How to stop gun proliferation in the US

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

Give up, you can't; you're just wasting time, money and effort. There are about 300,000,000 guns all across the 3,800,000 square miles of cities and countryside among the 124,800,000 households.

The genie is out of the bottle not just out of the bottle but analogously is so far out that may be tanning himself under a sun that isn't ours.

It is far past time to accept the idea only those willing to comply with laws are affected by them and that those folks are not the ones causing the violence that makes the news.

Lesson learned from the drug war: ban --> +++demand



http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/releasing-drug-offenders-wont-end-mass-incarceration/
FiveThirtyEight says that almost half of those federal prison (about 101,000) are there due to drug offenses and over 217,000 of those is state prisons half drug offenses as their most serious charge.

It's time to end the war on drugs and spend that money helping those with addiction problems.

[guillaumeb]

1. So just accept that 30,000 people will die from gun violence

each year and move on?

Ask people in Australia how it can be done. Yes, I understand that what works in Australia cannot possibly work here because Americans are genetically predisposed to love guns and tolerate high levels of violence..

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

2. Thanks for responding

I don't think we should dump every gun law have and there's probably some reasonable new ones that could be put in place but it's time to stop taking aspirin for the brain tumor.

[ret5hd]

4. If I got a brain tumor, I'd take some pretty goddamned agressive therapy...

and the # of gun deaths is pretty stunning.

[gejohnston]

6. yes, but the vast majority of them would

simply be rope deaths like the other half of suicides. I don't call that progress. Murders are mostly among gangs over drug profits and territory. They don't go to licensed gun stores or gun shows anymore than they get the coke and heroin from licensed wholesalers.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

13. And a tumor or a murder is a problem

Masking the symptoms isn't the answer.
Curing the cause is the best course.

[Eleanors38]

140. Japan's suicides prefer rope and high places. And its rate is far greater than ours.

There is no reason to expect our suicides would not select these and other means should guns majically disappear. By focusing on instrumentality, you lose the big picture of the causes of violence and mayhem in our society. We used to have better social and economic policies and programs to address the problems of violence; now all we have is a hoary old prohibitionist outlook.

BTW, our "gun" homicide rate has fallen drastically over the last 20 years, even as the number of guns has "Proliferated." This suggests the number of guns in civilian hands has little to do with so-called "gun crime." This relationship is manifest.

[Duckhunter935]

3. Hopefully we can cut that way down

By ending the war on drugs and spending more money on treatment and mental health. Since 2/3 of those are suicides, helping with those issues would really help more than some cosmetic ban.

[guillaumeb]

10. Both ideas would help immensely. Good ideas. eom

[gejohnston]

5. ending the drug war will do wonders,

and hopefully do something about the forty thousand people who die of drug overdoses.
Will it do anything about the 20K suicides? Probably not. Would gun laws save those lives, or just make them rope deaths like the other half of suicides? Probably.
Most murders in the US are criminals killing each other in pockets of the country with high poverty, drug gangs, poor infrastructure, and political corruption. Look at the most violent cities in the world, mostly in South America, but does include Baltimore and Detroit, that is what they have in common. Nationwide, we don't have high levels of violence. High levels in some places, but almost nonexistent in most places.

Australia always had fairly strict gun laws, depending on the state. All had licensing systems some had registration. Also, out of the peer reviewed studies looking at how the National Firearms Agreement affected crime and murder, there is no evidence to support any claim that it had a positive or negative effect.

[guillaumeb]

11. The so-called drug war IS a failure.

And an excuse to militarize the police.

And yes, the poverty/inequality/violence connection is well documented.

If, as you state, violence is mainly confined to certain geographic areas, (excluding the random gun violence that occurs when angry people use guns to settle issues), why do so many gun owners feel this need to claim they have guns for personal protection?

There seems to be a disconnect between perception and reality.

[gejohnston]

38. why do so many gun owners feel this need to claim they have guns for personal protection?

for the same reason you have a fire extinguisher. Better to have it and never need it than need it and not have it. Just because something is improbable doesn't mean it is impossible. Besides, there are other violent crimes other than murder. As then INTERPOL Secretary General Ron Noble observed after the Westgate Mall attack, armed citizens might be the best first line defense against terrorist attacks on soft targets, like shopping malls.
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/exclusive-westgate-interpol-chief-ponders-armed-citizenry/story?id=20637341
Besides, as a demographic, CCW holders are more responsible and law abiding than cops. Usually better trained with their weapons too. Since liberalizing CCW did not adversely affect security or safety, there is no valid reason to restrict it.

Back to the poverty issue. Perhaps that explains why countries and territories with gun laws stricter than Australia or UK, like Brazil, Mexico, USVI, British VI can have astronomical murder rates. On the other hand, countries where gun ownership is about as common as the US, like Canada, Iceland, Switzerland, Finland, and Norway don't have those problems. California, New Jersey, Maryland, NYC, all have stricter gun laws than Austria or Switzerland.

[TeddyR]

41. I've noticed that gun control proponents

Have zero response to Mr. Noble's opinion that armed citizens helped limit the damage in the mall attack.

[guillaumeb]

51. Two points:

First, Armed citizens as the first line of defense?
That sounds like a "Red Dawn" fantasy scenario. How about the armed Texas citizens who impeded police response? That, it seems to me, is far more likely than any armed mob suddenly and spontaneously cohering into a directed force.

Second, there has been some research done that points to a possible connection between economic inequality and violence. Canada has far less income inequality. Part of this is a progressive tax system that can better fund services. Part, a social part, is that Canadians do not feel that government is the enemy. I still find that bizarre, living here, that many Americans apparently feel that their fellow citizens become "the enemy" if they work for the government.

[gejohnston]

74. That sounds like a "Red Dawn" fantasy scenario.

Not an argument. Quite frankly, it wasn't relevant to the discussion. If you are there, you are the first responder. The police are minutes or hours away, that is reality.
As you saw from the video, assuming you took time to watch it, armed citizens mitigated the carnage. That isn't me, the NRA, France's UNPACT, or Canada's NFA, that is INTERPOL, not the band. Let's use another example. Orlando. Most who died, bled to death from their wounds. If OPD didn't stand around with their fingers up their asses for three hours, or if someone thought of rushing the fucking asshole when the set the rifle down to reload magazines, many of those people would have been saved.
No, as the Westgate Mall example showed, simply historical fact. The police and military showed up hours later. As the report shows, more would have died. Besides, self defense is a fundamental human right. In fact, it is a natural right afforded to all species.

What evidence is there that open carriers, assuming there was more than one, impeded the police response? I know there were pundits and politicians making the claim, but politicians and pundits tend to be stupid, intellectually lazy, and almost always full of shit. My understanding is that the one simply walked up to a cop and surrendered to say that "I'm not part of that". Open carrying rifles, or pistols for that matter, is stupid as shit in an urban area for a number of reasons, but impeding the cops isn't one of them. Especially political protests, like children, openly displayed weapons of any kind should not be there.

That, it seems to me, is far more likely than any armed mob suddenly and spontaneously cohering into a directed force.

The sentence is incoherant, but if I understand it correctly, people will spontaneously direct their fire at the source of the attack. You are relying on the speculation of comedians and pundits who, quite frankly, don't have a fucking clue what they are talking about.

Second, there has been some research done that points to a possible connection between economic inequality and violence. Canada has far less income inequality. Part of this is a progressive tax system that can better fund services. Part, a social part, is that Canadians do not feel that government is the enemy. I still find that bizarre, living here, that many Americans apparently feel that their fellow citizens become "the enemy" if they work for the government.

Mostly because our system is set up, our country was founded Enlightenment concept of, government is a necessary evil that must be limited to those that are necessary for a state to function. This antiauthoritarianism expands to a lot of things. Want to sell a lot of something? Start a PR campaign against it. Doesn't matter what it is. Most of the "controversy" surrounding the video game Grand Theft Auto came from the company's PR arm.

Speaking of Red Dawn, which as nothing to do with being in a shopping mall or a concert during a terrorist attack, the reference is made by people who don't know shit about asymmetrical warfare. It was a stupid movie for a couple of reasons, but not for the reasons you might think. The one Democratic congress person I admire most, Tom Lantos, lived it after he escaped from a concentration camp. Granted it was Nazis in Hungary instead of Communists in Colorado, but you get the idea. There are people in the world who live the real thing.
https://www.ausa.org/publications/defining-asymmetric-warfare

[guillaumeb]

99. First, your alternate reality scenario in Orlando

is supposition. Like the similar NRA promoted argument about the theater shooting in Colorado.

As to open carriers impeding the police in Dallas, the source was the Dallas Police Chief. So, if I must choose between your speculation as to what might have happened versus the Dallas Police Chief recounting what did happen, I will accept the Dallas Police Chief's version.

The NRA loves to promote the idea of armed citizens acting to prevent violence, but reality has a way of showing this scenario to be farfetched. I understand the NRA tactic of contributing to an atmosphere of fear to sell guns but reality shows that these scenarios rarely happen.

If there was a shooting at a mall, and a number of open carry types take out their guns, what happens when the police come in? Will you all be wearing an "I am a good guy with a gun" hat so the police will know that you are the good guys and not part of the problem?

NOTE: The reference to "good guy with a gun" should be understood to also apply to good women with a gun.

[gejohnston]

149. no, it is based on local reports and what witnesses described.

As to open carriers impeding the police in Dallas, the source was the Dallas Police Chief. So, if I must choose between your speculation as to what might have happened versus the Dallas Police Chief recounting what did happen, I will accept the Dallas Police Chief's version.

I didn't speculate anything. The one known one said he flagged down a cop, handed over his rifle volunteered as a "it wasn't me." Police chiefs are political appointees, I prefer objective reports on the ground.

The NRA loves to promote the idea of armed citizens acting to prevent violence, but reality has a way of showing this scenario to be farfetched. I understand the NRA tactic of contributing to an atmosphere of fear to sell guns but reality shows that these scenarios rarely happen.

Not a valid argument, simply ideological talking points. I never said "prevent" I said "mitigate", and it came from INTERPOL, not the NRA.

If there was a shooting at a mall, and a number of open carry types take out their guns, what happens when the police come in? Will you all be wearing an "I am a good guy with a gun" hat so the police will know that you are the good guys and not part of the problem?

Westgate Mall were all concealed carriers. I never advocated open carry for any reason outside of a range or in the wilderness, so that is a strawman. Most of the time, its over before the cops show up. Once again, I noticed you didn't mention what former Secretary General Noble said.

NOTE: The reference to "good guy with a gun" should be understood to also apply to good women with a gun.

Tell the guy who coined it, since I never used the phrase.

[Eleanors38]

142. "Red Dawn?" How about good sense dawning? Until police arrive, YOU ARE the first line of defense.

Whether you have guns or not, the first line of defense is ON YOU. Most police in almost all crime involvements arrive AFTER the crime has gone down. They therefore are in no position to defend you, and are not under legal obligation to do so. This is a hard fact of jurisprudence for some years, now. You can have all the faith you want in a government's egitimacy, vis a vis policing, and that fact does not change.

You are the first line.

[guillaumeb]

144. What I also said was..........

As to open carriers impeding the police in Dallas, the source was the Dallas Police Chief. So, if I must choose between your speculation as to what might have happened versus the Dallas Police Chief recounting what did happen, I will accept the Dallas Police Chief's version.

The NRA loves to promote the idea of armed citizens acting to prevent violence, but reality has a way of showing this scenario to be farfetched. I understand the NRA tactic of contributing to an atmosphere of fear to sell guns but reality shows that these scenarios rarely happen.

If there was a shooting at a mall, and a number of open carry types take out their guns, what happens when the police come in? Will you all be wearing an "I am a good guy with a gun" hat so the police will know that you are the good guys and not part of the problem?

NOTE: The reference to "good guy with a gun" should be understood to also apply to good women with a gun.

Your reframing of typical NRA talking points is contradicted by what actually happens in most shooting situations. The mythical "good people with guns" in Dallas ran the other way. Plus, as the Dallas Police Chief said, all the open carry citizens hindered the police response.

Why no response to this?

[beevul]

148. "Why no response to this?"

Why no response to this?

Because it has no bearing on our rights, one way or the other.

Your reframing of typical NRA talking points is contradicted by what actually happens in most shooting situations.

What happens in "most shooting situations", and how come only situations where shots are fired are good enough for you anti-gunners?

What the poster you were responding to said, the jist of it:

You are the first line.

You can call that an nra talking point until you're blue in the face, but it wont stop that simple statement from being factual. "You are the first line", is a fact, regardless of what you label it, or how uncomfortable it makes you feel.

[Duckhunter935]

151. Can you link to the "NRA talking points" list

Do we could be sure not to use them. Or is it anything you decide it is.

[beevul]

152. Theres a whole lot of this going on...

Theres a whole lot of this going on, amongst the anti-gun crowd:

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.” “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.” “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that's all.”

[Eleanors38]

160. Sorry, but you persist with your misunderstanding...

The police ARE NOT charged with defending you as a matter of law. It may be one of their goals, it may even occur on occasion. But you will not sustain a case of police not performing their duties should you sue for late response, or even no response. So, self-defense is on you as a first line of defense. As Gandhi said:. "it is one's duty."

Your "good guy with guns" is for the NRA to answer. Since I am not a member, so I can't help you with this. The chief reason for having (and carrying) weapons is self-defense, an eminently personal choice, not social policy. According to the CDC (another NRA mouthpiece, of course) incidents of self-defense using a gun can reasonably be calculated, conservatively, at several tens of thousands a year. Agan, not an argument for this gun-interventionist practice as socal policy, but a stark reminder that there is a large volume of self-defense incidents each year.

Would you have preferred those armed in Dallas to have run in another direction? If I were there I would have fled with the rest; after all having a gun on you is for -- once again -- self-defense, not social policy, not police auxillaries.

You views lose further credibility when you tag serious argument with "NRAtalkingPoints®".

[guillaumeb]

163. You state that, in your view, the chief reason for carrying is self defense.

If this is your view, and talking about defensive gun use, (DGU),

In contrast, DGUs cannot be directly counted, but have to be estimated. Police and hospitals do not keep track of DGUs, nor investigate DGUs as crimes are investigated, so currently there is no way to directly count DGUs. The most common way to estimate DGUs is to do a survey: the researchers pick a number of people who they think are representative of the area or region they are investigating, and then ask those people if they have used their guns defensively. The incidence of DGU is that area or region under study is then calculated from the responses of those surveyed. This method of estimation depends on a couple of critical methodological factors:

So these statistics about DGU are not reliable numbers, they are estimates, thus subject to the ability and integrity of the ones commissioning the survey.

“Estimates of gun use for self defense vary widely, in part due to definitional differences in self-defensive gun use, different data sources and questions about accuracy of data, particularly when self-reported. The NCVS [National Crime Victim Survey] has estimated 60,000 to 120,000 defensive uses of guns per year (McDowell et al. 1998). Another body of research estimated annual gun use for self defense to be much higher, up to 2.5 million incidents, suggesting that self defense can be an important crime deterrent (Kleck and Gertz, 1995).” (CDC report, pg. 45-46)

So the estimated range of DGUs runs from 60,000 per year to 2.5 million. Quite a variance. A massive variance.

And you and others here speak and have spoken of believing that carrying a gun for protection will give you a better chance of avoiding being a victim. If that belief is true, there should be some statistical evidence of this.

* According to the CDC report: “The 2005 National Research Council study found no persuasive evidence from available studies that passage of right to carry laws decrease or increase violent crime. ”

SO if carrying does not decrease or increase violent crime it would seem that the belief that carrying a gun helps to make one safer is an article of faith unsupported by evidence.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/9/17/1238623/-Defensive-Gun-Use-The-CDC-Report-on-Gun-Violence

[Eleanors38]

167. Error in this...

First, I already recognize (as posted) the CDC's estimated defensive gun posts, and am not pushing for anything higher.

Again, you confuse a social outcome ("decrease or increase violent crime&quot with a personal choice to keep & bear for self-defense purposes. I have stated for years in these threads that the number of guns in circulation is no indicator of increased gun or whatever crime (and this is manifestly the case). It is also the case that the number of guns in circulation is not convincingly linked to a drop in crime. The evidence is not persuasive either way, as yet. Is this clear enough? Cerainly, we can agree that homicides -- including GunViolence® -- have dropped over the last quarter century.

I note over the last 10 years of being on DU, I have rarely seen a pro-2A poster advocate a linkage between # of guns and a drop in crime (a social policy), only the disproving of the meme "more guns=more crime," a social policy speculation.

[guillaumeb]

169. Great, we agree on one thing. Let us try for another.

Let us suppose a US where there are not hundreds of millions of guns. A US not filled with citizens who are in fear of their own government, or at fear of their fellow citizens, or both.

Let us further suppose that a person wishes to kill many people. Would it be easier or harder for this person to kill many people in the absence of these guns?

[Eleanors38]

178. The same.

[guillaumeb]

179. What methods would be used?

[Eleanors38]

180. Who knows? Fertilizer bombs, lack powder bombs, vehicles, arson w/ accelerant, machete...

Flying planes into buildings. Just some of the ways which have been used in the past. Besides, your scenario called for a reduction in guns, not elimination. So the remaining arms are available to killers, as well as the aforementioned.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

181. People are creative

Sometimes especially the type that engage in mass murder. Methods like arson and IEDs are common. Chemical and biological toxins require more knowledge and prep but are potentially even more dangerous. There are even youtube howtos on some of this.

Are you being deliberately obtuse?

[The Green Manalishi]

121. My firearms are EXACTLY like that:

As with a fire insurance policy, I really hope I never have to use them. I own nothing I wouldn't give another human if it meant not having to take a life. But if someone is intent on harming me or my loved ones then I feel myself morally justified to take whatever measures I need to, and anyone who has an ethical problem with that can piss off.

[Eleanors38]

143. Gandhi and MLK would agree.

[Press Virginia]

8. Suicides and accidents aren't gun violence

It's dishonest to lump them in with actual acts of violence.

[guillaumeb]

12. Is this an attempt to minimize the violence that is caused by guns?

Suicide and murder are the ultimate in gun violence. That one is self-inflicted does not make it any less violent.

[Press Virginia]

14. Only if you change the definition of the word violence

Seeing as suicide is self inflicted, it cannot be violence.
40,000 suicides a year, 2/3rds don't use a gun.
Obviously the gun isn't the real problem when it comes to people who decide to kill themselves

[guillaumeb]

15. And so, in the spirirt of your reply:

Self-directed violence (suicide) Suicide is one of the leading causes of death worldwide and is an important public health problem. Among those aged 15-44 years, self-inflicted injuries are the fourth leading cause of death and the sixth leading cause of ill-health and disability.



WHO | Self-directed violence (suicide)

www.who.int/violence_injury.../violence/suicide/en/

Now, who is changing the definition?

[Press Virginia]

17. So we're abandoning the actual English language now?

That would make it easier to blame the method of suicide than address the actual problem

[guillaumeb]

21. You might be abandoning the language:

the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against oneself, another person, or against a group or community, that either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment, or deprivation."

http://www.who.int/violenceprevention/approach/definition/en/

but I am not. Suicide is violence directed against the self. That does not make it not violence. When I see people attempting to erase suicides from the numbers of gun homicides I see people desperate to minimize the toll of gun violence.

And so far, I have given two sources for my position. You have cited none.

[Press Virginia]

23. Again with the WHO? I guess an actual dictionary

wouldn't make your case.

The DEATH is violent, just like hanging or throwing oneself off a bridge, because of its nature but it is not violence in itself.

That would be why suicides aren't included in VIOLENT CRIME statistics

[guillaumeb]

25. Two citations to support my contention vs. none for you.

Interesting attempt to minimize gun violence.

[Press Virginia]

26. Two citations from the WHO, which has redefined

an intentional and voluntary act into the use of force against oneself.

See how ludicrous it is?

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/violence

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/violence

Vs

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/suicide

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/suicide

[guillaumeb]

33. Your citations do not refute mine.

Tragically, more than 41,000 people died by suicide in the United States in 2013. Homicide claimed another 16,000 people.1 Violence is preventable; we know these numbers can be lowered.

The National Violent Death Reporting System (NVDRS) provides states and communities with a clearer understanding of violent deaths to guide local decisions about efforts to prevent violence and track progress over time. NVDRS is the only state-based surveillance (reporting) system that pools data on violent deaths from multiple sources into a usable, anonymous database. These sources include state and local medical examiner, coroner, law enforcement, crime lab, and vital statistics records.

NVDRS covers all types of violent deaths—including homicides and suicides—in all settings and for all age groups. NVDRS may include data on mental health problems; recent problems with a job, finances, or relationships; physical health problems; and information about circumstances of death. Such data is far more comprehensive than what is available elsewhere.

http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/nvdrs/

You seem to need to avoid the fact that suicide is violence. Why?

[Press Virginia]

35. Only if you believe the WHO to be an authority

on the English language going back 300 some years.

How does one use force on oneself in the commission of a voluntary act?

[TeddyR]

42. Do you think that suicides go away if guns are banned?

More importantly, do you think people commit suicide for the same reasons that people rob a bank, or shoot a rival gang member, or shoot someone in the name of religion?

[Press Virginia]

49. Blaming the guns is just a means to ignore the real problem

It's possible, to the anti-gun crowd, that suicides only matter if a gun is used

[guillaumeb]

53. Nice deflection.

Suicide is self-violence. Guns make suicide easier.

[Press Virginia]

57. How does one use force or threat of force in an intentionally voluntary act?

"If I don't kill myself I'll shoot!"??

You're misusing words that have had standard meanings since the 1600

[guillaumeb]

59. Here is what I said:

Suicide is self-violence. Guns make suicide easier.

And I have previously given links to other organizations that classify suicide as a crime of violence.

And this is 2016, not 1600. Your Founders were only referring to white males of property when they said that all men are created equal.

Do you agree that all white males of property are the only ones who are created equal, or has your understanding evolved?

[Press Virginia]

61. Suicide is a voluntary intentional act. Violence is the use of force or threat of force

to cause harm or death to someone or something.

By definition a voluntary action cannot be forced therefore suicide cannot be violence of any kind

[guillaumeb]

62. Apparently you have convinced yourself.

Congratulations.

[Press Virginia]

63. Actually the 300+yr old standard definition of the words, in the English language, convinced me

words have meaning. Suicide and Violence have had standard English meanings since the mid 1600's....which, I'm fairly certain, exceeds that of the WHO and CDC

[guillaumeb]

64. Standard definition?

vi·o·lence.


[ˈvī ə ləns]

NOUN

1.behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something.

synonyms: brutality · brute force · ferocity · savagery · cruelty ·
[more]
Powered by Oxford Dictionaries · © Oxford University Press · Translation by Bing Translator

==================================================

Note that the definition does not exclude self-violence.

Suicide:

Tragically, more than 41,000 people died by suicide in the United States in 2013. Homicide claimed another 16,000 people.1 Violence is preventable; we know these numbers can be lowered.

The National Violent Death Reporting System (NVDRS) provides states and communities with a clearer understanding of violent deaths to guide local decisions about efforts to prevent violence and track progress over time. NVDRS is the only state-based surveillance (reporting) system that pools data on violent deaths from multiple sources into a usable, anonymous database. These sources include state and local medical examiner, coroner, law enforcement, crime lab, and vital statistics records.

NVDRS covers all types of violent deaths—including homicides and suicides—in all settings and for all age groups. NVDRS may include data on mental health problems; recent problems with a job, finances, or relationships; physical health problems; and information about circumstances of death. Such data is far more comprehensive than what is available elsewhere.

http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/nvdrs/

I realize that my sources are only the Oxford English Dictionary and the CDC. Yours, well, I have not seen them yet.

[Press Virginia]

65. Now look up suicide...see if you can figure out how you force a voluntary act

[guillaumeb]

68. Please reread the response.

Both words were defined. You are entitled to your opinions, but the CDC, the WHO, and the Oxford English Dictionary disagree with you.

My apologies, and no insult to your personal opinion, but I agree with my sources cited.

[Press Virginia]

73. I don't see where you've provided the Oxford definition for suicide

I can only assume you've chosen to abandon the use of the word in lieu of using "self violence"

Suicide is a voluntary and intentional act. By definition, a voluntary act cannot be coerced or forced, therefore suicides cannot be "self violence" because, as Oxford defines violence as the use of force or threat of force to cause harm or death to a person or thing.
Furthermore, the definition of violence would preclude "self violence" as hurting yourself is either intentional or accidental....neither of which could be accomplished by the use or threat of force

You can only dismiss the 300+yr old standard English definition in order to replace it with definitions from government orgs like the CDC and WHO

[guillaumeb]

97. As I pointed out, I used the CDC definition.

But even the OED definition does not exclude suicide. Causing self-death certainly fits in the OED definition, even if you have never considered it in that way.

[Press Virginia]

98. IOWs, you abandoned the 300 year old standard English definition to embrace

one that redefines it in a way that makes it possible to coerce a voluntary and deliberate taking of ones own life with the use of or threat of force.

Gotcha.

So how do you threaten yourself with force to induce suicide?
Threaten to shoot yourself if you don't kill yourself?

[guillaumeb]

104. No. What is happening here is that gun owners feel the need to minimize

gun violence by ignoring gun suicides.

To put it very simply, if a gun is used to commit violence against self or others, that is an example of gun violence. And the OED definition is inclusive of self-violence. That is a fact that you and (the NRA) can ignore but the fact remains.

Just as the NRA ignores the inconvenient fact that persons living in a household with guns are more, not less, likely to be the victims of gun violence.

[Press Virginia]

106. Because violence and suicide are completely different things

words have meaning...and, in this case, the meanings of these words have been standard for the English language for over 300 years.

Wow, you think people who own ladders are more likely to fall off ladders than people who don't own them? Is that ladder violence?

[jmg257]

56. How about asking whether the choice people may make to kill themselves with a gun

Last edited Sun Jul 24, 2016, 07:37 PM - Edit history (1)

justifies others losing their right to arms?

Whether we call it violence or not.

[Press Virginia]

60. its their life and their choice. Calling it violence is a dishonest means to inflate

the numbers to make guns look like a bigger threat to society than they truly are.

[Duckhunter935]

67. Yep, done on purpose

[Duckhunter935]

27. Is a hanging rope violence?

Let's have just a little common sense here please.

[Press Virginia]

29. According to the WHO it is

Well known wordsmiths, the World Health Org

[guillaumeb]

30. Suicide is violence directed against the self.

Top 10 Common Methods of Suicide:

Hint, hanging is NOT number one. Can you guess which method is most often used?
http://frater.com/suicidelist.html

[Press Virginia]

36. So hanging isn't violence?

How does one use force against themselves in a voluntary act?

[beevul]

46. Thats the key question.

And its one, that you'll never get a forthright good faith answer to from an anti-gunner.

[Press Virginia]

48. Maybe the World Health Organization should clear the matter up

Since we're now going to discard dictionaries as legitimate sources for the meaning of words that have been in use for centuries.

[Eleanors38]

145. Who'd thunk the notion of violence was so goddam tactile & stylish?

[ileus]

79. Do guns really cause violence?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

87. Of course they do

Before we had guns, we had to find other things to cause violence. Back then millions of dollars were spent trying to invent guns and there was a lot of pressure on those engineers to...

...well that's all nonsense. The dollar hadn't been invented when guns were being invented.

[Duckhunter935]

88. My guns must all be defective

They have not caused any violence

[ileus]

89. All my guns are peace loving pacifist...

They'd never dream of causing anyone harm.

[beevul]

16. You could have just said "gun control or nothing".

In spite of the occasional token mention of mental health, reducing poverty, ending the war on drugs, that's the mindset isn't it:

"gun control or nothing".

Instead of supporting and pushing for things that would have an actual effect OUTSIDE of gun control, you folks would rather fight with those of us who aren't the problem in the first place year after year after year.

IMO that shows how very little the 'more strict gun control' crowd cares.

Maybe this isn't you, personally. But it damn sure is a great many of those on your side of the issue.

[guillaumeb]

18. I say "all of the above".

Gun control, and mental health funding, and real jobs for every one, and an end to the war on drugs and its attendant militarization of the police.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

22. Don't get me wrong...

...there good things about certain types of gun laws. But because a criminal uses a gun does not make the gun integral to the crime nor the cause for the violence.

[guillaumeb]

24. All true. But a gun does make violence easier. Especially mass killings.

And yes, the lunatic in Nice did use a vehicle, but that is incredibly rare. Mass killers generally seem to pick firearms.

The death tolls change, the places change: Nine in a church, 23 in a restaurant, 26 in an elementary school, now 49 in a nightclub. The faces in the memorial photos change the most.

But the weapons are the common denominator.

Mass killings in the United States are most often carried out with guns, usually handguns, most of them obtained legally.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/mass-shootings-in-america/

[Duckhunter935]

28. Rare for now

It can be very effective and we will see more.

[guillaumeb]

31. And I repeat myself, at the risk of seeming rude:

Mass killings in the United States are most often carried out with guns, usually handguns, most of them obtained legally.

[Duckhunter935]

40. So why the big call to ban rifles?

[guillaumeb]

54. All rifles or certain types?

If you are a hunter, or even for home defense, why would you need a rifle with a capacity of more than 2-3 bullets?

[Duckhunter935]

66. Considering even experts miss

I think 20 rounds would be a good compromise.

[guillaumeb]

69. When hunting ducks, if you miss the first shot,

what happens to the ducks? Do they:

1) Call a meeting to discuss the sounds and carefully debate what to do, or
2) immediately fly?

[Duckhunter935]

71. I do not hunt

But for home defense if used that way more than a few rounds are normally required. Not to mention as I have posted before, there are literally billions of magazines out there, a vast majority are 20 and under capacity. They will never disappear, it might be possible to limit larger magazines than that. I am quite sure we had this conversation before.

[guillaumeb]

95. The "it can/will never happen" argument has been used

when talking about:
integration,
women voting,
marriage equality,
and many other things that were previously thought impossible to accomplish.

Until circumstances changed and they became possible.

I mentioned the duck story because of your DU name, but in our family hunting supplemented the food supply. One shot and the bird/animal is gone. So when people talk about hunting with a rifle with a clip I wonder what type of hunting they are doing.

[Duckhunter935]

110. So what is your big plan? You must have one then.

To confiscate the billions of magazines in existence and the ability to 3D print more. It us just not possible unless you are in a police state that will go house to house and have unannounced home inspections. Even then you would never get them all.

[guillaumeb]

118. Australia is not a police state. Neither is Canada.

Licensing, insurance requirements, and regulation about legal magazine size are all possibilities. But I do not have a big plan.

Just for the sake of argument, assume that there was a strict limitation on magazine capacity for all types of firearms. Say a capacity of 3 rounds for long guns and 6 for pistols. Do you really feel there would be a rebellion or uprising of millions of gun owners? Not likely. Plus, surveys show that most people do not own guns. Many guns are owned by a small number of gun owners who have large numbers of guns.

Another avenue would be to require manufacturers to retool for a different type/caliber of projectile. If ammunition were not available either every gun owner would also invest in reloading equipment or ammo would no longer be easily available. Different ammo would also address the 3D situation.

[Duckhunter935]

124. Those other countries did not have our numbers of weapons

And the numbers of weapons in Australia is around the same as the start of the ban. Uprising no, people just would not comply and police would not enforce, see New York and Colorado compliance and enforcement rates.

[benEzra]

171. That is laughable.

"Say a capacity of 3 rounds for long guns and 6 for pistols."

That is laughable. Rifles holding 15+ rounds have been mainstream on the civilian market since the 1860s. A 3-round limit would be like setting a 15 mph speed limit on the Interstates, or banning all abortions after 3 weeks. It's patently ridiculous.

As to efficacy, compliance with Sunnyvale's over-10-round confiscation law was zero. Compliance with the NY SAFE Act is estimated at 5%. Compliance with Australia's ban is estimated at 25%. All your proposed law would do would be to drive the legitimate market underground; you simply cannot lock up 100 million people.

[guillaumeb]

172. What is not laughable is 30,000 gun deaths each year.

Except for the gun manufacturers who laugh all the way to the bank as many thousands of citizens buy more and more guns in a futile attempt to buy safety.

[benEzra]

173. Less than 200 murders/year involve "assault weapons". Not 30,000.

Most of those 30,000 are suicides, which even a ridiculous 3- or 6-round magazine limit wouldn't touch, and which rarely involve rifles anyway.

Of gun homicides, most are with small, lowish-capacity pistols and revolvers, wielded by career criminals who can't legally so much as touch a gun, and who can't legally carry them. All rifles and all shotguns combined barely reach 500 murders annually.

[guillaumeb]

174. Off target/point.

And that 30,000 number stands as a testament to those who buy guns in order to buy the illusion of security.

[benEzra]

182. You were the one who proposed a ridiculous capacity limit

that would have no effect on gun deaths, but is especially ludicrous to float as a proposed solution to suicide.

I'll also point out that Japan has a higher murder + suicide rate than we do, if you want to use that metric. Prohibitionists don't give a shit about non-gun suicides, though.

FWIW, our suicide rate is *lower* than that of Canada, Germany, France, Iceland, Norway, and New Zealand.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/world/suiciderate.html

[Press Virginia]

86. I need the same number of bullets as any member of the President's security detail

[beevul]

77. "...why would you need a rifle with a capacity of more than 2-3 bullets? "

"...why would you need a rifle with a capacity of more than 2-3 bullets? "

Because it makes control freak types who want to severely limit how gun owners exercise their rights and severely limit the choices available to gun owners, go plum crazy.

Is that a good enough reason?

[guillaumeb]

100. No. It might speak to a gun owner's psychological desire,

or emotional desire, but need and desire are very different things.

[beevul]

136. Thankfully, we live in a society where there is no 'department of needs'...

Thankfully, we live in a society where there is no 'department of needs', where people like you take it upon themselves to determine the needs of people they've never met, don't give two shits about, and regularly attempt to harass through their convenient culture war proxy - gun control.

Would you like some examples of the things I put in bold?

[guillaumeb]

141. Is gun ownership a matter of desire?

How then to redirect the desire is the question.

Or is it a perceived need, a fear-driven need based on years of media attention to violent crime to the exclusion of corporate crime?

[beevul]

147. Its a choice.

How then to redirect the desire is the question.

A question for those who hate guns rather than those who misuse them, perhaps.

Everyone else, not so much.

[guillaumeb]

153. But in choosing, are gun owners contributing, even unintentionally,

to the atmosphere of fear? Fear of a gunman?

If you are walking down the street and see someone openly carrying, will you assume that their intentions are peaceful, or will you be more on guard? And not just you, but other US citizens who are probably unarmed.

[beevul]

154. As usual, thats the WRONG question.

But in choosing, are gun owners contributing, even unintentionally, to the atmosphere of fear? Fear of a gunman?

As usual, thats the WRONG question. The RIGHT question is: But in choosing, are gun owners contributing, even unintentionally, to the atmosphere of fear to a larger degree than those who for example characterize civilian semi-automatic weapons as "weapons of war"? "Your kid could be next". With just those two examples alone, the answer is obviously NO.

How many more examples of "fear fear fear" from anti-gunners would you like me to provide?

Furthermore, when someone chooses to buy a gun, generally, almost NOBODY else knows about it.

That fatally breaks your theory.

If you are walking down the street and see someone openly carrying, will you assume that their intentions are peaceful, or will you be more on guard?

I assume ALL intentions are peaceful, when it comes to my fellow man, but I always remain situationally aware, whether theres someone with a gun around or not.

And not just you, but other US citizens who are probably unarmed.

The assumptions of others, aren't my problem.

[guillaumeb]

155. No, the answer to the question is the problem for you.

Because open carry heats up the atmosphere. And as far as your comment that:

:"Furthermore, when someone chooses to buy a gun, generally, almost NOBODY else knows about it. That fatally breaks your theory. "

open carry allows everyone to see who feels it is necessary to carry a gun.

And obviously anyone openly carrying/brandishing is not worried about what her/his fellow citizens are thinking.

[beevul]

156. How about you stick to the topic that you set - gun OWNERSHIP.

You're attempting to pivot to 'open carry' and away from 'gun ownership (gee, I wonder why )...that or you got lost.

I'll demonstrate:

post 141 guillaumeb - Is gun ownership a matter of desire?

Post 147 beevul - Its a choice. (referring to gun ownership)

post 153 guillaumeb But in choosing, are gun owners contributing, even unintentionally, o the atmosphere of fear? Fear of a gunman? If you are walking down the street and see someone openly carrying...


See, you moved the goalposts. Fail.

Because open carry heats up the atmosphere.

Generally, open carry doesn't bother anyone except those who hate guns. Its good to know you support concealed carry though. FWIW I don't carry, nor do I have any desire to...but peaceable carry of a firearm, openly or concealed, does not bother me in the least. Move away from peaceable, and it bothers me plenty.

And as far as your comment that:

"Furthermore, when someone chooses to buy a gun, generally, almost NOBODY else knows about it. That fatally breaks your theory. "

open carry allows everyone to see who feels it is necessary to carry a gun.

I'm sorry. You got lost. We were talking about gun ownership, not gun carry.

And obviously anyone openly carrying/brandishing is not worried about what her/his fellow citizens are thinking.

As I'm sure you've been informed no less than a dozen times, like every anti-gunner that uses language like humpty dumpty has, theres a huge difference between peaceably carrying a firearm openly or concealed, and brandishing a firearm. Brandishing is generally unlawful, absent a legitimate threat. But then, you knew that, didn't you.

Those goalposts must have anti-grav units attached...you move them with such ease.

In general, if people don't like guns, it isn't the problem of the gun carrier, its the problem of the person with the dislike. Why should the carrier be worrying about a problem that belongs entirely to another individual?

[guillaumeb]

161. As long as you mentioned it.......

it being:

Generally, open carry doesn't bother anyone except those who hate guns. Its good to know you support concealed carry though. FWIW I don't carry, nor do I have any desire to...but peaceable carry of a firearm, openly or concealed, does not bother me in the least. Move away from peaceable, and it bothers me plenty.

The last sentence, "Move away from peaceable, and it bothers me plenty" is where it problem arises. Many of these shootings involve people who have not demonstrated violent tendencies..........until they use a gun to kill people. If people were like thermometers and showed their violence potential that would make it easy to weed out the potential problems.

And if a previously "problem free" gun owner becomes a problem that problem does, as you say, belong to another individual. The victim.

[beevul]

183. My pleasure.

The last sentence, "Move away from peaceable, and it bothers me plenty" is where it problem arises. Many of these shootings involve people who have not demonstrated violent tendencies..........until they use a gun to kill people. If people were like thermometers and showed their violence potential that would make it easy to weed out the potential problems.

How many examples are there, in the context of someone openly carrying a firearm? 5?

And if a previously "problem free" gun owner becomes a problem that problem does, as you say, belong to another individual. The victim.

The problem still belongs to the shooter, but, you know who it doesn't belong to?

The people that didn't shoot anyone.

[Press Virginia]

85. Have you even been in the same location where someone was shooting a gun

or do you just rely on movies for your belief in what one needs when shooting in certain scenarios?

[guillaumeb]

101. I have owned and shot guns.

And you?

[Press Virginia]

102. Absolutely. Which makes me wonder why you would think now more than 3 rounds

is a reasonable limitation in a home defense situation.

[guillaumeb]

105. If you need more than three rounds in a room

you should probably get a dog or a bat.

Unless you are anticipating being attacked by a large gang of burglars or a pack of rabid wolves.

[Press Virginia]

107. Really, Dirty Harry?

I guess if 4 people break into your house you wait until 2 of them line up so as to have enough ammo for the other 2

[guillaumeb]

109. No need to be Dirty Harry with a shotgun.

But seriously, how many people are attacked by 4 or more people each year in the US? Using this same silly response, what if you are attacked by a gang in an armored vehicle? Should you have the right to have RPGs as defense also?

[Press Virginia]

113. I see you've never heard of a home invasion or multi person burglaries

A smart person would prepare for multiple scenarios...you, I guess, are relying on the ice water in your veins while hoping only one criminal/attacker shows up...

[guillaumeb]

119. Are you prepared for nuclear war?

Do you have seed stored, and a years worth of food, and farm implements?

Do you have a bunker? How about gasoline stored for your vehicles and spare parts?

Find some statistics that show the statistical likelihood of being attacked in the home by a gang and we can discuss this possibility.

[Press Virginia]

125. Has a nuclear war ever broken into a home or attempted to rape anyone?

Then a nuclear war wouldn't be relevant to a discussion on the use of a gun in defense of my person or property, would it?

I do not have provisions for a nuclear war because of my proximity to Washington, D.C.
I do have a single months worth of food stores and supplies in case of a natural disaster.

We've had many multiple intruder crimes committed in my area over the years. I need not calculate the probability of it happening to me to have the means to defend myself if it does

[Straw Man]

157. Shotguns, etc.

No need to be Dirty Harry with a shotgun.

Ah yes, the "one shotgun blast will kill everything in the room" myth. The spread of an unchoked shotgun loaded with buckshot (the standard defense set-up) is at most five inches at across-the-room distances. In other words, you're not going to hit more than one person with it.

But seriously, how many people are attacked by 4 or more people each year in the US?

A lot. Home invaders often work in packs because they don't know how many people they will have to "control" inside the house. Even two people will give you a problem if you only have four shots to deal with. Disabling an attacker with a single shot is a lot harder than it looks on TV.

Using this same silly response, what if you are attacked by a gang in an armored vehicle? Should you have the right to have RPGs as defense also?

Back atcha: How many people are attacked by gangs in armored vehicles each year in the US? I'd say that's a non-issue.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

158. You're asking this of someone who likely favors the MA AG plan...

...namely to ban rifles in state that generally has no rifle homicides. We really have to ban armored vehicles... and RPGs... and rifles... and handguns...

[guillaumeb]

162. How many are attacked by 4 or more......

Your response was: "a lot."

All that is lacking are statistics and evidence.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

164. How many attacked by 4 or more is enough?

Please justify your number.

[guillaumeb]

165. Your side brought up the "four or more" argument.

I asked for some statistics and am still.....................waiting. (Key Jeopardy theme music)

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

166. re: "...the "four or more" argument."

I am sure that I've read news articles of multiple attacks by more than 3 assailants. I infer that you're asking for some statistics to either reject the multi-shot firearm (more than 5 or 6) concept or to reject another self-defense mode.

I'm asking for the criteria you have in mind to make such a judgement and your justification. If you think more than half of all attacks (for example) would need to include more than 3 assailants to consider multi-shot firearms justifiable, I can't see wasting time looking for specifics on tens of thousands of incidents.

Could you at least narrow down by order of magnitude a scale that would satisfy you?

[Straw Man]

168. Three does seem to be a more common number.

How many are attacked by 4 or more......
View profile
Your response was: "a lot."

All that is lacking are statistics and evidence.

In the first ten of a random Google search on "home invasion gang," one incident involved two assailants, five incidents involved three, one incident involved five, one incident involved six, and one was unclear from the news story. All the incidents except the last one occurred this year.

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=home%20invasions%20gang

I don't know if stats have been compiled on this. In any case, even in a case with two assailants, four is an insufficient number of rounds to reliably defend one's home.

[guillaumeb]

170. More on home invasions:

I enjoyed your conversation on Up with Chris Hayes. You mentioned the risk of home invasion, and the realistic fear that the cops just wouldn't get there in time. That's obviously a primeval motive to have a gun by the bedside or whatever.

But the fear is also easily out of proportion to the threat. I had the Chicago police run the number on homicides. In 2011, precisely one homicide listed "burglary" as the motive. Nationwide, there are about 100 burglary-homicides every year. When you compare that to more than 18,000 gun suicides, the conclusions seem pretty obvious.

100 burglary-homicides a year. If this number is correct, that translates to 1 person out of every million Americans. Hardly a threat that one should rank highly.

Yet having guns around bring risks, too. Practically speaking, it's not the incredibly rare risk of mass homicide, but the everyday risks of injury, accident, domestic altercations, and suicide. The relative risks matter. And the fact is: lethal home invasions and burglaries are incredibly rare. You might not think so, since dramatic cases stick in your mind and tend to receive disproportionate press coverage. These cases are rare nonetheless.

Fear sells weapons. The NRA knows this, as do the weapons manufacturers. But is the fear based on a real likelihood of something happening? And when I posed the question of multiple invaders it was only in response to a previous post that raised the idea that only 3 rounds is hardly enough to defend the home.
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/12/gun-violence-and-the-irrational-fear-of-home-invasion/266613/

[Straw Man]

175. And even more.

100 burglary-homicides a year. If this number is correct, that translates to 1 person out of every million Americans. Hardly a threat that one should rank highly.

If someone enters a home and threatens violence, a violent response is appropriate. Although the odds are against being murdered, I would also prefer that no one in my household be robbed, beaten, or raped. Taken action to preclude those outcomes is a basic human right. You may choose not to exercise it. That's your right.

I do not subscribe to the notion that the ability of law-abiding individuals to defend their own homes and families should be limited because of overblown fears of another type of extremely rare violence: mass shootings by spree killers.

[guillaumeb]

176. Both types of occurences are extremely rare.

Gun manufacturers created a need by playing on a fear of violence that statistically does not happen that often.

The manufacturers, and their spokespeople at the NRA, then profit when the fearful run out and buy large numbers of guns.

[Straw Man]

177. Right.

Gun manufacturers created a need by playing on a fear of violence that statistically does not happen that often.

The manufacturers, and their spokespeople at the NRA, then profit when the fearful run out and buy large numbers of guns.

The essence of marketing is fabricating a need for your product. People are free to decide for themselves.

So can we agree that four-round limits are unnecessary as well, or do you want to continue to promote that particular product?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

111. IIRC I read where one person broke in...

...and the homeowner had to fire more than four shots to disable the intruder. Folks under extreme stress and in fear of death aren't known hitting their targets 100% of the time.

[Press Virginia]

114. Oh commmme onnnn. Next you'll tell us this happens to trained professionals too

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

115. Professionals???? No never!

Cops sometimes, but never professionals.

[Press Virginia]

116. Ha

[beevul]

45. After guns are banned...

After guns are banned, and terrorists start using whatever they can get their hands on - because that's what they quite obviously do, use whatever they can get their hands on gun or no gun - it will be too late for we who value our rights, to say "I told you so" and have it mean anything, because the powers that be of that time wont likely say "yeah, we were wrong" and reinstate gun rights.

So most of us feel its better just to skip that exercise all together.

[guillaumeb]

55. What are the chances for any one person to be killed by a terrorist in the US?

And how did the open carrying Texans fare in Dallas after the shootings? Were they a help, or a hindrance to the police?

[beevul]

72. Explain to me how the answer is relevant...

Explain to me how the answer is relevant, and I'll provide one.

[guillaumeb]

96. Because this is your post that I responded to:

After guns are banned, and terrorists start using whatever they can get their hands on - because that's what they quite obviously do, use whatever they can get their hands on gun or no gun - it will be too late for we who value our rights, to say "I told you so" and have it mean anything, because the powers that be of that time wont likely say "yeah, we were wrong" and reinstate gun rights.

You brought up the "terrorists with guns" scenario.

[beevul]

135. Yes it is. And this is how you responded...

Because this is your post that I responded to

Yes it is. And this is how you responded:

What are the chances for any one person to be killed by a terrorist in the US?

And how did the open carrying Texans fare in Dallas after the shootings? Were they a help, or a hindrance to the police?

None of that addresses this:

After guns are banned, and terrorists start using whatever they can get their hands on - because that's what they quite obviously do, use whatever they can get their hands on gun or no gun - it will be too late for we who value our rights, to say "I told you so" and have it mean anything, because the powers that be of that time wont likely say "yeah, we were wrong" and reinstate gun rights.

You may have replied, but you certainly did not respond to what I actually said. You then try to recharacterize what I said as a "terrorists with guns " post, by responding to it as if it means something that it in fact does not.

It was a 'citizens without guns' post, not a 'terrorists with gun posts'.


Hopefully theres a difference between 'citizens without guns' and 'terrorists with guns' in your mind, but if so, you're doing a very poor job of showing it.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

32. There is a more bad blood in the world than you can possibly imagine

People have triggers for their violence. Maybe there is a proverbial straw which breaks the camel's back. Guns are popular. I am no less horrified by a knife wielding killer like the janitor in Osaka, the Murrah Building bomber or trash animal in Nice.

People are creative. Remove all guns and IEDs will flourish. Arson, mass poisonings and various means of mayhem are viable options.

Assault the causes for the greatest number of murders. Not the means but the causes.

[guillaumeb]

34. True, but a gun makes committing violence easier.

Even a young teen can use a gun to kill numerous people. Knives require proximity and strength.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

37. "True, but..."

But nothing. Do you have a reason for trying prevent only mass shootings?

Certainly having no semi-auto guns for sale to the public will make the existing stock of them skyrocket in value. They will become sought after. A new black market will rise just as it did when drugs became overly controlled.

You have a very negative view of young people. I don't fear people because I believe that generally people are good. I believe that almost everyone is basically good and with the right help from the government, they can be better.

IMHO half of everyone not in the 1% has money problems that are critical or nearly so. They worry about everything from no retirement fund to no food to eat next week.

How many young men are involved in a gang because they've been victimized by other gangs or because the only source of income involved gang activity or both?

Prohibition and the drug war have been income generators the magnitude of which is seldom rivaled by any other grass roots activity outside of the collateral carnage caused.

[TeddyR]

43. I enjoy your posts

Because you discuss the issue without the slurs.

[Eleanors38]

146. I second TeddyR's remarks.

[beevul]

47. Sure, YOU say it, but where is the focus of the gun control movement?

Right where I said it was - seeking to pick a fight with the people that aren't committing gun violence in the first place, as usual.

[guillaumeb]

58. I have never stated that all, or most gun owners commit violence.

Even the 30,000 gun homicide victims that die each year only represent a tiny fraction of the approximately 325,000,000 population in the US.

[Duckhunter935]

70. So you must admit

The vast majority of firearms owners are law abiding and will never be involved in a mass shooting or suicide. Please pass that on to your fellow people in the gun control movement.

[beevul]

75. You stating it, was never necessary.

I have never stated that all, or most gun owners commit violence.

You stating it, was never necessary. The policies which I'm pretty sure you support, say it for you, when 99.9 percent of their restricting applies to to the people that will never commit gun violence, and .1 percent of their restricting, to people that will just find another way.

Even the 30,000 gun homicide victims that die each year only represent a tiny fraction of the approximately 325,000,000 population in the US.

Uh...gun homicides number around 10 thousand annually.

The other 20 are suicide.

[Waldorf]

39. I don't consider suicide to be violence, which 2/3rd's of that 30,000 are. n/t

[guillaumeb]

52. That is your personal opinion.

And some mental health organizations disagree with you.

[Jerry442]

7. About 42,000 people will die of pancreatic cancer...

...in the USA in 2016 according to the American Cancer Society. Given the minute progress in understanding and treating pancreatic cancer, this figure will probably rise in future years as the population increases.

You don't see me getting all goddam gleeful about it though.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

19. I wouldn't be gleeful about it either, my wife has cancer

OTOH I'd would be a bit joyful if someone published proof that some widely used $10,000 an ounce cancer med was utter bullshit and did nothing at all. I'd be even happier if it was made by some company that trump was heavily invested in.

Banning all guns isn't happening. Slowing down gun sales will be meaningless relative to crime. Trying to invent a better definition of an "assault weapon" is just a distraction so politicians can pander for votes.

Most violence has a cause and getting to the heart of the matter will yield progress. Guns do not cause violence. If guns caused violence, why are there only maybe 150,000 miscreants who use guns criminally among almost 100,000,000 lawful gun owners?

Guns are a simple tools. Anyone who believes some posturing politician who says a gun CAUSES someone to murder IS ALSO A SIMPLE TOOL.

[jonno99]

9. drug war: ban

Yep

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

20. bans no...help yes!

[jonno99]

44. Exactly! Jailing non-violent offenders is just nuts imho. Work programs,

community service - anything would be better than sending people (kids especially) to jail - to learn how to become better "criminals".

It's absolutely insane....

[pablo_marmol]

50. "Its time to end the war on drugs and spend that money helping those with addiction problems."

A big AMEN to that statement!

I truly believe that the Drug Enforcement Industrial Complex is perfectly happy watching the country chase it's tail as it implements worthless feel-good "gun restriction". Heaven forbid we attack the root of the problem and lay off most of these "enforcers".

It's just so discouraging the way Democrats lose their integrity and brains on the gun violence issue. The sick, twisted irony of our approach is that the political capital we piss away on "assault weapon" bans etc. prevents us from tackling the issues that are the real drivers of gun violence.

[Agnosticsherbet]

76. So we just smile and accept murder and mayhem on an industrial scale.

Fuck that.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

78. OTOH pursuing useful solutions to violence might be an idea

[beevul]

80. You could focus on non-gun methodology.

But I recognize that such methodology isn't anti-gun enough for a great deal of your anti-gun colleagues.

[Agnosticsherbet]

81. I am not anti-gun.

Guns can be regulated. Even Scalia agreed to that.

[beevul]

82. Did someone say they couldn't be?

I am not anti-gun.

I could have sworn I saw you supporting a gun ban hereabouts somewhere.

If I'm wrong, I'm happy to admit it.

[gejohnston]

83. guns are highly regulated

much more than, say, cars. How much regulation is too much?

[Agnosticsherbet]

93. Dairy products are more regulated than cars, and both

And guns far less than both. The is another argument that has no intectual merit.

It is against the law for the government to fund research on guns and how they area used to promote safety. No other product on the market has been given blanket amnesry. They Really are among the least regulated profucts.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

94. So 20,000 plus state and federal laws mean what?

[Agnosticsherbet]

128. The Brookings Institute Debunked Tha NRA claim in 2002.

But even if true , since they have not reduced the massive public safety issues,revoking pointless regulations and enacting new regulations that work is a good idea.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

131. "that work" being the operative words

I'll check back with Brookings in 976 years.

[Agnosticsherbet]

132. I fixed it, thanks, and the claim is still wrong.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

133. I appreciate the correction

I would also appreciate knowing the correct number.

[gejohnston]

150. complete bullshit

there is no such ban, and if we were to regulate guns the same way we do cars and milk, we would have to repeal ALL of the five or six federal gun control laws and repeal most if not all local and state laws.

[beevul]

84. I appologize for mistaking you for an anti-gunner.

I got confused by your support for gun registration (registration is a big deal to you, by your own words), your support for suing gun manufacturers for the actions of third party criminals, your support for banning so called assault weapons (and presumably ALL semi-autos), your support for a longer than 3 day waiting period, your support of the 'collective rights' reading of the second amendment, and your refusal to support Sanders in the primary over his gun control votes.

"gun manufacturers are like drug cartels"-Agnosticsherbet

My bad.


Yeah, you're anti-gun.

Why lie about it, when you've made your position abundantly clear over the course of so many threads?

Does anti-gun doctrine require it?

[Duckhunter935]

90. Be surprised if you get an answer

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

91. Well, I also expect, any day now...

...Trump will say, "Some of my best friends are Mexican."

[Agnosticsherbet]

92. There absolute illogical argument that registration is anti-gun

Regestering a car is not anti-car and registering your dog is not anti-dog. It is an argument that has no intellectual merit.

[oneshooter]

108. And how many on DU are calling for the

confiscation and destruction of your registered dog or car?

[Agnosticsherbet]

122. That has nolthing to do with this discussion.

But if you take a poll here you will get some kind of answer.

Since they are registered and regulated there doesn't seem to be a reason.

[Duckhunter935]

127. Yes it does, you just do not like it

[Agnosticsherbet]

129. Your aim is a straw man. DU members do not pass legislation

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

112. Not to be contrary but...

...I've seen cars and dogs confiscated.

[oneshooter]

117. Not without law.

What they are calling for is the confiscation and destruction of firearms without the force of law.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

120. Not with the law either

Confiscation and destruction of private property to which there are attached human, natural and Constitutionally protected rights is a load of crap. There is no such thing as an objection that is too strenuous.

[Duckhunter935]

126. I do not have to register my car to OWN it

[beevul]

134. Thats like...your opinion man.

There absolute illogical argument that registration is anti-gun

Thats like...your opinion man.

Regestering a car is not anti-car and registering your dog is not anti-dog.

Registering a car...first, one need not do that simply to OWN a car.

Registering a dog isn't required in most localities in America.

Registration of guns serves only 1 purpose - confiscation. Every other reason you can come up with, can either be achieved without it, or shouldn't be applied to a constitutionally protected fundamental civil right, because it provides registration information to individuals and groups who have proven repeatedly, that they will misuse it to attack the aforementioned constitutionally protected fundamental civil right.

But you already knew that, didn't you.

It is an argument that has no intellectual merit.

Does deliberately, dishonestly, mischaracterizing yourself as 'not anti-gun' have intellectual merit?

[beevul]

137. Do you still claim you aren't anti-gun? N/T

[Agnosticsherbet]

138. It is a fact nit a claim

[beevul]

139. No, its a claim, with lots of proof contradicting it.

Anti-gunners want firearms manufacturers and dealers sued for the actions of third party criminals, just like you do.

Anti-gunners want registration, just like you do.

Anti-gunners want long waiting periods, just like you do.

Anti-gunners REFUSE to vote for Bernie because hes too pro-gun for them, just like you did.

And, ONLY anti-gunners read the second amendment as a collective right - as you do.


But go ahead, explain how you aren't anti-gun in spite of those things.

I can hardly wait.

[JonathanRackham]

103. In the end, everyone dies.

100% mortality.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

123. Maybe, but there are priorities

First: in a firefight, I would hope to take as many assailants with me as possible.
Second: I would hope to, by my choice of weapons, to have inspired at least one of my team to wear this t-shirt...

[pablo_marmol]

130. !!!

[beergood]

159. make it a red shirt