Skip to main content

View Diary: GunFAIL IV (199 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  It's an unfair question, I know. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ban nock, marsanges

    We've focused on things that will help.
    Things that will certainly help prevent horrible events like Newtown and Aurora.

    But...

    That's not most of the shootings.
    Most shootings don't happen with assault weapons or use large magazines.

    And the irony of your gunfail listing (though amusing and a good reminder that guns are dangerous things not to be treated lightly and sure as hell not to be handled while drunk) is that:

    1. Most (if not all) of the weapons involved would still be legal after most proposed regulations

    2. Most (if not all) of the shooters would still be able to buy guns

    3. The case of the over-zealous home protector actually points to the value of guns for self-defense: the burglars gave up on seeing the gun.  Crooks aren't generally rocket-scientists, but the "victim" was the idiot this time around.

    Another good question that I don't know how to answer:

    What if we can actually put a dent in the ability of truly bad actors to get their hands on guns and use them?

    Then all the gun fail examples make a lot of sense because I'd expect fewer people to feel the need for guns to defend themselves if they aren't worried about getting shot themselves.

    Might see a few more German Shepherds, Dobermans, etc in homes, but fewer guns.

    Personally, I prefer the dogs.

    LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

    by dinotrac on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 08:39:13 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  I don't see that as an irony of the listing. (7+ / 0-)

      You might if you take a guess about what my policy positions on gun control might be, though.

    •  What's important to remember (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      gof

      is that what has been proposed is not the final proposal.  It is actually just the beginning of solving the problem.  

      What has been proposed is the low-hanging fruit... which won't erase most current gun death and wounding.   But it isn't supposed to.  That's a long-term goal, and there are no quick fixes for it.  

      That said, what's been proposed is far from useless.  It would:

      a) Reduce gun death in the future by maybe a few hundred a year... which is still progress.  A baby step is still a step in the right direction.  Remember: There are no quick fixes. Only a thousand baby steps, which we must take one at a time.

      b) Test whether keeping guns out of the wrong people's hands can work.  We have a problem with our guns, and there are two solutions to it--- deal with the people, or deal with the guns. The pro-gun folks insist on dealing with the people.  The logic is, if we just got guns out of their hands, the rest of us could keep ours.  That's why they focus on "bad guys" and "criminals" who are "out there" waiting to get us.  As this series of diaries shows (along with crime data), most gun death and injury comes not from "bad guys out there" but the seemingly good guys we know, love, and trust.  I don't think you can suss out the bad from the good very effectively.  But we'll give it a shot, and that's what these proposals attempt to do.

      c) Show that when we stand together we can overpower the gun lobby.  This last one is the most important.  The fact that these proposals are even "controversial" is because of the political power of the gun lobby.  We've already overcome their power to squelch discussion of our nation's problem with its guns.  Now we need to overcome their political power, and it starts with small steps.  The small steps are all we can do until we break the NRA's aura of invincibility.  Since they've vehemently opposed any regulatory solution to our nation's gun problem, even the slightest reform will be a major victory.    

      Conservatives need to realize that their Silent Moral Majority is neither silent, nor moral, nor a majority.

      by nominalize on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 09:59:37 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  80 percent of gun homicides (4+ / 0-)

        Are caused by "second-hand" guns-- guns sold, pawned, given away, lent, left unsecured, lost, etc.

        Contrary to your claim, gun homicides can be DRASTICALLY reduced if the original purchaser (say, he who purchases after January 1, 2014) understands he will be responsible for ITS USE DURING ITS ENTIRE EXISTENCE-- he will be prosecuted, sued, named in the media; he will risk his life's savings, his home, his freedom, his standing in the community if anyone from a convicted felon to a four-year-old lays hands on the weapon and causes damage.

        This would end the second-hand market for guns, and it would make NRA members glue their weapons to their hands rather than treat them like another household appliance.

        Aborticentrism-- the closer life gets to being your responsibility, the less sacred it becomes

        by cgregor on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 10:39:41 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Umm....there is this thing called mens rea (0+ / 0-)

          And it matters a lot when you are talking about criminal offenses.

          LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

          by dinotrac on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 11:49:43 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Just like... (0+ / 0-)

          ...your kitchen knives, cars, baseball bats, and lawn darts?

          How about if your mobile phone is stolen and before you realize it, it's used in the commission of a crime? Should you be responsible for the crime - perhaps executed if it was used in the commission of a murder?

          Question: If the person using your stolen cell phone to commit a crime received an enhanced sentence (perhaps a sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole) because of their prior convictions, should you also get the enhanced sentence or the more lenient "first time offender" variant? (I would think the enhanced one as you were responsible for your cell phone falling into the hands of a repeat offender and could have instead insured that it was stolen by less dangerous person with a bit more caution on your part).

          Sounds like a great idea.

        •   What you describe isn't on the table (0+ / 0-)

          Although it might be in the future. Well, probably not...  it's much broader than purposeful straw man purchases.  See dinotrac's comment... it's far too broad, even.  

          Still, your idea tries to fix the people part of the problem, instead of the guns.  I'm skeptical.

          Conservatives need to realize that their Silent Moral Majority is neither silent, nor moral, nor a majority.

          by nominalize on Sat Feb 09, 2013 at 06:54:56 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (152)
  • Community (59)
  • Baltimore (38)
  • Civil Rights (37)
  • Bernie Sanders (33)
  • Culture (29)
  • Elections (29)
  • Economy (28)
  • Law (25)
  • Texas (23)
  • 2016 (21)
  • Rescued (21)
  • Environment (20)
  • Labor (19)
  • Education (18)
  • Hillary Clinton (18)
  • Racism (17)
  • Politics (17)
  • Media (17)
  • Freddie Gray (17)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site