Skip to main content

View Diary: The stunning fantasy of pro-gun Kossacks (872 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Okay. (64+ / 0-)
    A variety of incremental control measures leading to complete confiscation happened in the U.K.
    With the exception of one incredibly ill-fated suggestion that lasted one day by Gov. Cuomo, there haven't really even been suggestions that confiscation is on the table. Confiscation of weapons is, in fact, quite off the table in the United States, and it's a delusion to believe otherwise.
    Therefore, it is laughable to argue that number of privately-owned guns or the types of guns are causing people to randomly start murdering people.
    Well, I wasn't arguing that -- though there is perhaps a conversation to be had about what constitutes "random" murders, accidental gun deaths, and the role a readily-available gun or a concealed weapon has to play in spontaneous gun violence. Perhaps this conversation would lead to sensible reforms, perhaps not.

    In any case, my comment clearly concerned the absurdity of a priori rejection of (or argument against) additional regulation as off the table because of a misuse by non-hobbyists of technical language. If you felt targeted by it that's on you.

    it fitfully blows, half conceals, half discloses

    by Addison on Sat Jan 19, 2013 at 03:26:49 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Yes, NY state has already escalated to the point (12+ / 0-)

      where previously legal weapons will be targeted for severe restrictions or destruction.

      California has been escalating restrictions for decades. More restrictions are currently in the works.

      A wide-ranging AWB in Michigan was stiffed in committee.

      Maryland is fast-tracking an escalation.

      New Jersey is resuming the process of escalation.

      CT is also escalating as if possessing some of the strictest ownership and carry laws in the country actually worked for them.

      The whole decade needs an asterisk.

      by James Kresnik on Sat Jan 19, 2013 at 03:40:42 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

        •  How would *you* define confiscation, Addison? (12+ / 0-)

          If the state requires that you give up something you've owned for some reason other than eminent domain, then it's a confiscation in all but name (but it's still likely a Bill of Attainder).

          http://www.csmonitor.com/...

          New York will define a large capacity magazine as any that holds more than seven rounds, down from 10. Anyone owning a magazine that holds more than 10 rounds will be required to sell it out-of-state within a year.

          In addition, gun sellers will be required to do a background check before selling ammunition, and residents will be required to buy ammunition through a licensed dealer. If a buyer makes a large purchase of ammo, the dealer is required to alert law enforcement officials.
          . . . .

          Among the proposals, in Delaware, Gov. Jack Markell (D) is proposing to ban all assault weapons, ban high-capacity magazines of more than 10 rounds, and require background checks for all purchases. Virginia and New Jersey are proposing mental-health screening and home inspections prior to a gun purchase. And California and Connecticut have pending legislation regulating the sale of ammunition.

          Addison, please refrain from obtuse arguments or semantic games.

          The whole decade needs an asterisk.

          by James Kresnik on Sat Jan 19, 2013 at 04:31:58 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Hilarious (66+ / 0-)
            Addison, please refrain from obtuse arguments or semantic games.
            Considering the quantum-level hair splitting you just did, that's pretty funny. Confiscation of guns. The thing the crazies keep screaming about. When jack-booted thugs kick down your door and pry your gun from your hand(s), cold or warm. You know perfectly well what Addison meant.

            Nobody is coming to take your guns away. The bold, scary text you blockquoted was about background checks, registration, ammunition, magazine sizes, and keeping track of inventory. The scariest of the scary was a proposal by one Governor of one state to ban assault weapons. Good luck, Governor Markell; you'll have as much luck as Governor Cuomo did with his proposal. "Assault weapons", not "guns".

            Obtuse arguments and semantics, indeed.

            The problem with going with your gut as opposed to your head is that the former is so often full of shit. - Randy Chestnut

            by lotusmaglite on Sat Jan 19, 2013 at 04:47:18 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Huh? (47+ / 0-)

            Magazines are not firearms.

            Banning assault weapons is not confiscation.

            Mental-health screenings are not confiscation.

            Background checks are not confiscation.

            Regulating ammunition sales is not confiscation.

            Regulating gun dealer reporting is not confiscation.

            it fitfully blows, half conceals, half discloses

            by Addison on Sat Jan 19, 2013 at 06:30:07 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Rights and regulation (0+ / 0-)

              Heavy taxes on pens, paper, toner cartridges, printers, printing equipment, etc. are not denials of freedom of the press. Nor would be licensing journalists and prohibiting certain kinds of speech. But as John Marshall pointed out long ago, these kinds of things can amount to the power of effective extinguishment of rights.

              By the same token, your right to defend yourself in court isn't extinguished by the government's refusal to pay for an attorney—you can, as the literal language of the law provides, defend yourself on your own. Or, one can maintain that the exercise of the right requires governmental assistance. At the very least, there needs to be a coherent account of the principle that authorizes some rights to be supported well beyond the language of the law and others to be severely throttled.

              •  How do you feel about (0+ / 0-)

                shouting "fire" in a crowded theater?

                How do you feel about allowing human sacrifice as part of religious worship?

                •  Shouting fire (0+ / 0-)

                  As any number of commentators over the years have noted, Holmes' crowded theater notion is unilluminating on multiple counts, not least because it conflates exercise of a right with the creation of a clear and present danger. In any event, as the Pentagon Papers case showed, even faced with such an analogous claim the SC has determined that exercise of the right trumps clear and present danger—so, no prior restraint.

                  What I asked for is some principled explanation of how it is that a right such a free speech or of representation in court must be understood in broadest terms and even over-protected, while another right (to bear arms) must be tamped down and made extremely difficult to exercise. If publication of material which might irreparably harm the entire country must be protected, why is it that the possibility of harm to some small number of people necessitates a vast apparatus of tight controls?

                  I think, by the way, that there is an unprincipled answer. It is that the people arguing for the restrictions do not believe that there is a genuine right enshrined in the Second Amendment. Now, all they would need to to do is to provide an account of how they distinguish genuine from spurious rights.

                  •  talk about danger (0+ / 0-)
                    it conflates exercise of a right with the creation of a clear and present danger.
                    The proliferation of guns, particularly semi-automatic weapons, is a clear and present danger.  TENS OF THOUSANDS of Americans are killed using those weapons every year.  In other words, the problem is a bigger killer, and a bigger threat, than Al-Qaeda.  By several orders of magnitude.

                    A "clear and present danger" in the sense of speech is one thing -- it is a hypothetical threat that debatably could result from the expression of a view.  The clear and present danger from guns is different -- thousands are already dead, and people are dying every day.  There is nothing debatable about that.

                    Also notice that the "clear and present danger doctrine" does not protect the divulging of sensitive or classified information.  If information needs to be controlled for the public safety, your free-speech right does not trump that.

                    And yet you ask,

                    why is it that the possibility of harm to some small number of people necessitates a vast apparatus of tight controls?
                    Again, tens of thousands of people are killed a year.  If any other widespread problem were causing this many deaths (like terrorism, toxic pollution, etc), we would have put a severe lid on it decades ago.  Only guns get a pass.

                    I cannot help but notice the constant attitude on the part of gun defenders (as in that last quote) that deaths by gunfire are NOT A BIG DEAL -- there is always a metaphorical shrug, "oh get over it," "oh it's such a small number."

                    Well, time to wake up -- it is a big deal.  It is a lot of people.  And we never should have put up with it.

                    •  Neither clear nor present (0+ / 0-)

                      A present danger is, you know, present, right in front of you, happening now. Nearly 100% of firearms are uninvolved in anything illegal. By these standards, there is no clear or present danger—only a fear that some non-specific weapon in the hands of some non-specific persons might present some non-specified danger. That is not a reasonable basis for curtailment of a right.

                      You are also incorrect in thinking that sensitive or classified information cannot be published. There is no standard whatsoever for limiting "sensitive" information, and even for classified information, the government would have demonstrate actual probable harm. Reread the NY Times case and get back to us.

                      There are something around 10-12,000 gun homicides annually—a figure which has been falling for some years, as have injuries from gun violence generally. Only a quarter of those involved legally-owned weapons.

                       If you want to examine widespread death, look to the automobile (40K annually). We have not, as you claim we would, put a severe lid on those machines. At any event,  I see no reason to lump in suicides or accidents unless you also wish to ban rope, sleeping pills, booze, gas stoves, and those automobiles—as opposed to working to make these and other inherently dangerous things safer.

                      From those points I conclude that there are arguments in favor of better control of illegal guns and for looking into ways to reduce accidents. But both of those are quite different from attacking the right in the first place.

                      •  Your conclusion is the same as mine -- (0+ / 0-)

                        if your way of getting there is bizarre and looping.

                        We should indeed regulate guns strictly to reduce deaths and injuries.  Your comparison to cars is quite right -- we legally restrict who can drive a car, we thoroughly study whether those cars are safe, recall them if they are not, require that drivers use seatbelts, etc, with penalties in the form of fines, etc., and prohibit driving while drunk under pain of losing your license.  We test regularly whether people have the necessary abilities to drive at all.

                        We should have equally strong or stronger safeguard when it comes to guns.

                        A present danger is, you know, present, right in front of you, happening now.
                        This is obviously not true.  If the Supreme Court found it acceptable to jail anti-WW1 protesters on the grounds that their speech was a "clear and present danger" to national security, then obviously the doctrine does not literally mean physically in front of you, any more than "now is the winter of our discontent" means it is literally winter.  I do not mean to say that we should use the same standards that the Supreme Court used during WW1 -- but clearly your re-reading of the doctrine is a distortion.  This falls into the same patter that I repeatedly see from gun advocates -- MINIMIZE the scale and importance of violence from guns, and EXAGGERATE the scope of the Constitutional right to arms in a way that we do not do with any other right.

                        I did not anywhere in this thread attack the basic right to bear arms, nor do I believe I have in the past several years.  But I do know that every right is subject to negotiation and reasonable limits.  Every one -- except for the right to bear arms, according to gun-rights extremists.

                        •  Correction, I should say (0+ / 0-)

                          "prohibit driving while drunk under pain of imprisonment."

                          So yes, I would say treating guns the way we treat cars would be a pretty good start.

                          As for the danger posed by guns:

                          There are something around 10-12,000 gun homicides annually
                          Is that supposed to be a small number?  Am I supposed to say, "oh, never mind, just a medium-sized town murdered each year, no big deal."

                          And that's just homicides, excluding suicides and accidents.

                          •  Cars (0+ / 0-)

                            We also give licenses to virtually anyone who is about 16, can pass an extremely simple written test and demonstrate primitive skills. Sure, let's license guns on the same model.

                            As for WWI protesters, different standards will always apply during wartime, and this looked to be a present danger. Maybe it wasn't, but the test was of its actual, not theoretical, presence. But that is also irrelevant to the standard of publication under discussion. Again, I would ask you to reread the NY Times case and tell me on what basis do we go out of our way to amplify rights of speech and right of self-defense in court, but curtail physical self-defense protected by the same Bill of Rights?

                            As for the gun homicides, 10-12,000 people is, in fact, a small number compared to the population of the country. If we do not contort ourselves into knots attempting to prevent about 4x that number of car deaths, why the huge and heavy-handed effort to deal with weapons? And once again, it is already the case that some 75% of those homicides involve weapons and possession that are already tightly controlled and illegal. I have no reason to even vaguely suspect that more laws will do anything but infringe on the rights of the law-obedient.

                          •  Your vague "presence" nonsense (0+ / 0-)

                            no longer means anything, if it ever did, so no need to revisit that.

                            If 75% of gun homicides are committed with illegally-acquired guns, then there is no reason why more effective enforcement and additional laws are mutually exclusive.  The point is to solve the problem.  Meanwhile, mass shootings like the one at Newtown have been committed with legally-acquired guns.

                            As for the gun homicides, 10-12,000 people is, in fact, a small number compared to the population of the country.
                            http://en.wikipedia.org/...

                            Yeah, it's such a small number in proportion to our population -- it just puts us in the top ten in the world, slightly behind our drug-trafficking neighbors in Panama!  At 10.2 deaths per 100,000, we have only about four-and-a-half times the rate in Canada, ten times the rate of Ireland or India, and forty times the rate of the UK.  So yeah, we're doing great!  No problem here!  And if anyone feels that things are too dangerous here in the US, they can always move to the Philippines, Zimbabwe, or Nicaragua to be safer!

                          •  There is a difference (0+ / 0-)

                            between "no problem" and "we must throw vast resources at this problem," especially when it is one that has already had vast resources thrown at it with comparatively little change. And no change whatsoever is necessary to attempt "more effective enforcement." Go for it.

                            If the primary object is to so save numbers of lives, you might try much more stringent licensing of drivers (maybe raise the driving age to 25), greatly increasing the numbers of highway checkpoints (you don't mind being stopped, do you?), putting speed governors into all vehicles, permanent suspension of licenses for anyone convicted for drunk driving, road rage, etc. And with all of this, there is no issue of interference with a constitutional right. Sounds like a better strategy, so far as I am concerned.

                            As for my supposedly vague notion of presence, it's not mine, it's the Supreme Court's. Since you like reading Wikipedia, you could look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/...

                          •  So why not offer some suggestions? (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            old possum

                            HMI, first, cars are regulated far, far more than guns are. My 12-year-old can own a gun, fire a gun, if he wants. He cannot, of course, drive a car.  
                            Cars have to be registered and insured. Drivers have to be licensed and tested. You don't think the test is hard, but then, you're not 16. They sure think it's hard, the ones who take it.
                            But even a simple test to license gun users would be better than none at all.

                            What I don't understand is why responsible gun-owners-- which is MOST gun-owners, right? -- object to measures restricting irresponsibility. You're not a felon. You're not insane. You don't let your children play with guns. You have insurance on your home that includes your guns. You don't buy 10 guns a month. You train to be a better shot. You secure your guns and your ammunition. You don't carry loaded guns in public places with the safety off.

                            Like most gun owners, you take your responsibility seriously. So why would you want to be allied with irresponsible, careless, even insane people who will NOT take responsibility? I don't get it. I'm very sure that you will never do what will be prohibited, using a gun in an insane or terroristic act, stockpile military weapons and thousands of rounds of bullets. And I bet you don't actually want to be around the sort of person who would do that.

                            So why aren't responsible gun-owners proposing responsible ways to make gun violence less and less a danger?
                            But maybe you are. Maybe you do have some suggestions of regulations that will be acceptable to responsible gunowners?

                          •  A crucial question (0+ / 0-)
                            What I don't understand is why responsible gun-owners-- which is MOST gun-owners, right? -- object to measures restricting irresponsibility.
                            A perfect distillation of something I have been wondering too.
                            I can't comprehend why responsible gun owners insist on allowing irresponsibility, unless at the least, they don't think that the effects of that irresponsibility are not important.
                          •  Straw argument (0+ / 0-)

                            Please cite the responsible gun owners who insist on allowing irresponsibility—as opposed to you defining something as irresponsibility and then tarring disagreement as proof of your opinion.

                          •  Do you support (0+ / 0-)

                            laws requiring that firearms be kept locked up?

                          •  I support (0+ / 0-)

                            laws mandating that gun owners be held liable for imprudent care of potentially dangerous implements. By the same token, since the point of a weapon in a home is often that it be readily available in case of threatened danger, a blanket requirement that all firearms be locked away at all times is just plain foolish.

                          •  Suggestions (0+ / 0-)

                            1) Don't make assumptions. I'm not a gun owner—although that is in large measure because NYC makes it almost impossible to be one.

                            2) If I have said something that militates against responsibility, quote it back to me. I don't believe I said such a thing. Responsibility is perfectly compatible with exercise of rights—but the right must be capable of being exercised as of right, not by way of grudging concession amid a welter of restrictions.

                            3) If you would be satisfied by simple tests, of the kind given to drivers, that would be just fine with me. However, I greatly suspect (understatement) that is would satisfy few others here.

                          •  So the problem is "resources"? (0+ / 0-)

                            So your objection to better gun control is:

                            There is a difference between "no problem" and "we must throw vast resources at this problem,"
                            So now you seem to be saying gun violence is a significant problem, it's just too expensive or time-consuming to do anything about it.

                            Okay, then:
                            If 10-12,000 people were dying from terrorist attacks each year, then what amount of time and money do you think would be worth spending to combat terrorism?    How much would each of those lives be worth?  Would you still maintain that terrorism was less of a threat than cars?

                          •  Reading comprehension (0+ / 0-)

                            seems to be a problem. I did not say that gun violence is a significant problem, did I? Could you quote that? What I did do was to suggest that there are a number of activities in this world that result in injury and death, but we don't seem to be all that anxious to place extreme controls on them. Why not? And part of the answer is that a) extreme control is incompatible with exercise of the activity and b) extreme control requires that scarce resources be devoted to an effort that will show minimal effect.

                            There are already all sorts of gun laws, which, if properly enforced, would already have made great headway in the direction you favor. From the failure of this extensive enterprise you draw the lesson that we need more of the same. Instead, I conclude that this is not a problem amenable to more regulation, precisely because much of the problem is from individuals who don't respect law.

                            Your terrorist example is another red herring. In fact, we already spend many tens of billions annually on supposed counter-terrorism. This is (hypothetically) justifiable because of a society-wide threat from people who would terrorize the society at large. There is no such comparable general threat from guns in America, let alone identifiable perpetrators who would be deterred by a larger thicket of regulation and legal action.

                            Once more: possession of weapons is a right, that right is guaranteed by the Constitution and upheld by the Supreme Court. I'd still like to see a response to my original query as to how you would like to decide which rights get lovingly nurtured and which are to be throttled.

                          •  Okay, (0+ / 0-)

                            so now you've dodged back around to saying it ISN'T a serious problem.  I think you need to resolve the debate with yourself first before you try debating with others.  If you want a quotation -- I quoted you already in my last comment, denying that gun violence was "no problem."  Logically, that means you acknowledge that it is a problem.  But apparently, now you don't.

                            In fact, we already spend many tens of billions annually on supposed counter-terrorism.
                            That is precisely the point.  There is no reason we should not be taking gun violence equally seriously as a threat to the nation -- in fact it is a bigger threat, seeing as how it has killed and continues to kill thousands more people than terrorism.
                            ...how you would like to decide which rights get lovingly nurtured and which are to be throttled.
                            Every right has limits.  I do not get to practice human sacrifice as part of my religion.  My right to assemble freely does not mean that I get to do it on your property.  Etc, etc, etc.  No right is absolute.  This is consistent.  Treating the right to bear arms as immune to any and all limits is inconsistent.

                            But the foregoing is all a moot point anyway -- since we are talking about laws that we believe would be in the public interest.  If you believe certain gun laws would be going too far -- fine, then bring it to the Supreme Court.  That's the proper forum to adjudicate that question.

                          •  Last words (0+ / 0-)

                            Either you really cannot read, or you deliberately mis-portray what I said. If I had said gun violence was no problem, you would be correct that the converse of that would be that it is a problem. But what I actually stated was that there was undoubtedly a range, "There is a difference between "no problem" and "we must throw vast resources at this problem..." At one end of this range is "no problem" and at the other end is "great problem." I'm sorry you have difficulty understanding that simple proposition.

                            For the rest, I have already answered. Rights do have limits. For some, the limits are applied with the greatest reluctance. You would apply restrictions to the right to keep and bear arms with the greatest enthusiasm and intensity. This is, IMO, both theoretically incoherent and practically shortsighted.

                            Happily, the Supreme Court has already adjudicated parts of the question and I look forward to a steady stream of appellate and higher decisions in the wake of Heller that will force cities and states (including my own New York) to revamp their draconian restrictions in order to comply.

                          •  Get your priorites straight. (0+ / 0-)
                            with the greatest enthusiasm and intensity.
                            It doesn't matter in the least what emotions anyone has in passing a law.  That does not make it unconstitutional or good or bad policy.

                            The point is that people are getting killed and it has to be stopped.  I don't care what your or my emotions about the laws are.  The point is to save lives.  If you're worried about someone having too much fun or someone else's hurt feelings, take it to the school guidance counselor.

          •  Well, I don't know how you can argue (27+ / 0-)

            the slippery slope running against you when looking at our recent history on the subject:

            Republican President George W. Bush saying he supports an assault weapons ban, but it wouldn't get through Congress.

            President Clinton PASSING an assault weapons ban, with help from Ronald Reagan.

            President George HW Bush quitting the NRA...oh and also banning importation of assault weapons via Executive Order.

            President Reagan, in the 60's as Governor, saying that (paraphrasing): "in this day and age in this country, no one needs to walk down the street armed!"

            Richard Nixon thinking civilian weapons were an abomination.

            Yeah, we've changed all right, but not as you're fearing.

          •  So NY says fuck you to every other state (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            BlackSheep1

            Have a buy-back progrm or grandfather the clips - why pawn you perceived problem to other states.

            Sorry but that's a BS move.

            The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only legitimate object of good government. - Thomas Jefferson

            by ctexrep on Sat Jan 19, 2013 at 07:07:37 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I wonder what would happen if Walmart and the (0+ / 0-)

              various stores selling weapons offered a trade in deal - "give us for destruction one of those illegal things, and we will give you a credit for each one against legal guns, and do the background check so you are legal hereafter while we're at it.If you are just getting a gun out of circulation, without buying a new one and don't want cash, we have a list of local charities, and a great sale going on for non firearm sporting goods.  And, by the way, we are taking naughty firearms, not names."

              •  If Walmart did as you suggest (0+ / 0-)

                which I think is a good idea - there would be a few F/Pers who would somehow find fault with it.......

                The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only legitimate object of good government. - Thomas Jefferson

                by ctexrep on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 06:41:39 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

          •  Thank god the tide is turning (0+ / 0-)

            Maybe in my lifetime the scourge of gun violence will finally end.  Thank you for brighting my day.

            "Goodnight, thank you, and may your God go with you"

            by TheFern on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 08:47:54 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  Certain kinds of assault weapons were (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          PavePusher, Neuroptimalian

          confiscated in California.

          "let's talk about that"

          by VClib on Sat Jan 19, 2013 at 06:13:45 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  And what is wrong with that? (20+ / 0-)

        The UK is a first-world democracy. Aren't you just proving that "keep and bear arms" doesn't belong in any sane person's list of rights?

        "They smash your face in, and say you were always ugly." (Solzhenitsyn)

        by sagesource on Sat Jan 19, 2013 at 04:30:20 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  The UK is a first world democracy, (6+ / 0-)

          means what exactly compared to the U.S?

          In regards to the problem of reducing gun violence, we're actually pausing and thinking about history before passing another round of security theater.

          However, I don't think a total civilian ban here is going to fail over here like the UK. It's going to fail like Mexico, where only the wealthy and the cartels can afford the armed guards.

          The whole decade needs an asterisk.

          by James Kresnik on Sat Jan 19, 2013 at 05:10:50 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Necessary and sufficient. (0+ / 0-)
            The UK is a first-world democracy. Aren't you just proving that "keep and bear arms" doesn't belong in any sane person's list of rights?
            1) "The Right to Keep and Bear Arms is both necessary and sufficient to ensure freedom."

            2) "The Right to Keep and Bear Arms is not necessary but may be sufficient to ensure freedom."

            3) "The Right to Keep and Bear Arms is necessary but not sufficient to ensure freedom."

            4) "The Right to Keep and Bear Arms is neither necessary nor sufficient to ensure freedom."

            -7.75 -4.67

            "Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose."

            There are no Christians in foxholes.

            by Odysseus on Sat Jan 19, 2013 at 06:30:36 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  The UK has become a creepy Orwellian place. (14+ / 0-)

          I don't think I would particularly want to live there. Keep and bear arms belongs in every sane person's list of rights. With regulations that help limit those arms to SANE people. Our founding fathers were not stupid. Eternal vigilence, "and he who gives up his freedom for safety", etc. and all that....

          England, a camera on every corner and vans that drive around LOOKING into your vehicle to see if they can catch you doing something. Not even a pretense that their citizens have privacy. It's creepy as hell.  It's headed this way. If that is how you rate a first world Democracy, all I can say is where are we going, and why are we in this basket?

          •  Even worse, ... (6+ / 0-)

            their judicial system, with often-laughable reasoning, has become reluctant to imprison many of those found guilty of violent crimes, freeing them back to the streets to attack again and again.

            "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, and I am not sure about the universe." -- Albert Einstein

            by Neuroptimalian on Sat Jan 19, 2013 at 07:12:07 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  that, I didn't know. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              BlackSheep1

              So, then, If they aren't watching everyone every minute to stop crime...... Well, that's even creepier.

              •  Looking for your snark tag (21+ / 0-)

                Maybe I'll find it on Google Earth Streetview.

                Seriously, the UK and Australia are first world English speaking democracies.

                They came for the guns.

                The guns were taken.

                And the UK and Australia have no less democracy today than they did before. They certainly have no less democracy than we do.

                The difference is most Britons and Australians are happy to see them go, what with all the gun deaths reduced.

                The Britons even call it being sensible.

                PS Don't forget to visibly cower and tremble as you walk the streets of London should you visit. Most of it is disturbingly... uncreepy.

                •  I have been to London and loved it. (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  BlackSheep1

                  I loved the people, and the place. Only the gypsy women who stopped me to talk to me were a little nerve racking. I expect they intended that. That was many years ago.

                  There were not cameras everywhere manned by police at that time. I find that creepy I wouldn't care to go back. And what I know of the police peering into people's cars, I learned from videos of the police talking about it. It will be just as bad here soon, I expect. And I will be just as creeped out about it here.

                  The point is that our first world countries have a lot of flaws, and we are losing our rights fast. I wouldn't live in England now. And I don't think America is doing much better. Just look at women's rights here. I just don't see flaunting ANY PLACE over another. The U.K. is just fine for UK. I guess. You can keep it.

                  .......Are you going to tell me that Occupy didn't happen in England?  And that there haven't been riots, etc? It's all just perfect and peachy over there? Penny Lane?

                •  They have more violence. (0+ / 0-)
                  •  London, Australia, England, (0+ / 0-)

                    Or all of the above?

                    •  Or America? We are awfully violent (0+ / 0-)

                      For a perfect English speaking first world country ( is speaking English a necessary attribute to being a first world country? Who knew?)

                      •  Violent crime stats on Australia show rates much (3+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        BlackSheep1, Azubia, jfdunphy

                        higher than the US.  Britain is rated the second most violent country in Europe.

                        Whether we have comparable definitions of violence is something that would have to be looked at carefully, but while homicides are much lower, violent crime is not.

                      •  US cities towns and villages (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        aitchdee

                        aren't panopticoned to the max since the Patriot Act? Also, if places where Occupy and other street actions happened are too frightening to ever visit, I guess you ought to stay away from Democratic strongholds.

                        My pointing out English speaking first world democracies is meant to show that English speaking Americans can make easy comparisons to their own culture, by simply using the internet, and not casual excuses. The UK and Australia are democracies where the people think it's more sensible to reduce the number of guns in their midst. Considering the subject at hand, why they think our gun culture is crazy can only provide useful insights.

                        I'm sorry the gypsy women scared you away from England. My s.o. actually had some nice conversations on the high street with one recently.

                        Use Google Earth Streetview like we do before you go.

                        •  Now that you have offered personal insult twice. (0+ / 0-)

                          I can be assured that you meant it, I don't have to feel bad about not botherig with you. The insult (so childish) pretty much negates any intelligent thing you would otherwise say.

                          You've just rendered yourself irrelevant.

          •  What utter rubbish. (20+ / 0-)

            There is not a major city in the US that you can move more than about 50 yards without being recorded.

            You have not the first idea of what you are spouting about.

            I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
            but I fear we will remain Democrats.

            Who is twigg?

            by twigg on Sat Jan 19, 2013 at 09:42:38 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  THX Twigg. (6+ / 0-)

              I was wondering what America and what England they were talking about. I saw as many cameras in downtown Fort Worth than there are in most of London.
              The reason Australia, England, America, anywhere, becomes less of a democracy (or republic) is when the government separates their concerns from those of the people they supposedly represent.

              "We are monkeys with money and guns". Tom Waits

              by northsylvania on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 03:30:13 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  If you were wondering what England I was talking (0+ / 0-)

                about, why did you rec me up?

                The UK has become a creepy Orwellian place. (14+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                bernardpliers, native, Odysseus, PavePusher, wishbone, Wolf10, Boris49, BlackSheep1, PedalingPete, northsylvania, Farlfoto, jfdunphy, hmi, Janet 707
                Better go back and unrec that.  I already got the screen shot, if you wanna take it that far.
            •  Find me a city in the United States where the (0+ / 0-)

              police are monitoring the cameras, and will shout at you over loud speakers if they think you are steping out of line.

            •  Twigg, I have nothing but respect for you. (0+ / 0-)

              If I have offended you, I am sorry.

              I am speaking in particular about the stuff I have heard and seen like the you tube I have posted. Where it appears to me that the police state has proceeded so far along that the Police are watching and yelling at people over loud speakers. And everyone knows, and it is just accepted. I find that creepy.
              I am sorry if it offends you.

              I find the police state in Arizona creepy too, with the cops stopping any brown person to see their papers. I wouldn't live there either if I could help it.

              Yamara keeps offering personal insults to me, calling me essentially a coward, because I don't find share her point of view that the police state qualities of England to are perfect.
              I took acception to that. Not terribly adult on either of our parts. But I have nothing but respect for you, and if you truly think that my opinion that police states are creepy requires an apology, then please accept it.

              I respectfully withdraw from this entire ridiculous thread. ( but only for you)

          •  As someone that has spent time in London, (13+ / 0-)

            there is nothing there that is not also in Chicago or New York. Oh, except for the quantity of guns.

            -9.63, 0.00
            "Liberty" is deaf, dumb, and useless without life itself.

            by nobody at all on Sat Jan 19, 2013 at 10:10:28 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Cameras here in nearly every city intersection too (0+ / 0-)

            What's your point?

            Comparing nearly any other first-world country's gun death rate to ours is misleading as we have significantly higher numbers of gun deaths than all of them, and if my memory serves, we have a higher gun death rate (percentage-wise) than nearly all of them combined.

            "There's no ideology [t]here [on the right]. It's just about being a dick." Bill Maher, June 22, 2012.

            by caseynm on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 09:36:42 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Britain is indeed becoming creepy and Orwellian (0+ / 0-)

            in many of the same ways that WE are -- mainly, unrestricted surveillance and lack of privacy.  Britain is just a few years ahead of us.

            So, the question is -- do you want to stop things like unwarranted surveillance, drone strikes, killing of US citizens, etc, etc?  Or do you just want to let that go on and stockpile more guns?

            In other words, how do you prefer to stop the shift towards totalitarian government?  Through democratic action and reform?  Or do you want it all to end in a bloody last-stand gun battle?  I think I can guess which your answer is.

            •  You know what my answer would be? Please! (0+ / 0-)

              Tell me what my answer would be, 'cause I truly have no idea.

              I would be gut sick if our government took all our guns away-but obviously, we need some serious regulation. If I really knew what that looked like, I'd run for office.

              Obviously, if I just wanted to let unwarranted surveillance go, I wouldn't have been a member of this site for 6+ years. Nor would I give money to EFF when I can afford it, and nor would I have written my senators and reps, every single time a vote comes up for some crap like FISA, or SOPA, and again every time they vote for that crap breaking their oaths to defend the constitution and blowing off their constituents.

              I do not have a twitter account, and I will never have a Facebook account, I do not social net work. I do not give other people complete control over my personal information by putting it in the "CLOUD". I do not have google mail, or yahoo mail, because I can't bitch at my reps for passing warrantless surveillance  bills and then turn around and dump all my info on the net like an idiot.

              Do I want to stock pile weapons for a bloody last stand? No, apparently I would rather be on this stupid web site trading Hyperbole with people who have no idea who I am but who are quite sure they know what I am thinking. *

              ***I'll give you a hint what I am thinking right now: I am so, so sorry for any part that I have played in bringing this thread, and the topic of gun regulation down to the point of completely ridiculous hyperbolic babble.

              As for what to do about the shift toward a police state? Maybe keep my mouth shut and let you all graze right off the cliff, because I am not adding anything constructive here, and the possibility of my doing so now is completely and utterly gone.

              My bad, truly.

              C'ya.  

              •  Hey no hard feelings -- (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                WB Reeves

                but just so you're aware -- by being on this site, you have already put a lot about yourself, your views, and your relationships into the cloud.  And don't think that the NSA can't trace this dailykos account back to you.  They can probably do it at the snap of a finger.

                I'm not on facebook either.  But I don't have any illusions that that means that most of my life can't be tracked.

        •  Not in Ireland (0+ / 0-)

          Northern Ireland is a gerrymandered creation, and there are moves in Scotland to succeed from the so-called UK. And the UK still retains a royal monarchy, albeit descended from Germany, and there is no assurance that some tyrant would spring from that bloodline again. England has its share of first-world blunders, including the BP oil spill on our own Gulf Coast. England is a very large investor in the US, and a collaborator in the nuclear arms race. A cursory reading of the life of Ghandi will show how democratically,and many of those behaviors remain today.England behaved

      •  Guns should not be a growth industry. (19+ / 0-)

        We are doing something massively wrong when we argue for the risks of gunfights and for the expansion of the gun industry. Cerberus and their boy Kollitides party behind a gate while they feed the US more and more gun violence.

        •  All of this is emotional hyperbole. (8+ / 0-)

          Gun sales have gone up, but people being affected by gun violence has declined.

          It may hurt your delicate sensibilities to know that some people may want to live differently from you, but if it's not actually harming you, then it's really none of your business.

          The whole decade needs an asterisk.

          by James Kresnik on Sat Jan 19, 2013 at 04:58:10 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Can you post a link (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            bontemps2012, ichibon, joynow

            To data about the numbers of people being affected by gun violence going down?  I've seen this before but never supported by data.

            Thanks.

          •  Delicate sensitivities (28+ / 0-)
            It may hurt your delicate sensibilities to know that some people may want to live differently from you, but if it's not actually harming you, then it's really none of your business.
            What drivel!

            This has nothing to do with delicate sensitivities as you so derogatorily call it. It has do do with the right of living in peace without worrying about gun nuts living down the street.
            There are plenty of them.

            Paranoia strikes deep. Into your life it will creep. It starts when you're always afraid. You step out of line, the man come and take you away. - S. Stills

            by ask on Sat Jan 19, 2013 at 05:22:25 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Argument by funny video. How mature. (7+ / 0-)

              Well, I have some not so funny videos:

              No gun: Pray for police to arrive. Get assaulted. Go to counseling, lucky you're still breathing:


              Gun: Wait for police to arrive. Shoot the asshole. Wait for police to clean up. Go to counseling knowing that you would still be breathing:

              Want some not so funny stories go here:

              Reddit: Defensive Gun Use Stories

              The whole decade needs an asterisk.

              by James Kresnik on Sat Jan 19, 2013 at 06:21:42 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  See my recent post on same topic (9+ / 0-)

                Have Gun, Will Carry With Great Reluctance

                There are a lot more people living on a lot of mean streets in this country than the relatively privileged appear to be aware of. I fear that the wailing and gnashing of teeth regarding gun violence of late has to do with the victims being white.

                I live near Oakland where as in many cities across this country the black and brown kids have been getting menaced and gunned down for years. Where were all you self righteous folks then? The decent people who live in these areas often own and certainly need the means to defend themselves.

                The frog jumped/ into the old pond/ plop! (Basho)

                by Wolf10 on Sat Jan 19, 2013 at 06:33:18 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Thanks for the link to your post (0+ / 0-)

                  And for your comment here. Both are much more coherent and cogent than the majority of what I have read here and in the plethora of posts regarding weapons and the control or lack of control thereof. I would go on but being late to this I won't other than to say that I am relieved you are prepared to protect yourself and your loved ones and hope you never have to pull a trigger to do it.

              •  Another (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                sidnora, finley, science nerd

                non sequitur on your part. Maybe it is funny in some sense to watch that video, but you, apparently, are incapable of seeing the tragedy in it. And then you resort to the staple of the NRA storm troopers - fear and more fear.

                What a wretched society you gun fetishists promote!
                 

                Paranoia strikes deep. Into your life it will creep. It starts when you're always afraid. You step out of line, the man come and take you away. - S. Stills

                by ask on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 04:28:47 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  Here's some more (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                ask

                "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself."........ "The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." (yeah, same guy.)

                by sidnora on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 06:46:22 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  Studies keep showing (0+ / 0-)

                that if a gun is in a home, the chance of someone being hurt goes way up, not down.  Having a gun makes you more likely to be murdered, commit suicide, or die in an accident, more than it is likely to protect you from any of the above.

                So defensive gun use stories are valid and important, but they are far outnumbered by the opposite.

            •  Here's a video playlist with more 'drivel': (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              PavePusher, BlackSheep1

              http://www.youtube.com/...


              Here's a sub-Reddit that is absolutely not hilarious:

              Defensive Gun Use Stories

              The whole decade needs an asterisk.

              by James Kresnik on Sat Jan 19, 2013 at 06:29:54 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  To make your point, I was in my kitchen making a (8+ / 0-)

              turkey sandwich for my son when the shot rang out. The ricochet sound was deafening as the bullet bounced off of my walls. My gun-toting neighbors had shot a bullet through the entire length of my house narrowly missing me, my son and my cat.

              Long story short, they paid $75 to repair the shot out window. I still have holes in my walls. If they shoot us again, they go to jail.

              I'm an expert Sharpshooter, so I know idiot gun owners when I see them.

              "Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake. Matthew 5:11

              by parsonsbeach on Sat Jan 19, 2013 at 07:31:05 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  1:41, wtf just happened? (0+ / 0-)

              He pulls the trigger, and then it looks like the magazine on the table exploded?

              And so many of these are ridiculously stupid. Drunk guy with a shotgun, and everyone just watches? People laughing when a guy faceplants on his gun? People holding guns in ways that even I, as a complete amateur, recognize as ways you just don't hold a weapon? (That guy at 2:15 deserved everything he got)

              "He who fights monsters should see to it that he himself does not become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you."

              by Hayate Yagami on Sat Jan 19, 2013 at 09:21:59 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  James, thats bullshit (8+ / 0-)

            I don't mind at all how anybody wants to live-as long as it doesn't involve a danger to me.  And guns do present a danger to me. More and more people are buying into the "I need a gun to protect myself" argument and and more and more of them are starting to carry loaded guns out into society-thats the danger to me.  The vast majority of gun owners in America at this moment are not properly trained on how to handle a gun. Look at the statistics on accidental shootings in America.
            This whole "I need protection against..." fill in the blank is bullshit. Its being driven by money-nothing but money. Who is making the money? The gun manufacturers. And who is their tool in this? The NRA. At some point, the NRA started to become the tool for gun manufacturers (I suspect sometime in the mid eighties, it seems a lot of NRA members dropped out then) and they "push" this fear mongering with all their might so that more people "have to have a gun". More gun sales...more money.
            Then it went to the AR-15 type rifles, where they really pushed sales by preying on males self-esteem levels (the man card ads etc) and upping the fears so that a handgun or a shotgun wasn't enough protection. And you could look really cool while killing the 20 men that are going to come assault your home !! While you are at it-don't forget to get all the really cool toys that will make your gun a super cool lethal weapon....mags with more ammo (cause who has time to reload while 20 men are coming?), optical attachments etc.
            This is a really dangerous game that the gun manufacturers are playing. All to make a lot of money.

            But lets be clear-this is not about self protection and "freedom". Its about money, and how the gun manufacturers are manipulating people like you, through fear, to make them rich.
            You have to wonder if Dick Cheney took a page out of their playbook to get us into the Irag war....

        •  Growth? The growth is primarily in govt contracts (0+ / 0-)

          We are at war.  The civilian market is add-on business to the burgeoning sales of arms to the government.  Homeland Security is buying a tremendous number of arms and 100's of thousands of rounds of ammunition.

          The retail market is important in normal times.  Many manufacturers consider it a nuisance if they have a government contract.

      •  Australia did a buy-back of 600,000 (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        JoanMar, northsylvania, Johnny Nucleo

        militarized weapons.

        Big whoop.

        They have millions of guns in homes. Their new system, the National Firearms Agreement, had next to no impact on hunting.

        Impact of NFA on crime ????? Look it up yourself. No way you're going to believe me.

        "We have done nothing to be ashamed of. We have nothing to apologize for." NRA 12/14/2012 "Have you left no sense of decency, sir, at long last?" Army/McCarthy 1954

        by bontemps2012 on Sat Jan 19, 2013 at 05:29:53 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  stricter gun laws in Connecticut would have worked (8+ / 0-)

        Even though Connecticut has relatively strict gun laws there are things that they could have done to prevent or reduce the massacre at Sandy Hook.  This would include a ban on large magazine clips and assault rifles.  There would be no AR-15 for Adam Lanza to use to assassinate small children in a matter of minutes.  No large ammunition clip to shoot off hundreds of bullets in a moment of insane rage.  Yes, stricter gun laws are needed not just in Connecticut but in all states.  

        A hunter doesn't need an assault gun to hunt deer.  Someone doesn't need more than 5 or 6 bullets to defend themselves or their home.

        •  so mollyjb: doesn't need more than 5 or 6 bullets (0+ / 0-)

          to defend themselves or their home....

          You should be aware that some of us believe that statement to be in error. Here is one example of why:

          http://es.wikipedia.org/...

          LBJ, Lady Bird, Anne Richards, Barbara Jordan, Sully Sullenberger, Ike, Drew Brees, Molly Ivins --Texas is no Bush league! -7.50,-5.59

          by BlackSheep1 on Sat Jan 19, 2013 at 11:48:42 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  You don't need more than 5 or 6 bullets in a gun (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            old possum

            to fend off an attacker.  There was a recent incident reported in the news of a woman who shot an intruder 5 times and he left (only to be arrested shortly after.)  You DON'T NEED large ammo clips.  

            So BlackSheep why do you bother wasting people's time with a link to an obscure incident that is very atypical for what happens in the States?  

            •  pray tell, mollyjb, what would have happened (0+ / 0-)

              to that woman had the intruder not been shot?

              The man who defended his home with his private firearms -- which the Government of Mexico didn't want him to have -- drove off cartel soldiers and kept them from turning his property into a drug stash.
              He deserves better than your casual dismissal as "atypical".

              That very same cartel has made murder a commonplace along the border, because of a prohibition this country claims to be morally superior. It's created a multi-billion-dollar black market in marijuana.

              LBJ, Lady Bird, Anne Richards, Barbara Jordan, Sully Sullenberger, Ike, Drew Brees, Molly Ivins --Texas is no Bush league! -7.50,-5.59

              by BlackSheep1 on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 10:51:48 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Mexico is not the USA (0+ / 0-)

                Blacksheep again you are wasting people's time by giving an example of an extreme situation involving the drug cartel violence in Mexico.  This is NOT what happens in the USA.

                •  No, it's not, but we mustn't turn a blind eye (0+ / 0-)

                  to the violence down there either.

                  http://www.voxxi.com/...

                  Chicago a bordertown?

                  http://www.theblaze.com/...

                  LBJ, Lady Bird, Anne Richards, Barbara Jordan, Sully Sullenberger, Ike, Drew Brees, Molly Ivins --Texas is no Bush league! -7.50,-5.59

                  by BlackSheep1 on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 04:51:27 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Then let's look at Australia, Canada and the UK (0+ / 0-)

                    Black Sheep since you want to look at examples of gun incidents in a foreign country like Mexico then you should also look at what is happening with gun violence in countries like Australia, Canada and the UK.  These countries watch the same movies that we do and play the same video games yet have a minute fraction of the gun violence that occurs in the states.  In the UK there were 37 homicides attributed to guns last year.  In the US there were over 10,000.  More guns and bullets result in more violence, not less.

                    •  twigg, a good commenter here at DKos, had (0+ / 0-)

                      an excellent response to this today.

                      Here's the diary:
                      http://www.dailykos.com/...

                      and here's the comment:

                         * [new]  It's just different is all (4+ / 0-)

                          But it is a mistake to think that the US will, or should follow either the UK or Australia on gun control. That is their solution, and will not happen here.

                          I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
                          but I fear we will remain Democrats.

                          Who is twigg?

                          by twigg on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 12:02:12 PM CST

                          [ Parent | Reply to This | Recommend Hide ]

                      LBJ, Lady Bird, Anne Richards, Barbara Jordan, Sully Sullenberger, Ike, Drew Brees, Molly Ivins --Texas is no Bush league! -7.50,-5.59

                      by BlackSheep1 on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 06:49:22 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  It is a mistake to not follow the UK or Australia (0+ / 0-)

                        The facts show that gun control works to significantly cut down on homicides and injuries due to guns.  Australia had a terrible mass shooting incident  and then passed strict gun control laws.  There have been no mass shootings in that country since then.  That is a FACT.  Meanwhile there have been 62 mass shootings in the US in the past few years.

                        A couple of months ago a man in Wisconsin was issued a court order to stay away from his estranged wife and to turn in all of his guns.  So what did he do?  He purchased a gun over the internet with no background check and proceeded to shoot and kill his wife, two of her co-workers and injure several others.  Since background checks are not done for 40% of gun sales this guy was able to murder several people.  This is just one example of why stronger, common sense gun laws need to be passed.

        •  Ignorance as usual about "assault weapons" (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          northsylvania, Spider Jerusalem

          I've said this many times. Listen and learn.

          An "assault style" rifle like an AR-15 is a single shot per trigger pull .223 rifle. It LOOKS like a military issue assault rifle, but it's a fake. It does not have the firepower. Actual assault rifles are select-fire weapons, capable of single shot, 3-round burst, or fully automatic fire.

          Something you might not know about the .223 caliber. It's similar to the 5.56mm NATO cartridge standard in the military assault rifle, but is slightly weaker. 5.56mm rounds are not recommended to be fired in .223 rifles not designed for 5.56mm because the greater pressures from the more powerful 5.56mm rounds can cause wear and damage that can lead to damaging the rifle.

          So, .223 civilian rifles are weaker than 5.56mm military assault rifles, and are not capable of burst or automatic fire like a true assault rifle. But that's not all.

          As discussed at http://en.wikipedia.org/... , even 5.56mm military ammunition has issues with adequate power and is considered a rather weak round. The article lists the various complaints that consider the 5.56mm to be "ineffective" and "lacks stopping power", with failures to "defeat" the target, and sometimes "failures occurred in spite of multiple hits to the chest". To achieve even adequate results, "short range" is recommended.

          Compare this to the .30-06 deer rifle which would remain legal under all proposed bans, as detailed at http://en.wikipedia.org/... . It's designed for shots of "1000 yards" (10 football fields!) and is described as "at the upper limit of power that is tolerable to most shooters". The more powerful loads in the caliber are "capable of performance rivaling many "magnum" cartridges" and "suitable for any small or large heavy game found in North America".

          The term "heavy game" should be a prime tipoff. What do you think deer are? A rifle that can drop a 1000 pound buck deer in it's tracks at 1000 yards can certainly do far worse to a comparatively tiny human being. And it has exactly the same rate of fire as the .223 "assault rifle" but is vastly more powerful. It looks like http://www.budsgunshop.com/... this.

          Ignorant people like you would ban the relatively weak but scary looking  AR-15 but leave alone the vastly more powerful Remington 750 and others like it. And you wonder why knowledgeable people consider you kneejerk reactionaries who don't know what the hell you're talking about?

          "Is there anybody listening? Is there anyone who sees what's going on? Read between the lines, criticize the words they're selling. Think for yourself, and feel the walls become sand beneath your feet." --Geoff Tate, Queensryche

          by DarthMeow504 on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 02:13:51 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Seriously. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            DarthMeow504, TheDuckManCometh

            I objected to copycat weaponry to my son because I said that they gave a false set of macho empowerment to the owners. My son, who is as anti-gun as they come, made the point that the people he knew who own them rather than more traditional weapons, use them because they are ergonomic, and used them strictly for hunting and target shooting.
            His point, and my spouse's (also profoundly anti-gun) is that the design of the gun matters less than its capabilities, and that easily concealed handguns, and the proliferation of concealed carry permits, were more of a danger than faux assault weapons. As someone who used to enjoy a lot of target shooting back in the day, I have to agree.

            "We are monkeys with money and guns". Tom Waits

            by northsylvania on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 03:38:25 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  An AR-15 can shoot 45 bullets per minute (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            TheDuckManCometh

            According to the manufacturer of the AR-15, it can shoot 45 bullets a minute.  That would classify it as an assault weapon by most Americans!  There is NO NEED for such a weapon to be in the hands of civilians.  This is a weapon that was designed for war zones.

            Maybe people who doubt the fire power of this gun need to read up on the horrible damage that was done to the children at Sandy Hook.  Children had half of their faces blown off.  So don't go claiming that it is a weak weapon.  Police found the AR-15 in the Sandy Hook school where Adam Lanza used it to kill 26 innocent people in a matter of a few minutes.

        •  Laws do not protect us from criminals or crazies (0+ / 0-)

          As I understand it A. Lanza did not own the weapons he used. I cannot say I have read anywhere that his deceased mother had a safe to keep her weapons in. If she did she should have kept the combination to herself. We are all supposedly responsible for our actions, it's a shame more people can't get a grip on that idea or be held to that standard.

          •  This is why there are laws. (0+ / 0-)
            We are all supposedly responsible for our actions, it's a shame more people can't get a grip on that idea or be held to that standard.
            I absolutely agree.  That's why we have to have laws.  Because things that might seem like basic responsibility to most of us are just missed by some people.  And it puts everyone in danger.

            Mrs. Lanza should have kept her guns locked up.  She did not.

            Mrs. Lanza should have been legally compelled to keep her guns locked up.

    •  "With the exception of one..." (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Neuroptimalian

      I give you Diane Feinstein.

      Confiscation, natch.

    •  there is the study (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      TheDuckManCometh, old possum

      that concluded households with guns are three times more likely to be involved in a homicide, and five times more likely to be involved in a suicide, but I guess in reality, those killings aren't random murders.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site