Skip to main content

View Diary: Wayne's World (64 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Sounds as if written by someone who has never had (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    lyvwyr101, Southern Lib

    his child killed by a gun of mass destruction. Lacks sensitivity.

    •  I have lost a nephew to drunk driver... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      drmah

      On April 22, 2009 my nephew, a new dad, a newly wed, a fresh from boot camp Marine, was murdered by a man convicted 3 time of DUI.  This man walks free having never paid a cent or a minute of incarceration for his act.  It wasn't the F-250 that he was driving that killed my Anthony and stole a precious first born son from my sister, first grandchild from his Nanna, and father from his still yet to be born son.  I know what loss is.  I also know what reason is and reason speaks clearly to the fact that nothing material by itself does the deed, it requires a person to perpetrate the act.  Let's invest all our might, effort and resources where they will produce the most return.  Let's treat the people and learn the psychology that causes people to go rogue.  How could this not be the best investment of our limited resources?  Taking the gun first approach is a politically exciting solution it's the easy way to do the least we can do as a society.

      •  Bet'cha driver and car were registered. That's not (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        rbird, nota bene, Southern Lib, irishwitch

        a valid arguement Registration makes it possible to catch and punish the irresponsible auto owers.  That's all we are asking for responsible gun owners to do.

        •  Registration the Nazi's required it.... (0+ / 0-)

          But even with the vehicle's registration, which by the way was in his wife's name, the perpetrator responsible was dismissed from the scene and told by "friendly" officials to go home.  

          Criminals will use someone else's guns as is generally the case as you've probably recognized.  Now you're suggesting that a burglar's act can lead to additional complications for the lawfully registered "former" gun owner.   This is just another unnecessary legal entanglement.  

          "The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let's not have any native militia or native police. German troops alone will bear the sole responsibility for the maintenance of law and order throughout the occupied Russian territories, and a system of military strong-points must be evolved to cover the entire occupied country." --Adolf Hitler, dinner talk on April 11, 1942

          You are also advocating a repeat of a historical practice that led to the beginning of the disarming of a nation prior to the Nazi take over of that nation which led on to global conflict.  I'm sure your intentions are sound but they are misguided and simply fail to address to the root cause of the problem.  The BEST solution is what we should get from all this not something less.  You must certainly realize that Connecticut already has on it's books some of the most stringent gun control measures.  Gun laws do not protect society from crazy.  However, they do embolden governments.

          •  For the record... (0+ / 0-)

            I am not nor have I ever been an NRA member or supporter.  I don't even own a gun.  But I know numerous good people who do and they have always handled them responsibly.

            •  My father-in-law would have been considered (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              drmah

              a good, decent man, church-goer, professional man, a hunter who owned a number of guns.  What no one knew was that he beat his wife and children (carefully, where the bruises wouldn't show) for eyars behind closed doors.  When she left him, he showed up at the house with several guns. My husband, all of age 22, had to take them away from him  and ended up throwing him over the wall of the carport, during which pause in the altercation he also took away the other guns in his father's car.

              A lot of "good, decent men" aren't. And a gun in the house makes it a lot more likely that a woman will die in an incident of DV.

              In 2000, in homicides where the weapon was known, 50 percent (1,342 of 2,701) of female homicide victims were killed with a firearm. Of those female firearm homicides, 1,009 women (75 percent) were killed with a handgun.

              More than five times as many women were murdered by an intimate acquaintance (605) than by a stranger (113) in the year 2000. Additionally, while firearm homicides involving male victims were mostly intra-gender, 95 percent of female firearm homicide victims were murdered by a male.

              Domestic violence against women is a disturbingly common occurrence in the United States. Estimates from the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) indicate that from 1993 to 1998, women were victims of violent crimes by their intimate partners an average of more than 935,000 times a year. During this period, intimate-partner violence comprised 22 percent of all violent crimes against women. Although firearms are used in a relatively small percentage of domestic violence incidents, when a firearm is present, domestic violence can and all too often does turn into domestic homicide. Congress, recognizing the unique and deadly role firearms play in domestic violence passed the Protective Order Gun Ban in 1994. The law prohibits gun possession by a person against whom there is a restraining or protective order for domestic violence. In 1996, Congress passed the Domestic Violence Misdemeanor Gun Ban, which prohibits anyone convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence or child abuse from purchasing or possessing a gun.

              A 1997 study that examined the risk factors for violent death for women in the home found that when there were one or more guns in the home, the risk of suicide among women increased nearly five times and the risk of homicide increased more than three times. The increased risk of homicide associated with firearms was attributable to homicides at the hands of a spouse, intimate acquaintance, or close relative.

              An analysis of female domestic homicides (a woman murdered by a spouse, intimate acquaintance, or close relative) showed that prior domestic violence in the household made a woman 14.6 times more likely, and having one or more guns in the home made a woman 7.2 times more likely, to be the victim of such a homicide.

              The circumstances of firearms violence differ significantly between men and women. Compared to a man, a woman is far more likely to be killed by her spouse, an intimate acquaintance, or a family member than murdered by a stranger or an unidentified intruder. A 1976 to 1987 analysis of Federal Bureau of Investigation data revealed that more than twice as many women were shot and killed by their husbands or intimate acquaintances than were murdered by strangers using firearms, knives, or any other means.

              Between 1976 and 1996, 65 percent of the male and female victims of intimate partner homicides were killed with a firearm. And while rates of intimate partner homicide have been declining, the ratio of female-to-male victims has risen. In other words, when an intimate-partner homicide occurs, it is increasingly likely that a woman is the victim rather than a man.

              Having a gun in the home makes it three times more likely that you or someone you care about will be murdered by a family member or intimate partner.

              A firearm in the home may be a key factor in the escalation of nonfatal spousal abuse to homicide. In a study of family and intimate assaults for the city of Atlanta, Georgia, in 1984, firearm-associated family and intimate assaults were 12 times more likely to result in death than non-firearm associated assaults between family and intimates.

              http://www.vpc.org/...

              The last time we mixed religion and politics people got burned at the stake.

              by irishwitch on Tue Feb 05, 2013 at 03:30:39 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  yup (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Southern Lib, irishwitch

            because Hitler said that in 1942, 9 years after he came to power, over 3 years into the biggest war in history, that means that any attempt by America to deal with disorganized gun violence = fascism!

            Please.

            Also, I could be wrong, but Hitler clamped down on free speech (in Germany) long before he was in a position to start disarming Eastern Europe. Pen > sword.

            Interesting that there are three (count em, three) users in this very thread who all signed up on Feb 1st. What a coinkydink!

          •  Goering the Hunting Master of the Reich (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            irishwitch, nota bene, drmah

            was strongly pro-gun and pushed liberalization of very tough Weimar Era gun laws.
            Cherry picking quotes is basically meaningless.
            I do not think gun control in the UK, Australia has enslaved
            the citizens.

            Guns will make us powerful; butter will only make us fat.--Herman Goering

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site