Cold dead hands clinging to their guns in Pennsylvania:

[bushmeister0]

Watch our Democratic nominees bob and weave, duck and cover.

AP:

"Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton are gingerly threading their way between two of the most politically charged numbers in Pennsylvania: the state's almost 1 million licensed hunters and Philadelphia's nearly one-a-day rate of gun murders.

Gun control arouses deep emotions here. Deadly shootings have earned the state's largest city the ominous nickname: 'Killadelphia.' One of the strongest antigun control groups, the National Rifle Association, has 250,000 members in Pennsylvania, more than in any other state. This month the Pennsylvania House soundly defeated a bill to require handgun owners to report the theft or loss of their guns to police.

As the state's hotly contested April 22 primary approaches, the Democratic presidential candidates have struggled to avoid alienating either side, to the point of pandering."

Pandering! Hil? Obama? Say it ain't so.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080415/ap_on_el_pr/pennsylvania_primary_guns

"In Pennsylvania's debate over gun control, Philadelphia is ground zero.

In the City of Brotherly Love, police say 343 people were killed by guns in 2006, and 330 more in 2007. The pace is slower so far this year, but already 58 have died in shootings.

The Legislature has placed gun regulation under its exclusive control, so Philadelphia is powerless to impose its own restrictions. City officials, legislators and second-term Gov. Ed Rendell — a gun-control advocate who has a home in Philadelphia — perennially push for state laws they say would help police crack down on illegal gun trafficking, but without success."

<break>

Now that's real democracy for you. If the people of Philly were given a chance to decide whether they wanted a gun in every carck house or a ban, you know what they'd decide. (We don't do much hunting here in this part of the state.) Of course, if everybody was armed I guess crime would go down right? Like that one week back in October of last year when 5 police officers were shot in a three day period. They obviously weren't armed heavily enough.

Whichever candidate that can grow a backbone on this issue and stand up for the families of the 700 or so killed in Philadelphia the last two years and the rest of us in the bullseye, he/she will get my vote. Otherwise, I swear, I'll write in Al Gore.

[BadgerLaw2010]

1. Yawn. DC is worse and they ban guns. These rants are worthless.

Gun control does not work, period. Because it does not work, it does not belong in policy debate.

[zanne]

3. Nice try, nt

[bushmeister0]

5. DC had something under 180 gun deaths in 2007. Philly had 330.

[zanne]

7. Yeah, but...but...

That disproves their favorite argument!

[aikoaiko]

12. You do know that Philly is 3 times the size of DC, don't you.

:shrug:

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

24. Ummm lies damn lies and figures

US Cities by population
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by_population

6 Philadelphia Pennsylvania 1,448,394
25 Washington District of Columbia 581,530

Now well hit something called 'per capita'

DC: 1 gun death per 3,231 residents
PHI: 1 gun death per 4,389 residents

Please don't use numbers unless you understand what they really mean, Philly does better than DC

[GrandmaJones7]

23. EXACTLY! D.C. is PROOF that gun bans DON'T work!!

-as is the UK. Gun control is for losers.

[zanne]

30. Gun deaths in DC have DECREASED...

In 1976, Washington, D.C., took action that was consistent with such evidence. Having previously required that guns be registered, the District prohibited further registration of handguns, outlawed the carrying of concealed guns, and required that guns kept at home be unloaded and either disassembled or locked.

These laws worked. Careful analysis linked them to reductions of 25% in gun homicide and 23% in gun suicide, with no parallel decrease (or compensatory increase) in homicide and suicide by other methods and no similar changes in nearby Maryland or Virginia.4 Homicides rebounded in the late 1980s with the advent of "crack" cocaine, but today the District's gun-suicide rate is lower than that of any state.

Source: New England Journal of Medicine, April 3, 2008

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/NEJMp0800859

[krispos42]

29. DC homicide rates

US, UK and the ratio between US and UK homicide rates:

[zanne]

2. The gun nuts are now actively IM'ing each other...

They'll be here soon.

The gun lobby has mucho $. Like any other evil enterprise, they have excellent organization skills and they're as loud and demanding as the "family values" crowd.

What we have to remember is that THEY ARE A MINORITY. We often see examples of noisy minorities demanding that certain TV shows or ads be pulled. Most of the time, they succeed because the organizers manage to get in touch with all of them and they call their representatives, TV stations, etc. en masse.

What we have to do is realize that we have strength in numbers and raise our voices, too. After the Supreme Court makes it's decision about the 2nd Amendment, we have to encourage our candidates to speak their minds without fear of retribution. I know that's what I'm going to do.

[appal_jack]

38. I am a Pro-RKBA Democrat who is part of a MAJORITY

First off, let me state categorically and unequivocally that I will vote for the Democratic nominee. Obama will get my vote in the upcoming NC primary, and I very much look forward to him being the nominee, and then taking a presidential oath to protect, defend, and uphold the Constitution on 1/20/09.

Secondly, I of course am familiar with several of Obama's pro-extreme-gun-control statements in favor of a handgun ban, etc. that, in my mind, fail to uphold the Second Amendment with anywhere near the necessary determination and vigor that an ideal presidential candidate should. So both of the potential Democratic nominees are having to backpedal a bit now that they are on the national stage, with more than just Cook County or even NY state to speak to. The fact is that a solid majority of Americans do not want their 2nd Amendment rights further eroded.

But as usual, Hillary's backpedaling strikes me as more opportunistic, less genuine, and basically more sure to piss off everyone (RKBA'ers and gun-grabbers alike). But even more importantly, the Democratic Party platform now states that "We will protect Americans' Second Amendment right to own firearms..." So, in fact, the pro-RKBA stance that both Obama and Clinton are being forced to at least mouth a bit is not only consistent with our Constitution, but with our Party.

I own at least three (maybe 4 depending on the exact wording) rifles that an Assault Weapons Ban (such as McCarthy-1022) would prohibit. I am not interested in seeing such a misguided policy move forward, ever again. As I said above, the Democrats have my vote this year. But if they start monkeying with the 2nd Amendment after their hoped-for victory, they just might lose me. At the very least, I would start channeling money and energy toward pro-RKBA-causes, when I would much rather channel that time and funds toward enacting universal health care, substantial environmental restoration, sustainable energies, etc.

So what's the problem with a Democrat supporting the right to keep & bear arms? Are there really fellow Democrats who would cast-aside my support and the support of thousands of others like me? Whether we target shoot, or hunt, or collect historical militaria, or just want to be ready for that ever-more-plausible SHTF possibility, we lawful and peaceable Americans who are firearms owners are a significant population. We are ready to support and uphold the 1st, 4th, 5th,...9th, 10th, 14th, and all other right-enshrining Amendments in our Constitution. Don't you want us on your side??? Is your support in upholding the Second Amendment too much to ask for in such an alliance???

-app


ps- I also posted this as a reply in a current GDP discussion, but I figure that y'all here on this thread are smart enough to stay out of GDP these days, and it seems necessary to post here in GD too.

[bean fidhleir]

4. I saw this at another site and thought it was a very good question

"Why don't rich people shoot one another?"

Why is it that shootings go up as income goes down? What's the connection?

[zanne]

6. I'm no sociologist, but...

It seems to me that poverty causes hopelessness and desperation. I think that alone would be a good reason for a spike in the number of shootings. Also, people profit from this desperation. I'm sure that selling guns in poor neighborhoods is a very profitable business.

[bushmeister0]

8. Gun are power and control. Something obviously the poor lack,

[lazer47]

10. Selling them in rich neighborhoods will be profitable also,, just

as soon as the poor and desperate have had enough.

[bean fidhleir]

13. That's what I got out of it too: that it's poverty, hopelessness, and desperation

Which raises the question in my mind: who benefits? Who might want us to concentrate on the guns instead of the poverty?

[zanne]

14. Gun laws and restrictions have to be aggressively enforced...

Poverty can take generations or even centuries to solve. The obvious answer is stricter and more strictly enforced gun control.

[bean fidhleir]

18. So if gun control is aggressively enforced, that will make the violence stop?

I don't see the connection there, if the violence is driven by poverty, hopelessness, and desperation. I'd think that it would simply cause a rise in the use of knives, axes, crowbars, and things like that. Wouldn't it?

[zanne]

32. Guns are the coward's weapon of choice. It's easy to kill with a gun.

When was the last time you heard of a drive-by knifing? It's much easier to kill from a distance with a gun than it is to get up close to a person with a knife. It's a fact.

Tougher gun restrictions and aggressive enforcement wouldn't rid us of violence altogether; of course not. But we have to start somewhere. We have to at least try, don't we?

[bean fidhleir]

34. Drive-bys? Are there that many of them?

I thought they were rather rare and a side effect of drugs being illegal. Dealers can't take their business disputes to court, so they shoot their opponents instead of suing them, kind of thing. What would they do if they didn't have guns?

And actually, I thought most killings were done close up. Someone comes home and finds her DH in the sack with their neighbor and shoots them both. Or someone comes in to dinner after chopping wood, and sinks his ax into her head because every Tuesday for the past 46 years it's been goddamned stewed cabbage. Do you happen to know the percentage of killings that might not be committed except for guns?

[zanne]

35. You do understand, I'm sure. nt

[bean fidhleir]

37. Understand what?

You might think I'm stalling or playing dumb, but I'm really just trying to avoid imposing "solutions" whose main effect is against honest people.

Generally if we treat a symptom rather than the problem, it doesn't help. The problem is still there, and will just manifest in some other way (because that's what makes it a problem!). If you take the gun away from someone with severe paranoia, that doesn't do anything for the poor soul's overwhelming terror and suspiciousness. Since he *must* defend himself against the many people around him who are out to do him harm, he goes and gets another gun or a knife or makes a bomb or runs people down with his car or starts poisoning them. Given what he thinks he knows about them, he'd be crazy not to. (The fact that nearly all the people are innocent of any intent to harm him is the tragic part)

So I'm trying to see whether you have better information about these things than I do. My impression is that getting rid of guns won't do anything useful because in the 14th century there were no human-portable guns but there were LOTS of killings and other violence. It was a horrible century for violence.

If you have good data to support the idea that guns are the problem rather than a symptom, I'm all ears. But I thought we were agreed that the problem is poverty, hopelessness, and desperation.

[zanne]

40. I'll say it again. WE'RE NOT TRYING TO "TAKE" YOUR GUNS!

No matter how many times gun-control advocates tell you, you stick with that old meme of "gun grabbers". I guess it fits into your worldview better, but it isn't true. We're not trying to take your precious guns from you. We want more restrictions and we want to close the loopholes (that you will say don't exist).

We're trying to have a civilization here! We don't want to live in your vision of the world. We want a realistic, gun-controlled society with strict enforcement laws. We want the NRA and others like it to loosen its grip on our government.

WE WANT A SANE SOCIETY, but doing something about guns is the first important step in achieving that society. Society's ills will go on and on for centuries. They're only bound to get worse, so having a heavily armed f**ked up society will only assure our destruction.

So many gun people assume that society is already beyond hope, so the only way to survive is to arm ourselves to the teeth in self-defense. That's defeatist and, in my opinion, cowardly.

[bean fidhleir]

41. I don't HAVE any guns. I do have remnants of my long-ago training in science, though

and that training says that focusing on guns (or knives, or cherry cokes) when you know that they aren't the problem is unhelpful at best. Usually, focusing on the wrong thing lets the real problem get worse; we hear of that all the time in medicine, where failure to correctly diagnose and treat the real problem causes the premature death of the victim.

It's bad public policy to rely on magical beliefs unsupported by evidence. We can easily see that when people want to use their religion as the basis for lawmaking or education. Why can't we see it when the magical beliefs are coming from some other source?

(edit) Could you possibly respond to my request for data, rather than continuing to ignore it? DO you have any data? If you don't, could you please just come right out and say so?

[zanne]

42. We're not disagreeing about the cause of social unrest...

We're disagreeing about the solution. If you have a background in science, you can understand that. If not, you're just being disingenuous.

[bean fidhleir]

44. No, we're disagreeing about the cause, too

Because you can't solve ANY problem by operating on something that's not the problem or its antecedent.

You can't cure a broken arm with aspirin, or by bandaging a leg, or by dancing, or prayer, or by some other method than setting and splinting. You have to address the problem itself.

Could you please say whether you have any data showing guns to be the CAUSE of the problem? And if you don't have any, could you please just say that?

[zanne]

45. Don't you understand that guns just aggravate the problem?

Adding guns to society's ills doesn't help the situation; it aggravates the situation. In such a scenario, guns are more likely used aggressively rather than for defense. It's like giving an angry child a BB gun. Given human nature, what do you think will happen?

I think your denial about the destructiveness of unregulated use of firearms is, at best, naive. You can't bury the truth with denial.

As far as "proving" that "guns are the CAUSE of the problem"--I never said that and that's not what we're discussing. I think we agree that the cause of the problem is poverty, hoplessness, the breakdown of traditional ties and racism. What we're talking about is the solution. If you can't see that, maybe you should not only take a Science refresher course, but also Logic 101.If you continue to change the subject in your replies, there's no use in trying to discuss this with you. You're obviously not serious about finding a solution to anything. You just want to buttress your position.

[bean fidhleir]

46. Since you've been reduced to attacking me personally, let's just drop the subject, okay?

Without even a shared understanding of what "solution" means, we're not going to get anywhere.

[zanne]

48. Since you've derailed the direction of the discussion, that's fine with me. nt

[benEzra]

56. Yes, you are...

I'll say it again. WE'RE NOT TRYING TO "TAKE" YOUR GUNS!

No matter how many times gun-control advocates tell you, you stick with that old meme of "gun grabbers". I guess it fits into your worldview better, but it isn't true. We're not trying to take your precious guns from you.

Yes, you are--unless you're OK with my wife owning these:



and are OK with me owning these:





and our passing them down to our children someday.


Either you don't understand what guns Americans own, or you are downplaying your support for sharply reducing the number of handguns and modern-looking rifles in civilian hands.

[zanne]

51. Is the Harvard School of Public Health good enough?

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/index.html

In homes where there are guns, suicide by gun and homicide by gun increases dramatically. I don't know if you'll accept Harvard's findings. I know it's only a school and the NRA has statistics that are almost the exact opposite of Harvard's results. I guess it depends on who you want to believe.

[sergeiAK]

36. So our police are cowards then? -nt

[Kaleva]

47. Banning guns is a band aid approach

It doesn't address the core causes of violence which are poverty, drugs and social upheavel.

[GrandmaJones7]

21. ITS THE PEOPLE STUPID!

Whaen I was growing up as a young girl, guns were a LOT more available (even handguns) and even to children; boys even brought their deer hunting rifles to public school with them. Difference between then & now is: WE didn't use those guns on each other!!

Guns are not the problem. Get a clue and start attacking the REAL causes here: identify and punish the few bad apples/ultra-violent ones who create 90% of the problems.

[gratuitous]

9. Easy as cake

The first Democrat who stands up and says "Let's give all the white people guns!" will win over the 500 loudmouths in Pennsylvania driving this stupid, pointless, never-ending "debate." Until next month, when they'll start their yammering again.

[old mark]

11. From a pro-Gun Democrat

I guess I'm on the other side on this.
I am a third generation Democrat, and have been a gun owner for nearly 40 years and fully intend to keep on being one.
There is as much, if not more, nonsense and absolute lying by the "gun control" advocacy groups an by all of the pro-gun groups combined.
They are, after all, in it for the money.
Philadelphia has a lot of violence because they don't enforce the laws they already have, and they have drug/gang problems that have been out of control for decades.IMO, a lot of that drug money goes to some people within the city government, but that's just my opinion.
I am not a member of the NRA, the Gun Owners of America or even the Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, and I'm not really a hunter. I have a Pennsylvania License to Carry a Firearm, and carry one for self defence. FWIW, the county where I live has over 25,000 people with such licenses.
I didn't vote in your poll - there was no suitable choice for me.
Just my opinion - I was looking for another forum when I found this one and thought I'd make this my first post.
Have a great day.

mark

[spin]

15. Welcome to DU ... some advise...

If you have been lurking here, you probably already realize that many of the posters are pro-gun.

If you decide to participate in the debates on firearms, I suggest you use logic, facts, reason and statistics to back up your points. The anti-gun people will react with emotion and explain their own personal distrust of guns and gun owners.

Do not take offense if they call you names or try to use amateur psychology to explain your attraction to firearms. When they can't overcome your calm logical approach they'll attack hoping you'll respond in like manner and therefore reduce your credibility.

Remain calm. Do not call them names. Respect their viewpoint, as all viewpoints have merit.

Always remember that you can learn something from everyone you meet (or have internet chats with).

Also remember many dissatisfied Republicans and independents lurk in the background reading the posts. Your pro-gun viewpoints may help attract undecided voters to the Democratic Party.

Gun topics appear occasionally in the general discussion forum. The real action lies in the Gun forum.


From your post:

There is as much, if not more, nonsense and absolute lying by the "gun control" advocacy groups an by all of the pro-gun groups combined.
They are, after all, in it for the money.

Very true!

Philadelphia has a lot of violence because they don't enforce the laws they already have, and they have drug/gang problems that have been out of control for decades.IMO, a lot of that drug money goes to some people within the city government, but that's just my opinion.

We need to hold some politicians feet to the fire.

Have a good day and a good time on DU.

[zanne]

17. Many Republicans and Independents lurk here and are tombstoned.

They're attracted to the gun forum. Quelle surprise.

[spin]

25. Yes they lurk here but don't post...

Therefore they don't get "tombstoned".

But they read the posts and form opinions on Democrats and how they think. It might be wise to remember that the words you post might be read by a large audience.

If some of the pro-gun Independents and disgruntled Republicans find the views that they see here reassure them that a good number of Democrats are pro-gun, they may just decide to stop pushing the button mindlessly for a Republican candidate. They might decide to donate to and actively support the Democratic Party.

Most gun owners are in favor of gun legislation that works. Like all people in this country they hope to reduce the misuse of firearms. They also find despicable mass murder, crime, domestic killings and children dying because of access to firearms. Effective,reasonable gun laws can help to reduce these problems. If very few people die or are injured by irresponsible use of firearms, gun owners will have less fear of laws being passed that would make the weapons they own (or could currently buy) illegal.

And while they lurk, they just might notice that they agree with many of the views expressed on other subjects discussed.

Of course, If you post that "true Democrats" support gun control and consider most gun owners especially those who have concealed carry permits "knuckle dragging assholes" then you can bet that the lurkers will vote Republican. In many races, in many places, the result of the election will be decided by their votes. All the good ideas that the Democrats have and want to implement will be endangered.

[zanne]

27. Gee. I wouldn't want to upset "some" Democrats and Republicans by...

Stating my opinions. I think you exaggerate the number of people who will base their vote on a single issue like guns. I think that most Democrats who own guns, even Republicans who own guns, are not as extreme as most of the pro-gun people in the gun forum.

[spin]

39. You may be right....found this link

http://www.gunnewsdaily.com/rw509.html

John took a look at a list of people that regularly attended gun shows in his district. He compared the attendee list to voter registration lists to determine how many of the 12,000 gun show attendees were registered to vote.

Do you want to guess the results? Would you say only half are registered? You would be considered an eternal optimist if that was your guess. How about 30%? Well, you're getting closer, but you still have a long, long way to go. How about 10%. No, you're still too high. No... I'm not kidding. Try about 670 people. That's a whopping 5.6% of gun show attendees are registered to vote. Now, of those 670, an optimistic number of those who voted would probably range at about 50%. That means of the 12,000 gun show attendees only about 335 probably voted. Ok, that's being a little harsh. I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that all 670 voted. Somehow inflating the number won't make most feel all that much better about the whole thing.

I have to admit that I was surprised!

[zanne]

16. You think the NRA isn't in it for the money?

They're a lobbying group for the gun manufacturers. They don't press for looser gun regulations for nothing. The fact that they own so many politicians should tell you something. Pro-gun legislation is like the Pro-Iraq War stance; it's destructive and ruins many lives but there's alot of money in it.

[Irreverend IX]

19. The NRA does not lobby for gun manufacturers.

They lobby for their 4 million dues-paying members. Are you aware that the entire gun industry makes about $2 billion a year, while the McDonalds Corporation alone makes more than $12 billion a year? Gun manufacturing does not have a high profit margin, since guns require high-level manufacturing processes to create, they are built to last forever rather than having planned obsolescence like cell phones, and many gun owners buy used whenever possible. The NRA does not accept money from gun makers as a matter of policy; companies like Ruger and Smith & Wesson have their own lobbying groups, but these groups are small and don't have much influence.

[sergeiAK]

20. There you go again

bringing facts into a perfectly good argument.

[zanne]

55. NRA and the gun manufacturers; Partners in crime.

http://www.opensecrets.org/include/formattoprint.asp?Page=/alerts/v5/alertv5_04.asp

It's all there in black and white.

[Snarkturian Clone]

22. None of the guns in Philly that were involved in murders were purchased

legally.

Plus we still have tons of non-gun related murders here.. just 2 weeks ago some teens beat a man to death in the subway. Last year a woman threw another woman out of a window, then went downstairs to kick her to death since she survived the fall.

[zanne]

28. All of the guns were legal at one point.

I've heard that excuse so many times. It just isn't valid, because the guns were once original purchases, bought legally.

[zanne]

52. What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?nt

[zanne]

53. So that just wipes out the number of gun deaths, right?

Because some homicides weren't perpetrated with a gun, that negates the number of gun deaths? That argument is very lame.

[dger11]

26. Philadelphia should not be imposing its draconian viewpoints

on the rest of the state. This kind of talk scares rural PA voters who are well outside of the city. Banning things doesn't work. The root cause of the violence should be addressed.

[zanne]

33. "Banning things doesn't work"? How about controls and enforcement?

When was the last time you saw crack cocaine on sale at your corner store? Sure, it's sold and bought by criminals, but there's no way you can actually believe that banning it doesn't help. And we're not even talking about banning guns--just tougher gun control and enforcment.

Relax; nobody's coming to take your guns away.

[krispos42]

31. Those damn guns...

jumping out of closets and gun safes and killing innocent people for their money!


:sarcasm:


Last time I checked, guns are tools used by people. 343 people were murdered by other people in Philidelpia who chose to use a gun instead of "other".

[Perry Logan]

43. The research proves what most people intuitively know: more guns mean more deaths.

From the Harvard Injury Control Research Center:

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/index.html

A broad array of evidence indicates that gun availability is a risk factor for homicide, both in the United States and across high-income countries. Case-control studies, ecological time-series and cross-sectional studies indicate that in homes, cities, states and regions in the US, where there are more guns, both men and women are at higher risk for homicide, particularly firearm homicide.

States with higher levels of household gun ownership had higher rates of firearm homicide and overall homicide. This relationship held for both genders and all age groups, after accounting for rates of aggravated assault, robbery, unemployment, urbanization, alcohol consumption, and resource deprivation (e.g., poverty). There was no association between gun prevalence and non-firearm homicide.

The preponderance of current evidence indicates that gun availability is a risk factor for youth suicide in the United States.

States with higher levels of household gun ownership had higher rates of firearm suicide and overall suicide. This relationship held for both genders and all age groups. It remained true after accounting for poverty, urbanization and unemployment. There was no association between gun prevalence and non-firearm suicide.

[zanne]

49. I believe that the gun people know that.

It's a case of our old friend, cognitive dissonance.

[Kaleva]

50. Too broad a definition

"States with higher levels of household gun ownership had higher rates of firearm homicide and overall homicide."

I live in a state with a high level of gun ownership but because of my age, color, and where I live, the chances of me being a victim of a gun related crime is zilch. The same cannot be said of a young black male living in Detroit.

[zanne]

54. Knock on wood.

Edited to Add: Since you are privileged enough to be white and not living in poverty, you think your chances of gun violence are less. That may be so...but it's no guarantee. Many gun homicides are the result of domestic violence, and that happens everywhere.

[Kaleva]

57. Statistics show that my chances are less.

I do not just think that. Even when I lived in Philly, I felt quite safe walking around the Penn's Landing area late at night ("Kyber's Pass" bar was one of my favorite hangouts) but I would not dare venture into other parts of the city even in broad daylight.

[zanne]

58. Well, good for you.

To hell with the safety of those other people, huh?