Dear NRA apologists: "It will never happen" is not a valid argument against gun control.

[DanTex]

"It will never happen" is different from "it shouldn't happen".

I have yet to hear any rational argument against, for example, regulating semi-autos and handguns the same way as machine guns under NFA. For that matter, I haven't heard any rational argument against simply banning all semi-automatics with detachable magazines.

There is very little doubt that either of those policies will save a lot of lives. On the downside, it would inconvenience a lot of gun owners, but it would not prevent law-abiding citizens from owning guns for self-defense, hunting, or recreation. Is there any doubt that such policies would be net beneficial for society?

The argumentative technique I've seen from the NRA apologists involves first claiming that the half-measures under consideration, like banning "assault weapons" or high-cap magazines, would have little or no effect. But then when it comes to more stringent regulations, they simply say "it will never happen".

The same argument could be made against any number of policies -- single payer healthcare, significant reductions in carbon emissions, etc. It is simply a dodge.

[morningfog]

1. Recommend.

[former-republican]

2. I don't like the word ban neither do any of the 80 million gun owners in America

Let the talks start with the word regulate
and you would find more gun owners open up a dialog


Right now all the gun grabber nut cases love using the word Ban like it's the new catch phrase.

Makes them giddy I guess.

And yes that includes some of our politicians...

[byeya]

3. Mendacious and wild-eyed: That's what the NY Times calls the NRA.

Ban the guns.

[DanTex]

5. But, again, that is an argument about politics and feasibility.

The fact that something may be unpopular politically doesn't mean it's a bad idea.

[former-republican]

8. I'm open to dialog about regulating firearms as is most gun owners on this site.

You can't have a discussion with people that call for a ban on all private ownership.

And many posters have made them selves clear on that opinion.

[DanTex]

13. Of course you can have a discussion. You just choose not to.

Like I said in the OP, I haven't seen anyone make an argument as to why we shouldn't simply ban all semi-automatic weapons with detachable magazines. Including you.

Honestly, I don't know if an outright ban like that is necessary. It would save a lot of lives, but maybe just NFA-style regulation is enough. But it puzzles me that nobody seems to be able or want to make any kind of logical argument as to why semi-autos with detachable magazines should be legal.

[former-republican]

14. I'm having one right now and have made several posts in threads about the NFA

I'm sure you have read some of them if you participated in the thread.

or maybe not...

[sir pball]

85. Heller.

Agree with it or not, current law says bans are out. You could pass one and try to overturn precedent but it's too fresh a decision to have much of a chance.

That considered, give me the right incentives and I'll put every firearm in the country under the NFA.

[Bjorn Against]

6. I am not a gun grabber and I support a ban on assault rifles and hand guns

I am not a gun grabber as I don't support taking guns from those who already legally own them, but I do support a ban on the manufacture of new assault rifles and hand guns along with a gun buyback program to allow people to voluntarily give up their guns. We need to reduce the number of guns in the street but as long as the arms manufacturers are pulling in big money that won't happen, it is time to put an end to the manufacture of new assault weapons.

[former-republican]

9. So you want any new person of legal age with no mental illness , criminal or felony conviction

to be unable to ever purchase a handgun in their lifetime.
That is your position?

[Bjorn Against]

12. Yes it is, we don't need any more George Zimmermans

After seeing the sickening reaction from many of the gun nuts who tried to claim that Zimmerman acted appropriately that gave me more than enough proof to convince me that these so-called "responsible gun owners" do not even know what responsible gun ownership is. People who defend the actions of people like Zimmerman can not be trusted with a gun, yet there are millions of them out there.

Most people are able to get by just fine without a handgun, they are not necessary to your survival and are in fact far more likely to kill you than to protect you.

[former-republican]

15. By starting your argument with George Zimmerman and

stating this.



"in fact handguns are far more likely to kill you than to protect you"







You just lost all creditability with me on this discussion.

I would be happy to discuss any other progressive and liberal idea with you that I'm sure we both support.

I'm done discussing guns with you.

[The Magistrate]

16. And You Have No Credibility At All, Sir

So long as suicide is the largest portion of deaths owing to fire-arms, the claim that people are protected by owning guns is laughable, and to say someone who says owning a gun places you in greater danger loses all credibility by saying this is absurd to the point of satire....

[former-republican]

20. So then you want to discuss mental illness not firearms

We can discuss also the make, model and car someone died in an automobile drunk driving accident.


Or we could discuss the alcohol that was consumed before he got behind the wheel.

[Bjorn Against]

22. The car was not designed to kill but the gun was

Alcohol is frequently blamed for car accidents and if we blame alcohol for car crashes then I see absolutely no reason we should not blame guns for gun violence.

We are capable of discussing both gun control and mental health issues at the same time, the two issues are not mutually exclusive.

[former-republican]

29. He was trying to blame the firearm arm for suicides

which is ridiculous .

I agree that both discussions of mental health and criminal firearm violence can and should be included in the new regulations for firearms proposed.

[Bjorn Against]

32. It is true that people are far more likely to commit suicide if they own a gun

Guns make suicide a lot easier and a number of people who buy a gun for self defense end up eventually using it to kill themselves.

[The Magistrate]

33. And To Put It Even Colder, Sir

Conviction you need a gun for self-defense can be a significant indicator of underlying mental disorder.

"Many murderers are just extroverted suicides."

[spin]

48. What percentage of those who own a firearm for self defense do you feel have ...

significant underlying mental disorders?

Obviously a high percentage of the 80 million gun owners in our nation own firearms for self defense. A Gallup poll revealed that 67% of gun owners own their weapon "for protection against crime." That would indicate that 53.6 million citizens own a firearm for self defense and that figure might be low as often the husband buys the firearm that the wife uses. (ref: http://www.gallup.com/poll/20098/gun-ownership-use-america.aspx)

Obviously when you are dealing with a large number of people some will have metal issues. However if you are insinuating that a high percentage of gun owners have a mental disorder, I feel you are sadly mistaken and that accusation is insulting.

While relatively rare and decreasing, violent crime does occur in our nation. Home invasions, street muggings and rapes do occur.

Statistically I have no reason to fear that a dangerous intruder will ever break into my home and endanger my family. Perhaps I could use statistics to argue with such an intruder in an effort to discourage him from harming my family but I doubt that it would have any effect.

I feel that in such a situation my 12 guage double barreled coach gun or one of my handguns might prove an effective deterrent if I was able to get it in time. My mother used a handgun to stop a rapist and my daughter pointed a handgun at a man breaking into our Tampa home. In both cases it was not necessary to shoot the attacker. Both ran.

So out of curiosity do you feel I have an underlying mental disorder because I own firearms for self defense?

[The Magistrate]

51. Whether A Fear is Rational, Sir, Is a Proper Field For Inquiry

A person who announces a need to own and carry a deadly weapon for self-defense is expressing a fear of being menaced by deadly force at some future date. In many instances, it is self-evident this fear is not rational. Acting in an irrational manner, particularly in matters involving deadly force, opens the question of what dictates the surrender to irrationality. Why does the person so over-rate the danger, and respond in a manner so disproportionate to real risks? Answers can range from simple foolishness to incipient paranoia. Foolishness, put bluntly, ought to serve as as great a bar to wielding of lethal force as mental incapacity in other forms....


And one further note: it is not incumbent on me to give credence to various convenient claims of personal exploits with fire-arms produced on internet forums, and it is my general practice is not to do so.

[oldhippie]

58. I would rather think .....

A person who announces a need to own and carry a deadly weapon for self-defense is expressing a fear of being menaced by deadly force at some future date.

... that the person is expressing the existence of a non-zero probability of being menaced by deadly force at some future date. That is entirely rational IMHO. Sir.

[The Magistrate]

90. The Possibility, Sir, I Will Find A Stack Of Hundred Dollar Bills On the Sidewalk Is Not Zero

It is not part of my budgeting plans, either.

The question is how significantly above zero that chance is, and how it matches, among other things, to the additional risks taken on by possessing the fire-arm, not just to oneself but to others. In the great preponderance of instances, the risk is not significantly above zero, and is less than the additional risks attendant on possessing the fire-arm --- making it a poor decision, and very likely an irrational one, particularly of it is based on a greatly excessive perception of risk of attack by others.

[spin]

64. Yes it might be true that a person who owns and carries a deadly weapon ...

has an irrational fear but it is also true that he may simply be aware that there is a possibility that it might come in handy in a true life or death situation.

I have a fire extinguisher 10 feet from where I am typing and fire alarms throughout my house but I don't "fear" my house is going to catch on fire. I wear a seat belt when I drive but I don't "fear" that on my way to the grocery store several blocks from where I live that I am going to be in an accident.

I am not trying to be defensive. I am merely pointing out that some people by nature like being as prepared as possible for any eventuality. Of course that is impossible but several times during my life being prepared has worked to my advantage.

Claiming that all or even most gun owners are fearful is buying into a common stereotype and is almost as foolish as claiming that most males who own firearms are suffering from penile inadequacy.

You strike me as intelligent and well educated and I am surprised that you don't realize the fallacy in your statement. I suspect that you do and you merely like tweaking other posters to see their reaction. If so I see no problem with your enjoying yourself and it is a fact that trashing gun owners is a very popular sport here on DU recently. Have your fun. It's harmless.

My mother and my daughter did use firearms for self defense. If I was making this up, I would have made the tales far more interesting. You can chose to believe it or not but it is fact. Knowing that two close members of my family successfully defended themselves with a firearm is a factor in why I own such weapons for self defense. Unlike you, I am well aware that predators do exist.

[spin]

89. Therefore you must believe that my having fire alarms and fire extinguishers in my home ...

is irrational and so is my wearing a seat belt to travel several blocks to the grocery store.

You seem to be implying that there is absolutely no reason for a person to take steps to be prepared for violent crime as it simply doesn't exist and that a person who believes this is paranoid or has an underlying mental problem.

I will suggest that you are somewhat delusional if you do hold such a view.

Crime and Victim Stats

***snip***

Violent Crime — General

The odds of being a victim of a violent crime during adulthood are greater than 2 to 1. (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Youth Violence Research Bulletin — February 2002)

More than one in three (35 percent) of adults are estimated to fall victim to violent crime. (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Youth Violence Research Bulletin — February 2002)

In 2005, U.S. residents age 12 or older experienced an estimated 23 million violent and property crimes. (U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey — September 2006)

Most murder victims (79 percent) and murderers (88 percent) are male. (U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Homicide Trends in the U.S. – Trends by Gender — July 2006)
http://www.witnessjustice.org/news/stats.cfm#violentcrime

Now admittedly much depends on who you are, where you live and what activities you engage in.

I feel that to pass judgment on a person who you don't know is somewhat foolish. You have no idea of who I am or where I have lived or what activities I engage in. Even if I do live in a very safe area and do not engage in unsafe activities there is still a small chance that I might find myself a victim of a violent attack.

You call yourself "The Magistrate." I suggest you judge others fairly without bias and be open to different opinions other than your own. People's opinions on many issues differ significantly because of background and experience. Obviously if I had your background I might feel the same as you do about firearms and if you had mine you might hold my views.

I welcome a debate with you on the topic but we both have to show some respect for each other. Is that too much to ask? Your side of the argument does have many excellent points to make and I feel mine does also.

[The Magistrate]

92. By The Standards Employed There, Sir, Me And Mine Have Done Our Violent Crime Exposure

These things include simple assault, attempted robbery, and any number of things that actually have little to do with what most people understand as violent crime. A few years ago someone told me he had a gun and I should give him my money; he had no gun, and he got no money. That was, however, a violent crime; attempted robbery. Fear of crime in this country is inculcated well past any rational assessment of actual risk, and public policy, and political life, suffers accordingly, as it must do when fantasies are the grounds on which laws and procedures and votes are based.

[spin]

100. If my situational awareness fails me and I find myself confronted by a street thug ...

who demands my money, I will appraise him. If I feel that he will be satisfied by my wallet I will gladly give it to him. I can always replace my money, my ID and my driver's license. I can't replace my health easily and if I end up dead then I'm totally out of luck. If he is not happy with my wallet and attacks me, I will do my best to defend myself.

If I am attacked by an individual who intends to put me in the hospital for an extended stay or six feet under I will try to stop his attack

At one time in my past I had some training in jujitsu oriented primarily toward self defense. The above is the lesson I learned from my instructor. He told his classes that you only use the skills he taught when there was absolutely no other choice. Unfortunately that was years ago and in my current physical condition I would be largely unable to use most of the "tricks" that I learned.

I never fantasize about using my firearm to kill someone and in fact I abhor violence. Still it is my choice that I am as prepared to stop a truly serious attack as I can be.

I should also point out that like you I tend to discount anecdotal tales I read on the internet. However I feel that you are not exaggerating so I will accept your story as truth.

[The Magistrate]

102. Already Replied To In #99 Below, Sir....

For your own sake, I hope you never have to find out what it is actually like....

"You will not rise to the occasion; you will default to your level of training."

[Bjorn Against]

52. People who are paranoid are more likely to have a mental illness than people who are not paranoid

If a person is so fearful that someone is going to randomly attack them that they feel they need a gun at all times then they may have a mental illness, not necessarily but there is a good chance a person does have a mental illness if they have no rational basis for the fear yet feel a constant need to "protect themselves". While most gun owners are not mentally ill there are certainly a number of them who are, this is just reality there are mentally ill people in society and paranoia is a common trait among the mentally ill.

Don't ask either me or the Magistrate to comment on your own psychiatric condition however, neither of us diagnose people we just understand the reality of mental illness.

[spin]

74. Let me ask you a simple question. ...

How can I predict exactly when I might need my carry weapon?

Perhaps you can direct me to an app that will tell me when I fire up my Ipad in the morning that I will need my snub nosed revolver on that day.

I seriously do not expect that I will ever have a reason to use my carry weapon or I would carry a much larger handgun with me. But still I feel it is better to have my revolver and never use it than to need it and not have it.

Why would I take the time, effort and expense to get a carry permit and leave it at home in my safe. That would be illogical.

If I got a carry permit merely to show it to my friends then I might indeed have an underlying mental problem. In Florida having a carry permit would not impress anyone as they are fairly common.

[Bjorn Against]

94. In all liklihood you will never need to use your weapon.

While no one can predict what will happen to you on any given day, the fact is that the vast majority of us manage to survive daily trips to the store without having to carry a gun with us. Having a gun does not make you safer nor does it make the rest of us any safer, for every case of self defense you can cite there are cases of accidental shootings.

[spin]

96. If you noticed I said that I have no reason to expect that I ever will have to use my weapon ...

for legitimate self defense. Unfortunately I could be wrong.

I have absolutely no desire to ever have to use my concealed weapon for self defense but if I have no other choice and honestly feel that my attacker intends to put me in the hospital for an extended stay or six feet under, I will.

If my situational awareness fails me and I find myself confronted by a thug who demands my money. I will appraise him and make a judgment on his motives. If I feel that he simply wants my wallet, I will give it to him. If however I honestly believe that he intends to injure or kill me or if he attacks me after I have given him my wallet, I will attempt to stop his attack.

I may fail but I have no intention of dying on my knees pleading for my life.

I hope and pray that I will never find myself in such a situation but at least if I do I have the ability to defend myself. That's all I can ask for.

[The Magistrate]

99. This, Sir, Is Truly, Uproariously, Funny

This is not the way real danger happens.

You will not be 'appraising him and making a judgement about his motives'; you will have neither the time nor the mental space to do any such thing.

You either react very quickly, or you are in a situation in which any aggressive action is foreclosed. If you have time to think, you are facing someone who does not know his trade, and in fact are in very little if any danger at all.

Just the level of detail with which you spin this thing out shows you spend a good deal of time thinking about 'what you'd do' if you had an opportunity to draw your weapon, and your presentation at least strongly suggests that this active fantasy life is not grounded in much experience.

So do not try and kid anyone, least of all yourself: you want to use the weapon, and that is why you carry it. You may not expect to use it, but you certainly do hope to use it....

[spin]

103. Of course for you to make such a judgment without knowing me or my experiences ...

is somewhat foolish.

[The Magistrate]

104. Only, Sir, If You Are Going To Claim You Are Not a Human Being

If you are going to announce you are from Mars, or proclaim yourself abnormal, utterly unlike ordinary folks in your make-up and mentality, then perhaps you might have a point. Otherwise, no, it is far from foolish to understand you as anyone with some experience of men and the world would understand anyone else behaving as you say you do, and in fact, what would be foolish would be to take your protestations you are different from the general run as an accurate assessment.

[spin]

105. No. I don't come from Mars. ...

Nor do I feel that I am different from the "general run."

I just think that you are underestimating many of your fellow men and women. Not everybody panics or freezes in a bad situation.

You seem to be saying that there is no reason to carry a firearm because nobody can ever use such a weapon properly in an emergency unless they have had extensive training. Unfortunately for your argument people do successful defend themselves or families on a daily basis without any training at all.

People differ. In a life or death situation some will freeze, some will react foolishly and some will react properly.

[The Magistrate]

23. Stick To The Flat Fact, Sir: Squid's Ink Will Not Do

To state a person owning a gun is in greater danger is a fact.

To say a person stating that fact 'loses all credibility' is a laughable statement, which excuses anyone who reads it from any obligation to take anything you say on this subject seriously.

[former-republican]

27. your fact is incorrect

[The Magistrate]

28. Denying Facts, Sir, Will Not Help You Either, Though It Will Amuse the Audience Watching You Wriggle

The bulk of fire-arms deaths are suicides. Possession of a fire-arm increases the likelihood of a successful suicide attempt. On this ground alone, possession of a fire-arm increases the degree of danger to which its owner is exposed.

[former-republican]

37. You sir are incorrect again

Please show me where I denied the majority of suicides are not self inflicted gun shot wounds?

Once you do that , I will address the bottom quote that 80 million gun owners in this country
are more likely to be exposed to violence. Or is the real fact that a firearm has prevented and deterred
more likely violence to be perpetrated on the gun owner.




This is your quote


"possession of a fire-arm increases the degree of danger to which its owner is exposed"

[The Magistrate]

38. Possession Of A Fire-Arm Increases The Danger Its Owner is Exposed To: Flat Fact, Sir

You can wriggle about it all you please, and it is understandable that you find the fact uncomfortable, but that is your problem, and no one else's.

[former-republican]

40. I thought you would stop there, thank you

[The Magistrate]

42. You Cannot Refute It, Sir: There Is Nowhere Else To Go

"My god, man, slap yourself and think!"

[DanTex]

41. This is absolutely correct. There have been many studies about this.

The Harvard School of Public Health has a bunch of info about the link between guns and suicide.
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/means-matter/

[The Magistrate]

46. Part Of His Problem, Sir, Is Not Understanding Risk 'In the Round'

Introducing a new factor into a situation can alter many things, and there are numerous lines of risk v. benefit opened when one acquires a fire-arm. Even if it could be shown that on one of these lines, there was a benefit, that could well be outweighed by increased risk on other lines, when the situation was assessed as a totality.

[Ikonoklast]

62. Any one of those gun owners is at risk.

Statistics prove that they are in more danger of dying at their own hand by firearm than the populace at large, period.


And here I thought you guys loved statistics.

[neverforget]

77. Just ones that say that guns are awesome

but with 300 million guns in the USA, you'd think this would be the safest nation on the planet.

[Bjorn Against]

18. A gun did kill Trayvon Martin, but that gun did not protect George Zimmerman

Yet the gun nuts love George Zimmerman, they are all over the internet defending him. People who believe George Zimmerman handled a gun properly clearly do not know what responsible gun ownership is and should not own guns. Let's face it a huge percentage of gun advocates exposed just how insane they are in that case and we should take their insanity into account when discussing gun control.

It is a fact that you are more likely to be killed by a gun than to use a gun in self defense to save your life, you may wish that were not a credible fact but it is.

[spin]

54. Not all "gun nuts" support Zimmerman. ...

I feel I many here would qualify me as a "gun nut" as I own a small collection of firearms and have enjoyed target shooting handguns for over 40 years. (Note: I don't feel the term "gun nut" is an insult but I do prefer the term "gun enthusiast." I am often surprised how many "liberals" use politically correct terms except when referring to gun owners.)

I also have a Florida concealed weapons permit and I carry on a regular basis.

From the information that I have received from reading the news reports, I fault Zimmerman for pursuing Martin after being instructed not to do so. He had contacted the police and his responsibly ended at that point. A concealed weapons permit does not make you a cop nor does it give you permission to be a vigilante.

Since I personally dislike trial by the media I was happy to see Zimmerman will get his day in court. He will have a fair chance to present his defense. A jury will decide his fate and that is reasonable to me.

But perhaps I am wrong and we should allow the media to play judge and jury.

I have talked to several other people who have carry permits in Florida and not one stated that he would have acted as Zimmerman is reported to have done.

[Bjorn Against]

59. Not all gun nuts, but far too many of them

Yes Zimmerman is entitled to his day in court, no one has convicted him yet. James Holmes is also entitled to his day in court but I am not going to have to wait until his trial to determine that there was no justification for the Aurora shooting, I don't have to wait for Zimmerman's trial to determine gunning down an unarmed teenager was not justified either. The jury has to wait to determine that, the rest of us can just look at the facts.

If people want to pretend that following and then shooting an unarmed 17 year old could have been justified they can pretend that all they want, but I sure as hell don't want those people owning guns.

Whether or not all gun nuts supported what Zimmerman did is not the point, the fact that a substantial percentage of them do support Zimmerman is evidence enough that those people should not be allowed to carry a gun as they clearly have stretched the definition of "self-defense" so far that it has become a meaningless justification for murder.

[spin]

67. I feel you are basing your opinion on post you read on some pro-gun forums. ...

I have been talking to people who live in Florida and have a concealed weapons permit. One teaches concealed carry classes.

[Bjorn Against]

69. Sure, I have read lots of praise for Zimmerman on the pro-gun boards

I believe that you have met some Florida gun owners who did not support Zimmerman, but that is irrelevent. The fact is that there are a lot of people who support Zimmerman and I don't want those people owning guns. That concealed carry teacher you cite does not negate the existence of all the pro-gun people who cheer on Zimmerman.

[spin]

71. You may be right ...

but then you might be allowing your dislike of those who legally carry firearms to distort your views.

The media which is based largely in gun unfriendly areas of our nation has always supported strong gun control and has often portrayed those who legally carry in a very negative light.

Over 800,000 resident Floridians have concealed weapons permits so it is not surprising that a few Zimmermans exist. Florida has had "shall issue" concealed carry since October 1987 and in that period of time has issued a total of 2,307,881 carry permits. Only 168 have been revoked during that time frame for a crime involving the use of a firearm after the license was issued. Of course you rarely hear this statistic mentioned by the national media.
(source: http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/stats/cw_monthly.pdf)

If those in Florida who have carry permits were largely people who wished to play a police officer or a vigilante surely we would have seen far more licenses revoked for misuses of a firearm. Why hasn't this happened. It's simply because those with carry permits in Florida are FAR more responsible than portrayed by the media.

[Major Nikon]

55. We wouldn't be the first country to do this

...and the results speak for themselves.

Just sayin'

[99Forever]

7. Do you seriously think...

... any rational, sane person gives a shit what words gun nuts "like or don't like"?

Get over it.

[ellisonz]

21. +1

[hack89]

44. When you extend the phrase "gun nuts" to anyone who owns guns

or disagrees with you then don't be surprised when your gun control fantasies do not come true. Insulting and pissing off people is not the best way to get support for your ideas.

[Lizzie Poppet]

57. Pungently ironic, as well.

Evoke "sane, rational" persons...then follow that up with an obscene, insulting, broad-brush depiction of people he disagrees with....

[Bjorn Against]

60. Did you realize the post that was a response to refered to "gun grabber nut cases"?

I didn't notice you scold that person for referring to the opposition as nuts though, it was only when your side was called gun nuts that you became worried about insults yet you did not comment on the original insult that it was a response to.

[99Forever]

84. Yeppers...

... reminds me of the way Freepers conduct themselves...


Hmmmm.

[99Forever]

79. "Insulting and pissing off people is not the best way to get support for your ideas."

The NRA and other assorted gun freaks have been doing exactly that for many years, on top of wounding and killing by the thousands.


The worn has turned.

Get used to it.

[hack89]

80. Better wait until they pass actual legislation before doing your happy dance.

how are you going to feel when they pass the AWB and you figure out that it is not retroactive? I am willing to bet I will not be effected one bit.

[99Forever]

82. Whatever you say, buddy.

[hack89]

83. You realize the AWB will not be retroactive?

just like the old one.

[99Forever]

86. You writing the legislation, are you?

[hack89]

95. No - Senator Feinstein is. I will take her at her word. nt

[99Forever]

98. So, one Senator has the ...

.. final say so?

Whodda thunk it?

[hack89]

101. She has already said she is introducing the AWB bill

when Congress convenes next year. The President says he supports her bill.

Who do you think is going to say no to them?

[jmg257]

10. Aren't you tired? What is so frightening about the word "ban"?

Isn't giving up a few guns worth some portion of all those innocents murdered needlessly, and all those yet to be?

Why are you so worried?
What really is it that has you so scared?

[RomneyLies]

11. Regulating semi-automatic weapons the same way we do automatic weapons

is not a ban.

Of course, the gun-huggers like to act as if it is.

[valerief]

30. Ban the guns. Ban, ban, ban, ban. And not the roll-on. nt

[etherealtruth]

49. "gun grabber nut cases "

"And yes that includes some of our politicians... " ... funny, the folk you are referencing are all "left" on the political spectrum (Democrats).

The time for opening dialog with gun nuts/ gungasmers passed a long time ago. Now is the time for action.

[Skidmore]

91. How about we talk about gun safety measures, one of which is the banning of

these military style weapons ( I don't even know what to call them) and the clips that hold large numbers of bullets.

[Bjorn Against]

4. Agreed, they claim we can't ban them beacause there are too many on the street already

What they fail to realize is that just because we can't get rid of every last handgun or assault rifle, there would no doubt be fewer guns on the street if we stopped their manufacture. If you want to reduce the number of guns you don't keep making more. An assault weapons ban coupled with a gun buyback program may not rid our country of assault weapons, but it would certainly make them much harder for someone like Adam Lanza or James Holmes to get their hands on.

[Mec9000]

17. Ban on pot worked so well...

[Bjorn Against]

19. Pot is not even remotely the same thing as guns

Pot grows naturally, guns need to be manufactured. Anyone can grow a pot plant, but very few can build a gun with their own tools.

Pot doesn't kill people, guns do.

Most people would rather risk a small possession of marijuana charge than a felony gun conviction.

Comparing guns to pot is ridiculous, they are nothing alike.

[Mec9000]

25. You are talking about banning things

It doesn't matter what you ban you will not get rid of it.

[Bjorn Against]

26. Actually there are plenty of bans that work

Would you know where to buy a bazooka? I am guessing probably not because the bans on them have kept them pretty much impossible for the general public to get a hold of.

Now of course I recognize that bazookas were never available to the public in the first place and because we already let the cat out of the bag with guns we are never going to see guns go away completely, but that does not mean we can't reduce the number of guns.

The less guns we have the less gun violence we will have, the NRA may try to pretend otherwise but if people can't easily get a gun they are less likely to kill with a gun.

There would have to be a grandfather law on any ban because trying to seize people's guns would be a disaster, that grandfather law will mean there are always going to be guns out there but if we can just stop the production of new guns it would help.

[Mec9000]

31. 98% of guns you get in a ban are not the ones you need to worry about.

Guns last a long long time. I have a couple 100+ years old that are just as deadly now as then.

[Bjorn Against]

34. Yes, guns last a long time so why do we need to keep making more of them?

Aren't the 300 million guns we already have enough especially when you consider how long they last?

With as many guns as we already have out there I don't see why anyone without a financial interest would think we would need to make more.

[Mec9000]

36. Well who gave you personally the power to

see what people need? Would you like the Westboro idiots to decide what you need? There are a lot of people that seem to know what people "NEED".

[Bjorn Against]

39. What the hell are you talking about? How do the Westboro idiots apply to this?

I will say that you do not need a bazooka, you do not need an AR-15 either. If you think such a thing is a need you really should learn what the word "need" means.

I never told anyone in this thread what they need, I will tell you what you don't need however because in the English language the word "need" has a meaning and there is no need for a common citizen to own an assault rifle.

[Mec9000]

47. You did say

"With as many guns as we already have out there I don't see why anyone without a financial interest would think we would need to make more."

You can own a "Bazooka" It is 100% legal now the rockets that go in it is another story.

[Bjorn Against]

50. Yes, that is what I said, notice I did not tell anyone what they need

I told you what we DON'T need, we don't need more guns.

If you don't agree the you really should learn what the word "need" means because a common citizen very clearly does not need an assault rifle.

[Zoeisright]

87. Oh, so first you say bans won't work, then you say bans will work?

Which one is it? Or have you been caught in your web of illogical reasoning?

[Bjorn Against]

93. Where did I say bans won't work?

I did acknowledge bans won't eliminate all guns, but that is not the same as saying that a ban won't work. A ban would not eliminate guns, but it would be effective in reducing their number. A ban would work and I never said otherwise.

On edit: Upon trying to think of where you got the idea of where I suggested that bans don't work I started to wonder if you might by talking about my acknowledgement that the ban on pot doesn't work. If that is what you are referring to then I will say you are comparing apples to elephants, an assault rifle ban would be more effective than a pot ban because you can not grow an AR-15 in your garden.

[G_j]

24. pretty lame

robbery is against the law too..should we legalize it because there are still robberies?

[Deep13]

56. I'm growing a batch of Glocks right now!

They're almost ripe.

[ZombieHorde]

35. It's an interesting argument, but I don't accept it because

I'm sure many other policies have been subjected to the same argument. I wouldn't be surprised if women's suffrage was often subjected to the "will never happen" argument.

The "gun control will never happen" argument I read here on DU had some individual valid points, but I don't think the argument as a whole has much weight.

[former-republican]

43. I will be back to continue this but right now I have two 90 pound

german shepherds bugging me to take them for a walk.

[dionysus]

45. all that aside, how would you ever expect the GOP house to pass that legislation?

[Deep13]

53. That would effectively ban all handguns except revolvers.

Last edited Sat Dec 22, 2012, 06:22 PM - Edit history (1)

Including ones that some people legitimately need for self defense, including cops and park rangers. (I'm not willing to have armed officials, but unarmed public.) I really don't think those of us who shoot .22 at the target range are a threat to anyone. OTOH, it's pretty easy to make 10-round magazines for Glocks, Berettas etc. I have some. They work fine, just fewer bullets.

I really think controlled access and magazine limits will eliminate mass shootings and most robberies and gun murders too. I have manual and semi-auto guns for the target range. Except for the .22 pistols, most of my favorites are lever or bolt action which are slower than autos, have no detachable magazine, but are more fun to shoot.

Further militarizing our society is not the answer. V.T. and Columbine had armed guards. If this CT shooting had an armed guard it just would have meant one more fatality. You know what Ft. Hood had? The fucking army.

LaPierre could have gotten in front of this issue, proposed meaningful solutions, and still controlled the debate. Instead he gave us this unfeasible "good guy with a gun" crap and as a result those who are hostile to private gun ownership on ideological grounds will be controlling the debate. Nice job, NRA!

[DanTex]

68. What's the problem with having armed officials and an unarmed public?

Are you concerned about the possibility of a tyrannical government? Is it just a matter of principle?

In my view, so long as we have a democratic government, there is nothing wrong with giving officials more firepower than the public. In fact, it is necessary in order for the government to maintain the rule of law. On the other hand, if some kind of dictator takes over, the armed public isn't going to make much difference.

And really, if the US falls into dictatorship or civil war, things are going to be very bad, and an armed public will be the least of concerns.

[oldhippie]

72. You obviously haven't studied history very much ....

... have you? [sigh]

[DanTex]

75. Another non-answer. Is anyone going to even attempt to mount a rational defense of the

pro-gun ideology?

[Deep13]

81. partly principal and partly practicality.

If the public really is totally disarmed like in England, then there is simple no need for cops to carry firearms except in extraordinary cases. A state that does not rely on violence is generally a less violent society. That goes for high rates of incarceration, the death penalty, tolerance for poverty etc. Also, frankly, an awful lot of cops are not much better than criminals themselves. Sure, there are some very professional and dedicated cops. But there are also a lot of school yard bullies who became cops to push people around. So, yeah, ideally, I'd prefer fewer weapons in official hands.

The other part is principle. I'm not convinced that we are all that democratic. The way the system works with districts and majority rather than consensus requirements, certain topics being off limits for public discourse, voter suppression, "low information voting," and the amount of corporate money involved in electioneering make this for the most part a semblance of democracy. Seriously, how many people on this board voted for Obama because he was not as bad as the other guy? A free society trusts its citizens, it does not lord over them. So if citizens cannot be trusted with these weapons, then neither can the state which, after all, is just made out of citizens. Putting on a uniform or taking an oath of office does not by itself instill any public virtue or wisdom in a person.

[DanTex]

97. That's a fair answer.

I agree that it would be better if cops didn't have the need for weapons, so in that sense, yes, I would want less weapons in the hands of the police, and generally a less violent society.

As a practical matter, the state, including the police, is going to maintain superior force than the public. It's a necessity. And, trying to resist the police with force is futile. I can't imagine that there are many instances of police brutality or abuse that are thwarted by an armed civilian. Even a person with an entire home arsenal stands no chance. Which is why I don't put much weight on arguments about having an armed populace.

The practical effect of having a lot of guns in society is that the job of being a police officer becomes more dangerous, which is a bad thing. And also the job of simply walking down the street becomes more dangerous.

[Dems to Win]

61. They want us to shrug and say 'these things happen, nothing to be done about it'

I absolutely refuse to do so.

Time for a National Don't Wanna Get Shot By A Rifle Association. Help collect 4 million signatures

Please help kick the thread to the front page

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022055101

Half of American homes do not have guns, yet we are at terrible risk from the lethal weapons in our neighbors' homes. Enough! Time for us to speak out.


That's why I created a petition to The United States House of Representatives, The United States Senate, and President Barack Obama, which says:

"Repeal the Second Amendment Now. This anachronistic, poorly worded amendment prevents us from passing real gun control measures that will be effective in stopping the ongoing gun slaughter. It should be no more a constitutional right to own a gun than to own a car."

Will you sign my petition? Click here to add your name:

http://signon.org/sign/repeal-the-second-amendment-6?source=c.fwd&r_by=5543184

[libdem4life]

63. Here' an idea. Why doesn't a group of "good gun guys" get together and start another non-profit to

compete with/replace the NRA and work closely with federal and local government and the schools, and begin to remove the deadly smirch that the NRA has left in the minds of many of us. Pre-regulate themselves while re-organizing, to some extent, while working to maintain certain protection that at least 80,000,000 think they need, and move the conversation from the Dark Side...which was clearly on display in La Pierre's message...to being a part of a useful and day-forward conversation around the larger issue and the most pertinent issue at present ... elementary school violence.

Not everything he said was egregious, but the message as a whole, was tawdry and unacceptable...yeah outrageous.

Guns/weapons/defense/ need a new framework. I know that many probably do not agree with the NRA, but have no other option.

One more thought...this may make it possible to have a greater influence on the terrible Stand Your Ground Laws.

[Logical]

65. Yes it is. Dreams vs. Reality is always a valid argument! Just like if the anti-DUI people.......

said they wanted to ban alcohol. Or ban bars. IMPOSSIBLE.


Get it now??

[DanTex]

70. Putting the word "IMPOSSIBLE" it in capital letters does not improve the argument.

Alcohol and guns are completely different.

A semi-auto ban may be politically infeasible at the moment, but as a practical matter, a lot of countries have gun bans of different kinds. And they are largely effective. If we were to ban all semi-automatic weapons, homicide rates would drop significantly. The fact that it wouldn't make it through congress doesn't mean it is a bad idea.

[Logical]

73. I 100% agree it is not a bad idea. It will just never happen. Lets focus initially.....

on stuff that we can pass. Like clip size, private sales, gun shows, mental health records.

[DanTex]

76. Don't say never. I agree that we should get what we can in the short term.

However, I also think that, in the longer run, we should have a discussion about what it will really take to get our homicide and gun violence rates down in line with the rest of the world. That's how things that will "never happen" sometimes eventually happen. Who would have thought, even ten years ago, that gay marriage would be a winning political issue today. Who would have thought, fifty years ago, that we'd have a black president.

It seems to me that guns are the only issue where the "it will never happen" response gets tossed around almost reflexively. For example, single-payer healthcare is "never gonna happen", but I don't see many people going around yelling IMPOSSIBLE every time someone brings it up.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

66. "It will never happen" was also said about integration, Women's suffrage, and the 8 hour work day.

Until it did.

[cantbeserious]

78. Once Those Dodges Have Been Used It Is On To Attacking The Messenger

eom

[spanone]

88. yes. it. is.