Sparky tells the truth about the gun debate

[texshelters]

Not put your hands up and step away from your paranoia. Then perhaps we can do something sane to reduce the violence. Otherwise, carry on as usual.

<a href="" target="_blank"><img src="" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a>

Peace,
Tex Shelters

[aikoaiko]

1. I don't think so.. some people will still try to exploit the tragedy

and propose laws that would have done nothing or little to prevent what happened.

[Hello_Kitty]

2. LOL! Proving the point of the cartoon right out of the gate!

:rofl:

[PSPS]

3. You'll never convince a gun fetishist that their gun is their fetish.

[aikoaiko]

6. or convince others that gun magazines aren't eeeeeeeevil.

[texshelters]

16. Who said they are evil

what I say is that you don't need more so many bullets for self defense.

Peace,
Tex Shelters

[Rex]

19. At least he said tragedy and not incident.

I'm glad there was no lawn furniture store close by. Wait, WalMart sells folding chairs as well as bullets...hmmm.

[aikoaiko]

20. Let me ask, do you think 10 rounds is enough if someone with malice breaks into your house?

[spin]

23. I just need two ...

Stoeger 12 gauge coach gun

[aikoaiko]

38. not fair if you use OO buck with 9 lead balls (each about 9mm in diameter) per round.

;)

[spin]

48. Fair? If you are in a fair fight you are doing something wrong. (n/t)

[aikoaiko]

49. I'm sorry, you misinterpret my joke.

I meant "not fair" with tongue in cheek to claim you only use two rounds, but each round has 9 OO buckshot.

Got it now?

[spin]

50. You missed my point ...

Taking on an intruder with a 9mm might be "fair". If I know an intruder is in the house, I plan to use the coach gun which is indeed loaded with 00 buck. If it's necessary that I have to shoot to stop the intruder, I can effectively hit him with 9 9mm rounds from each barrel.



That's not a "fair fight" even if he has a handgun. But if there is an intruder in my house then the survival of my family and myself may depend on my winning the fight. Obviously the intruder could wait until no one was home to break in. The fact that he chooses to break in when people are present means he is far more dangerous.

I want the odds to be on my side. Giving him a fair chance to kill me is foolish.

[aikoaiko]

52. Really, I got it. off course the home defenders should have the odds on their side.

That is why I am against magazine limits.

No one was talking about giving intruders a fair chance. I'm not even sure why you are bringing that up?

[Straw Man]

44. You'll never convince control fetishists...

...that control is their fetish.

[texshelters]

15. Again, more paranoia

Peace,
Tex Shelters

[aikoaiko]

21. What do you think I'm paranoid about?

[Paladin]

4. God, That's Perfect. Highly Rec'd.

I believe Tom Tomorrow has been reading DU gun threads and taking notes. The gun defender's responses are practically verbatim transcripts of what our Gun Enthusiasts say, over and over and over---particularly the "incendiary rhetoric" part.....

[aikoaiko]

5. You're just sore because you can't get more gun control passed.

And I haven't seen anyone on DU describe what happened as anything but a horrific act of violence.

[DrDan]

8. a horrific act of gun violence

[aikoaiko]

10. Yes, he used a gun.

eta: If you want to make laws that prevent someone like Loughner from acquiring a gun without impeding sane and law abiding folks from acquiring firearms, then I'm with you.

[Exilednight]

47. If you believe that strict gun laws do not prevent violence, then your sanity needs to be

questioned.

Here's a few facts about countries and homicide.

The United States has the most lax gun laws out of industrialized nations.

The US averaged 3.98 gun homicides per 100,000 people in 2006.

England has one of the strictest gun laws out of industrialized nations.

In the same year, England and Wales combined averaged 0.13 gun homicides per 100,000 people.

Japan's gun laws nearly mirror those of England and Wales.

Japan, in 2006, averaged 0.02 gun homicides per 100,000 people.

I can see how someone believes banning guns doesn't work. It's because they never look at the facts.

[aikoaiko]

51. I think you underestimate how easily criminals will be able to get guns in the US under total bans

Really, take a look at the impotence for drug prohibition.

Its true what site about gun homicides, but that doesn't mean all those homicides wouldn't happen. Plus we have to look at the rates of other violent crimes when you disarm the public.

There are a lot of things to consider.

I'm open to guns laws that don't disarm law abiding or otherwise disqualified folks.

[Exilednight]

53. Comparing drugs and guns is like comparing

apples and oranges.

The mass majority of Americans do not have the resources to make a gun in their own home. Anyone can go to a drugstore and buy the needed ingredients to make crystal meth on the cheap.

As far as the availability of guns, the Rush Limbaugh argument that criminals will find a way to get a gun is complete and utterly bogus. Guns are outlawed in Mexico and the only reason they have a gun problem is because people buy them here in the states and transport them over the border with little or no problem.

Will some criminals find guns? Yes, even England and Japan have a handful of illegal guns, but banning the majority of guns has gone a long way to reducing violent crime.

Very few, if any, guns are made illegally. All guns are made by licensed manufacturers Put strict controls on the manufacturers and close down dealers who sell guns legally and illegally and the amount of guns on the streets will begin to dry up.

It's been proven that in industrialized nations the availability of guns has a direct correlation to violent crime. The stricter the gun laws, the less violent crime. The more lax the gun laws, you will have increased violent crime.

But don't let facts get in the way of your pre-conceived beliefs.

[aikoaiko]

54. You probably don't know this

but only a minority of the guns found at Mexican crimes scenes are traced back to the US civilian market. really, go look it up if you are actually interested in facts.

I didn't compare making guns and drugs, I compared buying them. We have a porous border. We can't keep anything out. Create the need for a certain black market niche and the black market will respond. US history has shown us that.

I won't lie and say that draconian gun control could not prevent some gun crimes, but I don't think it will be as effective here in the US as other places. There are already 300 million guns in circulation, no gun registry (mostly), and porous borders. The only way to get that much gun control would be to repeal the 2nd amendment.







'

[Exilednight]

55. Look up the facts. The majority of guns in Mexico come from

the US. The reason the statistics are skewed is due to the fact that a gun found at a crime scene in Mexico does not get counted against being sold in the US unless there is a successful prosecution and direct evidence linking the gun to a US gun dealer.

Do yourself a favor, educate yourself and read this: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/washingtonpostinvestigations/2010/10/the_hidden_life_of_guns.html

[aikoaiko]

56. That is not how I understand it. Successful prosecution is not required to submit gun trace request

Of the guns submitted to the US for tracing, about 90% were actually from the US civilian market. However most guns found at crime scenes and raids were not submitted to the US for tracing because they had never had serial numbers on them indicating that they could not have started in the US civilian market.

Fox news (with their known bias) put the actual rate of US guns found at Mexican crime scenes at 17%.

FactCheck.org (with its known ties to the anti-gun Annenberg Foundation) put the actual rate of US guns found at Mexican crime scenes at 36%.

Either way, the vast majority are not guns coming from the US market.

You are welcome.

[Exilednight]

57. Then you do not understand it. n/t

[aikoaiko]

58. Then show me where any policy or law says that mexican crime guns can't be traced until a successful

...prosecution has already occurred.

I've already showed you were you were wrong about Mexican crime guns come from.

I'm open to learning if you willing to show me.

[proud2BlibKansan]

9. Gun violence

[aikoaiko]

12. Yes, he used a gun.

eta: If you want to make laws that prevent someone like Loughner from acquiring a gun without impeding sane and law abiding folks from acquiring firearms, then I'm with you.

[texshelters]

17. Yep, that would be a start

Peace,
Tex Shelters

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

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

[DrDan]

7. excellent

[Taitertots]

11. "No one is going to take your guns away" only helps people who own all the guns they could ever want

I can't afford to pay the already artificially overinflated gun prices. Pretending this is about "taking people's guns" is nothing but a laughable straw man. At the end of the day gun control is about making it so people can't have guns, regardless what dishonest techniques used to enact them.

Claiming that civilian massacres are the price to pay for reasonable gun laws is as idiotic as claiming that the Oklahoma city bombing is the price we pay for gun control.

[DrDan]

13. laughable? Pretending there is not paranoia over having guns taken away is what is laughable

[Taitertots]

22. According to who? I've seen the obvious response to a President that calls for assault weapons bans

The obvious response to people in congress attempts to advance a gun control agenda that is explicitly supported by Obama.

This is about egregious, capricious, and draconian gun laws that are being advanced by those in power. This isn't about some fantasy "take our guns" straw man you just invented.

[beevul]

40. Yeah really. Nobody wants to take anyones guns away.

"In fact, the assault weapons ban will have no significant effect either on the crime rate or on personal security. Nonetheless, it is a good idea . . . . Its only real justification is not to reduce crime but to desensitize the public to the regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation." Charles Krauthammer

We're going to have to take one step at a time, and the first step is necessarily -- given the political realities -- going to be very modest. . . . e'll have to start working again to strengthen that law, and then again to strengthen the next law, and maybe again and again. Right now, though, we'd be satisfied not with half a loaf but with a slice. Our ultimate goal -- total control of handguns in the United States -- is going to take time. . . . The first problem is to slow down the number of handguns being produced and sold in this country. The second problem is to get handguns registered. The final problem is to make possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition-except for the military, police, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors-totally illegal.

Pete Shields, founder of Handgun Control, Inc. which is now the brady campaign

"Brady Bill is "the minimum step" that Congress should take to control handguns. "We need much stricter gun control, and eventually we should bar the ownership of handguns except in a few cases,"

Rep. William L. Clay D-St. Louis, Mo

I think you have to do it a step at a time and I think that is what the NRA is most concerned about, is that it will happen one very small step at a time, so that by the time people have "woken up" to what's happened, it's gone farther than what they feel the consensus of American citizens would be. But it does have to go one step at a time and the beginning of the banning of semi-assault military weapons, that are military weapons, not "household" weapons, is the first step."

Stockton, California Mayor Barbara Fass

"I shortly will introduce legislation banning the sale, manufacture or possession of handguns (with exceptions for law enforcement and licensed target clubs). . . . It is time to act. We cannot go on like this. Ban them!"

Sen. John H. Chafee R.-R.I., In View of Handguns' Effects, There's Only One Answer: A Ban, Minneapolis Star Tribune, June 15, 1992

""My staff and I right now are working on a comprehensive gun-control bill. We don't have all the details, but for instance, regulating the sale and purchase of bullets. Ultimately, I would like to see the manufacture and possession of handguns banned except for military and police use. But that's the endgame. And in the meantime, there are some specific things that we can do with legislation."

Bobby Rush; Democrat, U.S. House of Representatives, Chicago Tribune, Dec. 5, 1999

"Mr. Speaker, my bill prohibits the importation, exportation, manufacture, sale, purchase, transfer, receipt, possession, or transportation of handguns and handgun ammunition. It establishes a 6-month grace period for the turning in of handguns. It provides many exceptions for gun clubs, hunting clubs, gun collectors, and other people of that kind."

Rep. Major Owens (D-Brooklyn, N.Y.), 139 Cong. Rec. H9088 at H9094, Nov. 10, 1993

"I would like to dispute that. Truthfully. I know it's an amendment. I know it's in the Constitution. But you know what? Enough! I would like to say, I think there should be a law -- and I know this is extreme -- that no one can have a gun in the U.S. If you have a gun, you go to jail. Only the police should have guns."

Rosie Takes on the NRA, Ottawa Sun, April 29, 1999

"A gun-control movement worthy of the name would insist that President Clinton move beyond his proposals for controls -- such as expanding background checks at gun shows and stopping the import of high-capacity magazines -- and immediately call on Congress to pass far-reaching industry regulation like the Firearms Safety and Consumer Protection Act introduced by Senator Robert Torricelli, Democrat of New Jersey, and Representative Patrick Kennedy, Democrat of Rhode Island. Their measure would give the Treasury Department health and safety authority over the gun industry, and any rational regulator with that authority would ban handguns."

Josh Sugarmann (executive director of the Violence Policy Center, Dispense With the Half Steps and Ban Killing Machines, Houston Chronicle, Nov. 5, 1999

"We will never fully solve our nation's horrific problem of gun violence unless we ban the manufacture and sale of handguns and semiautomatic assault weapons."

Jeff Muchnick, Legislative Director, Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, Better Yet, Ban All Handguns, USA Today, Dec. 29, 1993

"The goal of CSGV is the orderly elimination of the private sale of handguns and assault weapons in the United States."

Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, http://www.csgv.org/content/coalition/coal_intro.html (visited June 20, 2000) (boldface added) ("The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence is composed of 44 civic, professional and religious organizations and 120,000 individual members that advocate for a ban on the sale and possession of handguns and assault weapons.")

"Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal." U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno, December 1993

"We're bending the law as far as we can to ban an entirely new class of guns." Rahm Emmanuel

"We're going to hammer guns on the anvil of relentless legislative strategy! We're going to beat guns into submission!" Charles Schumer

"Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of all Americans to feel safe." Diane Feinstein

"I don't care about crime, I just want to get the guns." Howard Metzenbaum

"I am one who believes that as a first step the U.S. should move expeditiously to disarm the civilian population, other than police and security officers, of all handguns, pistols and revolvers ...no one should have a right to anonymous ownership or use of a gun." Dean Morris

"I do not believe in people owning guns. Guns should be owned only by the police and military. I am going to do everything I can to disarm this state." Michael Dukakis

"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them...'Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in,' I would have done it." Diane Feinstein

"No, we're not looking at how to control criminals ... we're talking about banning the AK-47 and semi-automatic guns." --U.S. Senator Howard Metzenbaum

"What good does it do to ban some guns? All guns should be banned." U.S. Senator Howard Metzanbaum, Democrat from Ohio


"Until we can ban all of them , then we might as well ban none." U.S. Senator Howard Metzenbaum, Senate Hearings 1993


"I'm not interested in getting a bill that deals with airport security... all I want to do is get at plastic guns." -U.S. Senator Howard Metzenbaum, 1993

"Nobody should be owning a gun which does not have a sporting purpose." Janet Reno

"We have to start with a ban on the manufacturing and import of handguns. From there we register the guns which are currently owned, and follow that with additional bans and acquisitions of handguns and rifles with no sporting purpose." Major Owens

"If it were up to me we'd ban them all." Mel Reynolds CNN's Crossfire, December 9, 1993

"Paranoia" indeed. :eyes:


I guess people that don't have a short memory are paranoid. :eyes:

[Trajan]

14. Actually .. I thought it was spot on

Some citizens believe the cost of gun 'freedom' is too high to pay .... Apparently, guns are often used to kill innocent people, you see .... and other innocent people dont like that ...

When such MASS MURDERS take place (I know how much you hate the phrase 'civilian massacre') and the weapon used was an easily attainable gun ... Well ? ... Those innocent citizens who are still alive consider the possibility that guns should be somehow regulated ... That maybe it shouldn't be so easy to acquire guns after all ..

So .... Legislation is produced by congressional representatives who, voted into office by the voters in their district, use their power of representation to try to change the laws surrounding the availability of guns ... Legislation that is generated through the legitimate channels of a congress established by the US Constitution - By office holders who hold their legislative office through the consent of the governed ...

OK .... so .... in the end, your side prevails, and you are quite pleased and even a little cocksure .... Given to flaunting these powerful and deadly weapons, metaphorically speaking, even here, in a Liberal forum .... well ? .. goody for you ...

In the meantime ... the MASS MURDERS committed by marginally sane individuals CONTINUE to occur with the typical frequency ... They have not stopped ...

You can claim that, somehow, the inability to reduce the availability of guns from the hands of the marginally sane has nothing to do with the marginally sane using those weapons to kill their fellow and very innocent citizens .... But, somehow, your complaints ring hollow ....

Weren't the MASS MURDERS using easily attainable weapons the whole reason for gun control in the first place ?


So .. Here we are, with you getting apoplectic about someone tying MASS MURDERS (note that I did not say 'civilian massacre', which we know you hate) .... to guns ..... again ....

So .. here was are, again .... Thoughtful people believing that such weapons are too dangerous in the hands of the marginally sane, and believing that something can be done through the legitimate power of government, derived from a representative congress, voted into office by citizens in their own districts, performing the actions of legislation that are delineated and defined by the US Constitution ...

And there are you and others - not only denying the efficacy or legitimacy of those thoughtful efforts, and not only denigrating those thoughtful citizens as being somehow beneath you ...

But also denying any connection whatsoever between easy gun ownership and MASS MURDER committed using easily acquired guns ?


And THAT is going to fly ? ....


Like a fucking Dodo bird ....


Like a lead balloon .....


There is NOT a fallacious association between guns and mass murder .... The facts are abundantly clear; There is a direct connection .... This is no strawman ....

[Taitertots]

25. There is no causation between gun laws and mass murder

"Thoughtful people believing that such weapons are too dangerous in the hands of the marginally sane, and believing that something can be done through the legitimate power of government, derived from a representative congress, voted into office by citizens in their own districts, performing the actions of legislation that are delineated and defined by the US Constitution ..."
No one is doing this. They are taking away the rights of the masses to prevent cowards from fearing non-existence problems. Thoughtful people already passed legislation to prevent those adjudicated mentally unfit from owning guns. Irrational people do nothing but punish unrelated people for the acts of a fraction of a percent.


"And there are you and others - not only denying the efficacy or legitimacy of those thoughtful efforts, and not only denigrating those thoughtful citizens as being somehow beneath you ... "
Because their efforts are not efficient, legitimate, or well thought out. Don't be surprised when people denigrate you for advocating toxic policies which are certain to cost Democratic Candidate's seats while doing near nothing to limit crime.


"There is NOT a fallacious association between guns and mass murder .... The facts are abundantly clear; There is a direct connection .... This is no straw man ...."
There is no causality between gun laws and mass murder. What association are you talking about? The fact that more than 99.999% of guns will never be used in mass murders makes your alleged association fall apart. So what association are you talking about? There is no correlation, no causation, and gun crime is plummeting while there are more guns than ever before.

[DrDan]

27. please show the reseach that proves there is no causation

I know there is research that fails to prove it. But that alone does not prove a lack of causation.

"Not guilty does not prove innocence"

[Kaleva]

28. Kinda like asking people to prove there is no God.

[DrDan]

37. proves my point - thank you

[Kaleva]

42. Your line of argument suggests that unicorns did indeed or do exist

As no one has been able to prove that they don't, then one must accept the possibility that there are some running around somewhere. Same for trolls who may be hiding beneath bridges.

[DrDan]

46. you are wrong - read the thread

I am saying that you cannot claim there is no causation simply because it has yet to be shown. That is what the poster tried to do.

[Taitertots]

31. It is fallacious thinking for you to think that would be provable

For the same reasons that we don't expect people to prove innocence. We have to prove the positive (guilt, causation) because proving a negative (innocence, non-causality) is an exercise in futility.

[DrDan]

36. thank you - so you agree that you mistated a lack of causation - thank you

[Recursion]

33. But you're completely mistaking the counter-argument

Weren't the MASS MURDERS using easily attainable weapons the whole reason for gun control in the first place ?

No one has yet come up with a law that would actually make guns difficult to obtain. Nobody on the "control" side ever seems to address this problem.

[Trajan]

41. Understood ...

But I dismiss the attempted DIS-association between guns and the mass murder committed using those guns ....

I agree that regulations to restrict weaponry are imperfect - That is true whether you are PRO or ANTI gun ... Hence, a bit of a moot point. Certain regulations are currently in place; against automatic weapons, for instance, and much of that regulation is supported and respected by most citizens ....

What I really wish for ? .... That DU had the ability to ignore certain forums from my primary 'discussion forum' view .... The Gungeon and the 'I/P Forum' would top that list ...

[gaspee]

39. I wish I could rec individual posts

I am so sick of the gun fanatics arguments and downright blindness when it comes to this issue.

[madinmaryland]

45. You are so right. The gun-thumpers make

Bible-thumpers look tame. What is truly ironic is that the gun-thumpers can't even see that their worship of the all-knowing NRA is the same as those who worship the all-knowing Moral Majority of Jerry Falwell.

Absolutely disgusting.

[texshelters]

18. I would call that comment a paranoid one just like Sparky suggested

for regulation is not banning.

It's dishonest to say we don't like people getting shot en masse? What?

Oklahoma city was not an act of gun violence. So why bring it up?

Peace,
TEx Shelters

[Taitertots]

26. That is some funny double think you have there

Making it so people can't have something is a ban whether you call it one or not. These restrictions are unpopular, unconstitutional, egregious, and capricious regardless the laughable double think term you use to describe it. No one is going to take your guns. They are just going to make it impossible to get new ones, which makes it a de facto ban.

Why bring up Oklahoma? Because with or without firearms the dangerously insane will still find a way to harm people. We should be more concerned with caring for the mentally ill than we are with cooking up egregious de facto bans that do nothing but punish people who want to follow the laws. Especially when it is clear that dangerous nuts will use more dangerous alternatives.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

29. Of course, you delicate flower, you.

[nadinbrzezinski]

30. Rarely save them, but this one is PUUURRRRFFFFEEECCTTT

[xchrom]

32. Recommend

[fascisthunter]

34. AWESOME! (nt)

[NuclearDem]

35. How about just coming down hard on mandatory psych background checks?

The last few mass shootings we've had in this country were by people who were obviously disturbed. How the hell does someone like that get a gun?

No one's trying to take guns away from responsible gun owners. We're trying to keep them out of the hands of the irresponsible owners.

[boppers]

43. There's a psych check component in there already.

It's backlogged. Horrifically so.

More here on this sub-thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=201959&mesg_id=202370