Hillary Clinton Calls For “National Movement” On Gun Control To Match The NRA’s

[SecularMotion]

The day after the shooting that killed 10 people at Oregon’s Umpqua Community College, Hillary Clinton called for a “national movement” strong enough to rival the National Rife Association, which she described as “an intense, dedicated group” of gun lobbyists who “scare politicians and say, ‘We will vote against you.’”

Clinton, who has made new gun restrictions a regular feature of her speeches on the campaign trail, addressed the shooting at a rally in Florida on Friday.

In other recent appearances, Clinton has advocated specifically for universal background checks on gun-buyers — an initiative that failed in Congress under President Obama.

The deaths in Oregon on Thursday amounted to the 45th school shooting this year, according to the gun control group Everytown. At her campaign event in Florida, Clinton invoked past mass shootings, saying, “People should not have to be afraid to got to college like this one, or go to the movie theater, or go to bible study.”

http://www.buzzfeed.com/rubycramer/hillary-clinton-calls-for-national-movement-to-match-the-nra?utm_term=.hsOaZZX0o#.aoDZrrpM0

[Duckhunter935]

1. I thought they did?

We have been told the billionaires group was just that.

Any comment or care to discuss?

[orpupilofnature57]

2. English ?

[riversedge]

11. please explain. you thought they did what????

[Duckhunter935]

14. The gun control groups

She is doing what Bloomberg has been trying for years with his billions.

[sarisataka]

18. Maybe Ms Clinton

wants a group who will get Democrats elected.

[Duckhunter935]

21. She is free to try

[sarisataka]

23. I wish her good luck,

The current billionaire financed "National Movement" on gun control doesn't have much movement nationally and seems it can only get Democrats elected out of office.

Trying to form such a movement herself would require taking effort away from her campaign so I don't think we will see much action anytime soon.

Non-billionaire financed gun control borders on mythical and I am not seeing any early support for pro-gun control Democrats from the billionaire's groups. I expect they will stay quiet until the general election then voice support for the Democratic Presidential candidate but work against Congressional Democrats who do not have enough doctrinal purity. Again.

[Duckhunter935]

25. So do I

But what tends to happen is start reasonable then do a major over reach and turn most firearms owners off that would actually support reasonable measures.

[djean111]

3. This -

In other recent appearances, Clinton has advocated specifically for universal background checks on gun-buyers — an initiative that failed in Congress under President Obama.

It was DINOs that enabled. And we are supposed to vote for them.

[pipoman]

4. If only this had anything to do with the NRA...it is ridiculous

Mrs. Clinton knows full well why most of her gun control fantasies do not happen....it hasn't shit to do with the NRA. It has to do with constitutionally impossible desires....bills which are determined by house and/or senate judiciary committees to no be able to withstand a constitutional challenge.

A prime example is "universal background checks". Why were sales between neighbors exempted in 1994? Hint, it has nothing to do with the NRA....beyond the NRA pointing out that the federal government has no jurisdiction to regulate intrastate sales of anything legal between private citizen residents of the same state....never have...the "commerce clause" prohibits just that. It will not happen without a constitutional amendment...and that isn't very likely.

No, the NRA only "wins" because most "reasonable restrictions" suggested by gun controllers are simply not constitutionally possible...they will fail under constitutional challenge with or without the NRA...the NRA only points this out.

Now I can't stand the leadership or politics of the NRA, but lying about the actual reality of this issue in favor of pointing toward a unicorn is no way to make improvement...it just insures more failure...vicious circle of the last 20 years...

[Duckhunter935]

5. Good post

I am sure the OP will be right along to discuss this

[riversedge]

6. We need a 50 state National buyback Publlic health program-VOLUNTARY. It will take

a LONG time__but think how it IS working with tobacco. I am NOT talking confiscation program. It will help reduce killings and suicides like it did in Australia. We need to start somewhere.

[pipoman]

7. That is the definition of futility 400,000,000 guns...

With millions more every year....people who intend to criminally misuse their guns will not be turn8ng them in for a $100 walmart gift card unless they don't work.

[riversedge]

10. If we can get one gun off the street to avoid another mass murder it will be worth it.

[pipoman]

12. You can't....people don't mass murder because of access to a gun

They get a gun to mass murder...the absence of one gun, which you have dramatically over paid, changes nobody's mind about committing any crime..why waste the money? There are many other ways to better use the same money.

[riversedge]

17. I will stay on the positive realm-you can throw up your hands and give up.

[pipoman]

28. Who's giving up?

We don't have to play a fools game throwing money that we don't have into the trash...."gun buybacks" are not just unfortunately named, they are statistically idiotic...

[pablo_marmol]

41. "I will stay on the positive realm......."

More honestly -- you will stay in the fantasy realm. Nearly all of our gun violence is caused by a very small percentage of the population......that segment known as criminals. Given that less than 2% of all guns will ever be used in violent crime -- much less murder -- you're facing a serious needle-in-the-haystack dilemna.

Even if we could accomplish the absolutely impossible, and reduce the number of guns in the nation by half, that would still be much more than enough to supply the small criminal element with guns. But keep pushing for the insane, while you push citizens to vote GOP.

[gejohnston]

9. it didn't reduce anything in Australia

the downward trend started before the NFA and continued at the same rate. The use of guns in suicide decreased, but not the suicide rate. Meanwhile, there are more gun owners and legal guns in Australia now. Port Authur was a one time event, even then the killer didn't have a license to by any gun, given his low IQ and history of violence. On of the rifles used was stolen from the police.

[SecularMotion]

13. Wrong again

So what have the Australian laws actually done for homicide and suicide rates? Howard cites a study (pdf) by Andrew Leigh of Australian National University and Christine Neill of Wilfrid Laurier University finding that the firearm homicide rate fell by 59 percent, and the firearm suicide rate fell by 65 percent, in the decade after the law was introduced, without a parallel increase in non-firearm homicides and suicides. That provides strong circumstantial evidence for the law's effectiveness.

The paper also estimated that buying back 3,500 guns per 100,000 people results in a 35 to 50 percent decline in the homicide rate, but because of the low number of homicides in Australia normally, this finding isn't statistically significant.

What is significant is the decline the laws caused in the firearm suicide rate, which Leigh and Neill estimate at a 74 percent reduction for a buyback of that size. This is even higher than the overall decline in the suicide rate, because the gun buybacks' speed varied from state to state. In states with quick buybacks, the fall in the suicide rate far exceeded the fall in states with slower buybacks:

[center][/center]

Other studies are more hesitant to draw conclusions about homicides, but generally agree that the law did a lot to reduce suicides. A study from Jeanine Baker of the Sporting Shooters Association of Australia and Samara McPhedran, then of the University of Sydney, concluded (pdf) that suicide rates declined more rapidly after the law's enactment, but found no significant result for homicides; Leigh and Neill argue (pdf) that this paper's methodology is deeply flawed, as it includes the possibility that fewer than one death a year could occur. David Hemenway at the Harvard School of Public Health noted (pdf) that the Baker and McPhedran method would find that the law didn't have a significant effect if there had been zero gun deaths in the year 2004, or if there weren't negative deaths later on. The authors, he concluded, "should know better."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2012/08/02/did-gun-control-work-in-australia/

[sarisataka]

20. If you read what post #9 says

Your article actually supports the claims made.

[SecularMotion]

27. I'm glad you agree that there is "strong circumstantial evidence for the law's effectiveness."

[sarisataka]

31. Key word being

"circumstantial", of the nature of a circumstance; secondary; incidental. The law may have helped, but the rate was falling so it is not conclusive the buyback helped. The US fell nearly as much without similar laws.

So you agree the Australian decline in homicide rate " isn't statistically significant".

[gejohnston]

30. I read the actual paper

and the blog writer misread it. Since the NFA banned some long guns, all have which have been replaced by NFA compliant guns and then some. Also, there are more legal gun owners and guns than since then. The Australian National Police still have no idea how many illegal guns there are. The fact that the Baker and McPhedran study passed peer review and was published in a British criminology journal. Hemenway's critique does not phase the quality of the paper given his reputation in criminology circles.

[ileus]

8. And we need to let her know we want a progressive stance on the 2A.

[Eleanors38]

15. *Presto!* The NRA is gone. Think things will change? I'll wait.

[riversedge]

16. I am glad the Democrats are talking and setting up plans to

decrease the killing epidemic in our country. No one is saying the NRA will be gone. No need to make fun or down play Democrats and their plans.

[Eleanors38]

24. Please re-read carefully...

How can anyone "make fun" of plans which manifestly are not very clear -- except the "politicizing" call made by Obama?

Respectfully, you miss the point. I asked if there was no NRA (which Hillary explicitly referenced in her "plans&quot , would that have any effect on her " movement.". What do you think?

[pablo_marmol]

33. Ahem......there is no "killing epidemic" in our nation.

Gun violence has been dropping since 1993, while the number of guns in the country has been rising.

But keep prevaricating - by all means. It's a real political winner!

[Eleanors38]

19. "National Movement." Those seeking control/prohibition have been trying for decades...

I doubt Ms. Clinton's exhortations will cause a "movement" to spring forth from the head of Zeus. She might have broached this as a way to end-run Sanders, but she won't dawdle on the issue for long for she must know that 2A activists will be Quick to join the battle because That is a truly powerful movement.

Those controller/banners here on DU should ask themselves: How much discussion have you heard, organizing have you seen in your coffee house, restaurant, and bar scenes? Get past Obama's "politicizing" and Hillary's "calls for," and there is little shelf life to this outlook.

[NonMetro]

22. Well, I like her tone (and her makeover!)

Seriously, it probably won't work, but it might get the ball rolling in the right direction.

So, GO HILLARY!

[jkbRN]

26. Sounds like bernie,

And he has proposed more policies for restricting guns than she has. If anyone has more information on her policies for gun control, please post.

[azmom]

29. Hillary just wants to be able to call her

Campaign a movement. Sanders is the only one leading a movement.

[pablo_marmol]

32. One of many reasons I'm supporting Bernie.

Sort of sounds like HRC wants to hand the 2016 election to the GOP.

[Straw Man]

34. The first step would be ...

... to draft a charter for the new organization. Then get 4.5 million people to pony up $35 a year to belong to it. That would give it the basic operational structure and operating capital.

The next step would be to solicit donations from the membership and corporate sponsors in order to fund lobbying and other political action efforts. Relentless fundraising will be imperative; members will be asked to dig deep and often to help the organization achieve its goals.

On your marks, get set ...

[virginia mountainman]

35. How is the national movement coming?? nt

[yagotme]

36. II believe there's a movement, but not the type they're expecting... n/t

[pablo_marmol]

37. Looks like Clinton and Schumer are hell-bent on destroying the party.

I saved a link which has now gone sideways of Chuckie talking with Rachel Maddow wherein he states that in his position he will continue to fight to preserve the party 'core values'. Said values include continuing to pursue the "assault weapon" ban among other utterly worthless "gun control" measures.

Dog help us. I'd like to think otherwise, but I believe that we're f*cked.

[virginia mountainman]

38. Dont forget..

Chuckie was their pushing for the 94 ban, he is one of the few supporters that managed to KEEP their seat after that diabolical legislation.

He is still there, and still pushing...

About 2/3's of Democratic reps now come from TWO states...

[pablo_marmol]

39. Oh yeah......I recall. Chuck hates guns and gun owners with a white-hot passion.

Recall his cold-blooded expression when Suzanna Hupp was addressing Congresscritters about the murder of her parents in Luby's Massacre? What a hypocritical F*CK this assclown is.