforts and excessive licensing/registration requirements that exist in New York, much as you have in Canada, most guns used in crimes are acquired in New York. But, I thought those weapons would be near impossible to acquire and we would see a dramatic decrease in homicide rates? Imagine that!

"How many times does this need to be said, by how many people, before someone decides to stop pretending nobody ever said it and ignoring the fact that IT IS TRUE?"

Dont know, depends on your willingness to look at the facts and how long you will continue denying them.

"I'm sure that with all our technology we can, or have, come up with some way of increasing the likelihood of a firearm being traceable. Those firearm-fingerprint thingies are one, albeit not entirely reliable, way. We microchip our pets; why not our firearms? Why not a serial number in a place where it couldn't be filed off without altering the functionality of the firearm? Why not a bar code somewhere inaccessible? I'm not the expert, but I know that experts exist."

Find out and get back to me. Im not opposed to any crime reduction measure that is effective.

"Yeah, and you have laws against shoplifting already. Funny how many people still shoplift."

Yep, and we have thousands of gun laws too. Funny how many people still commit crimes with them. Your point was?

"Yeah, we'll take your neighbourly concern under advisement. Keep in mind that the terrorists you folks down there are so worried about have no beef with Canada, so perhaps, if your concern is about terrorists entering the US from Canada, you could just police your own fucking borders and leave us the hell out of it, 'k? Ditto our fine home-grown substances, and the constant threat of trade/political sanctions we live under if we don't jump when the US tells us to on enforcement."

Interesting. You attribute Canada's homicide rate to US gun ownership, but you dont want to police YOUR own borders and stop the alleged flow of illegal weapons to your country? Who are you waiting for to fix the alleged problem?

"Bully for you. Too bad you can't actually offer fact or argument to support your opinion."

LOL, ok, if you say so.

[iverglas]

162. and blow that straw somewhere else

I never said availability wasnt one reason. I said I wouldnt attribute lower homicide rates directly to gun ownership.

AND I DID NOT attribute lower homicide rates directly to "gun ownership" -- or even to the licensing/registration requirements and difficulty of access to handguns, which is what I was actually talking about.

I DID NOT DO THAT in either my initial post to which you replied or the post to which you have just responded.

So whom, exactly, might you be addressing here, and why?

Thats, thats why I said, societal factors, gangs, drugs, poverty, etc.. might play a larger role in homicide rates than gun control advocates are willing to admit.

And when are you planning to say handgun availability might play a larger role in THE EXISTENCE of gangs, the commission of crimes facilitated by handguns, the commission of homicides by handgun, etc., than gun control opponents are willing to admit?

Of course, you're just attacking a straw thing again anyway.

NO FIREARMS CONTROL ADVOCATE whom I have ever read here has EVER said that "societal factors" do NOT play a large role in homicide rates, for fuck's sake.

Why do you have to keep inventing these stupid and disingenuous adversaries? Why can't you just address WHAT PEOPLE ACTUALLY SAY?

I guess I need to restate the fact that criminals dont obey laws, even if they have an FFL. Assumptions are killers.

Uh ... you mean that assumption that "law-abiding gun owners" ARE LAW-ABIDING?

NO SHIT!!!

... And, uh, your point was?

But lets look how effective criminalizing handguns and the registration/tracking program has worked in New York: ...

No, let's not waste our bleeding time. Unless and until you can demonstrate that the restrictions on handgun acquisition in New York ACTUALLY PREVENT ACCESS TO HANDGUNS, you're talking great big fat rotten apples and oranges.

Let's run through this again, okay?

Laws that prohibit the possession of "x" are going to deter people from possessing "x" IF THEY CONSIDER THE RISK OF THE PUNISHMENT too great.

CRIMINALS, by fucking definition, do not generally regard the risk of any particular punishment as too great.

Laws that make possessing "x" a crime are enforced by punishing people for possessing "x" -- the people who are apprehended in possession of "x", generally a pretty small proportion of the people who actually possess "x" (or do any other "y" they are prohibited from doing).

The New York laws prohibit people from possessing handguns. THEY DO NOT PREVENT ANYONE from acquiring handguns. And THEY DO NOT DETER CRIMINALS from possessing handguns -- and using them to commit crimes and kill people. The laws of a jurisdiction which does not have entry controls on people/things coming from other jurisdictions CAN NOT prevent anyone from possessing anything. All they can do is punish the people who happen to get caught, post facto -- AFTER the harm is done.

If you want to give an indication that you give a shit about the people to whom that harm is done, stamp your foot twice or something. Or respond to what is said with something other than irrelevancies and falsehoods.

Dont know, depends on your willingness to look at the facts and how long you will continue denying them.

Do you get some kind of endorphin high from acting like a daycare denizen? Do you get little PMs from the other kids in the class saying "yeah, good one, way to go!"?

This is the statement I made and sought a response to by inquiring why it was never addressed, and to which you "responded" by chanting nonsense:

Whether they come from that "law-abiding gun owner" as the result of a straw purchase, an illegal sale or transfer, or theft, it is the "law-abiding gun owner" who has put the firearm into criminal circulation.

Now what's your response, again? "I know you are but what am I?" was it?

Yeah, and you have laws against shoplifting already. Funny how many people still shoplift.
Yep, and we have thousands of gun laws too. Funny how many people still commit crimes with them. Your point was?

Well, if you really want to make yourself look like the kind of dunderhead or dissembler who says s/he doesn't know what my point was, you go right ahead.

Interesting. You attribute Canada's homicide rate to US gun ownership, but you dont want to police YOUR own borders and stop the alleged flow of illegal weapons to your country?

Fascinating. In a single sentence, you make two utterly and completely false assertions about me. Is it a talent one has to be born with, or can it be learned? Never mind; given that if I had the talent I'd probably kill myself, there's little point in offering me lessons.

Here's a clue. If Canada wanted to prevent firearms from being brought across the border from the US, we could put up big signs saying "no firearms allowed!" and do nothing else. No customs officers, no oral examinations of persons seeking entry, no inspections of vehicles or shipments, no computer checks of identity and background, no patrols of waterways. Just "no firearms allowed! (and watch out; if we do happen to catch you, we'll throw the book at you)".

But oddly enough, we actually DO things to keep firearms out.

Unfortunately, New York doesn't have that authority. All it can do is put up that big sign. And cross its fingers, I guess. And say devout thanks every night to all the "law-abiding gun owners" in the rest of the country who sell firearms to people who use them to commit crimes and kill people in New York, and their colleagues who just don't give a shit.

[MrBenchley]

164. And in fact, Iverglas...

His assertion about the NYC origin of those guns turned out to be, well, let's say on a par with other "facts" from "pro-gun democrats." Of the nearly 4,000 crime guns in NYC that had been traced in that report, just a hair over 200 turned out to have been bought in NYC itself.

[skippythwndrdog]

186. But golly, MeBenchley, there are THOUSANDS of gun shops in NYC!

I just never found one when I lived there, except for a terribly overpriced place. I had to leave the city to find anything even close to the MSRP on firearms and accessories. It's amazing that even NYC dwellers will avoid high prices when they can.

I'm glad I'm not there now. I enjoy all of my firearms too much to give any of them up because of the NYC handgun nanny laws.

I'll write more after I go fire a few mags from my 9MM and do the requisite post-jeans creaming laundry.

[MrBenchley]

195. Cry me a river, skippy....

"I'm glad I'm not there now."
I suspect the feeling is mutual.....

[goju]

175. Oh I see.....

So now you say:

"AND I DID NOT attribute lower homicide rates directly to "gun ownership" -- or even to the licensing/registration requirements and difficulty of access to handguns, which is what I was actually talking about.

I DID NOT DO THAT in either my initial post to which you replied or the post to which you have just responded.
"

But your first post alleged:

"Essentially, what I've described is the Canadian system. People wishing to own or acquire firearms must be licensed. Firearms acquisitions must be registered. It is not easy to acquire a handgun (it may be done by members of sport shooting clubs or by people who require it for their employment).

And Canada has (roughly speaking) 1/2 the homicide rate of the US -- but 1/8 the firearms homicide rate and 1/15 the handgun homicide rate. And if it weren't for the handguns smuggled into Canada from the US (and also handguns stolen from negligent owners within Canada), that last one would undoubtedly be lower."

Sure sounds like youve not only attributed causation, but found the magic solution too! If only we were Canada eh? Causation does not necessarily infer causation.



}"And when are you planning to say handgun availability might play a larger role in THE EXISTENCE of gangs, the commission of crimes facilitated by handguns, the commission of homicides by handgun, etc., than gun control opponents are willing to admit?"

So now handguns CAUSE gangs? Not only are handguns now responsible for the existence of gangs, but they also CAUSE the crimes they committ too! Its not the drugs or the turf battles or the decades old rivalaries, all the fighting is over guns. I see now.




"NO FIREARMS CONTROL ADVOCATE whom I have ever read here has EVER said that "societal factors" do NOT play a large role in homicide rates, for fuck's sake."

Nor have the control advocates explicity included societal factors in their purported quest to make the world safer. Like you for instance. In your original post, you disregarded ANY societal factors in your assertion that handguns CAUSE homicide and you evidenced that by pointing to Canada's gun laws. Wherein lies the societal factors you now preach about, for fuck sakes?



"Why do you have to keep inventing these stupid and disingenuous adversaries? Why can't you just address WHAT PEOPLE ACTUALLY SAY?"

In fact, I did address what you SAID, not what you might have said or wanted to say or forgot to say.



"Uh ... you mean that assumption that "law-abiding gun owners" ARE LAW-ABIDING?"

Ah, I see. Very progressive! You have such contempt for gun owners that you have labeled all of us criminals. Nice work!



"No, let's not waste our bleeding time. Unless and until you can demonstrate that the restrictions on handgun acquisition in New York ACTUALLY PREVENT ACCESS TO HANDGUNS, you're talking great big fat rotten apples and oranges."

LMAO, thank you. So, you consider this debate a waste of time unless and until I provide proof that the current, very strictive handgun laws in New York DONT prevent access to handguns????? Thank you, youve just realized what every gun owner here has been saying ad nauseum. Criminals dont obey laws. But dont let me take up the whole debate, you keep going.......

"The New York laws prohibit people from possessing handguns. THEY DO NOT PREVENT ANYONE from acquiring handguns. And THEY DO NOT DETER CRIMINALS from possessing handguns -- and using them to commit crimes and kill people. "

Heheeheee, preach on.... we have a new convert in our midst! When you are done, I have an old Ruger Im trying to sell, you should probably take a look at it.




"The laws of a jurisdiction which does not have entry controls on people/things coming from other jurisdictions CAN NOT prevent anyone from possessing anything. All they can do is punish the people who happen to get caught, post facto -- AFTER the harm is done."

Are you at long last proposing the "customs" checkpoints between states you originally mentioned? Now thats a futile and expensive non working solution if Ive ever heard one. Havent we already covered the Canadian version of customs laws and their efficacy?



"If you want to give an indication that you give a shit about the people to whom that harm is done, stamp your foot twice or something. Or respond to what is said with something other than irrelevancies and falsehoods."

Hey, thats what I was gonna say!




"Now what's your response, again? "I know you are but what am I?" was it?"

No, I cited the ATF's own report. Doesnt that meet the standard for the control group, or should I have cited a Canadian source?




"Well, if you really want to make yourself look like the kind of dunderhead or dissembler who says s/he doesn't know what my point was, you go right ahead."

I understood your point perfectly, and you understand mine. The question is, are willing to admit it?



"Fascinating. In a single sentence, you make two utterly and completely false assertions about me. Is it a talent one has to be born with, or can it be learned? Never mind; given that if I had the talent I'd probably kill myself, there's little point in offering me lessons.

Here's a clue. If Canada wanted to prevent firearms from being brought across the border from the US, we could put up big signs saying "no firearms allowed!" and do nothing else. No customs officers, no oral examinations of persons seeking entry, no inspections of vehicles or shipments, no computer checks of identity and background, no patrols of waterways. Just "no firearms allowed! (and watch out; if we do happen to catch you, we'll throw the book at you)".

But oddly enough, we actually DO things to keep firearms out."

Really now? How effective are these measures? Oh yeah, I forgot. Its all OUR fault that YOUR gun control measures dont work.



"Unfortunately, New York doesn't have that authority. All it can do is put up that big sign. And cross its fingers, I guess. And say devout thanks every night to all the "law-abiding gun owners" in the rest of the country who sell firearms to people who use them to commit crimes and kill people in New York, and their colleagues who just don't give a shit."

New York has all the authority it needs to pass ineffective laws. The problem is, they havent figured out the cause of their problems yet. All the silly gun laws, 20,000 of them, wont help their delusions.

Edit: Since I know you will jump all over it, not all 20,000 gun laws are "silly". Some of them are less silly than others.

[iverglas]

181. perhaps you do see

and you're just pretending *not* to see. How would I know?

But your first post alleged:

Essentially, what I've described is the Canadian system. People wishing to own or acquire firearms must be licensed. Firearms acquisitions must be registered. It is not easy to acquire a handgun (it may be done by members of sport shooting clubs or by people who require it for their employment).

And Canada has (roughly speaking) 1/2 the homicide rate of the US -- but 1/8 the firearms homicide rate and 1/15 the handgun homicide rate. And if it weren't for the handguns smuggled into Canada from the US (and also handguns stolen from negligent owners within Canada), that last one would undoubtedly be lower.

Sure sounds like youve not only attributed causation, but found the magic solution too! If only we were Canada eh? Causation does not necessarily infer causation.

My dear boy -- quite obviously, the only one inferring causation here is YOU.

I stated two facts. I juxtaposed those two facts. I DEMONSTRATED CORRELATION.

If *you* want to infer causation, that is up to *you*. You may think that I implied it -- but in fact, all I did was state two facts. You may think that the close correlation between those two facts implies causation. You may think that my juxtaposition of them implies correlation. But it is *you* doing the inferring.


So now handguns CAUSE gangs? Not only are handguns now responsible for the existence of gangs, but they also CAUSE the crimes they committ too! Its not the drugs or the turf battles or the decades old rivalaries, all the fighting is over guns. I see now.

Gee ... so now drugs CAUSE gangs? How the hell do they do that??

So many of you folks so obviously need to learn some so elementary things.

Yes, the presence of "x" in a situation CAN BE a causal factor. If a handgun were not present in some particular situations, there is absolutely no doubt that the outcome in those particular situations would be different. Like, for instance, quite a few unsolved shootings outside bars in Toronto -- the people who did the shooting simply WOULD NOT HAVE carried a long arm to that location, and had they chosen to do so they would more likely have been less able to go undetected and unstopped, and less able to accomplish their purpose - shooting someone at close range with accuracy and without interference.

If firearms, and particularly handguns, were not so readily available in the US, how exactly would all these turf wars be carried out?

The elementary concept that availability of the means to do something will increase the likelihood of it being done and the frequency with which it is done ... well, it's pretty elementary. How would/could the arms race have occurred if someone had not invented the nuclear bomb, and if the technology/materials for making it had not been available to the parties to the arms race? How is it that, oh, Monaco was never a party to the arms race? Maybe it didn't want to be -- but in fact, it was unable to be.

What the hell is this "all the fighting is over guns" noise? Are you really saying that this is the message you took from what I wrote? How dim are you prepared to make yourself look, if you aren't actually that dim?

Nor have the control advocates explicity included societal factors in their purported quest to make the world safer. Like you for instance. In your original post, you disregarded ANY societal factors in your assertion that handguns CAUSE homicide and you evidenced that by pointing to Canada's gun laws.

I've searched my original post
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=75373&mesg_id=75490&page=
but in vain for any assertion that "handguns CAUSE homicide". How 'bout you do some of that fine cutting and pasting?

Alcohol doesn't cause teenagers to become alcoholics, or to die in drunk driving incidents, or to get into brawls, or to drop out of school. Nonetheless, we have laws against providing teenagers with alcohol. We seem to think, for some bizarre reason, that alcohol is a causal factor in those behaviours/events. We look at the correlation between those behaviours/events and alcohol use, in teenagers, and we figure it's a good idea to remove alcohol from the equation. We don't succeed in entirely removing it -- but will you really say that the effort is not worth making, that we do not reduce the harm that we would be fools not to expect would occur if we didn't make those efforts?

Criminals dont obey laws.

You got it. Our model of criminal justice is, essentially, ineffective. It relies on the people whom it is meant to deter from causing harm being susceptible to things like society's opinion of them, being willing and able to consider the consequences of their actions, having a greater stake in obeying the law than in breaking it.

Laws have the greatest effect when they are directed to people who ARE susceptible to those things. People who benefit more from obeying the law than from breaking it, just for starters.

That obviously means that social change is needed to create a situation in which large numbers of people who, at present, have more to gain from breaking the law than from obeying it will, instead, have more to gain from obeying the law than from breaking it.

But it ALSO means -- if what we are really trying to do is REDUCE HARM -- reducing the OPPORTUNITIES for people who have more to gain from breaking the law than from obeying it TO CAUSE THAT HARM.

Isn't that, in point of fact, one of the main functions of locking up people who have broken the law?? To deny them the opportunity to cause MORE harm? Is it not common sense to deny them the opportunity to cause harm BEFORE THEY DO IT?

Are you at long last proposing the "customs" checkpoints between states you originally mentioned? Now thats a futile and expensive non working solution if Ive ever heard one. Havent we already covered the Canadian version of customs laws and their efficacy?

I dunno; did you HEAR me proposing such a thing? I listened to me quite carefully, and I sure didn't. I heard me offering reasons why standardized rules across all jurisdictions were required.

As for the efficacy of Canadian border controls -- well, to start with, the whole fucking point I was making was that it is NOT THE LAWS that are the effective factor in the situation, for fuck's sake; do you not READ?? It is the PREVENTIVE ACTIONS taken: oral examinations of persons entering, inspections of persons, vehicles and shipments, patrols of vulnerable geographic points, surveillance of the activities of persons and groups involved in trafficking.

And as for their efficacy -- what was it you didn't grasp about the fact that the handgun homicide rate in Canada is 1/15 the rate in the US -- while the overall firearms homicide rate is 1/8 the rate in the US, and the overall homicide rate is 1/2 the rate in the US? Perhaps Canadians are just braver, or stupider, and prefer to kill their victims with their bare hands, eh?

I cited the ATF's own report. Doesnt that meet the standard for the control group, or should I have cited a Canadian source?

Hmm. I gather that you mean that you cited it ... and then went on to completely misrepresent what it said:

Page 16 and 17 clearly show that despite gun control efforts and excessive licensing/registration requirements that exist in New York, much as you have in Canada, most guns used in crimes are acquired in New York.

You really need to learn how to read tables. The table at the bottom of page 17 clearly says that, of the traceable crime guns used in NY state, **19.6%** originated in NY state.

After misrepresenting what the report said (perhaps you should read MrBenchley's posts, so you don't make yourself look foolish by repeating debunked crap as you have now), you went on to say:

But, I thought those weapons would be near impossible to acquire and we would see a dramatic decrease in homicide rates? Imagine that!

and all I can say is: what you think, or choose to think, has nothing to do with me. I wouldn't have thought any such thing, but there ya go.

New York has all the authority it needs to pass ineffective laws. The problem is, they havent figured out the cause of their problems yet. All the silly gun laws, 20,000 of them, wont help their delusions.

And yet ... and yet ... isn't "better enforcement" of the laws already on the books what is going to save y'all from death at the hands of gun-wielding bad guys?? And yet ... laws are ineffective? How *do* you keep your head when you're spinning like that?

Be very clear on this. *I* am not the one saying that "laws" will keep you safe. The laws that you talk about are laws that provide for punishment for bad guys who break them. I am the one saying that laws and other measures that actually deny people who use firearms to cause harm access to firearms are what are effective.

But oddly enough, we actually DO things to keep firearms out.
Really now? How effective are these measures? Oh yeah, I forgot. Its all OUR fault that YOUR gun control measures dont work.

If you think that a firearms homicide rate 1/8 the US rate, and a handgun homicide rate 1/15 the US rate, is "not working", well, you're a funny guy. OUR gun control measures appear to work really well, in combination with a number of other things that we do better up here.

There are limits to what any nation's measures in respect of anything can do to reduce the incidence of a harm when other, particularly neighbouring, nations are doing bugger all. I assume there's a reason for that Plan Colombia thing, eh?

Yuppers -- the rest of the world has to do what the US wants to solve the US's problems, even if it destroys their society in the process, but the US don't gotta do nuttin to reduce the role it plays in anybody else's problems, even at no cost whatsoever and considerable obvious benefit to itself.

Yeah, that's the way to run a country, and international relations, and the world ...

[goju]

187. Naturally

Naturally


"My dear boy -- quite obviously, the only one inferring causation here is YOU.

I stated two facts. I juxtaposed those two facts. I DEMONSTRATED CORRELATION.

If *you* want to infer causation, that is up to *you*. You may think that I implied it -- but in fact, all I did was state two facts. You may think that the close correlation between those two facts implies causation. You may think that my juxtaposition of them implies correlation. But it is *you* doing the inferring."

No no, of course you werent inferring any causation. You just stated two facts, made a comparison between two countries, then made recommendations based on that. But, you werent attributing causation, ok.

"Gee ... so now drugs CAUSE gangs? How the hell do they do that??

So many of you folks so obviously need to learn some so elementary things."

Yep, so many folks do! And yes, drugs cause gangs and vice versa. Much like prohibition made Al Capone, Al Capone also made prohibition a de facto industry. And the prohibitionists were being paid off handsomely as Im sure you know. Drugs, alcohol, guns... same issues, same solution. Or do you think drugs and alcohol are a lesser problem than gun violence?

"If firearms, and particularly handguns, were not so readily available in the US, how exactly would all these turf wars be carried out?"

Assault weapons I assume ;). Look at prison populations for the answer. They dont have guns, but they still succeed in being violent criminals. Imagine that! The tools really DONT make them violent, and in fact the tools DONT even matter to them.

"The elementary concept that availability of the means to do something will increase the likelihood of it being done and the frequency with which it is done ... well, it's pretty elementary."

Yes, and the availability of alcohol makes it more likely that I will become an alcoholic. I know, I get it. Elementary has never been more fitting a term!

"How would/could the arms race have occurred if someone had not invented the nuclear bomb, and if the technology/materials for making it had not been available to the parties to the arms race? How is it that, oh, Monaco was never a party to the arms race? Maybe it didn't want to be -- but in fact, it was unable to be."

Thank you for pointing that out. The "arms race" you mention was not a 20th century novelty. In fact, the arms race has been going on since man first walked upright. Japanese sword makers have been struggling to produce the best swords for over a thousand years, and quite successfully. But, they were eventually replaced by muskets, then rim fire rifles, then center fires, and on and on. Do you think the arms race would have not occured but for nuclear weapons? Again, you are focusing on the tools of violence, not the cause of it. Had they never split the atom and paved the way for nukes, they would still be "racing" to produce the most lethal bio/chem or conventional weapons, as we have done since the dawn of man. Same aspirations, different methods. Are we now going to change human nature by placing restrictions on tools?

"What the hell is this "all the fighting is over guns" noise? Are you really saying that this is the message you took from what I wrote? How dim are you prepared to make yourself look, if you aren't actually that dim?"

You said it, not me. You made the case that guns might be responsible for gang existence. I say thats as dim as it gets.

"I've searched my original post
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
but in vain for any assertion that "handguns CAUSE homicide". How 'bout you do some of that fine cutting and pasting"

Of course not. You simply made a very weak case for causation by pointing out correlations and then proceeded to make policy suggestions based on those correlations... but you didnt infer causation! Laugh. Do you honestly think people dont see through that CYA attempt?


"Alcohol doesn't cause teenagers to become alcoholics, or to die in drunk driving incidents, or to get into brawls, or to drop out of school. Nonetheless, we have laws against providing teenagers with alcohol. We seem to think, for some bizarre reason, that alcohol is a causal factor in those behaviours/events. We look at the correlation between those behaviours/events and alcohol use, in teenagers, and we figure it's a good idea to remove alcohol from the equation. We don't succeed in entirely removing it -- but will you really say that the effort is not worth making, that we do not reduce the harm that we would be fools not to expect would occur if we didn't make those efforts?"

Thank you again for making this sooo easy. You are onto something here, just take this to the next level and start browsing the Smith & Wesson site ;). In fact, alcohol DOES CAUSE all of those things. Alcohol has physical and psychological effects on people, ie impaired judgement, loss of coordination, and diminished cognitive functions. That is not a correlation, that is causation. Intoxication is the determinant factor in "drunk driving" accidents and alcohol CAUSES intoxication. If you drink excessively, you WILL have impaired judgement, loss of coordination, and diminished cognitive functions. And if you drive while intoxicated, you are at a greater risk of a "drunk driving" accident. Conversely, anyone may own and/or use a handgun, or any other gun, WITHOUT incurring ANY impaired judgement, loss of coordination, and diminished cognitive functions nor are they at an increased risk of becoming violent. The use of alcohol causes intoxication. The use of guns does NOT cause violence.


"That obviously means that social change is needed to create a situation in which large numbers of people who, at present, have more to gain from breaking the law than from obeying it will, instead, have more to gain from obeying the law than from breaking it."

How will you accomplish that? Very curious over here.

"But it ALSO means -- if what we are really trying to do is REDUCE HARM -- reducing the OPPORTUNITIES for people who have more to gain from breaking the law than from obeying it TO CAUSE THAT HARM."

Ah yes, the opportunities. Id have to assume that you are suggesting gun availability CREATES opportunities for people who have more to gain from breaking the law to cause harm? This begs the question, how would people who have more to gain from breaking the law, react to your suggested gun regulations? Perhaps they would find Jesus and committ their life to helping others? Or just maybe, they might give up crack dealing and move into the gun prohibition industry. Nah, could never happen. After all, Al Capone taught us how solid prohibition was.


"As for the efficacy of Canadian border controls -- well, to start with, the whole fucking point I was making was that it is NOT THE LAWS that are the effective factor in the situation, for fuck's sake; do you not READ?? It is the PREVENTIVE ACTIONS taken: oral examinations of persons entering, inspections of persons, vehicles and shipments, patrols of vulnerable geographic points, surveillance of the activities of persons and groups involved in trafficking."

Well then, if those PREVENTIVE ACTIONS exist in the absence of laws permitting them, Id say you have some civil rights issues there. Nevertheless, why, if they are so effective, are you concerned about OUR gun control measures?

"And as for their efficacy -- what was it you didn't grasp about the fact that the handgun homicide rate in Canada is 1/15 the rate in the US -- while the overall firearms homicide rate is 1/8 the rate in the US, and the overall homicide rate is 1/2 the rate in the US? Perhaps Canadians are just braver, or stupider, and prefer to kill their victims with their bare hands, eh?"

Perhaps you "forgot" about the Switzerland model I cited. Perhaps you are unaware that our non-gun homicide rates are higher still that most other countries. Maybe you didnt know that Luxembourg, which bans handgun ownership completely, is significantly higher than Canada's homicide rate. Are you getting the picture? Your suggestions have been tried and failed. Guns do not cause homicide.

"You really need to learn how to read tables. The table at the bottom of page 17 clearly says that, of the traceable crime guns used in NY state, **19.6%** originated in NY state."

As I said in another post, the highest percentage came from New York, despite their laws. 20% as of the latest report, and that is higher than any other source.

"And yet ... and yet ... isn't "better enforcement" of the laws already on the books what is going to save y'all from death at the hands of gun-wielding bad guys?? And yet ... laws are ineffective? How *do* you keep your head when you're spinning like that?"

Well its not that difficult really. If they dont enforce the laws, they are ineffective. If they ever get around to enforcing them, they might work!

"Be very clear on this. *I* am not the one saying that "laws" will keep you safe. The laws that you talk about are laws that provide for punishment for bad guys who break them. I am the one saying that laws and other measures that actually deny people who use firearms to cause harm, access to firearms are what are effective."

Whew, circles, circles everywhere! Permit me to paraphrase: "Laws will not keep you safe" But ... "Laws and measures that deny people (criminals) access to firearms are effective" Ok so how, if laws wont keep you safe, will laws be effective in ...keeping us safe? What? What was the meaning behind "effective"? Do you get dizzy spinning like this? :)

"If you think that a firearms homicide rate 1/8 the US rate, and a handgun homicide rate 1/15 the US rate, is "not working", well, you're a funny guy. OUR gun control measures appear to work really well, in combination with a number of other things that we do better up here."

Hmm, but you are NOT attributing causation????


"There are limits to what any nation's measures in respect of anything can do to reduce the incidence of a harm when other, particularly neighbouring, nations are doing bugger all. I assume there's a reason for that Plan Colombia thing, eh?"

Yes, and the first everyone should do is.. follow Canada's model? You are right behind the US in homicide rates, you know that, correct? Lets look at some facts that just maybe, might, could be associated with gun crime/homicide rates.

Population density is 10 times higher in the US than Canada. Gang activity/membership is slightly less than equal in proportion to population density (US having a higher percentage). Organized crime (non street gang affiliation) is 7 times higher in the US as Canada. Alcohol consumption and alcoholism is greater in the US than Canada (though reported alcohol "problems" were greater in Canada). Drug use is proportionate but the US has a higher incidence of hard drug use (everything except marijuana). Poverty is higher in the US than Canada. Now, could THOSE factors have ANYTHING to do with homicide/violent crime rates? Ya think? Question: how long do you think it will it be, despite your gun laws, before canadas numbers match the us as a function of population, gangs, urbanization, etc?


"Yuppers -- the rest of the world has to do what the US wants to solve the US's problems, even if it destroys their society in the process, but the US don't gotta do nuttin to reduce the role it plays in anybody else's problems, even at no cost whatsoever and considerable obvious benefit to itself.

Yeah, that's the way to run a country, and international relations, and the world ..."

No, I dont agree with that. I think its dishonest to attribute bushies extremism to ALL of the US. 3 more months and you wont have that argument.



A few notes:


In 1988 in New York City, 85% of crack-related crimes were caused by the market culture associated with illicit crack sales, primarily territorial disputes between rival crack dealers.

Source: Goldstein, P.J., Brownstein, H.H., Ryan, P.J. & Bellucci, P.A., "Crack and Homicide in New York City: A Case Study in the Epidemiology of Violence," in Reinarman, C. and Levine, H. (eds.), Crack in America: Demon Drugs and Social Justice (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1997), pp. 113-130.



Federal statistics show that a large percentage of criminal offenders were under the influence of alcohol alone when they committed their crimes (36.3%, or a total of 1,919,251 offenders). Federal research also shows for more than 40% of convicted murderers being held in either jail or State prison, alcohol use was a factor in the crime.

Source: Greenfield, Lawrence A., Alcohol and Crime: An Analysis of National Data on the Prevalence of Alcohol Involvement in Crime (Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, April 1998), pp. 20-21.

[MrBenchley]

163. Funny..when we check some facts

we find that this assertion:
"Page 16 and 17 clearly show that despite gun control efforts and excessive licensing/registration requirements that exist in New York, much as you have in Canada, most guns used in crimes are acquired in New York."
...is a big steaming pantload!

Page 16 says clearly that of the guns found to be used in crime in NYC, just under 20% were bought in New York state...and just a handful in New York City. As many guns were bought in Virginia as bought in all of New York state, and Florida, Georgia and the Carolinas all contributed significantly.

Page 11 says clearly:
"In-State. New York Federal firearms licensees (FFLs) were the source of only 20 percent of all traceable crime guns recovered in New York.
In-County. FFLs located in the five counties that are fully encompassed by the boroughs of New York were the source of 17 percent of crime guns recovered in New York City and purchased in New York State.
National. An additional 50 percent of traceable crime guns recovered in New York were first purchased at FFLs in the southern States of Virginia, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Texas, and Alabama."

So just 20% of the crime guns in New York City were bought in New York state, and just 17% of that fraction were bought in the city...

[iverglas]

167. so in case there are any legally math-challenged folks hereabouts

So just 20% of the crime guns in New York City were bought in New York state, and just 17% of that fraction were bought in the city...

That's: about 3.4% of crime guns recovered in NYC were bought in NYC.

Ta.

Once again, of course, it isn't that the facts are on our side -- it's that our side is based on the facts.

[MrBenchley]

169. It's the Slutty Little Sister of All J/PS Misconstruals!!!

Oh wait...I thought you said math-challenged, not legally math-challenged....

The facts, like the New England Journal of Medicine, are just part of that sinister anti-gun movement....(snicker)

[iverglas]

171. indeed

We all know that legally math-challenged people are perfectly capable of, uh, doing quadratic equations, they just need somebody to, uh, tell them what to write with that pencil ...

[MrBenchley]

172. LOL!!

Call it a "de-algebra the dimmest" campaign...that would be more honest than that invective...(snicker)

By the way, check yer private messages....a favour has been granted...

[library_max]

71. Local controls don't work.

Gun "enthusiasts" sneer that the states and municipalities with the strictest gun laws often have the most gun crime. But that's because there are no border checkpoints and no customs inspections between states or municipalities. For example, it's simplicity itself to load a trunk or panel-van with guns in Virginia and drive them into DC. Guns anywhere means guns everywhere, unless they are registered and strictly regulated so that buyers have to keep what they buy.

[goju]

176. How

How do you ensure that buyers keep what they buy? Whats stopping someone, after all the regulations, licensing etc, that control advocates want, from selling them anyway. Border checkpoints? Between states? Is this China? It doesnt work with drugs and it wouldnt work with guns. Besides, I dont want jonny's asscrosst searching my car every time I take a trip, do you?

Again I say, you are looking at the wrong end of the stick. The dangerous end. Unless we get our focus off inanimate objects and onto the criminals themselves (yes, that includes traffickers), we will continue barking up the wrong tree. We will never make a dent in violent crime prevention until we address the cause, not the tools.


Patient: Doc, my pecker hurts when I have sex.

Doc: Cut your pecker off and call me in the morning!

[library_max]

182. So let's see, we can eliminate guns or we can eliminate people.

Which is the more practical? Hmmmmm . . .

:dunce:

My exact point was that you can't have border checkpoints between states and all that other jazz you were talking about. That's why (say it with me) LOCAL CONTROLS DON'T WORK.

Get it this time?

[goju]

Not eliminate people

that seems a bit harsh. What I had in mind was focusing legislative and law enforcement money and efforts on gangs, community education, drug/alcohol counseling/prevention etc, and rehabilitation for prisoners. Put our efforts into reducing the prime indicators and causes of violence, and stop focusing on restricting the tools of violence.

You said:

"Gun "enthusiasts" sneer that the states and municipalities with the strictest gun laws often have the most gun crime. But that's because there are no border checkpoints and no customs inspections between states or municipalities."

You seemed to imply that border checkpoints would correct the problem, or help it. Am I wrong?

[library_max]

185. Yes you're wrong.

For the third time, the lack of border checkpoints, etc. is the reason that LOCAL CONTROLS DON'T WORK. Gravity is the reason flapping your arms won't make you fly. Would abolishing gravity correct the problem? No, it's just an explanation of why something that doesn't work doesn't work.

Clinton's omnibus crime bill did a lot of the things you're talking about, and it did reduce crime. I have no objection to those things, and I think it stinks that Bush has cut funding and rolled back so many programs.

But gun control can also be effective. At the end of the day, all the counseling and education and etc. in the world isn't going to eradicate crime altogether. We need to get the deadliest tools out of the hands of criminals. We also need to eliminate the domestic tragedies caused by too-easy access to loaded guns.

[goju]

188. Humor me

"Local controls don't work
Gun "enthusiasts" sneer that the states and municipalities with the strictest gun laws often have the most gun crime. But that's because there are no border checkpoints and no customs inspections between states or municipalities."

Border checkpoints? Between states? Is this China? It doesnt work with drugs and it wouldnt work with guns. Besides, I dont want jonny's asscrosst searching my car every time I take a trip, do you?

"My exact point was that you can't have border checkpoints between states and all that other jazz you were talking about. That's why (say it with me) LOCAL CONTROLS DON'T WORK"

You seemed to imply that border checkpoints would correct the problem, or help it. Am I wrong?

"Yes you're wrong.
For the third time, the lack of border checkpoints, etc. is the reason that LOCAL CONTROLS DON'T WORK."

Ok, help me out here. Sorry Im slow today but Im not following I guess. What you are saying is that, the reason local gun control laws dont work is the lack of border checkpoints? Have I got that much correct?

If I have that much right, would adding border checkpoints then make those local gun laws more effective?

[iverglas]

189. surely you're already splitting your sides

Your own humour should have you constantly braying in hysteria, it seems to me.

Local controls don't work
Gun "enthusiasts" sneer that the states and municipalities with the strictest gun laws often have the most gun crime. But that's because there are no border checkpoints and no customs inspections between states or municipalities.
Border checkpoints? Between states? Is this China? It doesnt work with drugs and it wouldnt work with guns. Besides, I dont want jonny's asscrosst searching my car every time I take a trip, do you?

Where have you identified someone PROPOSING that border controls be implemented?? Why are you speaking to people as if they had proposed such things?? Do you mean to make yourself a laughingstock, or is it unavoidable?

There are MILLIONS of things that could be done in this world that would have a particular effect. In whole lots of the cases in question, there are also really really good reasons NOT to do them.

The fact that there are good reasons NOT TO DO something DOES NOT MEAN that it would not be effective for the purpose for which it was done.

How simple is this concept?

You seemed to imply that border checkpoints would correct the problem, or help it. Am I wrong?

Would you agree that cutting off your nose would spite your face?

Now, have you just agreed to cut off your nose?

Outlawing private passenger vehicles would reduce air pollution to manageable levels overnight. Have I just advocated the outlawing of private passenger vehicles?

Outlawing fast food restaurants would reduce obesity in the USAmerican public tremendously in the space of a couple of years. Have I just advocated the outlawing of fast food restaurants?

Sterilizing the entire population tomorrow would wipe out child abuse in the space of 18 years. Have I just advocated sterilizing the entire population?

Ok, help me out here. Sorry Im slow today but Im not following I guess. What you are saying is that, the reason local gun control laws dont work is the lack of border checkpoints? Have I got that much correct?

Damn, you're obviously a smart one.

If I have that much right, would adding border checkpoints then make those local gun laws more effective?

You betcha they would. And you *can* take Canada as proof of this. There *would*, absolutely positively beyond a shadow of a doubt, be more firearms in the hands of criminals, and more firearm-facilitated crimes and firearms homicides, in Canada were it not for those border controls.

Now, if you can just tell us where you have apparently seen someone ADVOCATING border controls between US states, we'll be cooking.

[goju]

190. You take the long road...

to nowhere!

If you cant see the inherent "question" in his posts, there is no hope for you.

[library_max]

191. You've tried four times to put words in my mouth. When will you give up?

I did not advocate border checkpoints between states and the rest of that stuff. I told you twice, very plainly, that I did not advocate border checkpoints between states and the rest of that stuff. Noting that plain English made no impression on you, iverglas went into greater length and detail on the subject. And you still persist in willfully misunderstanding my posts.

Try to get it right this time.

LOCAL CONTROLS DON'T WORK!

There have been several exchanges on JPS lately regarding civility in argument. And much complaining about MrBenchley using terms like "fuckwit" and "humhole." But this childish nonsense of deliberately misconstruing a poster's point after it has been explained over and over again is far more insulting and detrimental to civil discussion than anything MrBenchley does. And it is, unfortunately, par for the course for many of our RKBAers and by no means limited to the present fuckwitted humhole.

Happy now?

[goju]

192. Ok then

Thank you for not actually addressing the question.

You keep repeating that local controls dont work. Ok, I agree. Shouldnt we discuss your stated reasons as to WHY they dont work? Or is that "childish nonsense" in your book? Do you regard the questioning of your logic a "detriment" to civil discussion?

So much harping on the incivility of "RKBAers" by a couple people who relentlessly hammer away with their own personal attacks. Civility indeed!

[library_max]

193. You've had the logic explained to you several times, now.

Local controls don't work because they don't work. The conditions which, in abstract theory, would be necessary for them to work are manifestly undesirable and impracticable. Just as, in theory, you could flap your arms and fly if there was no gravity. But there is gravity, so what good does it do to talk about "What if"? And is it really advocating the abolition of gravity to point out that gravity is what keeps you from flapping your arms and flying around?

It is not civil to claim that a question hasn't been answered when it has been answered three times. And it is not reasonable to expect people to give you credit for sincerity when you stretch their credulity like that. In other words, if you want people to be nice to you, don't tell obvious lies about them.

[goju]

194. Obvious lies?

You made a statement, then refused to discuss it. Thats what I call a hit and run. And continuing to subvert the discussion by simply repeating "local controls dont work" is dishonest and transparent.

[MrBenchley]

196. Wonder what you call if when someone makes a statement

about what's on page 16 and 17 of an ATF report that turns out to say no such thing, and in fact directly contradicts the point he was trying to make?

"dishonest and transparent"
That's a start....

[library_max]

198. You asked a question, I answered it.

You pretended I hadn't answered it and proceeded to lie about what I had said. Somebody here is "dishonest and transparent," but it isn't me.

Go buzz around somebody else's head for a while.

[OnionPatch]

5. I'm not really insulted

but it's almost like saying if you're pro-abortion. I'm not a big gun enthusiast. My husband likes to hunt and has an interest in antique firearms and so on. I support to right to bear arms for a more cynical reason. But I don't consider myself "pro" guns.

[Cobalt Violet]

6. "Are you a pro-gun Democrat?" but yes=no and no=yes??

[RoeBear]

8. Sorry to make it confusing...

...I was trying to get pro-gun Democrats to take notice and then offer the poll question.

[FeebMaster]

10. I still don't think it makes sense.

I think it should be pro-gun "Democrat" given what it's supposed to be implying.

[LandOLincoln]

11. Nope, I'm proud to be a "pro-gun" Democrat.

Actually, I think only women should be allowed to have guns. After all, we're the most likely to need them for self defense, and the least likely to use them for anything else.

I grew up with guns. My dad was a WWII vet--a fighter pilot--and a hunter. Guns make me break out in a cold sweat--especially pistols--but I'm a really good shot and proud of it.

I hate killing, but I will when and if I have to. I don't believe in death, and would kill without remorse--but swiftly, cleanly, and with reverence--for food or to defend myself or my loved ones.

Finally, I don't trust the sanctimonious cowards who shiver and shudder and vow that they'd rather die than kill another being. Some
beings simply need killing, because they're sick and twisted and because they'll get far more help and guidance on the other side than they ever would here.

Besides, I want someone I can count on to take my back in a fight.

Thank you.

[iverglas]

50. ain't constitutions nice?

Finally, I don't trust the sanctimonious cowards who shiver and shudder and vow that they'd rather die than kill another being.

Whoever they might be; you gunning for the straw-person award for the week that has barely begun? Well here ya go, subject to being gazumped between now and Friday:



http://users.rcn.com/rostmd/winace/pics/

Some beings simply need killing, because they're sick and twisted and because they'll get far more help and guidance on the other side than they ever would here.

How unfortunate for you, should you ever feel the desire to act on that belief, that

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Somehow, I suspect you know that trial by the court of LandOLincoln's opinion just ain't due process. And constitutions are for everybody, not just the ones you like. NOBODY, your strange opinion notwithstanding, "needs killing", according to your society and its foundational document (and notwithstanding the present constitutionally-aberrant punishments practised by your less civilized member states).

Of course, my nausea at your opinion is of no more consequence than your opinion itself. Mine just happens to be shared by enough people the world around to make it important.

[MrBenchley]

12. Jeepers, roe....

You know if people didn't post the stupidest and ugliest right wing crap from places like American Daily, perhaps other people would feel like calling them something other than "pro gun democrat"....

But framkly I think anybody who posts right wing crap and snipes at Democrats like Dianne Feinstein and John Kerry deserves what they get...and that "pro gun democrat" is pretty kind under the circumstances.

[Trashman]

13. I'm proud to be a "Pro Gun Democrat".

I also believe that the "Anti Gun Democrats" are costing us too many elections. And somehow, I was cetain that Mr Benchley would be giving his opinion on this thread. :)

There are many Pro Gun Dems out there. For a party of tolerance, we seem to have a lot of name calling for each other.

[MrBenchley]

14. That's REALLY funny...

"I also believe that the "Anti Gun Democrats" are costing us too many elections."
Yeah, just look at all that money that "Anti Gun Democrats" are throwing into attack ads and giving to Republican candida--Oh, wait, that's the fuckwits at the gun lobby.

"For a party of tolerance"
They don't get more tolerant than our "pro gun democrats"--open racism don't bother them, slurs against Democrats don't faze them, outright lies don't make them blink.

The only thing that ever gets their panties in a bunch is when somebody voices the same opinion that a majority of American voters, pretty much every liberal group, pretty much every liberal politican around and pretty much every liberal pundit and writer agree with...that guns and gun owners ought to be more tightly regulated.

[skippythwndrdog]

67. Dontcha know

for some of our number, tolerance only extends to those that agree completely with their points of view?

I have to admit this: for the party of inclusion, there are some terribly exclusive tendencies being promoted by a few of our number.

You have the right to believe what you want, but only so long as we agree. And here I was thinking that the old chocolate/vanilla adage made sense. Silly me.

I'm beginning to see what my grandfather, a Baptist minister, meant when he said that if you wanted to see a bloody (religious) debate, forget debates between Jews and Christians or Catholiccs and Protestants. Go watch a debate between a General Baptist and a Southern Baptist. The closer we are, the wider the gap on relatively minor points; and disagreements over those points often become uncrossable chasms.

edited some spelling, probably missed some

[MrBenchley]

95. That is REALLY funny, skippy....

"The closer we are, the wider the gap"
Gee, if there are so many Democrats whose only disagreement with the party platform is gun control...why are there no pro-Democratic posts on those gun owner forums? The gun owners on those forums sure don't limit themselves to gun control when they attack Democrats and liberals (not to mention gays, blacks, Hispanics, women, etc.), all without a murmur of protest from the folks there.

Nor does any "pro gun democrat" here have anything but excuses as to why they can't be forced to murmur a word about "what we all believe."

[RoeBear]

29. Then why don't you just come out and...

...point fingers at the individuals you suspect of being freepers?

[MrBenchley]

32. Gee, roe...

You mean you think it's a mystery as to why an RKBAer would put up a post saying Kerry is worse than AshKKKroft? Or that anybody is fooled by the shenanigans here daily?

By the way, nice job by all our "pro-gun democrats" objecting, too....oh that's right. You guys didn't say boo.

[Jack_DeLeon]

15. I am a pro-gun democrat.

I have no problem with people calling me a pro-gun democrat.

I do however have a problem with people implying that I'm not a real democrat because I am pro-gun.

[MrBenchley]

19. Jeepers!

I bet whenever you see posts like these on a gun owner forum you must be quick to set the entire forum straight...

http://www.aR15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=260847

http://www.aR15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=261070

http://www.glocktalk.com/showthread.php?s=3e5bb44c0b92d6ce160c86319281c874&threadid=271274

http://www.glocktalk.com/showthread.php?s=3e5bb44c0b92d6ce160c86319281c874&threadid=271076

[MrBenchley]

27. Well, guess we see why there's a little "d"

Nice work, guys....your eloquence is matched only by your honesty (snicker)

[Jack_DeLeon]

37. Why would I set people straight...

at forums that I never visit, I own neither an AR-15 nor a Glock.

However, MrB, you do visit those forums, and I dont see any posts from you in those threads setting those people straight.

So why do you expect someone like me who doesnt visit to forums to do something that you, who does visit those forums wont do?

[MrBenchley]

41. Exactly so....

Amazing how we get nothing but excuses from our "pro gun democrats."

"MrB, you do visit those forums, and I dont see any posts from you"
You'll also notice I don't own a gun...think "gun rights" is dishonest crap....and don't pretend that there's millions of gun totin' liberals out there.

Guess some people who own guns, want to pretend gun rights isn't a tissue of right wing horseshit, and want to pretend there are gun owning liberals never have anything but excuses as to why those forums are laden with dittohead nonsense...and don't see much wrong with trolling on forums under false pretenses.

[Jack_DeLeon]

52. So are you calling me a troll?

[MrBenchley]

44. By the way...

we DO know you frequent THIS board...but mysteriously you had nothing to say to the "Kerry's as e-e-evil as AshKKKroft" thread another RKBAer put up. Nor did any other "pro gun democrat." Good going, cowboys!

[Jack_DeLeon]

51. So who are "we,"

and how do you claim to know what forums I do or do not frequent? :eyes:

[MrBenchley]

58. Are you really trying to pretend you're not HERE, Jack?

[Jack_DeLeon]

68. Sorry, I misinterpreted your post...

I thought you were trying to say that you know that I visit one of those boards.

I dont know which thread in particular you are talking about, but I assume its the locked "Ashcroft vs Kerry on civil liberties" thread.

Who cares, I dont comment on every thread on this board nor do I read even read them all. Neither do you.

[OpSomBlood]

20. Or that you're not really pro-gun if you're a Democrat.

n/t

[RoeBear]

30. EXACTLY!

We have a winner!

[goju]

21. 85% to 15% so far, we have alot of pro gunners around.

But, but.. I thought there was no such thing as a "pro gun Democrat". I thought they were all just right wing fuckwits in disguise! Hmm, I know I heard that from someone, just cant remember who said.... oh yea, nevermind.

[OpSomBlood]

22. You still read the posts by the Head Fuckwit In Charge?

I'm surprised. Impressed, even.

[MrBenchley]

24. Nice to see how op insults the moderators...

[Wcross]

28. Just put all (Fuckwits) on ignore....

I have people on ignore because they make no sense to me and become excited as well as insulting in their posts. Now, just what is a "fuckwit"? Is that some new grade school slang the children are saying these days?

[MrBenchley]

31. Now, just what is a "fuckwit"?

Some of us have no doubts....

[Bowline]

40. I believe "fuckwit" is a term of endearment...

...one uses when addressing a "scummy pantload humhole" who dares believe in equal rights for all citizens and not just a select, elite few who happen to fit a certain criteria.

I'm not sure where I heard that type of language before but it sure as hell isn't part of OUR party's platform for winning the election. At least not the same party I heard speak so eloquently all last week.

Perhaps we'll hear those phrases directed at us when the Other Party has their convention next month...sounds like their kind of inane babbling.

[MrBenchley]

42. Hahahahaha....

"who dares believe in equal rights for all citizens"
Just like Ted Nugent, Jeff Cooper, Larry Pratt, David Duke, etc....

[Bowline]

53. Exactly like those people...

Because we all know that THOSE people, whom you happen to dislike, don't have the same rights as you and people you do like. Right?

[MrBenchley]

59. That's the ticket...

Oh, poor oppressed David Duke...(snicker)

[Bowline]

61. Not oppressed at all...

It's just that he has the same rights as you, me, and everyone else in this country. No more, no less.

[MrBenchley]

63. Then that makes your other post seem pretty silly, doesn't it?

[FatSlob]

79. I concur. It is easier that way.

[MrBenchley]

23. Never was any doubt about THAT part...

Nor is the "democrat" part much in doubt hahahahaha....

By the way, it was heartening to see how you all told off the idiot whoposted an article from some libertarian cesspool comparing Kerry to AshKKKroft...oh wait...not a single "pro gun democrat" said so much as "boo."

[gatlingforme]

56. I said something and considered a pro-gun Dem.

[MrBenchley]

66. You agreed with the guy and pretended he had a point...

THAT was a convincing demonstration, all right (snicker)

[gatlingforme]

80. At least they can read my post (snicker) x 2

[Crachet2004]

33. I would say your numbers are about right for the nation at large...

People are afraid of our own government, terrorists, criminals, and each other. This fear is being actively cultivated by the Bush administration.

By now, we here on DU are experienced at being on the receiving end of manipulated polls...and the ones the anti-gun people keep dragging out, only go to show what we should already know: that certain elements on the left with an Axe to grind, are just as capable of procuring such manipulated polls, as are the GOP and corporate media.

And look at the tone of some of the posters on this board-the namecalling, belittling of others, etc... Where have we seen THAT before? The GOP has a very real vested interest in keeping Democrats divided on this issue-they are winning elections as a result.

I would even be willing to compromise. Do what our ticket has said, and renew the AWB. It is pointless anyhow, as other products have long since entered the pipeline. We would be losing nothing. And close the gun show loophole, as most of those guys selling at these events are registering over cell phones anyhow, because they are registered dealers.

But that is IT. Give the anti-gun people what they say they want, so the Party can declare victory on the issue; but never let anything in our platform again, concerning guns. As a Party, declare victory and move on, never to endorse further control in the future.

As individuals, we will continue to buy any damn thing we want at flea markets or from individuals, just like we do now, and these sales aren't even registered.

As it stands now, it is nothing but a wedge issue among Democrats, critically weakening our Party, and does nothing but help the GOP.

[MrBenchley]

34. Oh no, not the e-e-e-evil leftists!

"The GOP has a very real vested interest in keeping Democrats divided on this issue"
Hence the constant rolling by right wing fuckwits who then go back to their cesspools and chortle about disrupting the board. Funny thing though, guess which side of this issue they're on?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=170057

"And look at the tone of some of the posters on this board"
Funny, the content don't bother you a bit...not the threads attacking Democrats, or the constant torrent of right wing horseshit.

"Give the anti-gun people what they say they want, so the Party can declare victory on the issue; but never let anything in our platform again, concerning guns."
Because Koresh knows, some people can't bear to have even the slightest criticism of the sacred fetish object by blasphemers. And of course, the Americans killed and wounded each year due to a corrupt industry out of control aren't worth mentioning or fussing over.

[Crachet2004]

35. Well, I suspect the GOP reach into the Left extends further than Nader...

And since it is obvious that further pursuit of this issue by US, helps only THEM...well what about it Benchley, would you go for the compromise I suggested, or is your only purpose to ridicule and demonize? To keep Democrats divided and easily conquered?

If we were to give you the AWB and close the gunshow loophole, would there be further demands by you for more control?

By the way, that last paragraph of yours...I would appreciate it if you would try and get a grip, old boy...you are scaring the children, but I am not one of them.

[MrBenchley]

36. Gee, this is the silliest post yet by an RKBAer...

"since it is obvious that further pursuit of this issue by US, helps only THEM"
Yeah, certainly Democrats have nothing to gain by pointing out that a bill that 78% of voters want renewed is being blocked by some of the scummiest Republican extremists on behalf of the corrupt gun lobby. Or that the lip service Republicans paid toward moderation is seen as the utter lie it was. Why would we ever want to point that out?

"what about it Benchley, would you go for the compromise I suggested"
Gee, since it's Tom DeLay and a handful of fuckwits in Congress blocking renewal and not you (unless you're Larry Craig or someone like that) I sure as hell don't know what the fuck compromise with you is worth. Nor do I plan to spend much time musing on it.

[Crachet2004]

38. Then I will certainly spend no more time on YOU, either.

And I suspect that many, if not most on this board are beginning to feel the same way.

You are not that hard to figure out.

[MrBenchley]

43. And the downside for me is

nonexistent.

[Crachet2004]

45. The downside for you is...

Exposure.

[MrBenchley]

49. Yeah, that's why I post so rarely....

I'd hate for somebody to notice that the platform calls for the gun control MOST VOTERS FAVOR...or that our "pro gun democrats" seem to concentrate on slamming Democrats and posting right wing horseshit...and lie in almost every post.

[OpSomBlood]

46. I slightly disagree with you.

I don't think that the Democrats should take all gun issues "off the table"...but I completely agree that gun control is a critical wedge issue and many Democrats play right into the GOP's hand with it.

I think that what the Democratic strategy should do is go after what we have in common, not what divides us. We all want to see violent crime decrease...but that simply isn't going to happen by taking legally-acquired guns away from law-abiding citizens. We have to attack economic conditions in the inner cities and improve education. Decreases in crime aren't going to happen overnight with a single magical piece of legislation...we have to be willing to make a 15-year commitment to it.

That said, I'm not completely against the idea of gun control. However, my interpretation of that "control" isn't through manufacturing bans and confiscation...but through improved gun ownership education and better background checks. I would even be open to the idea of "shall issue" licensure that ensures proper training prior to gun ownership.

I don't think we should be appeasing the anti-gun people at all. They are the ones who want to take rights away from me, not the other way around. They choose to take their aggression about violent criminals out on people who never commit violent crime. It's misdirected rage and I refuse to acknowledge it as a solution to anything.

[goju]

47. I slightly disagree with you.

Only on one issue. The "shall issue" licensure you mentioned could potentially be the opening for another round of misguided regulations put out by the control groups. I can envision a case where the proper training required became so expensive, time consuming, over regulated, and just plain full of so much red tape and delays that it would be near impossible to buy a gun. But, a mandatory 12 hour training course in safety is not a bad idea at all, I just wouldnt want it to get carried away.

I also think someone needs to get busy about manufacturing a cheap and reliable gun storage system. In the mean time, Im not opposed to gun locks being mandatory on all new sales.

[Crachet2004]

55. Reasonable people will eventually find reasonable solutions...

And I really cannot disagree with much of what either you, or Op have posted...and how anyone can construe any of it to be rightwing, is absolutely beyond belief, to me.

But I do think, instead of answering every slanderous charge certain antigun elements level, the rest of us should simply move on...just as the Democratic Party should, on this issue of gun control.

And by the tone of our national ticket and the Democratic Convention itself, I believe that is exactly what we are going to do.

Let the "have mores" carry the ball for awhile (and lose elections)...it is far more in their interest to have total control, if not elimination of citizen weaponry than it is for the Party that represents those who have less, and those who have not.

[goju]

64. Sounds like a good plan

[Crachet2004]

54. I want us out of the gun control business as a Party...

And I really would be willing to compromise with the control people within our own party to get that done-in the name of party unity. As I said, and I could be wrong, I don't think the AWB and gun show loophole would be much to give up...most dealers already register at gun shows-except those who are selling as individuals-and there are plenty of other imports that have replaced the weapons listed on the ban...so to me, the AWB is essentially a pointless point of contention. Let them have it, but don't expand it.

But the deal is: we give them what they want, but are never dragged down to electoral defeat by this issue again. Declare victory, and move on.

To me, this would be a good deal, because really, the gun control people gain little, if anything; but the Party, freed of this albatross of an issue, can become dominant again.

However, I must admit I know there will BE no such compromise, and only threw the idea out there so everyone can see, just how unyielding and immature the other side of this debate can actually be...I think I achieved that goal.

And I question their motives. Ask yourself, who do we know who uses the tactics of slander and deprecation, that we see on this board? And which Party gains by our continuing to pursue the issue of control on a national level? Who else in this country uses phony or manipulated polls to support their positions? And who really gains if the entire population is disarmed: the "have mores"? or the have-nots?

Again, I could be wrong, but the compromise I suggested seems to be the direction our leadership is heading. To expect them to totally abandon a long-held position of the Party might be unrealistic (but that is what I would really like to see them do), when the most potent weapon the GOP has leveled at John Kerry is the "flip flopper" thing. As ridiculous a charge as any I have ever heard, but still, I can understand the hesitation of our leadership at abrupt abandonment.

But my main point in posting at all, is that I think this forum should be used for a rational discussion of the issue of gun control, such as you and I are engaging in, and not a forum for asinine personal attacks, which the other side of this issue seem to delight in!

[library_max]

75. This "never" business is just plain ridiculous.

Now is not the time to push the issue of effective gun controls. I would agree with that. But why project the present political climate, with its razor-thin margins for both parties, onto the indefinite future?

Once Kerry is in office, whichever party controls each house of Congress will have it only by a tiny majority. Kerry will be able to work with grownups among the Republicans (and there are some) to enact necessary reforms to fix the economy, security, our place in the world, etc. Then there will be the Kerry era of peace and prosperity and the Clinton era of peace and prosperity and nothing between but the criminal insanity that was George W. Bush. It's going to be tough for the Republicans to deny us solid control of all three branches by 2008, or 2012 at the latest.

That's when we will be able to push the more progressive part of our agenda, including effective gun controls. Right now, running on gun control is political suicide. There was a time when running on the abolition of slavery was political suicide. Every necessary item of progress eventually finds its time.

[goju]

86. I tend to agree

The particulars of gun control should be debateable at that time and those of us who are gun owners hopefully wont be characterized as nuts or fuckwits or whatever the term du jour.

[library_max]

91. Sure.

As long as we can also lose the cant about gun-grabbers, fascists, authoritarians, etc. I've asked MrBenchley to clean up his act over and over again. Is anybody doing the same on your side? (And no, I don't mean asking MrBenchley to clean up his act, I mean asking your side's name-callers to clean up theirs).

[goju]

100. Well if they havent yet, let me be the first

Gun owners, please do NOT resort to name calling and petty insults.

Having said that, and I am sincere in that plea, I havent seen anyone of us participate in those attacks. Not saying it hasnt happened, but it certainly doesnt happen with the same frequency of attacks by certain control proponents here, especially when you consider the proportion of gun rights supporters to gun control supporters.

[library_max]

102. With all due respect,

I think you haven't seen it because you haven't been looking for it. I suspect you'll see it more often now that you're alerted to it.

[library_max]

73. It's a rigged poll.

There is no option provided for those who feel that "pro-gun Democrat" is a perfectly legitimate term.

[goju]

74. Nor is there an option for

other slanders commonly used here. I know I have been referred to as a "fuckwit" because I own guns and support the constitution. I guess it just depends on your ability to read between the lines.

[library_max]

76. So you acknowledge that it's a rigged poll.

That options are provided only for one side of the argument.

[goju]

78. No, I dont.

There was an option for "not a big deal" That should suffice

[library_max]

82. To some of us, the truth IS a big deal.

I would venture to say that those are the same ones who support the use of "pro-gun Democrats."

[goju]

83. What truth are you referring to?

[library_max]

84. That there are posters on this board that are correctly categorized

as "pro-gun Democrats."

[goju]

85. The fact that you

are not willing to acknowledge the term "pro gun Democrat" is used as a slur, as evidenced by the quotation marks, is also a truth.

I probably dont have to point this out but, for the clarity's sake, the quotation marks are intended to imply that pro gun Democrats are some how lesser progressives than the controllers are because they uphold the right to keep and bear arms.

[MrBenchley]

87. Actually, for clarity's sake,

the quotation marks convey that certain people who all like to peddle the NRA's LIE about an individual right in the Second Amendment to popgun ownership seem to spend all their time running down Democrats, pimping for the Republican legislative agenda, and posting right wing horseshit as if it had value worth defending.

These same gun owners seem rarely to put up any post criticizing any Republicans (unless it's to point out that a Democrat is "as bad as"), have nothing but excuses as to why they cannot make a pro-Democrat post on gun owners' forums anywhere, and erupt in rage whenever the quite obvious and blatant bigotry or dishonesty of the right wing fuckwits the NRA supports is pointed out in public.

[Name removed]

88. Deleted message

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

[MrBenchley]

89. And the downside for me is....?

So somebody wants to tell me what I mean when I put quotation marks around a term, and gets offended when I mention what I mean when I put quotation marks around a term.

Of course, this IS the same person who said he would only make a pro-Democrat post on a gun owners forum if I showed him a pro-Democrat post I had made, then claimed the post I made wasn't pro-Democrat enough to suit him, then denied that I had showed him any such post...and then didn't make a pro-Democrat post on a gun owners forum....

Can't you feel the Democratic Party fervor? Me neither.

[library_max]

92. Of course it's a slur.

Nor should it be used to describe every professing Democrat who is pro-gun, let alone every professing Democrat who owns a gun.

But the sad truth is that there are pro-gun RKBA posters down here in JPS who are not Democrats at all. They never post anything pro-Dem or progressive anywhere, not here on DU and not anywhere else. They never mention our ticket or our platform except to condemn it or to make some debater's point about the Second Amendment. They just hang around down here because they can post pro-gun arguments (a historically right-wing Republican point of view) and get away with it long enough to build up enough posts that they are basically immune from expulsion.

That's not every pro-gun RKBA poster, obviously. But there are some. Even the moderators admit that there are some, but they can't touch them because of the rules. And it's not unfair or unreasonable to put quotation marks around "Democrats" when describing these people.

[FeebMaster]

96. Of course then you've got the gun grabbers

who were actively pimping for John McCain, a Republican, as Kerry's VP, want to give John Ashcroft the power to ban pretty much any ammunition he wants, support every piece of gun control the Republicans have ever passed, and use Bill O'Reilly's talking points when discussing the Assault Weapons Ban. Of course being pro-gun is historically a right-wing Republican view hahah.

[library_max]

97. Here's one now. /nt

[FeebMaster]

98. One what? (nt)

[goju]

101. Well a sad case is a sad case

Why waste time on them? If they are here to make a case for bush, they are wasting their time. Why waste ours on them?

I do think its unfair however, that the slanders arent confined to an individual or a few individuals, but are leveled at ALL gun owners. No sweat though. I dont have to be beat over the head to get the message. Id much prefer to have a reasonable debate with reasonable people like yourself.

[library_max]

104. But they aren't leveled at all gun owners.

Some of the people who post here in favor of gun control are gun owners (although I am not one of them).

At worst, you could say that the term has been used to refer to all RKBAers in JPS. But I don't even think that that is supportable. I think the term has been used loosely to refer to whatever it refers to, and let those whom the shoe fits wear it.

One reason specific individuals haven't been pointed out is the ironclad DU rule against accusing any individual poster of being a Republican, freeper, troll, etc. That's the one guaranteed way to get a post deleted.

[MrBenchley]

107. Shhhhh....

Some of our trigger-happy friends want to pretend that statements like "Ted Nugent is a fuckwit" means "all gun owners are fuckwits" or that "John Lott is a racist" means "all gun owners are racists."

I don't know why.

[FeebMaster]

81. You just don't like the way the results turned out. (nt)

[OpSomBlood]

57. Wow, this poll must have been Freeped by right-wing fuckwits.

It's the only explanation.

[MrBenchley]

60. Nope just the usual bunch of "pro gun democrats"

pissing and moaning because their right wing crap isn't taken seriously....

[Name removed]

62. Deleted message

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

[MrBenchley]

65. Tough luvk, op....

It's your loss if you don't read what I post, not mine.

[library_max]

77. Nope, it's rigged.

If you will look carefully, you will see that there is no option for respondents who are not pro-gun and believe that "pro-gun Democrat" is, in some cases, a valid designation.

[Bowline]

69. I prefer the title pro-rights Democrat.

Or perhaps Democrat who believes in the right to self defense. Or how 'bout just plain Democrat. Why are Dems the only ones who insist on splitting themselves into two camps; anti- and pro-gun?

[library_max]

94. Yes, and anti-abortion people prefer the term pro-life.

And our criminal pResident prefers the term "Patriot." So what?

[Bowline]

103. Unlike you, I don't pretend to speak for either of those people.

I can only speak for myself.

[library_max]

105. Well, I don't keep my eyes and ears shut all day long.

I am aware of what a variety of people choose to say about themselves. Gathering such evidence helps me generalize the conclusion that people and groups cannot necessarily be trusted to accurately characterize their own ideas and issues. Let people be called whatever they want, and the most reprehensible groups will be called names like "The Glorious Guardians of Good" (anybody remember Mary Hartman, BTW?)

[MrBenchley]

111. The wonderful conceit that our "pro gun democrats" want to promulgate

is that this entire debate operates in an ethereal vacuum far farremoved from the real world, and so it is UNFAIR (somehow) to ever take note of who else shares their position on issues such as putting assault weapons on the market again...or to point out what other opinions those folks hold...or what publications tend to promote those positions...or what other positions those publications hold...or what organizations promote those views...or what those organizations are up to...

And Holy Koresh forbid anyone ever suggest Americans ever get shot except:

A) defending oneself against criminals...or
B) when the glorious revolution against the freepers comes some fine day.

[library_max]

70. Wow, here's a nice push-poll.

Where's the option for "the truth is the truth, like it or not?"

[MrBenchley]

72. I think just the fact that

(as one repsondent put it) yes is no and no is yes tells us everything about it.

[RoeBear]

90. But then...

the question wan't directed at you, was it?

[library_max]

93. Oh I see.

You needed to be clearer, then. You needed to say, "only people who are pretending to be Democrats in order to post on DU should respond to this poll." Then the options could have been a lot simpler: yes, it offends me when other DUers tell the truth about me, or no, it doesn't bother me.

[Bowline]

106. "Only people who pretend to be Democrats..."?

Are you saying that anyone who post on here who doesn't espouse gun control can't be a real Democrat? Are all Democrats who believe in the right to keep and bear arms merely right wing fringe lunatics in denial, or worse, in disguise?

By YOUR definition, both our Presidential and Vice-Presidential candidates must be right wing fringe lunatics because they have both publicly stated that they believe in the right to keep and bear arms for self defense.

[library_max]

108. Except that that's not what I said.

For the record, I am convinced that many of the people who post here in favor of the RKBA point of view are real Democrats - many, but not all. For one thing, as lunabush points out from time to time, the trolls and disruptors that get tombstoned here are invariably on the RKBA side of the issue.

But I also believe that there are posters who have hung around down here and in non-political areas like the lounge long enough that they have gathered 1000+ posts without ever having to besmirch themselves with a single progressive or pro-Democrat utterance, thus making themselves tombstone-proof trolls. That's my opinion and I stand by it. It's fruitless to ask who I mean specifically, because of the DU forum rules against any reply I might make.

Because of those very rules, the term "pro-gun democrat," or pro-gun "Democrat", is always used without any specific reference to specific persons. Those who find that the shoe fits are welcome to wear it. Those to whom it doesn't apply may feel free to ignore it. I don't think even MrBenchley uses it to describe every Democrat who owns a gun. If someone feels otherwise, perhaps they would provide a link to the offending post and thread.

I have pledged my unconditional support for the Kerry/Edwards ticket over and over again, and was for Kerry before the primaries even began, in spite of your fervent desire to put words in my mouth. The only people I ever see attacking Kerry and Edwards and the Democratic Platform in JPS are RKBAers, although I certainly see such attacks falsely attributed to our side on a regular basis.

[FeebMaster]

109. If you think people with 1000+ posts

are tombstone proof you're living in a dream world. Also, for the record, people on both sides of the gun issue have been tombstoned although it's been a while since a gun grabber got the boot.

[library_max]

110. Here again, Feeb, people are likely to get the wrong idea

when I say "tombstone-proof trolls" and you immediately come a-runnin'.

[FeebMaster]

112. What do you mean?

"Here again, Feeb, people are likely to get the wrong idea

when I say "tombstone-proof trolls" and you immediately come a-runnin'."

You said that people with 1000+ posts were tombstone proof and that is quite simply not the case.

[Bowline]

113. Well said.

I will concede that there are likely some here who post merely to disrupt the forum. I can't understand why but hey, to each his own.

I think it is unfair to many, myself included, to see Democrats, progressives, liberals, whatever the title, continually put down and verbally spat upon by a few here simply because we believe in the inalienable right to keep and bear arms in defense of ourselves, our families, and our homes. I have no desire to shoot anyone, harbor no cowboy fantasies, nor do I feel that my penis is small and I therefore need a firearm.

I, for one, simply do NOT want to live in a country where the only people with guns are extreme right wing fanatics, criminals, and government employees the likes of John Ashcroft. If you think it's tough getting our voices heard and our votes counted now, imagine how much more bleak it would be if we were completely beholden to those groups.

[library_max]

114. Guns won't make any difference in the counting of votes

or the hearing of voices. Not having guns wouldn't make us any more "beholden" to the right than we already are. They already have more guns than we have, plus the military. Also, BTW, John Ashcroft is HUGELY pro-gun, so he's probably not the right boogieman for your side to use.

The pro-gun side is essentially irrational, and we're not going to stop pointing that out. I, too, wish it could be done without name-calling. As for penis references, your side brings that up more often than ours, even including MrBenchley. And while you're deploring rhetorical excesses on our side, you might start to keep track of the number of times gun-grabbers, fascism, authoritarianism, John Ashcroft, and other such smears are invoked on your side.

[Bowline]

116. I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree then.

I think the realists here, and I believe you to be among the realists, will concede that guns are here, and they're not going to go away in our lifetimes. No amount of gun control laws will change that. The AWB will sunset and no politician is gonna touch it with a ten-foot pole before the election. The net result will be pretty much no change in the status quo.

That's the reality of life in America today.

[library_max]

118. That was also true of slavery once.

And a whole lot of other evils since eradicated by progressives.

[MrBenchley]

119. And Jim Crow...

was human nature and was here to stay....

The amazing thing is that many of those who were propping up Jim Crow swtiched over to this bogus "gun rights" crap when that battle was lost ...and even use some of the same rhetoric....

[Bowline]

122. Jim Crow laws were never human nature.

They were an attempt by one segment to deny equal rights to another segment of the population, and they were rightly abolished. As gun control will one day too be abolished.

[MrBenchley]

124. Ask Trent Lott and John AshKKKroft....

Racists certainly did claim that Jim Crow was human nature and that it would never be gotten rid of....just like gun nuts today pretend shooting their fellow Americans at the current merry clip is human nature.


Pat Buchanan (who is pro-gun all the way) even makes the absurd claim to his fuckwit followers that black citizens still long for those days.....

[library_max]

128. Look at history again,

and then say that an attempt by one segment of the population to deny equal rights to another isn't human nature. I can't find the quote, but someone once said, "Human nature is a thief and a scoundrel, or else why is it constantly in need of correction by the law?"

[Bowline]

130. Good quote. Where did you find it? n/t

[library_max]

136. Thanks.

If I could remember where I found it, I'd attribute it. Sorry.

[Bowline]

145. N.P. (eom)

[Bowline]

120. Slavery was, and is, evil, but it was never protected by the Constitution.

One need only look at the failed attempt at banning another evil, alcohol, and the miserable failure that is the War on Drugs, to see that banning things doesn't mean they go away.

[library_max]

127. Neither is RKBA.

Alcohol and drugs involve addiction. They can be easily and cheaply made by people with few or no skills. Millions of dollars worth of drugs can be smuggled in a briefase or a swallowed plastic bag. There is no valid analogy between alcohol or drugs and guns.

[Bowline]

129. RKBA most certainly IS Constitutionally protected.

The only thing in question is what group is afforded that protection. Some claim everyone, some claim only government regulated militia. My position is, and always will be, that it refers to an individual right because only individuals have rights, not groups or institutions. Others may not see it that way. Your mileage may vary.

[library_max]

135. US v Miller restricts the right to government regulated militia,

and government regulated militia of the armed variety (the only kind to which RKBA would be meaningful) do not exist any more. So if you want to say that RKBA was protected once, or that it is protected for people who don't exist, okay. That's technically correct, but not much to the point in the real, modern world. Every standing court decision, by the way, agrees with my interpretation, and none agrees with yours. So while "your mileage may vary," the law is the law.

[iverglas]

151. or

One need only look at the failed attempt at banning another evil, alcohol, and the miserable failure that is the War on Drugs, to see that banning things doesn't mean they go away.

... to see that the mere fact that something was incorporated into the US Constitution doesn't necessarily mean that it's a good thing, eh?

Seems pretty obvious to me.

Especially when it's unintelligible and over 2 centuries old ...

[iverglas]

150. as Bobby said

I think the realists here, and I believe you to
be among the realists, will concede that guns
are here, and they're not going to go away in
our lifetimes. No amount of gun control laws
will change that. The AWB will sunset and no
politician is gonna touch it with a ten-foot
pole before the election. The net result will
be pretty much no change in the status quo.

That's the reality of life in America today.

Well, I guess we can all go home now.

"Some men see things as they are and ask,
'Why?' I dream of things that never were
and ask, 'Why not?'".

Not us. We just say "that's the way it is, and that's all, folks".

[MrBenchley]

152. Bobby Kennedy...an inspriing liberal leader....

until some asswipe with a gun shot him.

[RoeBear]

115. Bless you...

...for saying "For the record, I am convinced that many of the people who post here in favor of the RKBA point of view are real Democrats".

If others who are in favor of stricter gun control would say that I would be heartened.

[library_max]

117. Hey Bench! Make Roe's day here!

You've confided that very opinion to me in private - that some of the RKBAers here are sincere, that they really are Democrats. Let's put this particular accusation to bed once and for all.

[MrBenchley]

121. Some of them are sincere and are really Democrats

all the more puzzling, then, that they show no inclination to argue the proDemocrat point of view on gun owners forums, isn't it?

[library_max]

125. Thanks, Bench. That good enough for you, Roe?

As for the gun owner forums, I've never entirely understood that argument myself. I certainly have no desire to go on a gun owner forum and argue the proDemocrat point of view. Some of those people are dangerously nuts.

Now if all you're trying to do is to establish that gun owner forums are overwhelmingly (but not utterly without exception) right-wing and contain some truly toxic anti-Democrat rhetoric, I will back you up 100%. But I don't see the braving the lions as a fair litmus test for pro-gun Democrats (look, no quotation marks!). Of course, if a pro-gun "Democrat" hung around such sites and played good ol' boy pattycake with the right wing with never a peep of progressivism, laughed at all the Hillary jokes, etc., I could more see your point . . .

There was a story about an abolitionist in Ohio around 1850. A heckler asked why, if he was so concerned about slavery, he didn't go into the South and make his case there?

"I see from your collar that you are a man of the cloth," he replied. "Is that correct?"

"Yes."

"And it is your business to save the souls of the faithful from Hell, is it not?"

"It is."

"Then, if you are so concerned about saving souls from Hell, why don't you go there?"

[slackmaster]

132. The primary purpose of gun owners' forums is for discussing guns

Not politics. Political discussions on gun owner forums usually get isolated under a single header called (drum roll) General Discussion to keep them from contaminating the flow of hard data and personal experiences.

We who indulge in gun-related topics here on DU do so with the intent of educating people and hopefully influencing the direction of our party. This IS by far the best place to discuss Democratic issues.

[MrBenchley]

139. Bullshit...they discuss all sorts of subjects...

"Political discussions on gun owner forums usually get isolated under a single header called (drum roll) General Discussion"
Where none but the stupidest dittohead gibberish is ever aired....and none of our "pro-gun democrats" ever have anything but excuses as to why they cannot breathe a word of dissent or moderation...

"We who indulge in gun-related topics here on DU do so with the intent of educating people"
Mostly by slandering Democrats and posting dishonest right wing talking points....there was even one "pro gun democrat" who used to put up a picture of John Wayne Gacy from time to time for educational purposes....

[NorthernSpy]

147. like you, I know almost nothing about guns

That fact alone guarantees that I would have nothing intelligent to add to about 99% of the conversations on any gun site. The little that I do know I've learned by reading posts written by the pro-gun people here. Why should I go to Glock Talk, or somewhere like it, and bore everyone with lengthy displays of ignorance on the very topic that they hope to discuss with fellow hobbyists? That's no way to build rapport.

If I can't join in 99% of the discussions, then how seriously do you suppose they'd take my opinions on the few topics that I could discuss with them?

Actually, one of the people who joined us here recently DOES make a habit of posting left political commentary on gun boards. Google him and see for yourself. That might mollify you a bit -- at least, on this particular point.


Mary

[MrBenchley]

148. Like who?

"Why should I go to Glock Talk, or somewhere like it, and bore everyone with lengthy displays of ignorance on the very topic that they hope to discuss with fellow hobbyists?"
Gee, because when they wander off the topic of their tedious fetish, they bash Democrats, liberals, blacks, gays, uppity women, etc., using dittohead horseshit and open bigotry. It's no skin off my nose that gun nuts do that...because it confiirms what I've got to say about the sort of fuckwit who beats his meat about a fantasy in which Dianne Feinstein gets her hands on his popgun....

But I have hobbies, and I don't let dittohead rubbish or open bigotry stand unchallenged when I participate on online forums for them...I can't imagine why anyone decent would let such hateful rubbish stand unchallenged.

It's especially funny because the whole subject of these ugly little klaverns first came up because the board was assured by our "pro gun democrats" that such places were havens for polite discussions (of the sort I enjoy eschewing) and that liberal opinions were both common and welcome...which turned out to be, needless to say, sheer horseshit.

Now of course, none of our "pro gun democrats" ever go near any such places, to hear them talk, and they never see any such right wing horseshit when they do....no wonder they advocate guns for the blind every once in a while.

[NorthernSpy]

154. guns for the blind?

Are you sure that you haven't misconstrued something?

A blind person has as much right to own a gun -- or a car, or a cement mixer, or a set of lawn darts -- as any 20/20 sighted person has, even if the visual impairment limits his/her ability to use those things safely (and consequently his/her right to use them at all). I doubt that anyone here was trying to talk you into agreeing that it would be a swell idea for a sightless gun owner go plinking away, oblivious to the danger to the unseen people around him.



Now of course, none of our "pro gun democrats" ever go near any such places, to hear them talk, and they never see any such right wing horseshit when they do....


Did you read the stuff I mentioned? Shall I find some examples for you?



But I have hobbies, and I don't let dittohead rubbish or open bigotry stand unchallenged when I participate on online forums for them...I can't imagine why anyone decent would let such hateful rubbish stand unchallenged.

I agree with you about that. I've objected openly to lots of things.


Mary

[slackmaster]

155. It's the Mother of All J/PS Misconstruals

A couple of threads last year dealt with the ability of some people who are legally blind (a tax law term describing a specific level of visual disability; not synonymous with totally or profoundly blind) to pass the objective requirements to obtain a concealed-weapons permit in at least some states.

Very few legally blind people even apply for CCW permits, but the handful who have obtained them have triggered hysterical discussions about how the pro-RKBA folks are conducting an "arm the blind campaign" and other such ridiculous exaggerations.

A blind person has as much right to own a gun -- or a car, or a cement mixer, or a set of lawn darts -- as any 20/20 sighted person has, even if the visual impairment limits his/her ability to use those things safely (and consequently his/her right to use them at all)....

Exactly right, but there were a few people here who said they thought legal blindness should be a disqualifier for gun ownership. Calling that proposal a "disarm the disabled campaign" would be a lot closer to honest than the pro-control side's invective.

:argh:

[iverglas]

165. gee

Exactly right, but there were a few people here who said they thought legal blindness should be a disqualifier for gun ownership.

Obviously, someone who owned a firearm but was unable to "drive" it safely/legally would employ a "chauffeur" for the purpose, right?

And just as we'd all know when such a person was illegally driving a car -- 'cause WE COULD SEE HIM/HER driving the bleeding thing -- we'd all know when s/he was illegally toting a firearm around under his/her jacket, right?

Oh, wait, no we wouldn't. Because WE COULDN'T SEE HIM/HER carrying it around. I'm confused. Can you folks run through the analogy again?

Calling that proposal a "disarm the disabled campaign" would be a lot closer to honest than the pro-control side's invective.

(Whoops. Isn't the definition of "armed" kinda something like "CARRYING a weapon"? And isn't that kinda just a little bit different from OWNING a weapon?)

And is there something honest about calling objections to the SERIOUSLY VISUALLY IMPAIRED being entitled to USE firearms without restrictions relevant to their abilities (e.g. that sighted hunter guide thing) an effort to disarm the DISABLED? Not through my admittedly very thick spectacles there isn't. Maybe yours are different.

[MrBenchley]

170. Imagine that....

A few "freedom hating rights deniers" having silly qualms just because some fuckwit differently abled individual can't see what he's aiming at when he starts throwing lead...

It's almost like some people don't want the gun industry to run wild and free....like a hyena.

[slackmaster]

174. Gee iverglas, I thought you had a little more imagination than that

Obviously, someone who owned a firearm but was unable to "drive" it safely/legally would employ a "chauffeur" for the purpose, right?

Only if the only possible purpose for owning a firearm is to shoot it. But like my friend who owns three Packard automobiles, I own several firearms that I have no intention of firing because I bought them for their value as collectors' items.

(Whoops. Isn't the definition of "armed" kinda something like "CARRYING a weapon"? And isn't that kinda just a little bit different from OWNING a weapon?)

The Careful Reader will note that I covered my remark with the caveat "closer to honest" - For clarity I didn't mean to state or imply that my hypothetical would actually qualify as honest.

And is there something honest about calling objections to the SERIOUSLY VISUALLY IMPAIRED being entitled to USE firearms without restrictions relevant to their abilities...

So far remarks from the "control" side have been limited to A) Outrage at the idea of a visually impaired person carrying a gun for self-defense and B) Calls for a vision test as a prerequisite for OWNING a gun. If someone would like to propose some kind of reasonable restrictions on the use of a firearm by a visually impaired person who passed the very same CCW test that is given to fully sighted people and got the permit then we'd have something to talk about.

[MrBenchley]

156. Guns for the blind....

You asked for it! Brought to you by Skippy peanut butter!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=7742

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=7088

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=7903

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=29022

[Bowline]

133. I find that the quotation marks around the word Democrat...

..., when they are used, are insulting. It's tantamount to calling someone a liar if they profess to be both pro-RKBA and a Democrat, as if the two are mutually exclusive. I think most of us can agree that is not the case.

I chose to be called pro-RKBA instead of pro-gun. I like guns but I consider them merely tools in the same category as hammers, chainsaws, and the like. I don't promote guns for guns sake but as a tool for defense, backed up by my belief in the inalienable right to keep and bear arms. I don't hunt (just don't see the attraction) and I only target shoot to increase my proficiency with my carry gun. The gun is merely a tool. It's the belief system behind it that can make it good or bad.

[library_max]

138. Well, here's the hell of it.

I recognize the natural umbrage people take at insinuations against their honesty. At the same time, I see a lot of dishonest postings in favor of the RKBA position. Deliberate sophistries, made-up facts, obvious distortions of what the other person said, points brought back up that have been refuted time and time again, questions asked for no other reason than to be obnoxious, etc. etc. And that's not counting my continued belief that there are non-Democrats posting regularly in this forum.

So what's a person to do? Just wink at all the dishonesty because it's not nice to point it out? I try not to make unfounded accusations, and regulars can remember instances in which I've been off base and apologized for it. But the best I can do is call 'em as I see 'em, and if that isn't always nice, well, neither is life. Nor politics, for that matter.

Just remember, if pro-gun "Democrat" doesn't apply to you, ignore it. We're all in agreement that it doesn't apply to every pro-RKBA poster. Even MrBenchley.

[MrBenchley]

140. Interesting to note, though, that one of these "pro gun democrats"

put up a thread with some article from a libertarian cesspool saying Kerry was as bad as AshKKKroft on civil liberties, and not a single one of the other "pro gun democrats" raised so much as a peep of objection...in fact, some chimed in that it was an "interesting discussion" that needed "more discussion."

That's the sort of thing that goes a long way toward convincing ME.....

[gatlingforme]

160. can I quote you on the post you had in that article.???

[MrBenchley]

173. Even better...

start a thread on the same subject...if you don't I'm sure another of our "pro gun democrats" will knock Kerry as the campaign goes on...

[RoeBear]

134. Not bad...

...thanks. Do you have a job as a negotiator?

[library_max]

137. Nope, librarian.

I'm happy about this outcome, though. Maybe we can all snipe less and communicate more.

[Bowline]

144. "Maybe we can all snipe less and communicate more."

Hear hear!

[gatlingforme]

161. It's hard to communicate in this forum when one is insulted on a

constant basis. I like to state my opinion and I will continue to do so. I am not talking about anyone in particular, but certain people just don't get what civilized discourse means. Then some people ignore the fact that their posts were deleted and act as if it never happened. ?????? WTF???????? at least when my post was deleted in this forum I did not go on to bash all the people that still responded to the article. JEEEEEEEEEEEEEZ.

[library_max]

183. That's all of us, gatlingforme.

We all get insulted on a regular basis, just by different people. It is insulting, for one thing, to have a falsehood that has already been refuted thrown in one's face for the twentieth time.

The thing to do is cultivate a thick skin.

[MrBenchley]

142. Hilariously, max....

the gun owners forums first made their appearance over here as the subject of some RKBAers posts...who assured us that those forums were havens of enlightened thought that welcomed progressive and liberal viewpoints with polite debate. That, of course, was about as true as everything else in the RKBA repertoire, which is to say, not at all.

But since many of our long time regulars did indeed frequent such cesspools (claiming that there were gentlemen with enlightened opinions frequenting them and not just a bunch of dittohead imbeciles) I visited them myself...and began to question WHY there was nothing but crap from conservaitves posted on those forums if there were indeed the MILLIONS of gun-toting liberals our trigger happy chums claimed were there...surely you'd think one of them would speak up.

It's also noticeable that the so-called Pink Pistols, which invade these pages regularly to assure us there are gay people with guns (who disrupt gay pride events, endorse anti-gay candidates, and hate pro-gay liberals but not anti-gay Republicans), never seem to say "boo" about the ferocious open homophobia and intolerance regularly on display there.

By now, of course, I am entertained by the myriad of inventive and desperate excuses our "pro gun democrats" have for not posting there...

I can't post there because I don't go to those forums
I can't post there because MrBenchley doesn't post on those forums
I can't post there because MrBenchley doesn't post on other forums
I can't post there because MrBenchley didn't tell me what to post
I can't post there because I can't think of anything proDemocrat
I can't post there because you can't make me post there
I can't post there because those forums don't have political discussions
I can't post there because I don't have the right brand of gun
I can't post there because yadda yadda yadda....

And of course, since we are being falsely told by our RKBAers that the ticket is under attack by disgruntled gun control advocates, it's worth noting that the gun owners forums are of course laden to the brim with venomous attacks on Kerry, Edwards and the Democrats...

[library_max]

184. Oh. I guess I haven't been here long enough.

But I've been here for several months. If the argument is that old and hasn't been raised again on their side, maybe it's a dead horse.

You're right about the attacks on Kerry and Edwards.

[bluewingoliver]

123. So much for party unity.

I consider myself quite left of center, and own multiple guns, both for home defense and hunting. Politically, I'm definitely in the minority among people I hunt and fish with, though I see a definite change in attitudes the more Bush fumbles with the presidency.

What exactly is the point in insinuating gun owning democrats are not "true" democrats? Would you like to do your part to ensure that even more gun owners vote republican?

I would happily shoot someone who came into my home seeking to do harm to myself or loved ones. This may put me at odds with most liberals, but I really don't think there's any need to "rehabilitate" rapists and violent felons. The world is better off without them, be it dead or incarcerated for life.

I firmly believe that a good deal of right-wingers, along with the racist militias, survivalists, and the like, will not allow this country to turn to the left. You saw demonstrations of their violent capabilites during Clinton's term, and it will re-appear with a vengeance if Kerry is elected. Read some books by William Johnstone, he writes a relatively successful series of books that read like a neo-nazi's wet dream, replete with shooting the "evil" and "spineless" liberals. I guarantee these books are well known by freepers, and given the opportunity, they'd love to act out these fantasies. The way things are going now, you'll end up wiith a bunch of racist, maniacal christians armed to teeth vs. a bunch of unarmed liberal pacifists.

[library_max]

126. The term doesn't refer to the party. The term refers to the JPS forum.

And JPS forum unity is an impossible dream.

[iverglas]

153. humour me

This may put me at odds with most liberals, but I really don't think there's any need to "rehabilitate" rapists and violent felons. The world is better off without them, be it dead or incarcerated for life.

Exactly what might it be that prompts you to call yourself "left of center"? I've certainly never met anyone left of centre who said such vicious and nauseating things.

But then I'm Canadian, and we're just weird. And of course we don't shove all decent notions off to a corner and give it a bad name, and then call what's left "the centre".


Read some books by William Johnstone, he writes a relatively successful series of books that read like a neo-nazi's wet dream, replete with shooting the "evil" and "spineless" liberals.

Distinguish, if you would, that sentiment from the one you expressed.


People (with firearms) who think that their opinion of other people is the determining factor in whether those other people get to keep living ... I'm seeing apples and apples here, myself.

[Van23]

141. Proud to be pro-gun!!

I'm probably the only leftist who's also a member of Gun Owners of America!!

[MrBenchley]

143. Wow...

Gun Owners of America is near foaming with rage these days with attacks on liberals...its executive director, Larry Pratt, is a racist scumbag so ugly that even Pat Buchanan had to flee his company when it was made public he was part of the Bunchana camp.

Nice playmates.

[Van23]

178. I know

Larry Pratt is a hard-core right -winger, and I disagree with him on everything except the Second Amendment. In spite of his otherwise abhorrent politics, his organization defends my right to be armed and I support him in this regard wholeheartedly.

[skippythwndrdog]

157. Nope!

There are at least 2 of us!

[Bowline]

158. Three....at least. n/t

[Paladin]

166. And All Three Of You Are Relative Newcomers To J/PS

Imagine my utter lack of surprise.......

[Bowline]

168. Why would we even suspect you'd be surprised?

We don't even know who you are. Well, at least I don't.

[Van23]

177. AWESOME!!

We need more people like us! It's time for us second amendment lefties to come out of the closet and be proud of what we believe!
Guns aren't the problem. Poverty, racism, and injustice are....and the current administration.

[MrBenchley]

179. Too too funny....

"It's time for us second amendment lefties to come out of the closet and be proud of what we believe!"
Namely, the ugliest right wing crap....

"Poverty, racism, and injustice are...."
And Larry Pratt of GOA has devoted his wretched career to exacerbating all three..some sweet little playmate you got there, guys...

[Van23]

180. It's easy

to be a critic when you've never been a victim.

Long live Noam Chomsky....and Larry Pratt.

[MrBenchley]

197. And it's disgraceful to pimp for racist pieces of shit like Pratt

Tell us, what has Pratt ever been a "victim" of?

[Van23]

199. I'm not

talking about Pratt. I'm talking about you. Have you ever been in fear of your life? Well, I have and I resent being told I shouldn't be able to carry a weapon to defend myself.

[MrBenchley]

200. You barged in here cheering for Pratt and his ugly klavern

and now you want to back away from him (big surprise)...

Pratt is such a scumbag that even Pat Buchanan had to flee his company when he was pointed out to the public.

[MrBenchley]

146. By the way, it's inspiring to see how one of our "pro gun democrats"

has already returned to slurring Democrats and posting crap from right wing loonies...

Guess those quotation marks were off base...NOT.

[Wickerman]

201. magic 2 = locked