Skip to main content

Happy? Holidays!

Not surprisingly we are ending the year with yet another massacre and once again we are reading about insane people who are troubled, off their meds, and/or mentally ill.

These are, as gun advocates like to tell it, not the "law abiding" gun owners we all know and love, I.E. Citizens who do nothing bad with guns except shoot paper targets, kill defenseless animals or, if you are a Vice President, shoot your lawyer/hunting partner in the face.  BTW, that guy is still waiting for an apology. It is an argument, however, that truly holds no water. After all, as far as I can tell most gun owners are "law abiding" up until the moment they open fire.

Another favorite word bandied about by gun advocates is the word Responsible. Every time some nut shoots up a room full of people gun advocates come at us with the same old line about how once again a few bad apples are punishing the "responsible" ones.

Then it hit me. These gun advocates are right! In fact, the word Responsible is actually very apropos for the gun culture. In fact, if we take a closer look, I am quite willing to get behind them all the way.

re·spon·si·ble
Being the primary cause of something and so able to be blamed or credited for it. Synonyms: liable - accountable - answerable
Now, I know that gun owners are a paranoid bunch and often not of a highly educated crop, but are they aware of the irony here? And can we on the left come right out and brand gun owners, NRA members, and anyone else who loves to shoot holes into things that did not have them nor require them, officially "responsible" once and for all?

We might even make some money off of their ignorance as well. For example, how about a t-shirt displaying a semi-automatic with the words: "I Am Responsible" or "Responsible Gun Owner" emblazoned on the front? Would they get the irony or would they simply wear it proudly, oblivious to the carnage these weapons inflict on a monthly basis?

Come to think of it, how about offering a subscription to the "gun massacre of the month club?" Kind of like the jelly, except instead of being the gift that keeps on giving, this one most definitely taketh away. On second thought, I am pretty sure we are already lifelong members in this club. Unfortunately for some, they don't know it until their subscription runs out.

I wonder too, does being a "responsible" gun owner come with any actual responsibilities? Is it the responsibility of "responsible" gun owners to stop irresponsible people from getting their hands on a gun? Is it the responsibility of "responsible" gun owners to lead the conversation about gun control after a mass shooting? Is it the "responsible" gun owners' responsibility to advocate for closing loopholes and/or fighting for more sensible, and dare I say, "responsible" laws?

Of course not. In reality, we all know that gun owners never actually do the "responsible" thing when it comes to being responsible. After a mass shooting most gun owners simply hide behind the Constitution while justifying the bloody events as just another price to pay to protect it.

Be that as it may, I think an "I am Responsible" campaign is long past due and well worth the effort. I for one am backing gun advocates everywhere by exclaiming that in fact you are all officially responsible; responsible for the carnage, responsible for nothing getting done after the fact, and responsible for placing us all into a reality where going to elementary school, to the movies, and even to put out a fire has become bad for our health.

Yes, I admit it gun owners. You are most definitely responsible. Are you happy now?

Read more of my blog posts at: http://takemycountryback.com/

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  I'm a not a gun owner, but... (17+ / 0-)
    Now, I know that gun owners are a paranoid bunch and often not of a highly educated crop
    There are many gun owners here on the site who are pro-gun control, anti-NRA, and have legitimate reasons for owning one.

    I get who you're trying to address, but...

    I try to avoid broad brushes, myself.




    Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us.
    ~ Jerry Garcia

    by DeadHead on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 09:27:32 PM PST

  •  oh, it's simple (0+ / 0-)
    I wonder too, does being a "responsible" gun owner come with any actual responsibilities? Is it the responsibility of "responsible" gun owners to stop irresponsible people from getting their hands on a gun? Is it the responsibility of "responsible" gun owners to lead the conversation about gun control after a mass shooting? Is it the "responsible" gun owners' responsibility to advocate for closing loopholes and/or fighting for more sensible, and dare I say, "responsible" laws?
    No.
    •  Yes it is (6+ / 0-)
      Is it the responsibility of "responsible" gun owners to stop irresponsible people from getting their hands on a gun?
      Yes, you have an absolute responsibility to ensure that someone doesn't get their hands on your weapon and use it to injure themselves or someone else.  Gun owners frequently are arrested and some go to jail for precisely this conduct.

      I am a warrior for peace. And not a gentle man... Steve Mason, 1940-2005

      by Wayward Wind on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 11:36:44 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

        •  to the point (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Killer of Sacred Cows

          that you should be charged as an accessory to murder if the gun you own gets used in a murder committed by someone else.  Or accessory to attempted murder, or assault with a deadly weapon, or whatever heinous end the gun you own is used for if that were to happen.
          If you are a responsible gun owner, then no one will ever be able to use your weapon and therefore you won't have to worry about any of those conditions.

          •   (0+ / 0-)

            Me, me, me, me, me, mine, mine, mine, mine.    In 9th grade civics class I learned that I have responsibility, as a citizen, to make sure that "we, the people" is foremost, along with me, the individual.  Somewhere along the way we have lost that sense.
            My Christian training also includes "love thy neighbor as thyself."  
            My life experience has taught me that I am obligated to care for others-to not do so is not in my own interest.  The children who do not grow up with enough food, good education, at least one person in their lives who loves them to pieces, who are abused, traumatized--become those who either need public care, or worse, need incarceration.

            So brasilaaron, I suggest you look beyond yourself and consider how you might help prevent gun deaths and injuries-all of which cost us a bundle, either through health insurance costs or taxes that pay for-medical costs including treating psychological care, law enforcement costs, court costs, SSI disability for life long consequences of wounds.

            •  i support (0+ / 0-)

              all of those things.  Not sure why you thought i deserved your derision.  I believe that we can prevent gun deaths by forcing gun owners to take more responsibility for them and the injuries they cause if/when they get used by other people. If i weren't looking beyond myself i wouldn't be advocating for gun control, b/c i don't fucking own one and therefore couldn't possibly cause a gun death or accident.  I'm tired of paying for other people's irresponsibility wrt guns.  Thanks for the lecture though.

      •  not that I own a gun (7+ / 0-)

        I don't. I don't even have any plans to.

        I just don't like this side of the argument these days. Sorry. Too simplistic and hysterical.

        •  Almost every state (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Tom Seaview, brasilaaron

          imposes liability for negligence and/or recklessness in their criminal and civil laws.  

          Many gun owners have been prosecuted for conduct usually involving leaving a weapon where a child or someone else can access it, and then the child shoots either himself or someone else.

          Similarly, such owners can and have been successfully sued in civil courts.

          You find it "simplistic and hysterical" to hold gun owners responsible for their reckless behavior?  I certainly don't.

          I am a warrior for peace. And not a gentle man... Steve Mason, 1940-2005

          by Wayward Wind on Fri Dec 28, 2012 at 01:51:59 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I find it hysterical (6+ / 0-)

            To talk about this now.

            The laws are there. Great. The owners have a responsibility to safeguard the weapons. Excellent.

            The diary is crap. Quote

            In reality, we all know that gun owners never actually do the "responsible" thing when it comes to being responsible.
            Another quote:
            These diaries mushrooming after the fact are kinda grating already. It's pretty much the same as the Fatherland Security department creation, and the associated Thousands Standing Around job program.

            So, erm, I'm sorry, while I completely agree with a measure of gun control (registration, insurance, liability, etc)., it doesn't mean I have to agree with every random irrational outburst.

            There was once a great SNL sketch, two decades old, where a then-candidate Clinton was trying to pander to a town-hall-like moron interlocutor with a "That's a really good question", only to be interrupted by 'Koppel's "I'm sorry, Governor Clinton, but that is NOT a good question. Try to salvage some shred of dignity, you're leading, for God's sake."

            http://snltranscripts.jt.org/...

            That's pretty much it.

            •  Go to any RKBA diary (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              brasilaaron, exlrrp, a2nite

              and post a comment that you think that gun owners should be held responsible  - legally - for actions which occur as a result of their weapons.

              I think that you will be surprised to find how many don't believe that they should be held responsible.

              I am a warrior for peace. And not a gentle man... Steve Mason, 1940-2005

              by Wayward Wind on Fri Dec 28, 2012 at 03:33:18 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  Actually, debedb, you really don't know about (0+ / 0-)

              gun conversations on here if you make that statement with a straight face.

              And these diaries are not "after the fact" except in the context of Shady Hook.

              Massacres will continue. Maybe the next guy will shoot up a pediatric ward in a hospital because he's mad his wife is divorcing him.

              **Your beliefs don't make you a better person, your behavior does** h/t Clytemnestra/Victoria Jackson

              by glorificus on Mon Dec 31, 2012 at 07:23:12 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  That's called (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            debedb, Cedwyn, happy camper

            reckless endangerment, and there are already laws, and they apply to many more circumstances than gun ownership.

            •  Reckless endangerment (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              brasilaaron, exlrrp

              is when someone fires into a group of people - but doesn't hit anyone.

              If someone is hit, then it is assault.

              If someone is killed, then it is manslaughter.

              And if someone left a weapon in a position where it could be accessed by someone else who then fired into the group, they they are legally liable as well

              I am a warrior for peace. And not a gentle man... Steve Mason, 1940-2005

              by Wayward Wind on Fri Dec 28, 2012 at 03:36:26 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  If the laws already exist (7+ / 0-)

            And gun owners are already held responsible for genuine negligence, what are you raving about? Do you expect an absolutist standard, so that - no matter the circumstances - if anyone ever gets ahold of a legally owned gun and uses it to commit a crime, the gun's owner is responsible? Will you apply that standard to everything? If a car is stolen and used in a hit and run, the owner goes to jail?
            The law already has a reasonable standard of liability and negligence, as the you pointed out.

            “If you are irritated by every rub, how will your mirror be polished?” - Rumi

            by Jaxpagan on Fri Dec 28, 2012 at 06:26:04 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  Apparently not often enough. (0+ / 0-)

        And the primary pro-gun voices on here take no responsibility for anyone besides themselves.

        Is that considered being an accessory both before and after the act?

        **Your beliefs don't make you a better person, your behavior does** h/t Clytemnestra/Victoria Jackson

        by glorificus on Mon Dec 31, 2012 at 07:19:59 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  A hundred million gun owners (13+ / 0-)

    Who lock up their weapons, follow safety rules, sell them only to people they know or who've passed a background check: and you blame them all?

    •  The guns Adam Lanza used were locked up (5+ / 0-)

      until they weren't. Almost every gun possessor is a responsible one until there not

      There is no such thing as an off year election. Every election effects each other. We need to work as hard in 2014 as we did in 2012.

      by pollbuster on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 09:50:44 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Almost every (6+ / 0-)

        male is responsible with the use of his penis until one is not.

      •  If they had been, they wouldn't have been used (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Ahianne, happy camper, Tom Seaview

        As the mother was a Doomsday Prepper, she almost certainly had guns ready to use at a moment's notice - it's unlikely that her entire collection was properly secured in a safe, frankly, though we don't know.
        In any case, the son who everyone seems to have been scared of, and who clearly needed professional help, had access to the guns, which was an incredible lapse on her part - any access he had should have been taken away.
        But again, I don't know the circumstances - maybe the guns were all locked up, opened with a key which Adam stole after he killed her. Or maybe she had guns stashed but unsecured throughout her house. Not sure. But she definitely didn't take the proper level of precaution, given the mental state of her son, and all the evidence says she should have known that.

        “If you are irritated by every rub, how will your mirror be polished?” - Rumi

        by Jaxpagan on Fri Dec 28, 2012 at 06:31:44 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Blah, blah , blah, (0+ / 0-)

          I think the evidence shows she locked up her guns, so she was a responsible gun woman in the eyes of the gun possessors.

          There is no such thing as an off year election. Every election effects each other. We need to work as hard in 2014 as we did in 2012.

          by pollbuster on Fri Dec 28, 2012 at 10:19:44 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  Actually most (5+ / 0-)

        people who commit crimes with firearms have a long record of criminal behavior and/or violence. Few people go from law abiding to murderer in one step.

        The idea that a gun is some sort of evil talisman that makes criminals out of perfectly normal people may be attractive to anti gun people, but it's wrong.

        "A lie is not the other side of a story; it's just a lie."

        by happy camper on Fri Dec 28, 2012 at 06:46:10 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I believe this was Adam Lanza's first (0+ / 0-)

          major offense. I hate to spoil your little happy camper theory, but for a number of mass gun killers, it was their first major offense. And you have a good day at the range.

          There is no such thing as an off year election. Every election effects each other. We need to work as hard in 2014 as we did in 2012.

          by pollbuster on Fri Dec 28, 2012 at 10:25:22 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  I was wondering, how do you know that (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      shopkeeper, JMcDonald, brasilaaron

      a hundred million guns are locked up? Do you check on them all every night?

      There is no such thing as an off year election. Every election effects each other. We need to work as hard in 2014 as we did in 2012.

      by pollbuster on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 09:52:49 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  How do you know theyre not? (7+ / 0-)

        Do you check on them all every night?

        Happy just to be alive

        by exlrrp on Fri Dec 28, 2012 at 03:33:58 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  because every once in a while (0+ / 0-)

          like about every week, some person gets ahold of someone else's gun and shoots/kills someone with it. Often times children, and unless those children are all master lock pickers then we can safely assume that those weapons were not locked up.

          •  And all gun owners are responsible for that? (8+ / 0-)

            Seems like there's an issue of individual choice here, as to whats appropriate in your own house.

            Happy just to be alive

            by exlrrp on Fri Dec 28, 2012 at 05:11:22 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  and once something that's in your own house (0+ / 0-)

              gets out and kills someone?  I think that firearm owners ought to be required to have a lockable gun cabinet(s) sufficient to lock all of their guns, which all need to be registered to the owner.  They ought to have to prove that they have the safe in the house and that all the guns they own fit in it.  They ought to have to do this yearly, every 2 or 5 years, whatever, but some relatively short length of time.  However, once the safe is in the house, the gov't of course can not be reasonably expected to check that the guns are locked away in it on any sort of regular basis.  That would be the "responsible" part of "responsible gun owner".  And i have no doubt that most gun owners do in fact use/store their guns responsibly, but the fact that they are not required to demonstrate any amount of safety precautions or knowledge is a problem because occasionally an irresponsible one fucks up and people end up dead.  That is not a reasonable trade-off.

        •  If an average of 88 people are killed every (0+ / 0-)

          day by a gun in this country, it's pretty clear they aren't all locked up.

          **Your beliefs don't make you a better person, your behavior does** h/t Clytemnestra/Victoria Jackson

          by glorificus on Mon Dec 31, 2012 at 07:26:44 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  So they won't have any problems (4+ / 0-)

      then, if we make this the law?

      I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
      but I fear we will remain Democrats.

      by twigg on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 09:59:30 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  so you're in favor of stricter background laws? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      brasilaaron

      That would reduce the number of people buying guns who don't bother with a background check, right?

      And if we required gun owners to take a gun safety course, that would be good too, wouldn't it?  Isn't that what the NRA promotes -- gun safety?

      And if we required a few million in liability insurance per gun, it would be dirt cheap for such highly responsible gun owners, so how about that as well?  Only the loons would have trouble getting such insurance, because only their guns EVER end up killing anyone.  If your argument is true, the insurance companies would see that in their actuarial tables.

      So it turns out we don't need to blame gun owners.  We just need to make sure they are held responsible.

    •  I have seen a few too many stories recently, (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      brasilaaron

      About children that shot themselves or were shot accidentally by their parent because their parents didn't follow safety rules, not to believe that there is a measurable percentage of gun owners that is not responsible.

      Repeal the 2nd amendment.

      by Calouste on Fri Dec 28, 2012 at 02:20:46 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  responsible gun owners don't make news (3+ / 0-)

        "area man keeps guns locked in safe" makes for pretty boring copy.

        and i'm sorry, but if a parent is stupid enough to leave their gun where their child could get ahold of it, guns are not the problem.  that person is an idiot, plain and simple.

        Please don't dominate the rap, Jack, if you got nothin' new to say - Grateful Dead

        by Cedwyn on Fri Dec 28, 2012 at 05:55:13 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  You know what also doesn't make the news? (0+ / 0-)

          "Parent leaves loaded gun on table and kid doesn't grab it". And how many of those stories do we not hear about? I bet it is dozens, if not hundreds, for every instance where someone gets killed .

          Repeal the 2nd amendment.

          by Calouste on Fri Dec 28, 2012 at 06:15:48 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  You are losing and will always lose the effort to (14+ / 0-)

    make your point by being silly enough to type the following (to expand on DeadHead's blockquote):

    Now, I know that gun owners are a paranoid bunch and often not of a highly educated crop, but are they aware of the irony here? And can we on the left come right out and brand gun owners, NRA members, and anyone else who loves to shoot holes into things that did not have them nor require them, officially "responsible" once and for all?
    The questions I have for you, assuming you have taken a break from your tirade, is:  What is your plan for "we on the left" who actually happen to own firearms?  Is shooting holes in things in itself sufficiently damning that we are to be branded insufficiently progressive, regardless of what those "things" are?  Should I notify my alma mater that I will be returning my college diploma because I am too dumb to posses it any more?  Is there some sort of TeaBagger-like litmus test regarding firearm ownership that will hereafter exclude us from being sufficiently True Believers such that we can no longer consider ourselves as being part of "we on the left"?  Just curious...

    "In a nation ruled by swine, all pigs are upward mobile..." - Dr. Hunter S. Thompson

    by Jack K on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 09:51:39 PM PST

    •  Now you had your fun (3+ / 0-)

      What are your proposals?

      I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
      but I fear we will remain Democrats.

      by twigg on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 10:00:28 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I'll propose one (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        twigg, billmosby, The Marti

        A 10 round magazine limit including mandatory buy-back of larger magazines. I doubt there is the political will to do this, but I think there is favorable public opinion.

        A conservative is a man with two perfectly good legs who, however, has never learned how to walk forward. Franklin D. Roosevelt

        by notrouble on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 10:17:08 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  It's a start (0+ / 0-)

          Which is more than many would propose, so good for you.

          I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
          but I fear we will remain Democrats.

          by twigg on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 10:20:32 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  10? (0+ / 0-)

          I'd say 3, for cartidges.  If you can't hit the animal you're hunting with 3 shots, well, the animal wasn't meant to be yours.  Someone broke into your home, then why is a 6-round S&W not sufficient?

          •  For safety, it'll be a 5 round. (0+ / 0-)

            If it was a 5-round, it'll be a 4.

            Moderation in most things.

            by billmosby on Fri Dec 28, 2012 at 06:13:40 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Remember you can't take property (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            just another vet

            without compensation. If the limit is lowered below 10 the buyback will get exponentially larger. It is a very common semiautomatic magazine capacity. It is also the limit for handguns under the expired 1994 Assault Weapons Ban.

            All revolvers are not 6 round. Some are only 5, but others as high as 8. As you go below 10 you will quickly get into the position of having to buy back guns, making it much more expensive.

            Finally, there is the matter of needing public and political will for anything to happen. I think the will is there to reinstate the '94 AWB, but that would not have effected the AR-15 used in the Sandy Hook murders. It would reimpose magazine capacity limits, but do nothing to remove existing ones. Since the sale of high capacity magazines exploded after the ban expired it would be a much slower way to curb large magazines. I think the will is there to enact a 10 round limit because it appears to be a smaller step. I think the buyback would make it a larger positive effect.

            A conservative is a man with two perfectly good legs who, however, has never learned how to walk forward. Franklin D. Roosevelt

            by notrouble on Fri Dec 28, 2012 at 08:19:48 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  It wasn't "fun"; I'm PO'ed at the lame (10+ / 0-)

        failed characterization of all firearm owners as stupid, redneck hillbillies and crazies and I'm quite frankly beyond tired of seeing it...
         Proposals:
        1)  Limit magazine capacity for ALL firearms to no more than 5 rounds.  Hunting firearms usually can't hold more than this, and target-shooting firearms don't need any more than this.  
        2)  BAN ALL semiautomatic rifles that fire either the 5.56×45mm NATO cartridge (M16/AR15) or the 7.62×39mm cartridge (AK-47).
        3)  Require background checks for ALL firearms purchases, regardless of the venue of purchase.
        4)  Roll back all the "open carry" laws (just because I'm tired of seeing knuckleheads strolling around the local Cabela's with a Big Iron On Their Hip, as if they are going to somehow 'save' me from whatever bad guy is lurking out there behind the rack of goosedown jackets).
        5)  Make the need for concealed weapons permits be an actual need, rather than a "just because" thing.

        There's probably more,  but it's beyond time for bed, so have a good night...

        "In a nation ruled by swine, all pigs are upward mobile..." - Dr. Hunter S. Thompson

        by Jack K on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 10:31:45 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  If gun-owners (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Wayward Wind, brasilaaron

          stepped up and accepted that we have a problem, and genuinely joined the debate, then maybe those characterizations would vanish.

          I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
          but I fear we will remain Democrats.

          by twigg on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 10:36:08 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I already did that (6+ / 0-)
            stepped up and accepted that we have a problem, and genuinely joined the debate,
            AND NOTICE IT DID NOT MAKE THOSE CHARACTERIZATIONS VANISH!!
            Think of something else

            Happy just to be alive

            by exlrrp on Fri Dec 28, 2012 at 03:37:26 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Well, if that don't beat all... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            theboz

            for obtuseness.

            Well done.

          •  Twigg... (7+ / 0-)

            twigg, twigg, twigg... you read these threads too, and know as well as I that there are lots of people here on this site whose contempt for gun owners is beyond all rationality. Those people will never cease to stereotype, insult, and belittle all gun owners, unless it's to call for banning us from the site. And even more shameful, there are too many other "progressives" who will remain silent when they see this behavior.

            There's not ONE of us who thinks the status quo is a good thing. Not one. But any remedial measures that do not involve banning specific weapons and ammo, or making it extremely difficult for the 100 million plus lawful shooters, hunters, and gun owners in the US to own any gun are deemed irrelevant, or a diversion. Facts are unwelcome, so I have been told. On the issue of gun control, there is no need to carefully craft reality based policies that might actually alleviate the problem--just ban 'em all.

            There's no debate to join at this point.

            "A lie is not the other side of a story; it's just a lie."

            by happy camper on Fri Dec 28, 2012 at 07:07:31 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I know (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              PSWaterspirit, oldpunk, happy camper

              and contrary to the thoughts of the "other" reply, I wasn't being obtuse.

              You know as well as I do that there are many of you who are busy ridiculing every suggestion because it will not work.

              Not all of you, I grant that, but enough to make some of these threads a train-wreck.

              Nor do I claim that the "anti gun" advocates are all as positive as one might wish.

              I think I have been long enough at this that people understand that I have always been willing to discuss and concede ground where I have to, but even I am categorised as "obtuse", so I wonder how far we can get.

              I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
              but I fear we will remain Democrats.

              by twigg on Fri Dec 28, 2012 at 10:12:29 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Most of us are willing to (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                twigg

                look at options. I am probably viewing life from a very different place from where you are.

                I am of the opinion that certain guns hould be reclassified into the category with machine guns. This way the ban will not expire. If we then held a buy back program for theses guns and large clips we may make some head way.

                These are ideas I got from people who don't agree that I have a right and need to own a rifle for use on my farm. But they are willing to allow they don't know everything, and so am I.

                This diary is just devisive. It leaves me with no desire to participate in the process. The thread is bound to be a train wreck.

                It is the heart that makes a man rich. He is rich according to what he is not what he has -Henry Ward Beecher

                by PSWaterspirit on Fri Dec 28, 2012 at 10:31:00 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  The problem as I see it (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  oldpunk

                  is that even here we rarely agree on much in the way of common ground. Leave here, and move into the wider community and that problem is magnified.

                  When I say that gun-owners need to step up, it's not just those here (who are probably the easiest group to talk to).

                  We get so bound up in what will not work, what constitutes a machine gun, or an assault rifle, that little progress is made.

                  People are free to call me names all day, every day. It makes no difference to me, it simply informs me of just how far apart we are.

                  For example ... there is no need to even use the terms "machine gun" or "Assault Rifle". All that happens there is that we get bogged down in definitions.

                  If we simply talked about capacity, action etc, it gets easier because we can the form a specific proposal, and discuss it.

                  I would propose limiting the capacity of a magazine to 5 rounds for bolt-action and 3 rounds for semi-automatic.

                  The thinking is simply that if we go at the potential for fast, mass killing by restricting the capacities, and designing guns that take time to reload, then we infringe no rights, impinge on no hunting, or sport, and we can discuss the actual proposal.

                  I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
                  but I fear we will remain Democrats.

                  by twigg on Fri Dec 28, 2012 at 10:53:03 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  You would be right (0+ / 0-)

                    with one exception.Many guns such as my 1926 Lady Winchester have a 10 round clip that is common.

                    The issue also becomes most guns are well made mine is over 80 years old and has been used a lot. My great aunt who was the original owner hunted a deer every year to feed her five kids. She also ran a ranch on her own in South Dakota there was a place on her horses saddle that held this rifle and  from what I know she used it often on predators yet it is still an excellent farm rifle to this day. It will probably out last me and I will pass it on to the next generation.  So even bans will have little effect unless its for sale even then it would be hard to stop private sales of unregistered guns and there are probably many more of those than people think.

                    I am not into the different kinds of guns I own one and that takes care of the problems that come from living on the edge of a very large national forest.

                    I would agree that we need to figure ways to stop these shootings.The one near Portland Oregon had few deaths, they believe, because of a disaster drill they had for just such an occurrence. While I am not so sure about doing these in schools and making children fearful that this is going to happen it does seem to help. This coupled with limits, that as you say, would make it more difficult for one of these shooters to let loose a huge amount of bullets in a short time may indeed save lives.

                    Once that is done we need to take a good hard look at ourselves as a country and ask why people are going off the rails and even considering this in the first place.

                    It is the heart that makes a man rich. He is rich according to what he is not what he has -Henry Ward Beecher

                    by PSWaterspirit on Fri Dec 28, 2012 at 05:41:14 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

        •  Very reasonable (0+ / 0-)

          reforms (in fact, farther than I think a lot of left-leaning gun owners want to go).  Thank you.

        •  And you kinda delve into your own version... (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          rockhound, Tom Seaview, oldpunk

          of bigotry there, ironically.

          That moral high ground gets a little low and soft occasionally, doesn't it....

      •  Make bullets illegal (0+ / 0-)

        Let's start there. The founders said noting about the right to bear bullets.

    •  To own a gun (0+ / 0-)

      There is no legitimate reason to own a gun. It's only purpose is to shoot things full of holes or make it dead. It is an agressive toy and nothing more.

      •  "Making things dead" is a legitimate reason. (5+ / 0-)

        Unless you'd rather deal with a rabid raccoon with a club. And hunters are the only large predators in many areas of the country. Would you rather control deer populations through starvation, disease, and auto accidents?

        I don't own a gun. I've never felt a need for one. If I lived out on a farm, I'd probably have a shotgun. Needs to make something dead do sometimes arise.

        Cogito, ergo Democrata.

        by Ahianne on Fri Dec 28, 2012 at 06:55:08 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  You're painting with a pretty broad brush here. (7+ / 0-)

    If you had a point other than to be insulting, you have failed to make it.

    "Forecast for tomorrow? A few sprinkles of genius with a chance of doom!" -Stewie Griffin

    by quillsinister on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 10:43:47 PM PST

  •  Growing up on a farm (10+ / 0-)

    I will tell you  you are trending into an area that doesn't really mesh with reality.   There are a great number of people who are very responsible gun owners.  

    Their weapons stay locked up and they are used as tools, in the same way that you would use a tractor or a plow.   There are others who do keep them reasonably for other reasons.

    But there are a great number of americans who find real use for a weapon, far beyond just menacing people.  

    Here in the midwest, three times in the last ten years, the state and feds have paid people for killing blackbirds, due to over population.   The state has increased the number of deer hunters can hunt as population rises too high in some areas.

    For farmers, a gun serves other purposes; I'd love to say it's easy to be the most humane person in the world, but seriously injured animals and animals that are perceived rabid are often put down with a rifle or a weapon.

    There is a reasonable gun debate to be had.  But brandishing all of those who own a gun as bad people is a sure fire way to get them to solidify and you will get absolutely nothing.   It makes it too easy for them to counter attack your arguments.

    Reasonable, sensible limitations are in order.  And we should begin that conversation.   Because it's a conversation on which the NRA loses.  

    But if we start throwing big broad brushes, the NRA will win every single time.  Legislatively, publically, and state by state.

    Gandhi's Seven Sins: Wealth without work; Pleasure without conscience; Knowledge without character; Commerce without morality; Science without humanity; Worship without sacrifice; Politics without principle

    by Chris Reeves on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 11:07:24 PM PST

  •  "After a mass shooting most gun owners simply ... (21+ / 0-)

    ...gun owners simply hide behind the Constitution while justifying the bloody events as just another price to pay to protect it."

    Link, please, to something that proves this "most gun owners" BS. As for "And can we on the left come right out and brand gun owners, NRA members, and anyone else who loves to shoot holes into things that did not have them nor require them, officially 'responsible' once and for all?"

    As someone who has been on the left for decades and who has, in fact, spoken up about the need for reducing violence of all kinds, let me point out the obvious: gun-owners are not monolithic, polls show that most of us support more stringent gun laws. Calling us all ignorant and paranoid may catch you a few recommends and tips, but it won't sway any votes for actual legislation.

    Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

    by Meteor Blades on Fri Dec 28, 2012 at 12:13:23 AM PST

    •  You are absolutely correct (3+ / 0-)

      when you say that gun owners are not monolithic, and most support more stringent gun laws.

      I have owned all sorts of weapons for coming up on 50 years, handguns for more than 40.  My sons both own several weapons, and as of Christmas, my 10 year old grandson is the proud owner of a .22 single shot.  I daresay that I have likely used weapons against other human beings at least as much as anybody else on this site, if not more.

      But.

      When you get folks coming here, to the most liberal and progressive blog on the planet, and advocating strenuously for loosened firearms regulation - the other day I saw a comment that the way forward was to model national legislation on Vermont, which has virtually no restrictions, and that states should be "shall issue" for CCW permits (less than a week after the last child was buried in Newtown) -  then I tend to take diaries like this one which react to that with a bit of salt.  

      Is it over the top? Unquestionably.

      But damn it, if we - as progressive firearms owners - don't take the initiative to reduce the number of firearms in circulation, take steps to ensure that people who should not have guns don't get anywhere near one, and that firearms owners are held to a high standard of responsibility as concerns their weapons, then who will?

      The RW gun nuts certainly won't.  If we don't, then no one will...

      I am a warrior for peace. And not a gentle man... Steve Mason, 1940-2005

      by Wayward Wind on Fri Dec 28, 2012 at 04:05:12 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I am not a politician (0+ / 0-)

      And my opinion is just that.

  •  Some not-so-reponsible gun owners help a "friend": (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Wayward Wind
    “ ‘So, I guess you heard about the guy who killed his grandmother here?’ ” Warner recalled him asking. She replied that she had not. “‘Well, that was me.’”

    That man was William Spengler Jr., who four months later would set fire to the only home he is believed to have ever known at 191 Lake Road and lie in wait for firefighters to arrive before shooting four of them, two fatally.

    On Lake Road, Spengler was 'the friendly neighborhood criminal'
    The note penned by William Spengler Jr. prior to his deadly ambush of firefighters in Webster explained how a female former neighbor and her daughter helped him acquire the guns he used in the attack, according to law enforcement officials with knowledge of the investigation.

    The officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Thursday that criminal charges against at least one, perhaps both, of the women were imminent.

    Webster shootings: William Spengler's note detailed source of guns; arrests imminent, sources say
  •  HR for outright bigotry. (11+ / 0-)
    Now, I know that gun owners are a paranoid bunch and often not of a highly educated crop...
    I realize that it's lately been acceptable by some here to support such bigotry, but it is still against site rules and norms.

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

    by theatre goon on Fri Dec 28, 2012 at 04:19:58 AM PST

  •  thought you'd love this photo of my boy (8+ / 0-)

    click for full size

    How big is your personal carbon footprint?

    by ban nock on Fri Dec 28, 2012 at 05:27:44 AM PST

  •  So glad you came for rational, logical debate. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ban nock, PSWaterspirit, Tom Seaview

    Pound sand.

  •  HR for bigotry (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    rockhound, Tom Seaview

    This narrow minded viewpoint does not further your cause in fact it only makes things worse.

    I belong to the democratic party because I consider them to be the party that wished to create an inclusive country where we understand that our country is very diverse both in our way of life and our cultures but as different as we are we also have much common interest.

    We can can talk about this, we can come up with some kind of a new plan. Maybe we will even have the guts to deal with the underlying problems.

    I find it disappointing that on this issue some democrats are as ignorant and narrow minded as those repubicans that like to run about calling us "libertards"  

    Frankly I am sick of it.

    It is the heart that makes a man rich. He is rich according to what he is not what he has -Henry Ward Beecher

    by PSWaterspirit on Fri Dec 28, 2012 at 08:01:03 AM PST

  •  Right, so those responsible (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ER Doc

    Muslims sure need to take responsibility for the irresponsible ones and do something about them. Oh, what? Not allowed to say that cause its a right wing talking point I've heard over and over and it lumps a lot of people together unfairly?

    Funny that.

    "The next time everyone will pay for it equally, and there won't be any more Chosen Nations, or any Others. Poor bastards all." ~The Boomer Bible

    by just another vet on Fri Dec 28, 2012 at 10:42:51 AM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site