Skip to main content

View Diary: For Me, Gun Control Is Personal. Very Personal. (274 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Yeah, we're not (61+ / 0-)

    too fond of them in my family. Growing up in the middle of nowhere (wyoming) learning about guns was one of the things my father taught us about early.

    You'll note I said "Learning about." Oh, he did eventually teach us to shoot. After he was sure we understood how to use them safely and responsibly. I remember several of the classes, even 20+ years later.

    These days I do own guns...I like target shooting. Don't even keep ammunition here, because so much could go wrong (I buy the ammunition i plan to use at the target range, almost always at the range itself, and go home when I run out.)

    I have zero problem registering these guns. I don't for one second worry they'll be "taken away." A whole lot of really, really responsible gun owners are not at all happy with that sort of propaganda.

    These are weapons. They can hurt and kill people. I make no mistake about that, even if I never would use them as such. That there are so many willing to be so dangerously irresponsible terrifies me.

    We NEED better gun control. We need to try... something. Cause doing nothing is not working. Sorry, I know this was a bit... ranty. Im just so tired of these people who are...well, like you said, selfish. I'll add deluded to that.

    Even something as simple as liability insurance would help give people a nudge toward being more responsible. But they reject even that... Its disturbing.

    The only Bug-type Pokemon that can learn the move Fly - Volcarona and Genesect - Are not Flying types.

    by kamrom on Fri Jan 25, 2013 at 03:00:35 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Responsible gun owners do worry (9+ / 9-)

      Responsible gun owners and responsible non-owners do worry about guns being taken away.

      You are not really a responsible gun owner; you are just some clown who likes shooting at targets.  

      Democide (government inflicted or sponsored murder including genocide and politicide) had killed more people than wars in each of the last 50 centuries and has killed 16-17 times as many people as war.  And war kills more people than homicide.    And if you think that it can't happen here, you will fit right in with all the people who thought it could not happen in their country - until it did.
      People have a bug up their butt because 20 children were killed.    Well, 1 to 1.5 million children were killed by just one rogue government, according to the Holocaust Museum, not even counting the adults.  In Sandy Hook, 1.4 children and 0.43 adults were killed per minute for a total of 14 minutes.    In Rwanda, 6 men, women, and children were killed every minute of every day for 100 days.   That lasted over ten thousand times longer than a sandy hook.  In the end, 800,000 to 1 million people were murdered.   It takes over 3000 years to kill a million people at our current rifle homicide rate (and that includes all rifles not just those that are incorrectly called assault weapons).

      Gun prohibition, gun registration, and gun confiscation are all unacceptable.

      For OP this is "personal".   Subjective knee jerk response.   Rationalization to support prejudices, not rational thought.   Dairying while intoxicated.

      The war on alcohol (prohibition) was followed by a major increase in violence including homicide.
      The war on drugs was followed by a major increase in violence including homicide.
      The war on guns will be followed by a major increase in violence including homicide.

      You want gun control?   How about we tell the US military they have to replace their M-16 assault rifles with AR-15 modern sporting rifles.    And they aren't allowed to use magazines which hold more than 10 rounds.    And the police are not allowed to use magazines holding more than 10 rounds in their weapons (they usually carry pistols with 15 round mags).  

        You don't need magazines that hold more than 10 rounds (7 in New York) to kill defenseless victims.   It makes no difference whether the bad guy has ten 30 round clips or thirty 10 round clips.   That magazine can be changed faster than you can decide to rush the guy with a #2 pencil.   And if the guy can count to 10, he will still have a round in the chamber when he changes magazines.     You do not need an "assault weapon" (doublespeak) to kill defenseless victims.  You don't even need a gun.    The sandy hook massacre could easily have been accomplished without any firearms.  It is when you aren't attacking defenseless people you need these scary features.     When you are attacked by one or more dangerous perpetrators, you may indeed need the features which are classified as "assault weapon" and "high capacity magazine" in gun-grabber doublespeak.    In the time it takes to change magazines, a single bad guy can fire off a dozen rounds.   The US military doesn't go into combat armed with only bolt action rifles (excluding snipers) or 10 round magazines.   The police don't either.   Not when they expect to be shot at.    Or attacked by anyone with any non-firearm.    No, police and military carry scary guns.   Because that is what you want and need when you are facing people who have the means and inclination to hurt you rather than defenseless victims.

      New York State has banned magazines which hold more than 7 rounds.    Yet the NYPD fired an average of 6.9 shots per officer per gun fight, 16.8 shots total for all officers, with a 9% hit probability.   Think about that.  16.8 shots were needed on average but you are only allowed to carry 7.  NYPD carries pistols that have a capacity of 15 rounds.

      Now, that said, most weapons optimized for concealed carry only hold about 7 rounds.    This is not enough.   But the weapon you have on you when you need it is better than the one you want but don't have.  

      Dialing 911 will not save you.   Dialing 1911 might.   By the time 911 is called, you are probably already dead.   If you are still alive, you don't have much chance of surviving until they get there, if you really needed them.   Here are average response times to priority calls:
         Detroit: 24 minutes (down from 34)
         Sandy Hook Elementary School: 20 minutes
         Albemarle County, VA (rural portion): 11:48
         Atlanta 11:12
         El Paso 11:11
         Denver: 11:00
         Tucson: 10:11
         Kansas City: <10 minutes
         Nashville/davidson <9 minutes
         Mineapolis: 8:13
         New York City: 8 minutes
         LAPD: 5.7 minutes
         http://gundata.org/...

      On the other hand, Newsweek has reported that law-abiding American citizens using guns in self-defense during 2003 shot and killed two and one-half times as many criminals as police did, and with fewer than one-fifth as many incidents as police where an innocent person mistakenly identified as a criminal (2% versus 11%).
      http://www.forbes.com/...
      There are 3.7million  burglaries in the US each year.   In 28% of cases, someone is home and in 7 percent of cases someone is home and the victim of a violent crime.    That is 10130 burglaries per day, 2836 cases per day where someone is home, and 709 cases per day where one or more home occupants are victims of violence.   This doesn't include rapes, kidnappings, etc. which aren't related to burglary.    
      http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/...

      The gun-grabbers reward the sandy hook shooter with lots of media coverage and damage to civil rights.    Like the Patriot Act after 9/11 and the anthrax attacks.   And show every terrorist in the world that you only have to kill a few kids and America will self destruct.   Shred the constitution and move toward the very kind of police state that the 2nd amendment was established to protect against.

      Parent poster kamrom blathered:

      We NEED better gun control. We need to try... something. Cause doing nothing is not working. Sorry, I know this was a bit... ranty. Im just so tired of these people who are...well, like you said, selfish. I'll add deluded to that.
      We need to do something?     Throw the US constitution and civil rights under a bus to try random things we already know will not help.   That is worse than stupid.   It is dangerous.   This shotgun approach to law is far more dangerous than an actual shotgun.  "Doing nothing is not working"? guess what, homicide and violent crime in the US is at record lows even though there are more guns than ever and most states now allow concealed carry permits on a must-issue basis.  Homicide rate is a third of what it was when James Madison wrote the 2nd amendment and the 2nd lowest it has been in American history (it was lower before the escalation of the war on drugs).   Even at the peak of the war on drugs associated violence and the prohibition associated violence, the homicide rate was lower than it was when Madison wrote the 2nd amendment.    Mass shootings are not on the rise, either.

      Before you even think about infringing on a constitutional right, you need:
        - A compelling state interest.    Reducing homicide deaths is not a compelling state interest when compared to the democide deaths and oppression of a rogue governenment that the 2nd amendment was specifically intended to protect.
        - Necessity.   You can't achieve the results by non-infringing means.    Gun control is not necessary; there are other means at our disposal.
        - Effectiveness: The infringement must actually serve the compelling state interest.    Gun control is not effective.

      And even if you had satisfied all three of those conditions, the bill of rights was established to protect the civil rights from the tyranny of the majority and the tyranny of the legislature.   Why do you think they are constitutional rights, not merely 10 laws?    The 2nd amendment is NOT on the table.

      In the time of the founding fathers, gun ownership was considered more of an inalenable right than voting.    In 1776 If you did not own property, you could not vote but you could own a gun.  Women could vote if they owned property.   In 1787, states get to regulate voting and they favor adult white male property owners.   If you were black, you could not vote but in some states free blacks could possess guns and in some states even slaves could possess guns with the ownership of their master.   If you were a minor, you could not vote but you could own a gun.

      Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
          Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759
      Gun control will not save lives and no amount of cherry picked or deliberately falsified statistics will change that fact.

      Homicide rate in the US is 4.8 (per 100,000).   World average is 6.9.   Average for the Americas is 15.4 and Africa is 17.0.   In Honduras, the rate is 91.6; thats right, Honduras has a gun ownership rate that is 14 times lower than the US but a homicide rate by firearm that is 19 times higher than the US total homicide rate (including non-firearm homicides).   Europe has a lower rate, but this is true even in countries with very high firearms ownership.    

      If you plot the homicide rate or the violent crime rate vs gun ownership ranking of all the countries in the world, not just cherry picked ones, you can clearly see that gun ownership is not the cause of violent crime.   Indeed, there is a negative correlation between gun ownership and homicide rate.    
      http://www.objectobot.com/...
      http://georgeoughttohelp.tumblr.com/...
      http://www.guardian.co.uk/...

      Homicide rates are not correlated with gun ownership in US states, either:
      http://www.objectobot.com/...

      Violence peaked around 1992 and has been declining since.  A number of things have happened.   The number of households with guns has declined, the total number of guns has risen dramatically, and the number of states which allow concealed carry has risen dramatically.   The decline in violence seems to have happened almost exactly when the number of states which "shall issue" concealed carry permits reached 50%.
      http://www.americanthinker.com/...

      •  Take your paid-for propaganda elsewhere... (4+ / 5-)

        You post here again and I will have you reported.

        If anyone knows how to give this person a negative rating, please do so.

        "It doesn't matter whether you win or lose. It's how you ladle the gravy." - Felix Ungar

        by Verbalpaintball on Sat Jan 26, 2013 at 10:49:30 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  this reads like a parody of NRA talking points (11+ / 0-)
        You are not really a responsible gun owner; you are just some clown who likes shooting at targets.  
        Gun prohibition, gun registration, and gun confiscation are all unacceptable.

        For OP this is "personal".   Subjective knee jerk response.   Rationalization to support prejudices, not rational thought.   Dairying while intoxicated.

        People have a bug up their butt because 20 children were killed.  
        The gun-grabbers reward the sandy hook shooter with lots of media coverage and damage to civil rights.    Like the Patriot Act after 9/11 and the anthrax attacks.   And show every terrorist in the world that you only have to kill a few kids and America will self destruct.
        Before you even think about infringing on a constitutional right, you need:
          - A compelling state interest.    Reducing homicide deaths is not a compelling state interest when compared to the democide deaths and oppression of a rogue governenment that the 2nd amendment was specifically intended to protect.
        •  Re: parody of NRA talking points? (0+ / 0-)

          None of these statements were taken from the NRA or influenced by the NRA.    You are using the NRA as a boogie-man.

          Blockquote #1: This is an NRA point?   The NRA is the organization of target shooters and hunters.    It has a very poor history when it comes to self defense owners and 2nd amendment rights.  

          This atlantic article gives some of the history of guns and the NRA, although it completely bungles the facts regarding gun rights in the time of the founding fathers when the right to own guns was more universal than the right to vote.  From the 1920s through 1977, the NRA actually promoted gun control.   Finally, control was wrestled away from the recreational shooters:
          http://www.theatlantic.com/...
          Even today, the NRA is weak on 2nd Amendment.

          Commenter I was replying to uses deadly weapons purely as toys and in a way which prevents him/her from using them for protection and is happy to sell out the constitutional rights of those who would use them for self protection or against government tyranny.    Sell out the people the 2nd amendment was written to protect.

          blockquote #2A: They are unacceptable; they all undermine the ability of the people to defend themselves against a government gone rogue.   The government should not be allowed to know who has guns, how many they have, or where they are located.   This information has historically been abused by governments and has already been abused by the US government.  

          Blockquote #2B:  We do not allow the families of victims to try the accused, for a reason.  Because they are traumatized and emotionally biased.    The fate of even one person is not to be put in the hands of the emotionally compromised, let alone the constitutional rights of hundreds of millions.

          #3: Anyone want to seriously argue that people do not have a bug up their butt?

          #4: Adam Lanza couldn't have hired a better publicist to provide him the notoriety and immortality he sought, now could he?

          #5: Wikipedia on Strict Scrutiny

          U.S. courts apply the strict scrutiny standard in two contexts, when a fundamental constitutional right is infringed,[1] particularly those found in the Bill of Rights and those the court has deemed a fundamental right protected by the "liberty" or "due process" clause of the 14th Amendment, or when a government action applies to a "suspect classification" such as race or, sometimes, national origin.

          To pass strict scrutiny, the law or policy must satisfy three tests:

              It must be justified by a compelling governmental interest. While the Courts have never brightly defined how to determine if an interest is compelling, the concept generally refers to something necessary or crucial, as opposed to something merely preferred. Examples include national security, preserving the lives of multiple individuals, and not violating explicit constitutional protections.

              The law or policy must be narrowly tailored to achieve that goal or interest. If the government action encompasses too much (overbroad) or fails to address essential aspects of the compelling interest, then the rule is not considered narrowly tailored.

              The law or policy must be the least restrictive means for achieving that interest, that is, there cannot be a less restrictive way to effectively achieve the compelling government interest. The test will be met even if there is another method that is equally the least restrictive. Some legal scholars consider this "least restrictive means" requirement part of being narrowly tailored, though the Court generally evaluates it separately.
          http://en.wikipedia.org/...

          You may trust the government that interred Japanese-Americans, deliberately kept 399 black subjects infected with syphilis, prosecutes people for medical and recreational marijuana use, brought us the Patriot Act, unlawful detention and torture (Guantanamo), assassination of american citizens, and has exhibited 14 out of 14 defining characteristics of proto-fascism will never turn on us.     The founding fathers who created that government did not.   I do not.     Too bad we can't send you to your own special "be careful what you wish for, you might get it" hell without others having to suffer the consequences.

          US Risk of Homicide:
             4.8 persons per 100,000 per year.
          20th Century risk of democide, world wide:
             235 persons per 100,000 per year
          http://www.hawaii.edu/...

          I spent hours when I should have been sleeping and recovering from cold/flu to check my facts and was not going to waste time sugar coating it  so as not to insult people who deserved to be insulted.    These were not ad-hominem attacks in lieu of valid argument, I was merely reprimanding posters for posting irresponsibly while presenting valid arguments.  As one commenter pointed out, no one has been able to offer anything but ad-hominem attacks on me while completely failing to offer any valid argument.

      •  jeez (11+ / 0-)

        The Americanthinker? Why not Glenn Beck or Fox Nation? Right wing talking points are HRable, so I HRed.

        This Rover crossed over.. Willie Nelson, written by Dorothy Fields

        by Karl Rover on Sat Jan 26, 2013 at 12:51:56 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  source (0+ / 0-)

          Why?   Because they had the graph.     And the data in the graph seems to be correct.   Liberal sites tend not to  post these graphs because they don't support the prejudices or they never even bother to do the research.   I don't think I have ever been to that site before.  

          In a 2012 paper, Lott quotes another researcher:

          Yet, as Carlisle Moody and his co-authors recently summarized
          the literature:
          There have been a total of 29 peer reviewed studies by econ-
          omists and criminologists, 18 supporting the hypothesis that
          shall-issue laws reduce crime, 10 not finding any significant
          effect on crime, including the NRC report, and [Aneja, Do-
          nohue, and Zhang]’s paper, using a different model and dif-
          ferent data, finding that right-to-carry laws temporarily in-
          crease one type of violent crime, aggravated assaults. 8
          Similarly, the only academic research examining the impact of con-
          cealed handgun laws on accidental gun deaths or suicides finds no re-
          lationship. 9
          http://www.law.umaryland.edu/...
          One should not necessarily even expect the protective effect of concealed carry on the holder and his or her friends/family to make a big dent in statistics.    CCW holders are not police and they rarely shoot or arrest the perpetrator.    How would a CCW holder arrest someone?   Unlike a police officer, the CCW holder cannot shoot they perp as he runs away.   And the CCW doesn't have the police department and the police benevolent association to back him/her up and pay legal fees.   The perp may thus commit up to the same number of crimes he would have committed if he hadn't encountered the concealed carry holder.   Perhaps even +1 as he still needs the money to buy crack, for example, that he didn't get from the CCW holder.     The deterrent effect of the perp's brown underwear moment could be offset by the statistical +1 effect since the perp needs to redo the crime in order to achieve the original objective.     Also, perps generally go after victims who appear weak.    They may not know a CCW holder is carrying a gun, but the CCW does and ends up not carrying him/herself like an easy target.   So you could, in theory, have a situation where 100% of the CCWs were completely protected from crime and yet crime statistics stayed the same because there are still plenty of sheep for the wolves to prey on.

          The right to bear arms is an individual right, not a statistical one, protected by the constitution.   Gun rights advocates don't have to prove that gun ownership is even marginally effective at preventing crime; gun banners, however, have to prove that there is an absolutely overwhelming reduction in crime due to restricting guns.   Even a totally unachievable 100% reduction in firearms homicide rates would not begin to offset the over 1600% higher democide risk.   In the 20th century alone, by one estimate 262 million people were killed by democide in China, USSR, Germany, Japan, Cambodia, Turkey, Vietnam, Poland, Pakistan, Yugoslavia, North Korea, Mexico, United Kingdom, Indonesia, and other countries.    The US annual homicide rate of 4.8/100,000 is pretty meager compared to a 20th century average annual rate of 237/100,000 - 50 times higher.    Yet, Verbalpaintball would throw civil rights under the bus if only to "save one life".    

          Contrary to baseless assertions, I am not paid by anybody to post here.    I am not a member of the NRA.   I don't even own a gun.    I did not copy some right wing talking points.    I did the research.   If the right wing happens to use some of these points, even a stopped watch is right twice a day.  

      •  Oh Christ. (9+ / 0-)
        Reducing homicide deaths is not a compelling state interest
        Which is presumably why the state never prosecutes homicide.

        Fuck me, it's a leprechaun.

        by MBNYC on Sat Jan 26, 2013 at 02:09:13 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Rec'd. This RWTP isn't a RWTP, it's a fact. (9+ / 0-)
        In Rwanda, 6 men, women, and children were killed every minute of every day for 100 days.
        A well-updated wikipedia:
        http://en.wikipedia.org/...

        Guns and Government-sponsored genocide: (bold type added)

        The killing was well organized by the government.[14] When it started, the Rwandan militia numbered around 30,000, or one militia member for every ten families. It was organized nationwide, with representatives in every neighborhood. Some militia members were able to acquire AK-47 assault rifles by completing requisition forms. Other weapons, such as grenades, required no paperwork and were widely distributed by the government. Many members of the Interahamwe and Impuzamugambi were armed only with machetes. Even after the 1993 peace agreement signed in Arusha, businessmen close to General Habyarimana imported 581,000 machetes from China[15] for Hutu use in killing Tutsi, because machetes were obviously cheaper than guns.[16] In a 2000 news story, The Guardian reported, "The former Secretary-General of the United Nations, Boutros Boutros-Ghali, played a leading role in supplying weapons to the Hutu regime which carried out a campaign of genocide against the Tutsis in Rwanda in 1994. As Minister of Foreign Affairs in Egypt, Boutros-Ghali facilitated an arms deal in 1990, which was to result in $26 million (£18m) of mortar bombs, rocket launchers, grenades and ammunition being flown from Cairo to Rwanda. The arms were used by Hutus in attacks which led to up to a million deaths."[17]
        Can't happen here?
        I'd have agreed with you prior to the USA PATRIOT Act.
        The response to people fleeing, or weathering-out Katrina. The deep seated interests in keeping pot illegal, despite obvious changes in public opinion.
        The vested interests of feeding young men of color into prison or graves.

        I'd like the next 4 years of the Obama Administration to address the police-state in America.  The first four certainly didn't.
        Bush Lite isn't dark beer, and I want something rich and satisfying, with color and flavor.

        •  One of the biggest threats to our freedom (9+ / 0-)

          is the private prison-industrial complex.  There was a diary earlier today about 'too big to fail' also means 'too big to jail.'  Based on simple observation, I agree with that.  

          The banksters and the white collar criminal class are taking over the country. They own the damn prisons.  They have a vested interest in keeping the drug wars going. The last thing they want is a decrease in the crime rate.  

          The general who wins the battle makes many calculations in his temple before the battle is fought. The general who loses makes but few calculations beforehand. - Sun Tzu

          by Otteray Scribe on Sat Jan 26, 2013 at 09:03:54 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  When they call your mortgage "due" rather than (8+ / 0-)

            abide by the terms of the A.R.M., and drop the rate 3 percent?
            They're damn eager to make certain you're not going to protest foreclosure via a firearm.

            One friend lost his business, another the house.  Both had payments which were "recorded" late.

            Fine print, way down in there.  Money sent, via wire, EFT or courier may take up to 3 business days to post.  Failure to pay on-time, breaches the agreement.

            Both cases, the Sheriffs showed-up first, with a restraining orders, seeking "temporary surrender of all owned firearms" and serving notice of forfeit and foreclosure.

            "Temporary" has yet to terminate, and the Court is reluctant to return the firearms, and vacate the R.O..  15 months for one, 21 for the other.  
            Both loans with "too big to fail" TARP-recipient banks.

            Something stinks, and it's not just the Provolone.

            As the fellow who lost his business said:  "I'm starting to understand the support Dillinger received from the public back in the Depression."

          •  Nice attempt to change the subject. (0+ / 0-)

            If lacking in integrity.

            *There are two sides to every horseshit.* Kos

            by glorificus on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 06:10:52 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  This is not a new user. (12+ / 0-)

        Has been here seven years and over 2,200 comments.  These are not RW or NRA talking points as presented, but are well-documented facts as 43north also points out.  Facts are just that...facts.  Both sides of an argument are free to use them as desired.  

        Uprated because I do not believe the commenter is a troll, and the arguments are just that...arguments in favor of a position.  Hope everyone remembers that HR are not for disagreement.  HR is for disruption so egregious that it should be hidden from the public.  These HR appear to me to be for disagreement, and if so, are in violation of the FAQ.  

        The general who wins the battle makes many calculations in his temple before the battle is fought. The general who loses makes but few calculations beforehand. - Sun Tzu

        by Otteray Scribe on Sat Jan 26, 2013 at 09:12:23 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Uprated against HRs for disagreement. (4+ / 0-)

        HRs which, apparently, were largely supported by unsupported accusations of shilling -- which accusations will be HRed.

        Hint -- accusations of shilling are HRable, disagreeing with a poster's facts and opinions are not.

        It's really fairly simple...

        Yes, I often dress as a pirate. Your point?

        by theatre goon on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 04:09:05 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Damn, too late to rec this, sorry. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        BlackSheep1, theatre goon, whitis

        I'll note that all the people wailing against you... have not directly addressed and refuted a single one of your statements.

        Rather telling, eh?

      •  tl;dr (0+ / 0-)

        *There are two sides to every horseshit.* Kos

        by glorificus on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 05:58:04 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site