Skip to main content

View Diary: GunFAIL IV (199 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I want better regs, not sure about more. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    FrankRose, BigOkie

    What I really want is an economy and nation that doesn't leave children on the outside looking in when it comes to non-crime opportunities to do OK for themselves and have lives worth living.

    That would do more to reduce the violence than any gun regulations currently being proposed that might actually pass constitutional muster.

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

    by dinotrac on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 09:14:31 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Its not an A or B situation . (6+ / 0-)

      Its a superadditive situation .
      If A alone is one
      and B alone is one
      A + B = 3 or more .

      "Drop the name-calling." Meteor Blades 2/4/11

      by indycam on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 09:24:08 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Then why are we spending so much time, effort (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        BroadwayBaby1

        and political risk talking about guns?

        Time and effort is finite.

        Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

        by FrankRose on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 09:26:27 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Do you not understand what I wrote ? (0+ / 0-)
          Time and effort is finite.
          That sure sounds like defeatist talk .
          Now why would you want to do that ?
          Are you foot dragging ?  

          "Drop the name-calling." Meteor Blades 2/4/11

          by indycam on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 09:31:08 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  It is an 'A' or 'B' question. (0+ / 0-)

            If you want "an economy and nation that doesn't leave children on the outside looking in when it comes to non-crime opportunities to do OK for themselves and have lives worth living" then you need to focus on those policies, instead of an ineffective bill that won't pass, and will lose elections.

            You have a choice. Gun Control is the wrong one for a myriad of reasons.

            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

            by FrankRose on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 09:40:12 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Yup , defeatist . (4+ / 0-)

              Can't be done ...
              "is the wrong one"

              Australia , England , Israel .
              They all have done what we need to do .
              They have moved way ahead of us ,
              they are making us look like a cheap 3rd world country in comparison . Don't you think America can do what Australia , England and Israel have already done ?

              "Drop the name-calling." Meteor Blades 2/4/11

              by indycam on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 09:55:59 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Finally something we agree on (0+ / 0-)

                I temporarily suspended my "ignore".  

              •  No. While trying to push for this, other things (0+ / 0-)

                like improving the econ, reducing poverty, increasing social spending, can't be done.

                "Australia, England"
                If you enjoy being videotaped 24/7 & being a subject of a queen, then they are better suited for you.

                I prefer the liberties of the USA.

                Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                by FrankRose on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 10:01:24 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Uh huh (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Blissing, teabaggerssuckbalz, koNko

                  But oddly, there's broad support across the country for gun regulation. There's no broad support for improving the economy (since people have been fooled into thinking that the deficit is the real problem), no broad support for reducing poverty (we HATE programs that target poverty in the US), no broad support for increased social spending (c.f. the first two).

                  So what you're saying is, we should stop doing the thing that we have broad support for right now, so that maybe somewhere down the road we can succeed in building up support for some other good things. When there's certainly no reason to choose to do one or the other, but if there was, we should probably take advantage of the opportunity afforded us by broad support to fix the one problem immediately, and then go on to others.

                  Please, just be honest: if you hate the idea of gun control because you think guns are great, say so. If you have some other reason for opposing it, say that. Arguing that by focusing on it we're neglecting all the other progressive ideals is transparent hogwash.

                  •  There is less support for gun control today (0+ / 0-)

                    than there was in 1994.

                    I disagree with the idea of gun control because I think innocent American's liberties shouldn't be taken. I oppose gun control for the same reason I oppose warrantless wiretaps.
                    Other reasons for opposing it is because I think time would be better spent reducing poverty & increasing opportunities.
                    Another reason I oppose it is because the AWB would be pointless, bare hands are used to murder twice as many people as all rifles combined. The rifles in the AWB would only be a fraction of 'all rifles combined'.
                    Another reason is because I want more and better Democrats & the last time the Dems pushed for the AWB it was a political disaster.

                    Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                    by FrankRose on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 10:47:16 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

              •  Congratulations: You've found an example that (0+ / 0-)

                , on the surface at least, makes US society look safe and placid.

                Your mention of Israel sent me running to the numbers, and I was shocked to find that Israel seems to have set up a society where it seems that guns are handed out to the most murderous citizens .

                (note: all numbers thanks to Wikipedia, and however many grains of salt that may require)

                At first blush, things look pretty rosy:

                a homicide rate of .94 vs 3.6.

                Looks pretty good.

                But -- here's the weird one:

                .073 guns per capita vs .89 guns per capita.

                That's only about 1 person out of 14 with guns in Israel, vs a better than even chance that any random selected American will have a gun. While the numbes aren't broken out in a way to account for those who own multiple guns, it seems like Israeli gun owners are a whole lot more likely to kill their fellow citizens than American gun owners.

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

                by dinotrac on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 10:24:39 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  But don't both... (0+ / 0-)

                  ...homicide rates include non-gun homicides?

                  If 3/4 of the homicides in the United States result from a firearm injury (not an unreasonable approximation for 2011) and all guns were removed from all hands and no one who would have murdered by a gun was then murdered by another method (such as a knife), our homicide rate would be about the same as Israel's.

                  One has to look at the number homicides in Israel and the United States that utilized firearms to reach the conclusion you did.

              •  Responding to these people (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Laconic Lib, teabaggerssuckbalz

                is real close to being a total waste of time--indycam.

                They want more guns--- but fewer regulations.

                And no matter what: DO NOT BLAME GUNS.

                 Also they prefer we first provide solutions for world hunger---world peace----global disarmement--what is the nature of man?----is there an afterlife?---is there a God?..........................you get the picture.

                Then and only then---maybe---can we talk about the guns.

                Maybe.

                Mayan Word For 'Apocalypse' Actually Translates More Accurately As "Time Of Pale Obese Gun Monsters."......the Onion

                by lyvwyr101 on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 01:39:02 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

          •  Realism is defeatist? (0+ / 0-)

            It could as easily be read as,

            "Let's get the low-hanging fruit (regs that can make a difference and have broad support) out of the way quickly, then get on to job next."

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

            by dinotrac on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 10:06:51 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  That's what I've said all along. (0+ / 0-)

        Thing is, the gun regulations that people are actually talk about will not make a very big dent in gun violence.

        Doesn't mean they aren't worth doing, only that they will leave the worst of the problem in place.

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

        by dinotrac on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 09:29:27 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Making any progress (4+ / 0-)

          is better than making no progress .
          A journey of a thousand miles ...

          will not make a very big dent in gun violence.
          If you look at the forest , but if you look at the tree ...
          If the one person who isn't shot , wounded or killed is you ,
          should we say "not a big dent" ?

          "Drop the name-calling." Meteor Blades 2/4/11

          by indycam on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 09:35:52 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Yes, we should say not a big dent. (0+ / 0-)

            Read the words, Luke:

            Doesn't mean they aren't worth doing, only that they will leave the worst of the problem in place.
            Maybe you should be asking yourself an important question:

            Is this about making you feel good because, gosh-darn-it-all, you've done SOMETHING?

            Or is it about recognizing a serious problem and wanting to address it?

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

            by dinotrac on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 10:03:32 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  80ish shot dead a day 300ish wounded ... (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Laconic Lib

              http://www.dailykos.com/...

              Is this about making you feel good because, gosh-darn-it-all, you've done SOMETHING?
              This is about reducing the number of killed and wounded daily .

              "Drop the name-calling." Meteor Blades 2/4/11

              by indycam on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 10:11:53 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  The regulations people talk about won't make (0+ / 0-)

                much difference in those numbers.

                They WILL make it harder for the Newtowns and Auroras to happen, but that's a different story.

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

                by dinotrac on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 10:26:07 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  At what number does it change for you from (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  myboo
                  won't make much difference
                  to maybe , makes enough of a difference ?

                  The public health approach does not push away small improvements , it looks to make many small improvements knowing that all the small improvements are improvements that are part of the overall improvement so desperately needed .

                  "Drop the name-calling." Meteor Blades 2/4/11

                  by indycam on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 10:37:59 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  You haven't been reading very carefully. (0+ / 0-)

                    At know point have I said reasonable regulation of firearms isn't worth doing, only that it won't make a big dent in the day to day killings that contribute the vast majority of dead children.

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

                    by dinotrac on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 10:57:49 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

    •  That will take (0+ / 0-)
      What I really want is an economy and nation that doesn't leave children on the outside looking in when it comes to non-crime opportunities to do OK for themselves and have lives worth living.
      That will take a societal change.  

      As to constitutional muster, why should the Second Amendment be any different when it comes to restrictions?  

      Here's where elections have consequences.  I'm relying on part of the change coming from the Supreme Court openings and who Obama chooses to fill them.  I expect Obama to fill the possible openings with the right kind of candidates who will push the agenda Obama was reelected on.  

      Romney would have taken full advantage of the opportunity if he had them.  

      •  Supreme Court Justices... (0+ / 0-)

        ...are not supposed to "push agendas".

        Obviously, "agenda pushing" does happen on both sides because most people, including judges, have a hard time eliminating their personal biases so we end up with bad decisions on both sides (i.e., not adequately backed by the law or the Constitution). But it's not something to encourage, rather it's something to be actively discouraged.

        Personally, mostly because they are lifetime appointments to the "court of last resort", I think appointment to the SCOTUS should require an affirmative vote by 3/4 of the sitting Senators. This would likely result in more moderate justices who don't push agendas but are instead mostly interested in application of the law and Constitution -- regardless of the impact. If the impact is undesirable, legislation or amending the constitution can, and should, fix the underlying problem. Judges should be more like applied mathematicians than philosophers.

        Policy and "agendas" are a matter for legislation.

        What you propose is that the SCOTUS substitute themselves for the legislative role (and, I assume, you believe the same for all judges down the line should do the same). You must be pretty confident that Democrats will hold the Senate and the White House forever.

        •  Your entitled to your opinion (0+ / 0-)

          And I'm entitled to mine.  

          I vote Democratic because I expect a Supreme Court to uphold reproductive rights and to uphold a Democratic agenda.    If I wanted otherwise, I'd vote for a Republican.  

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site