Skip to main content

View Diary: Gun Control Works So Well (228 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  So you factored in the other things that reduce (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Shamash, FrankRose

    violent crime as a whole?

    Gun control isn't the ONLY thing those states have which impact that. Look at our health care (mental health care), social safety nets, education, drug laws...yeah, no. It's just about gun control. </sarcasm>

    I'm curious. UBCs couldn't get out of the Senate, not to mention through the House. How do you think you're going to get anything more stringent done?

    Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

    by KVoimakas on Tue May 07, 2013 at 07:57:15 AM PDT

    •  Maybe it's not JUST about gun control. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      rigcath, coquiero, Shockwave

      But somehow, I don't think that means we should NOT have gun control.  That it's a eeny weeeny bit about gun control should be enough.

      Just as nobody would say "we can't have social safety nets because crime isn't JUST about social safety nets, there's also drug laws".   Nobody would, because nobody is throwing up reasons why we can't do something that helps because there's something else that helps, outside of guns.  Only in RKBA world does something that helps get ruled out because of a endless list of things we could also try.

      "We're now in one of those periods when the reality of intense pressure on the middle class diverges from long-held assumptions of how the American bargain should work" --James Fallows

      by Inland on Tue May 07, 2013 at 08:13:07 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  You make it sound like we don't have gun control (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        FrankRose

        right now.

        We do.

        You make it sound like I would not support various forms of gun control legislation.

        I do.

        What I do not support are bans on any types of firearms (in the small arms sense) or putting what amounts to a poll tax on exercising a civil right (among others).

        Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

        by KVoimakas on Tue May 07, 2013 at 08:30:47 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  (.....) (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          coquiero

          If I made it sound as if you wouldn't support something, it could be because you made an argument that, on its face, was invalid and a pretty transparent attempt to throw roadblocks into laws that you admit would be of some help.  

          "We're now in one of those periods when the reality of intense pressure on the middle class diverges from long-held assumptions of how the American bargain should work" --James Fallows

          by Inland on Tue May 07, 2013 at 09:25:49 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  If at first you don't succeed (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      rigcath

      give up.

      That's what you keep saying, KV.

      I'm curious. UBCs couldn't get out of the Senate, not to mention through the House. How do you think you're going to get anything more stringent done?
      Such a strange message for a political site.  Imagine if LGBT had given up, or people of color during the '60s.

      "Crap.  It didn't work.  They didn't vote for such and such bill.  I guess we should just give up on equality."

      Think about what you are saying.  It is such a dumb argument.

      I blog about my daughter with autism at her website

      by coquiero on Tue May 07, 2013 at 08:16:14 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  You're misunderstanding the argument. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        KVoimakas, FrankRose

        So no, it's not 'dumb'.

        He didn't say 'give up', he said 'try another route toward the desired result.' The desired result is less deaths, right?

        I see what you did there.

        by GoGoGoEverton on Tue May 07, 2013 at 08:22:13 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  For you and I, perhaps (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Inland
          The desired result is less deaths, right?
          For others, the desired result is decidedly different.  

          I blog about my daughter with autism at her website

          by coquiero on Tue May 07, 2013 at 08:36:48 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Um. No. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          coquiero

          Even after all the other routes are tried, and even if they succeed, we'd still be looking at laws regarding guns for the desired result of FEWER deaths.

          It's not like, "you don't need gun laws now that cars are safer, you've had your quota of saves".

          "We're now in one of those periods when the reality of intense pressure on the middle class diverges from long-held assumptions of how the American bargain should work" --James Fallows

          by Inland on Tue May 07, 2013 at 09:43:22 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  With the overall goal being 'less deaths'. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            FrankRose

            So if one route is currently not successful in getting closer to that goal, that doesn't mean someone that proposes an alternate route is 'quitting'.

            I see what you did there.

            by GoGoGoEverton on Tue May 07, 2013 at 09:54:19 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  When the alternatives are in lieu of, yes it is. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              coquiero

              You're quitting on the laws requiring guns and quitting on saving the lives such laws would save.

              Of course, that's the entire point: "Go try to cure mental illness first, THEN will be ready to discuss a limit on magazine size" is meant to put off gun laws forever.  

              "We're now in one of those periods when the reality of intense pressure on the middle class diverges from long-held assumptions of how the American bargain should work" --James Fallows

              by Inland on Tue May 07, 2013 at 11:06:53 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Coming from your perspective (0+ / 0-)

                it would really help the cause to restrict the obtaining, carry and use of firearms if you could eliminate other variables that gun advocates point to.

                I see what you did there.

                by GoGoGoEverton on Tue May 07, 2013 at 11:44:12 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  How do you figure? nt (0+ / 0-)

                  "We're now in one of those periods when the reality of intense pressure on the middle class diverges from long-held assumptions of how the American bargain should work" --James Fallows

                  by Inland on Tue May 07, 2013 at 01:15:31 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Let's say that national mental health services (0+ / 0-)

                    access and unemployment demonstrably improved over the next 5 years.

                    And then, let's say that gun deaths as a % of the population/deaths stayed static.

                    You could then point that out to a lot of people on the fence who aren't sure and say 'HA!'.

                    I see what you did there.

                    by GoGoGoEverton on Tue May 07, 2013 at 01:42:41 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  So there would be 90 plus percent in favor (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      coquiero

                      of expanded background checks instead of just ninety?

                      That's what I get for my five years in proving that mental health and low employment don't affect gun crimes?  

                      "We're now in one of those periods when the reality of intense pressure on the middle class diverges from long-held assumptions of how the American bargain should work" --James Fallows

                      by Inland on Tue May 07, 2013 at 02:12:20 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Fair point on background checks. (0+ / 0-)

                        When it didn't pass I commented that was ashamed of our Senate to not pass something that has such support. I took KV's comment as referring to all of the efforts in general...even if the background checks had passed I don't think you could overall consider the group of efforts a success.

                        I see what you did there.

                        by GoGoGoEverton on Tue May 07, 2013 at 02:49:47 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

      •  Trying to get dems to quit preemptively (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        rigcath, coquiero

        is a pretty well worn tactic of Republicans.  When they start demanding that proposals never be made and nominations be withdrawn, we know we're winning.

        Another well worn tactic is proving how intractable the opposition is by being ridiculously impervious to reason.  KV says that the senate won't pass laws, but he uses his own intransigence as illustration of how impossible it is to get a true gun "rights" advocate to give a fuck about anything.

        "We're now in one of those periods when the reality of intense pressure on the middle class diverges from long-held assumptions of how the American bargain should work" --James Fallows

        by Inland on Tue May 07, 2013 at 08:24:17 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I asked an important question. I'm not saying (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Texas Lefty, FrankRose

        give up.

        I'm curious as to your plan to get these things done.

        Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

        by KVoimakas on Tue May 07, 2013 at 08:29:11 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site