I keep seeing the taunt, "Obama hasn't taken away your guns" being offered by people

[Nuclear Unicorn]

who continually laud "Melt them down" threads and/or cite Australian/UK gun control models as the way forward for American gun control laws.

In other words, they want guns taken away but then semi-triumphantly claim that no one has taken guns away.

Considering the President's recent EA actually liberalizes access to weapons regulated by the NFA I would be inclined to think those offering the taunt would be upset with the President rather than using his actions as a basis for a taunt.

Can anyone offer an explanation for this seeming inconsistency?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

1. For them "Rhetoric > Reality"

Just my opinion

[randr]

2. I would offer a more radical solution to the proliferation of weapons

When a gun owner dies he is buried with his cold fingers around his weapons, satirically speaking.
While I have been a life long gun owner I do understand the passion surrounding this issue and personally hope for a real solution. One day the 66% of people who do not own or collect guns will get sick and tired of the NRA's campaign to sell more and more weapons and may very well enact some form of a ban.
Obama will not take away any guns and we do need to move into a saner world where guns do not become a symbol of protest.
Embracing the "melting down of guns" and the sanity of our Australian friends go hand in hand with not wanting a government to have the authority do so.
This is an issue that all American's need to rise up to an evolved census of understanding and do the right thing on our own.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

3. How much money does the NRA make from gun sales and how much would they lose

if "reasonable" gun control were enacted?

[randr]

4. Since the majority of NRA Board members have economic interest in weapons factories

I would say it is substantial.
The thing that puts the real fear in them is not sales restrictions, they would only increase the costs. The real factor is the inevitable passage of accountability laws regarding liability issues.
Just as all the things we consume, from cars to candy, have laws regarding the liability of those manufacturers or sellers.
The weapons industry so far has a pass when responsibility comes to play.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

5. Even without any special law...

...like the PLCAA there will never be a manufacturer held liable for the criminal use of its products without explicit participation.

[zipplewrath]

7. "...without explicit participation"

That's the phrase of course that scares everyone. In the day of "Big Data" there is a very good chance that manufacturers and distributors of products would be able to detect criminal intent purchases. The first one to lose that case would be in deep trouble.

This is not new. Bars have long worried about being held liable for serving people who then drive, or pregnant women. Pharmacies quickly instituted systems to avoid/detect purchases of ingredients for crystal meth and other "home grown" products. Heck, we had a newspaper/weekly here that got in trouble for printing a bit too explicit "escort" ads. In almost any business there comes a time when it becomes difficult to avoid knowing what is going on. That's when the trouble starts. The social media sites have struggled with this problem from almost the very beginning. It becomes a fine line between "ignoring" and "not being aware".

[Nuclear Unicorn]

8. There's no duty to spy on potential customers and we do not want one.

[zipplewrath]

10. But one cannot actively participate either

As I outlined, it becomes an issue of when OTHERS see it at either ignoring the obvious, or actively avoiding it.

Kinda funny stat came out last year. Someone figured out that something like 60% of alcohol sales were to basically alcoholics. It's not going to take long for some smart lawyer to figure out how to hold someone liable for that problem.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

11. How do you determine if someone is going to illegally use a gun and if it is discernible

why aren't the police employing the technology?

[zipplewrath]

14. More of a case of a continuing activity

The thing that scares most vendors/manufacturers is the guy/group that is doing organized straw purchasing or otherwise moving weapons around illegally. The manufactures/distributors are in danger of having enough data to detect this activity, especially after the fact. It is at that point that the problem starts. If they choose to not act on the data at all, or worse, make it easier, they could be in danger of complicity.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

13. re: criminal intent purchases

In the day of "Big Data" there is a very good chance that manufacturers and distributors of products would be able to detect criminal intent purchases.

How would that happen???

Even the NRO doesn't have enough satellites.

[zipplewrath]

15. Aligning data

Mostly it would be detecting patterns of sales in which indicated abnormal activity.

A pharmaceutical rep stumbled upon a pharmacist that was "cutting" medications. He detected it because he got vision into the guys sales, and noticed he wasn't getting his commissions for that much ingredient.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

19. For ammo and guns...

...such "vision" is and should remain illegal.

[zipplewrath]

20. By the manufacturer?

Why should it be illegal for a manufacturer or distributor to have that kind of vision into their own distribution and sales figures?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

21. The two cases

#1 firearms - the manufacturer does not collect your name or any other personal info. The seller/FFL records that in his book record. AFAIK every manufacturer (along with the ACLU) agrees that registration is an invasion of privacy.

#2 ammo - no record of ammo sales is kept.

The manufacturers and distributors have data about the FFL/stores they sell to, not their clients. Some folks take privacy seriously. I'm one of them.

What type of data is it that you're think of? Colt and Ruger don't sell directly to the public. When they do delivery is taken at a licensed FFL.

[zipplewrath]

23. Sales data

They know where their weapons are being sold and where, the frequency, and to some extent the time and place. They know how much money they are making and what the time frequency of those sales are. They use this data to predict future business. They also use this data to identify their best markets, and emerging markets. Remember, I'm discussing BOTH manufacturers AND distributors. I think the distrubutors are probably at the most risk, although depending upon quantity and fluctuations, manufacturers could be exposed as well.

Once you have identified an emerging market, one is going to explore why and how to exploit that opportunity. It is in that exploration that one can find themselves having to actively ignore a situation.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

27. Just some simple questions

How can any of that warbgarble be used by a store owner to stop a sale?
Are you suggesting that if downtown Baltimore has a lot of crime and Colt sells to stores in downtown Baltimore that they are liable (either criminally or civilly) at all?

[zipplewrath]

29. Oh, no

But if a distributor detects that a downtown Baltimore is selling alot of guns to non-existent customers, there's a problem. Kinda like the pharmaceutical salesman that saw alot of drugs being sold, but not alot being BOUGHT.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

32. They should speak to the ATF about that

Not that I know how they might know that.

[Eleanors38]

48. Big Data. So that is the fate in store for the Fifth Amendment.

[Human101948]

76. Why worry? The Fourth Amendment has already been nullified...

The only one that counts is the Second Amendment, praise Jesus!

[Eleanors38]

95. The WOD took out the 4th; the 5th -- any Tom, Dick or Harry with a watch List?

[randr]

24. Bars are held accountable for accidents caused by people they have over served

I think that has been a reality for quite some time.

[zipplewrath]

25. extreme cases

It is not often pursued. Generally has to be a pattern of some sort, although for a particularly shocking incident anything can happen.

[randr]

28. I know a few bar owners who take this very seriously

[zipplewrath]

30. It's be hard not to

I've had a few "haunts" over they years. You know, the place where they know your name and what you drink when you walk in. They'll comment if you haven't been in there in a while. Every single one had the "standard drunk". They guy that's always there, usually sits by one end of the bar and slowly drinks his way into the evening. They'll strike up a conversation with anyone, and by the end of the night they've become mildly obnoxious. Mosts bartenders will manipulate them somehow, as well as usually check on how they're getting home.

[randr]

22. Like car manufacturers were held accountable for injures before seat belts?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

34. ???

Please continue...

[Nuclear Unicorn]

6. Gun manufacturers are still liable for defective products.

No manufacturer is liable for products used in a negligent or criminal manner.

[guillaumeb]

31. Rather than liability resting with the manufacturers,

it should be up to the individual gun owner to purchase liability insurance. If any owner feels the need or the necessity to have 25 guns, or any number of guns, liability insurance should be required for each gun. The gun would be registered with the insurance company, just as automobiles are today. The market would determine the price of such insurance. Thus there would be no interference with gun ownership, just a reasonable regulation so that the public would not have to pay for the gun violence. The costs would be on the gun owners.

That way there is no "government registry" to strike fear into the "UN black helicopter" crowd who are awaiting the Russian invasion.

[branford]

35. We've been through this many times before. Insurance doesn't work the way you believe,

and attempts to make it achieve your goals would not only likely be unconstitutional, but would be totally ineffective and certainly not be "insurance."

As I've posted many times before:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027133032#post21

Mandatory insurance is a feel-good measure and a solution looking for a problem.

It also demonstrates a profound lack of knowledge about insurance and the effects of such a law.

First, you cannot insure against your own intentional criminal acts. Insurance also wouldn't cover the effects of violence unconnected to the owner's firearms. Personal liability insurance is not a some general crime victim recovery fund funded by gun owners (which would have its own myriad of constitutional problems). For instance, even if the recent shooter of the reporters in Virginia has liability insurance, the victims' families would not collect a dime from the policy.

Second, since the incidence of firearm negligence among lawful gun owners is minuscule, despite the occasional graphic news story (recall that the USA has about 100+ million legal gun owners and over 300+ million firearms), the cost for such policies would be (and are) negligible. If the government attempted to artificially raise the costs of such insurance above what actuarial standards required, it would become a tax or penalty on gun ownership, and no longer "insurance."

Third, most homeowners and renters policies already cover accidents involving firearms.

Fourth, if the intent and design of the policy is to discourage the exercise of a constitutional right by simply making it more burdensome or expensive, it would almost certainly be unconstitutional in the same manner the courts struck-down poll taxes and literacy tests for voting.

Fifth, the vast majority of crime involving guns do not involve legal firearm owners or guns, and therefore this policy would have little to no effect on crime rates as such firearms would still not be insured even if mandatory. "Mass shootings" are also an extremely small percentage of gun crime.

Sixth, firearm accident insurance and policy riders are already very cheap and readily available, and the NRA is one of its largest proponents. If specific firearm insurance became mandatory, it would be a huge financial windfall for the NRA not only as a provider and vendor (similar to how AARP is a vendor for health and life insurance), but also as an endorser as they are the largest firearms safety organization in the country.

Seventh, there is no data to suggest that the country actually has a problem with uncompensated losses resulting from accidents involving legal firearms. What problem does the mandatory insurance proposal actually address?

Eighth, the lack of liability insurance does not prevent accident victims from suing someone for their negligence or criminal acts.

[guillaumeb]

37. Let us get to the point:

Some people will reflexively reject any attempt to regulate behavior related to firearms, even though the Heller decision allows for regulation.

And jumping down to your last point, having insurance would mean that of someone was injured or killed due to a firearm, that person, or the heirs, could collect from the policy.

And many people do not purchase insurance. But having the majority of gun owners buy insurance would make available a pool of money to compensate victims for losses.

If you as a responsible homeowner already carry insurance relating to firearms you would have no problem with this requirement. Or did the possible registration of the firearms with the insurer set off an alarm bell?

[branford]

39. Did you even read my whole post?

We've actually had this conversation about insurance before.

First, just because something can be subject to certain regulation, including guns, speech, abortion, etc., does not mean any regulation is constitutional. Further, complaints about "reflexive rejection of any attempt to regulate behavior related to firearms" is little more than a laughable straw man argument. We already have numerous laws concerning firearms, including many criminal penalties, as the president implicitly admitted, many of these laws are not adequately enforced, and mandatory liability insurance does little, if anything, to actually regulate behavior.

Liability insurance for firearms has numerous problems involving legality, practicality, effectiveness, and of course, limited political feasibility. These issues are primarily the reason why mandatory insurance is not the law anywhere in the USA.

As I've already explained, virtually all "insurance" proposals concerning firearms really have nothing to do with actual insurance or follow well-established legal and policy mandates regarding insurance, will have absolutely no effect on the alleged problems they purport to solve, ignore that most firearm owners already have real insurance, and that it is so cheap because the actuarial chances of using it are negligible, despite the irrational fears of gun controllers, to say nothing of the ironic and amusing fact that mandatory insurance would provide a welcome and steady cash infusion for the NRA.

If the explicit or implied reason why you or others want mandatory "insurance" is simply make the ownership of firearms more expensive and burdensome so people will not exercise their rights, do not expect such a proposal to pass legal scrutiny or receive any political support among most of your fellow Americans.

If you as a responsible homeowner already carry insurance relating to firearms you would have no problem with this requirement. Or did the possible registration of the firearms with the insurer set off an alarm bell?

That sounds a lot like claiming we don't need the Fourth Amendment because if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to complain about if searched. No on takes such arguments seriously, and it's a little insulting that you even tried.

I also do indeed reject anything that could be used as a de facto registration list. Apart from the fact that they're useless, as Canada recently learned after spending billions of dollars and not solving any crimes, when the president and Clinton cite Australia and Britain as models of American gun control (i.e., confiscation), I take them at their word. I see no reason to make such policies easier, whether now or later.

[ManiacJoe]

40. You still don't understand how insurance works.

having insurance would mean that of someone was injured or killed due to a firearm, that person, or the heirs, could collect from the policy.

Insurance does not pay out if the act was criminal or intentional. Payments are only made on accidents. Gun accidents do happen but they are very rare.

[guillaumeb]

41. There were two posts with such very rare accidents today.

If there are 300 million guns in the US, the likelihood of an accident is much larger simply because the number of guns is so ridiculously large.

But let us say that insurance was mandatory, and that the policy required a gun lock or a gun safe for storage. If the accident took place because the owner failed to store properly, or an improperly stored gun was stolen, the policy would pay out if the gun caused harm.

I realize that people who reflexively argue against any firearms regulations will continue to argue, but the majority of your fellow citizens do not own guns. Insurance regulations could be developed, and laws could be developed to require safe storage and locks if the political will was there.

[ManiacJoe]

42. You are getting there.

But let us say that insurance was mandatory, and that the policy required a gun lock or a gun safe for storage. If the accident took place because the owner failed to store properly, or an improperly stored gun was stolen, the policy would pay out if the gun caused harm.

owner failed to store properly - this accident would be what? The gun fell out of the safe and discharged when it hit the floor?

Otherwise, the cause of the injuries is criminal use of the gun or intentional firing of the gun, thus no insurance pay out.

gun was stolen - gun is no longer under the control of the owner, thus the owner is no longer responsible for its illegal use. No insurance pay out.

Proper, secured gun storage is a good thing. Penalizing gun owners for getting it wrong is not a bad thing.

[guillaumeb]

43. Might we be approaching "there"?

Wherever it is? Possible.

But far too many call for "enforcing existing laws" or automatic prison time. These approaches have been tried and they do not work. So something must be found that does work. Or the US simply accepts 30000 gun deaths from all causes every year as "the way it is".

[ManiacJoe]

44. The first step to finding a solution

is understanding the problem and understanding the proposed solution(s).

Most folks proposing insurance requirements don't understand how insurance works.

While lots of folks understand how bad the problem is regarding guns, most of them are clueless when it comes to actually understanding the problem. While that ignorance is solvable with education on the topic, the prolonged ignorance of the vast majority of people is a personal choice they have made.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

45. another issue with insurance

I'm a criminal or I decide to commit a crime.
Maybe I have this "insurance". Or maybe I've just hit hard times, got into drug use... so I gave up paying the insurance... but let's just say that I still have the insurance. I stuff my gun in my coat pocket and run off to go hold up a liquor store. I walk in, pull out the heat, draw down and demand the cash. So I'm jumpy and some one flinches near the register so, being a bloodthirsty gun nut, I cap his ass.

Now I have a choice:
A - hang around to hand over my insurance info or
B - run like a raped ape for the hills...

I don't see myself ever pulling a hold up but just using logic, I'd choosing option B.

[Big_Mike]

36. Frankly, I would take that supposed 34% of US population has guns with a HUGE grain of salt

I know that I have been polled by telephone, and have always answered "no" to the question of do I have guns in the home. It is no one's business what I have or do not have in my home. I only say "no" or "blow it out your ass" when questioned. I know of at least 10 other gun owners who have responded in the same manner.

So question that supposed number very closely. It is much higher than you think IRL.

[guillaumeb]

38. Or you want that percentage to be much higher to justify your feelings

as normal.

[Big_Mike]

46. Human nature (and my nature especially) could go that way. We rationalize

the things we don't agree with way too often. However, I don't think in this case that I am. It is possible, of course; I delude myself on a regular basis, particularly on my hopes for the Ram's season (and YAY, moving vans coming to St. Louis!).

I regard the percentage to be artificially low as the folks I shoot with are predominantly moderately to strongly conservative, and they won't tell pollsters anything regarding their weapons. This is what they tell me, and I believe what they say. They don't say things to shield my feelings, as most come right out and tell me that I'm wrong on just about everything except shooting. We don't talk politics, other than the classic arguments: semi-automatic vs. revolver, 9mm vs. just about all others, etc.

Take what I say with a grain of salt, please. I could be wrong. But I do not think so.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

47. Or you want that percentage to be much be much lower to justify your feelings as normal.

[Big_Mike]

65. It could be, just as well as the other.

As I said above, human nature sometimes encourages us towards self delusion. I was self delusional in my teens and 20s, thinking myself smarter, funnier, and better looking than is the case.

However, I really, really do not think that it is so in this case. I am extrapolating from the RW guys I see at the range and basing this upon their comments. Practically none of them seems to trust government entities, and they seem to regard pollsters as part of the government. They seem to revel in providing spurious or bad data whenever possible. Most of them proclaim not to use the discount cards given by the supermarkets, as they say they don't wish to provide free data about their purchasing patterns.

[zipplewrath]

9. Your comparing two groups

There are the advocates, and then there is the administration. There hasn't been an administration that had any real intent, much less plan, to remove existing guns in any large number. Virtually all the political plans of any administration where founded mostly on restricting future weapons purchases, and resales.

Yes, there are organizations and individuals who are supportive of these executive actions that would hope for much more. I'd point out that not one of them has explained how it could possibly be done, especially at the federal level. Prohibition never got rid of the alcohol and it was a consumable. It also had the cooperation of some states.

Guns will "go away" in some sense (although far from completely) in about 2 - 3 generations. All the signs are there.

1) The current population of gun owners is small, and continually shrinking. Another couple of generations and it will be too small to be politically significant.

2) The demographics are moving away from the western european construct towards predominately a South American construct. They have a whole different relationship with an armed populace.

3) The US is becoming more urban/suburban all the time, a demography that puts vastly less emphasis on individual ownership and more on perceived threat.

4) The greatest resistence to major shifts tends to occur just before they happen. The Jim Crow "Laws" actually became encoded long after they were common practice as the South began to see attempts to weaken and undermine those pratices. The greatest activity occured in the decades leading up to the end. We saw similar moves in gay rights where agreesive laws were passed right up until the SC ended it all. We're seeing all of the open carry/stand your ground actions going on which probably portends a major change in about a generation or so.

5) The current generation of 8 year olds and up are going to grow up with these continuous mass shootings and severe gun violence in particular urban settings. As they grow into adulthood, their view will not be of Lexington and Concord, much less plinking cans on the fence or hunting for food. It will be of dead friends and acquaintences. Much like seat belts and drunk driving, the children will grow up and make changes based upon what they see, not what their parents saw.

Everything between now and then, including these executive actions, are just theater for the aging boomers and other current voters.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

12. My post merely mentions the administration because of the claims made by advocates.

[zipplewrath]

16. And the advocates are right

The president has no plans. The advocates on the other hand......

[Nuclear Unicorn]

17. Your posts are all over the place. This is too tedious to care about.

[zipplewrath]

18. A failure to communicate takes two

Can't do it alone.

[Eleanors38]

50. "Advocates..." Beyond a declining MSM, who are they?

Generational change happens, but predicting it is like art directing a sci-fi movie: Do you really want metal boxes and analog dials on the set?

Institutions crap out, too. Most controller/banners readily acknowledge that their (non)movement wouldn't be much without the active support of MSM? Taken a look at your favorite daily lately? You could barely start a BBQ with it. Currently, the most persistent voice for control/bans is NPR, and the usual keep-em-up-at-night artillery lobs by the NYT and WAPO. Not what it was 25 yrs ago. A movement needs grass roots activists who exercise sufficient militancy and have demonstrable impact on elections and policy outcomes, it can't be birthed from above and funded by foundations and the rich. Store fronts are just that.

Please note that tens of millions of people live in urban areas -- like Jacksonville, Miami, The I-4 Corridor; like Atlanta, Dallas, Houston, S.A., Phoenix, Las Vegas, Denver; like Charlotte, Detroit, Indianapolis, St.Louis & K.C., and dare I say it, Austin. Do these populations strike you as being less attuned to "gun culture" practices and policies? This rural/urban distinction is, like MSM, an aging arbiter of cultural and political values. Said another way, if one were to move from Uvalde, TX to Philadelphia, PA, he/she may give up the hunting rifle, but not the Sturm-Ruger semi-auto pistol; in fact, they may acquire one.

[zipplewrath]

53. In 45 years?

Yes, I think the trend in urban areas will be towards even less tolerance than we have now in urban areas where gun ownership will be even lower than today. Yes, I think the historical trends have shown that this tolerance, or lack thereof is where the whole "gun control" culture really started. Yes, I think DC and Chicago are prime examples of that and going forward, over whole generations, that will become more prevelant. Yes, I think, long term, that the continued existence of mass shootings and urban gun violence will have a cumulative affect to accelerate larger trends that have existed for decades.

I've lived a long time. I've watched trend after trend fall. I can remember some of the first efforts to stop smoking. If you went back to 1969 and told them what it would be like today, they'd laugh you out of the bar. Auto safety was promulgated by the savior of conservatism, Ronald Reagan, through rather aggressive federal regulation. Nixon started the EPA. That wild eyed liberal, GW Bush, brought us Medicare Part D without "paying for it" (the largest expansion of medicare in two generations). Yes, I watch larger trends looking for the signs of major changes. All the signs of a major change are in place.

By the way, on a totally unrelated subject, the current generation of 16-18 year olds have known nothing but a Black president and a black FLOTUS. And now the "leading" candidate for the democrats is a woman, and the republican response last night was by Nikki Haley. Imagine how that has altered the future voters images of presidential politics.

[randr]

26. Very reasoned and I hope true.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

33. While we're talking......

About #1: about the only demographic that includes more Americans than gun owners is white folks. You may say small but 1 in 3 is a lot.

About #2: "western european construct towards predominately a South American construct" What does that mean?

About #3: I grew up in Philly. It doesn't get a lot more urban. It may surprise you.

About #5: few any grew up with Lexington and Concord in mind regarding guns and the murder rate has been dropping.

[zipplewrath]

49. Remember, 2 - 3 generations

Do you know how long that is? That's 30 - 45 years. By then, based upon long term trends, it will be well below 20% (1 in 5). Nothing would surprise me about Philly, but the larger trends are seen in DC and Chicago among others. Again, 30 - 45 years. The reference to Lex and Concord is a reference to the attitude that guns somehow have been fundamental to American identity.
Which is related to #2. We currently live under a social structure of traditions, images, and identities that is heavily western europrean. That is changing rapidly. Within 10 years both Florida and Texas may be more dominated by Southern American influences than western European. LA already is.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

51. Maybe you've been a bit sheltered

I don't see happening within 50 years that which hasn't happen in 200.

LA is what? I worked in LA for 6 & 1/2 years. What did I miss? Do you live in LA?

And back to point #1, there are more gun owners than there are members of the LGBT community. Some in that community are gun owners. Maybe you think that only old white guys own guns. How's that working for you?

[zipplewrath]

52. Which part of the demographics do you dispute?

What part of the demographics of the last 200 years is comparable to what is going to happen in the next 50?
LA now has no "majority" although South American is quickly approaching that.
How many gun owners, based upon long term trends, will there be in 50 years?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

55. The issues you mention

What...is going to happen in the next 50? ~ Check your crystal ball.
LA now has no "majority"... ~ I know there are numerous Brazilians and Brazil has virtually no gun crime.
How many gun owners...will there be in 50 years? ~ More.

[zipplewrath]

56. Based upon what?

All I'm talking about is extending long existing trends forward. Upon what do you base the prediction that there will be more gun owners in 50 years when there has been a historic decline in gun ownership?

And so you acknowledge the demographic shifts in our culture in which the western european based culture will continue to decline and be replaced by a historically southern American culture.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

58. I acknowledged an influx of people...

...from Central and South America not a shift in culture. There is no scientific evidence proving an actual drop in the number of gun owners.

[zipplewrath]

62. Over time

There are obvious shifts in our culture due to the influx of immigrants. But we are talking over generations here. These things have always happened. You can trace the change in American culture of the freeing of the slaves from 1865 to 1965 and it includes Elvis. Many cultural elements we know today come from the waves of Scot/Irish/English immigrants we had a century ago. The same thing happened after the italian and German immigrations. We will see it in the near future now that we have had a half century of Mexican/Cuban/Portorican/South American influx.

As for a drop in gun ownership. As a percentage of the population gun ownership over generations has declined.

Look at page 3 Table 1 And this is only over the last generation.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

63. I would take surveys with a grain of salt

People have been getting less trusting of anonymous callers asking personal questions.

[zipplewrath]

66. We're talking decades

I don't think your skepticism applies over decades.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

68. I think my skepticism points out the possibility...

...that there may be no downward trend in gun ownership upon which a great deal of your nationwide prognosis is based. The fundamental betrayal of privacy by the government over the past 70 years has had the effect of supplanting honest answers to simple questions by those we don't trust.

We are, however, following our government's example of distrusting everyone.

[zipplewrath]

71. And you have evidence of this counter trend.

Aren't you the one that asked me if I had "scientific evidence" of my assertion? I'm curious where your faith in this rising level of ownership comes?

[gejohnston]

64. That is about the only poll that shows a decline

but if you expand it to the 1950s, what the poll claims is the level of gun ownership is simply returning to that decade. When crime in the sixties, people went out and bought guns and left them in the sock drawer. Now adult children are discovering those guns when old age catches up with mom and dad. That is why it is easy to find a revolver from that era in really good condition in pawn shops.
Of course, more evidence shows that people are lying to the pollsters and then there is Gun Culture 2.0
I did some computer work for a Mexican immigrant not too long ago. Basically, I set up a Linux system for their kids. The guy and his wife found my card at a gun shop. Oh, he gave me the number of a really great holster maker.

[zipplewrath]

67. So you have data to back this up

I'm interested in the data you have to support your anecdotal observations.

[gejohnston]

69. you have a flawed survey

where people go knocking on doors asking "do you have stuff that people like to steal"? When you look at other trends like instructors having more students that are first time gun buyers and the increases in first time ownership licenses in places like IL.
You know who the typical first time gun buyer in Austria and Germany, especially pistols, is right now? Working class women.

[zipplewrath]

70. Derivative

So you don't actually have data saying that the number of weapons owners are holding constant, merely that there is evidence that there are more "first time" owners. And actually, you don't have data to support that, you just have anecdotal data that implies it.

[silvershadow]

54. No one wants guns from law-abiding citizens. The end. nt

[Nuclear Unicorn]

57. You would be very mistaken --

https://www.google.com/search?q=melt+them+down&sitesearch=democraticunderground.com&gws_rd=ssl

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

59. and that's just on this site.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

60. I don't know whether to be amused or insulted that they still

offer this talking point as if we'll fall for it.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

61. And they can't image why there's push back

There's got to some strange statistical tensor analysis that can explain that level of cluelessness.

[DonP]

72. But, but, but ... it's just "Common Sense"

Don't you have any common sense?

[stone space]

73. Ammosexual paranoia is not negated by my own personal support for Austrailian style arms control.

Australians do it with style!

[Nuclear Unicorn]

74. So the thing RKBA supporters say you want to do you admit you want to do.

That means they aren't paranoid, it means they're not fooled by your being disingenuous.

[stone space]

75. Have I ever claimed to be pro-Tiger Attack Helicpopter?

Are Ammosexuals really worried that I might take away their precious Tiger Attack Helicopters?

Seriously???

And even if they are, how does that explain their paranoid fear and hatred of President Obama?

What's the connection?

[DonP]

77. Why do you want to use an attack helicopter on people?

Do you have a paranoid fear and hatred of citizens.

I just don't understand the logic of people that say things like that.

[stone space]

78. Reading is Fundamental.

Why do you want to use an attack helicopter on people?

Do you have a paranoid fear and hatred of citizens.

I just don't understand the logic of people that say things like that.

[DonP]

82. You brought up using an attack helicopter

You must have some reason to want to use one.

Do you have violent dreams?

[stone space]

83. Aparently, you haven't watched the video. (nt)

[DonP]

84. Why are you fixated on death spewers like an attack helicopter?

That's the kind of post that can get you kicked off DU ... again.

[stone space]

85. You are behaving strangely, now.

That's the kind of post that can get you kicked off DU

Suggest you take it up with the Admins:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1259

[DonP]

86. Good news, I read that Iowa is allowing carry on campus

At the school's discretion for now. But that will change.

[stone space]

87. That's creepy.

[DonP]

90. Ah, the family album

We love it when you share personal pictures with the class.

Cousin? Brother? Dad?

[stone space]

93. My father died when I was a child, and my brother died many years ago.

I'm not sure why you feel the need to attack my family.

Nobody here has attacked your family.

Ah, the family album

We love it when you share personal pictures with the class.

Cousin? Brother? Dad?

[beevul]

96. Oh, so you want to attack others...

Oh, so you want to attack others, but you want to set your own boundaries for how others attack you?

Hypocrite.

Maybe if you didn't attack others to begin with, you wouldn't need to.

[stone space]

97. Whose brother did I attack? Whose father? What did my dead father and brother do to you?

Oh, so you want to attack others...

Oh, so you want to attack others, but you want to set your own boundaries for how others attack you?

Hypocrite.

Maybe if you didn't attack others to begin with, you wouldn't need to.

I really don't understand the desire to attack deceased family members of DUers.

[beevul]

99. Did someone say you did?

Maybe you should take it up with them.

[stone space]

100. I was responding to your comment. Why should I take it up with others.

What do you have against my family, anyway?

I haven't attacked anybody's family here.

My own family is under attack for absolutely no reason.

It's not right.

It just isn't.

[beevul]

101. Which comment, cite please. N/T

[Cassiopeia]

94. Your results.

On Fri Jan 15, 2016, 02:43 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

Ah, the family album
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=184931

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

DU is not the place for insulting the family members of other posters.

This needs to be hidden.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Fri Jan 15, 2016, 03:04 AM, and the Jury voted 3-4 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Poster is aiming to go way over the top.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: This whole thread devolved into one hot mess and i have strained my brain to try to make sense of it. I feel like I don't know the whole story so i error on the side of caution and not hand out a hide over it
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Alert Stalking at its finest
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I went back and read the entire exchange. This seems to be a sarcastic back-and-forth snark fest. This comment is childish, but not hide worthy YET. I recommend the two posters stop before it gets nastier; civil discussion is the goal, and at first I thought this was a DU Lounge post. No one is convincing anyone of anything except middle-of-the-night bored. Good luck.
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: This is just nonsense. Lot of that going on around here lately.

For full disclosure, I was Juror #1, but I agree with #4's comment.

[beergood]

108. good technique.

my boyfriend does something slimier, after which we go the the shooting range.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

79. If such nonsense is all you have left.

[stone space]

80. Does this mean that you have no answer?

how does that explain their paranoid fear and hatred of President Obama?

How does my own opposition to the weapons industry and my own support for disarmament actions explain this?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

81. You offered a lame straw man about helicopters I gave it the attention it merited.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

88. Another thread-jacking of no relevance whatever

[beevul]

89. At least they're consistent.

/rimshot

[GGJohn]

91. Meh, that's nothing,

I flew Cobras, Apaches, Blackhawks, and Hueys.

[stone space]

92. Militant Pacifists have disarmed more fearsome weapons than that. Never underestimate Nonviolence.

Here's a documentary film in which the defendants play themselves.

If you have time sometime, say a vacation or something, you might want to watch it.

[beevul]

98. Lets test that...

Militant Pacifists have disarmed more fearsome weapons than that.

Lets test that with a hypothetical.

Lets say the city fathers of Hiroshima were militant pacifists the day the bomb was dropped...


End of lesson (I presume you do know what a lesson is).

[stone space]

102. What is the lesson?

Lets test that with a hypothetical.

Lets say the city fathers of Hiroshima were militant pacifists the day the bomb was dropped...


End of lesson (I presume you do know what a lesson is).

[beevul]

103. That militant pacifism is useless...

That militant pacifism is useless if the other party is willing ready and able to use force.

[stone space]

104. You haven't demonstrated your point. (nt)

[friendly_iconoclast]

105. He has, you simply didn't get it: Militant pacifism only works against those with a conscience

Against the Third Reich, militant pacifism was merely high-minded suicide:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Rose

[DonP]

107. I read an article once that pointed that out graphically

They said that Ghandi's protests against the English worked because the Brits had a stern moral code.

Had he been dealing with the Third Reich or Stalin, he and his protestors would have just been stains on Panzer treads.

[beevul]

106. That merely indicates that the point can be easily demonstrated...

That merely indicates that the point can be easily demonstrated, just not easily demonstrated to you.

And that says more about you, Mr. Calculolz teacher, than it says about the point.