10 Pro-Gun Myths, Shot Down

[Botany]

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/01/pro-gun-myths-fact-check

Myth #1: They're coming for your guns.
Fact-check: No one knows the exact number of guns in America, but it's clear there's no practical way to round them all up (never mind that no one in Washington is proposing this). Yet if you fantasize about rifle-toting citizens facing down the government, you'll rest easy knowing that America's roughly 80 million gun owners already have the feds and cops outgunned by a factor of around 79 to
1.

Myth #2: Guns don't kill people—people kill people.
Fact-check: People with more guns tend to kill more people—with guns. The states with the highest gun ownership rates have a gun murder rate 114% higher than those with the lowest gun ownership rates. Also, gun death rates tend to be higher in states with higher rates of gun ownership. Gun death rates are generally lower in states with restrictions such as assault-weapons bans or safe-storage requirements.

rest of list at link

[ProgressiveProfessor]

1. Actually there is some backing for most of them (unfortunately)

[slackmaster]

2. I stopped at #1 because there are bills in the California legislature to do just that right now

[Eleanors38]

7. And numerous DUers support bans, even as they deny the fact.

[sarisataka]

9. Also MN and MO

...CT has a proposal to outlaw all guns except single shot.

To say there is no way to round up all guns is false, passing a confiscation law is a de facto round up.

[G_j]

12. Uh...

you actually think they can search every basement, every closet, every garage, every house in America? wow!

[Lurks Often]

13. You might want to research Washington state bill SB 5737

which proposed exactly that. "The sheriff of the county may, no more than once per year, conduct an inspection to ensure compliance with this subsection."

Of course the Democrats who proposed it claimed it was a mistake when people noticed the language in the bill.

[G_j]

15. I'm not an idiot

That's a joke!

Edit to add: more accurately, fear mongering

[sarisataka]

28. Not a joke

It was claimed to be a mistake. The same mistake repeated verbatim in three separate bills. Hard for that to be an accident.

[CTyankee]

19. Norway has exactly that kind of regulation with regard to inspection of gun storage.

The Norwegians love sports shooting and hunting.

[Lurks Often]

20. Fortunately we have the 4th Amendment to protect us from illegal searches n/t

[CTyankee]

24. The searches are not illegal. They are part of the law in Norway.

Norway is a parliamentary constitutional democracy.

[Lurks Often]

38. I don't expect too many courts here in the US will agree.

Also kind of curious where you would draw the line on such searches.

[CTyankee]

46. Oh, I think it is far more curious not to consider such a plan out of hand.

Why is it some want NO restrictions on the 2nd Amendment but live pretty happily with restrictions on the First Amendment? And the 4th Amendment? None of these constitutional amendments are absolute...

[Lurks Often]

47. Not that tired argument again

There may not be enough to make YOU happy, but there are restrictions on the 2nd Amendment.

[CTyankee]

48. I haven't heard any proponents of any restrictions among 2nd amendment defenders here.

Do YOU defend any restrictions on the 2nd amendment? Is there any literature from your side on the advisability of such limitations?

[Lurks Often]

50. Of course

no felon, no one convicted of domestic violence, no one ruled mentally incompetent should be allowed to buy a firearm.

[CTyankee]

52. All right, you say that is reasonable. I say that regular inspections can be reasonable.

It is curious that people as gun loving as the Norwegians would tolerate such inspections, yet they obviously do and live with them just fine. And these are people who know something about being invaded by foreign armed force. As I recall from history books the Norwegians had a very strong resistance during WW2. Wouldn't you think they would be far more sensitive to inspections if they felt they could be used to curtail their freedom?

[Lurks Often]

63. I disagree

This is the United States, not Norway.

It's disturbing how quick you are to surrender rights that you don't think will have a direct impact on YOUR life. I wonder if you would be as quick to surrender your 4th Amendment rights for weekly drug searches or weekly searches to make sure you aren't abusing your children.

[CTyankee]

65. there you go again...as I have carefully pointed out here, Norway is a constitutional democracy,

not a totalitarian state. I don't think the Norwegians have "surrendered" anything like what you are suggesting. Do you really think they are not as free as we are? If not more so, IMHO.

Do you really think our democracy is so weak that strengthening our gun laws will result in those dire results? If so, you have low expectations of our democracy indeed.

[roxy1234]

49. You're kidding right

No restriction on the 2nd amendment in this country. You know we have dozens of laws regulating guns in this country. The problem is that if gun owners give in on one new regulation, it will not stop until we have a ban on anything semi auto.

[CTyankee]

51. I take that as pretty strong antipathy to gun restrictions.

Or maybe you just never met one you liked.

[roxy1234]

54. I do support many reasonable gun

control laws but this myth that gun owners do not want ANY restriction on the second amendment is a lie. One that can be easily proven and yet you see it stated every gun control thread on DU.

[CTyankee]

55. If that is true then you need a better PR strategy. You are obviously not driving your message

home. You could post a thread about all the restrictions you DO support and why you see the need for that support and go full tilt against all the folks who you say are denying it. Go on the offense with it. I think there are a lot of people. myself included, who cannot recall much in that regard. You do talk about gun safety at a certain level, but when we try to make this an argument about public safety, you guys tend to go all flaccid on us. Then we hear that the discussion is about the 2nd amendment, not public safety. And there goes the quality of the debate right there...

[roxy1234]

57. For the record

I am not really a gun guy. I dont own a gun, I have never shot one or even touched a gun but in the same vein that I support gay marriage even though am not gay, I support the 2nd amendment. So I am not on a mission to educate people but I will from time to time correct people when they post wrong information about guns.

[CTyankee]

59. just as I had to clarify what I see actually happening in these threads. The pro-gun side has

weak, if any, voices on public safety in this debate. They just don't come out with a positive message on restrictions. Now, my guess is that they really can't, because their ideology demands unanimity and falling into line. But our side isn't hearing it. And that's not "wrong information" or if it is it is because the pro-gun side has weakly expressed it.

Come to think about it, roxy, yours is a "new twist" on this whole discussion. I wonder if we'll hear more of this "coming up soon" in the gun debate. Hmmm.....

[DonB]

89. I've been reading

this forum for years and your / our arguments are consistent, well grounded, and reasonable. Unfortunately you are dealing with and opposite that speaks in absolutes where they don't exist. Five fascist members of the Supreme Court gave them the opportunity to argue for an unlimited non-regulated right that has never existed and they didn't even realize that their fascist court said that the States had the right to regulate. Not sure if roxy is just playing devils advocate or if he works for the nra propaganda machine or if he's just a right wing jerk but it doesn't matter all that much. I think that your and many other common sense arguments will win the day because there are now just too many people moving in your / our direction.

[Ikonoklast]

40. If the bill becomes law, the inspections will be legal.

You have no right to resist a legal search.

[Lurks Often]

43. Do you really think a law allowing warrantless searches

will hold up in court? I don't.

[CTyankee]

56. Is a regular inspection always a "warrantless search'? We have various public health inspections

at random times of restaurant kitchens in the interest of public health safety.

[Lurks Often]

62. Don't think the courts are going to view that way n/t

[CTyankee]

66. oh, c'mon, you haven't answered my question. Have the courts said that restaurant

kitchen inspections are unconstitutional? We can regulate many things. You are just going to extremes to make a point...geez...

[Lurks Often]

68. There is an enormous difference between a warrant-less search

of a private citizen's home and the a health inspection of a public facility serving food

[CTyankee]

69. Oh, dear, again with "warrantless." If the law says inspection is legal, how can it be

warrantless?

that was really my point...please...if it is a health and safety regulation...as I was trying to point out, there are constitutional democracies abroad where people can own and use guns and can have sensible gun regulations. Same as with what we accept like food inspections. Hope you can keep up...not every advanced country in the world has this reasoning (and they are not totalitarian states like China)...

[Lurks Often]

70. Moot point

the politicians who put into the bill were very quick to remove the language from the bill when people noticed. Guess they either didn't think it would hold up in court or were afraid of being voted out in the next election.

I also don't think it would hold up in a court case.

[CTyankee]

71. I see. what a great thinking group of citizens in our democracy. how wonderful.

[CTyankee]

72. It is difficult for me to discern whether you are exultant about this "moot point" or

whether you are despairing of it. Upon further reflection, from my point of view what you have described is a kind of dead end (in more ways than just rhetorically). In reading the history of the rise and fall of nations I have serious problems thinking that a nation that shrugs off and does nothing to stem the slaughter of its citizens on a regular basis is headed for a glorious future. And IMHO the slavish devotion to an outlandish and outmoded proposition, such as the 2nd amendment, in today's world is leading to more ignorance, more violence, and less critical thinking.
It is, as Barbara Tuchman wrote many years ago, the "march of folly."

[Ikonoklast]

96. They won't be warrantless.

Do you actually think the law would be written by morons that ignore constitutional protections, in order to deliberately fail in a court challenge?

[guardian]

104. Yeah that would be almost as ludicrous

as warrantless wiretaps, killing American citizens without due process, waterboarding torture, rendition, lying to start a war, etc.

Nope. That could never happen

[slackmaster]

95. Another excellent reason to vigorously oppose gun registration

They can't inspect the guns if they don't know where the guns are.

[rdharma]

87. Washington state bill SB 5737

That sheriff inspection verbage didn't even get into the introduced bill!

[Lurks Often]

90. It was yanked out when people noticed and started yelling. n/t

[rdharma]

91. Like I said...... wasn't even in the original bill nt

[Lurks Often]

92. Do try and do some basic research before posting,

it might lend your posts some credibility:

http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2020373291_westneat17xml.html#.USEXugbndv1.facebook

"The prime sponsor, Sen. Ed Murray, D-Seattle, also condemned the search provision in his own bill, after I asked him about it. He said Palmer is right that it’s probably unconstitutional.

“I have to admit that shouldn't be in there,” Murray said. "

I think one of the primary sponsors admitting the language was there in the original bill and that it was "probably unconstitutional" should be sufficient proof.

[rdharma]

93. Go check the ORIGINAL submitted bill!

The bill was never submitted with that verbiage. Go to the bills history.

It wasn't removed with an amendment...... it was never in the ORIGINALLY SUBMITTED BILL.

No need to get hysterical preemptively.

[Lurks Often]

94. You're the only one getting hysterical

The primary SPONSOR of the bill said the language was originally in there or did you even bother to read the link?

Now if you want to ignore what the state senator said, that's fine.

[rdharma]

97. "bother to read the link?"

I read that link a couple of days ago. That's why I researched the ACTUAL bill to see why the gun nutters were getting so panicky over verbiage that never reached the originally submitted bill.

No. It's not me getting hysterical. Amused....... yes. Hysterical........no.

[Lurks Often]

99. Your research skills seem lacking

Both the reporter and the primary sponsor have stated the language was in the original bill. I find them to have far more credibility then you.

If you had read the newspaper article you would have seen in the sixth paragraph the following:

&quot Note to readers: The link above is to a new version of SB 5737, which no longer contains the disputed provision. The original version of the bill has been erased from the state’s Web site, but here you can see it as it was proposed.)"

Here is the link that was in the above paragraph: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/604969-senate-bill-5737.html

[rdharma]

100. language was in the original bill.

In the draft. Not in the original bill. But continue to run in circles doing the "willy nilly"! I don't want to spoil your fun.

[Lurks Often]

102. It's lots of fun watching you avoid facts n/t

[rdharma]

103. "It's lots of fun watching you"

Last edited Mon Feb 25, 2013, 04:07 PM - Edit history (1)

Errrr merrrrr Gerrrrd! Theirrrrrr kerrrrmin' terrr terrrk merrrr gerrrns!

[sarisataka]

27. Given the choice between

A obeying a law which might be unconstitutional
B refusing to follow the law and becoming a felon if caught

What would most gun owners do- remembering the vast majority obey the laws...
I don't think every nook and cranny will have to be physically searched. For those that don't immediately comply, an ATF run Waco-like lesson would bring most passive resistors into line. Before discounting such a scenario, do remember that DU posters have advocated "killing gun owners and their families" by police action or using drones.

[CTyankee]

34. where is that documented?

[sarisataka]

39. Here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1980588

I recall a discussion in RKBA where a poster had no problem with the killing of innocent family members in the course of apprehension of a person accused of a gun crime. My search-fu is weak tonight and have not been able to locate that specific thread

[geckosfeet]

83. The laws in many states that enforce bans under penalty of law disprove #1 off the bat.

[Skip Intro]

3. Sorry, that's just bs propaganda.

They are coming for guns. The effort in DC is purposely vague and some states are going after more than just "assault rifles."

And no matter how many times it is said otherwise, guns are inanimate objects. They don't do things on their own. People use them to do things.

Take the guns from the criminals. Prosecute gun-crime severely. Leave law-abiding citizens alone.

[guardian]

4. Believe that bullshit

if you want. The article is full of lies.

[awoke_in_2003]

11. Care to tell us what the lies are? nt

[GreenStormCloud]

22. See my post #21 in this thread.

There are many flat out lies in the article.

[apocalypsehow]

81. Your "post #21" has been completely and thoroughly debunked:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2415134

Nice try, though.

[apocalypsehow]

78. Name one. I'll wait.

[CTyankee]

5. funny how so far nobody is addressing the article's first paragraph:

By cutting off federal funding for research and stymieing data collection and sharing, the National Rifle Association has tried to do to the study of gun violence what climate deniers have done to the science of global warming. No wonder: When it comes to hard numbers, some of the gun lobby's favorite arguments are full of holes.

Now why would they not want research and data collection/sharing for a study of gun violence? I would think that if this article is b.s. some data to back up the argument would be useful.

Oh, wait...

[Botany]

8. I hunt and own guns but the NRA and the gun lovers want to deny one simple fact ....

.... the more guns you have per capita the more gun deaths you have per capita.

http://www.vpc.org/press/1302gundeath.htm

[davidn3600]

10. Then why isnt Switzerland the wild wild west?

They have more guns per capita than we do.

[CTyankee]

17. Tell us about Switzerland's gun control laws vs. ours...

[DanTex]

26. Wrong. Switzerland does not have more guns per capita then we do.

How is it that so many people get brainwashed by false NRA talking points?

[maxsolomon]

29. #1: it's not full of Americans

we lead the world in belligerent armed idiots per capita.

[cherokeeprogressive]

41. What you mean to say is we lead the world in belligerent idiots... and some of them are armed. n/t

[nadinbrzezinski]

32. Several points

1.- Switzerland does not have more guns per capita than we do.

2.- care to check Swiss gun laws, including using all the ammo you buy at the range, not being allowed to store ammo at home, unless you are a member of swat, and having to account for each round.

3.- Did I mention unannounced inspections?

So what were you saying?

Next on tap will be Israel...which also has very strict gun laws.

[rightsideout]

61. Switzerland is the Wild West in Europe

They have more gun deaths than most European countries.

[rdharma]

88. Switzerland also has 100% gun registration. nt

[TheKentuckian]

35. Duh! Just as pool drownings logically rise with proliferation of pools.

What everyone fails to actually admit is that there isn't anything special about gun deaths because dead is dead.

I swear some wouldn't care one bit if the number of deaths and overall violence tripled as long as guns weren't used. That is why they must harp on the suicides and ignore the list of countries with strict gun control with higher rates.

It is the guns not the deaths, the deaths are just sacrificial lambs for the agenda.

[maxsolomon]

37. I don't think those who "harp on suicides" are contending that the guns CAUSE the suicides.

They certainly FACILITATE SUCCESS in attempting suicide impulsively.

For me, it's the deaths. 30K total/year, 20K suicide, 10K homicide/accidents. They are a Public Health crisis unmatched in the "Developed" nations.

My agenda is reducing the number of American firearm deaths generally, and rampage shootings specifically. What's yours?

[treestar]

45. Pool serve another purpose

Guns make impulsive killing easier. Every other method of killing involves something that has others uses, is harder and takes more time to use and carry out - banning guns won't cause the number of homicide by drownings or stabbings to make up for it. The nature of guns create the increase.

[G_j]

14. What I find depressing is that most

probably know it to be true, but throw out all kinds of talking points, over and over again, in order to obscure the facts.

[CTyankee]

16. I was wondering why I couldn't pinpoint what was so alarming about such responses here:

the almost complete lack of consciousness about what they had just read (IF they read the article). It is as if such information so jangles their brains that they simply cannot accept the words...it's strange, as if something has taken over their rationality, to keep these facts from seeping in (NO! NO! NO!).

[G_j]

18. seems to be an automatic process

"must find talking point"

[Electric Monk]

42. As if they were replies made by glib sociopaths, perhaps?

[Tommy_Carcetti]

6. Just watch out for the Morlocks here.

[GreenStormCloud]

21. Debunking the article

1. In the past few weeks there have been bills introduced to effectively ban gun and require their turn-in and authorize the police to inspect homes without warrants.

2. All of those gun murders still had a human pulling the trigger. There are more people killed by hands and feet than are killed by all rifles combined, which includes so-called assault weapons.

3. Among Texans convicted of serious crimes, those with concealed-handgun licenses were sentenced for threatening someone with a firearm 4.8 times more than those without. That statement, from the article is a flat-out lie. The Texas Department of Public Safety tracks and publishes, online, the data. http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/rsd/chl/reports/convrates.htm
Here is the data for 2011, for that offense:

Offense..................................................Total Convictions in TX.....Convictions of CHL holders...CHL Convictions as % of Total
Aggravated Assault With a Deadly Weapon--2,765-----------------------------3-------------------------------0.1085%
Rates are similar for all other years.

In states with Stand Your Ground and other laws making it easier to shoot in self-defense, those policies have been linked to a 7 to 10% increase in homicides. What they are omitting is that there has been an increase in justifiable homicides. IOW more criminals are getting shot while they are committing crimes. I do not consider that to be a bad thing.

4. Mass shootings stopped by armed civilians in the past 30 years: 0 That is a lie. There have been several, at least seven that I know of. Yes, I can provide a list.
Pearl MS school shooting stopped by armed citizen 1997
Edinboro, PA school shooting 1998
Appalachian School of Law shooting, 2002
New Life Church Shooting 2007
Winnemuccca, NV bar shooting, 2008
Golden Food Market Shooting 2009
Plymouth, PA bar shooting 2012

5. For every time a gun is used in self-defense in the home, there are 7 assaults or murders, 11 suicide attempts, and 4 accidents involving guns in or around a home. That study counts only bodies. It does not count cases in which the burglar flees from the armed resident. I personally know several people who have pointed a gun at a burglar but didn't shoot as he ran away. That has happened to me. But article is not willing to accept those as valid self-defense.

6. A Philadelphia study found that the odds of an assault victim being shot were 4.5 times greater if he carried a gun. His odds of being killed were 4.2 times greater. That study does not separate out criminals from the law-abiding. Only people with CCWs can legally carry guns in public in PA. They never state if any of the people shot had CCWs. Guns are not bullet magnets. Bullets don't curve in the air and home in on someone with a gun. So the person with the guns had to be someone whose behavior made them a target. Mostly that would be criminals settling disputes.

7. In 2010, nearly 6 times more women were shot by husbands, boyfriends, and ex-partners than murdered by male strangers. Again they don't separate out the criminals from the law-abiding. It is very dangerous for a woman to have a violent criminal for their signifigant other. Peaceful couples rarely suddenly murder each other. Almost alway they already have a history of violence.

8. Violent video games. I don't have any solid information on them, so I can't have an informed opinion. Personally I don't like them.

9. More guns are being sold, but they're owned by a shrinking portion of the population. I haven't really cared about that measure, so again I don't have an informed opinion.

10. An investigation found 62% of online gun sellers were willing to sell to buyers who said they couldn't pass a background check. All online gun sales have to be shipped to an FFL who must complete all Federal paperwork.
20% of licensed California gun dealers agreed to sell handguns to researchers posing as illegal "straw" buyers. How is a dealer supposed to know if someone is a straw buyer? All he can do is check ID and call NICS to verify legality.

I will be gone for the weekend. Back on Monday.

[Robb]

23. See you then!

Pick up a dictionary over the weekend and look up "debunk."

I bet you'll be surprised!

[DanTex]

25. LOL. By "debunking" you mean "repeating false NRA talking points".

I think this is the greatest number of falsehoods I've seen in a single DU post! Congrats!

In the past few weeks there have been bills introduced to effectively ban gun and require their turn-in and authorize the police to inspect homes without warrants.

Banning assault weapons is not the same as banning all guns. The point is, there is no threat to the second amendment or to civilian gun ownership.

2. All of those gun murders still had a human pulling the trigger. There are more people killed by hands and feet than are killed by all rifles combined, which includes so-called assault weapons.

Completely missing the point, which is that several studies have shown that more guns do result in more homicides and more suicides. In the US, well over 50% of homicides are committed by gun, and because of the gun homicides, the US has by far the highest homicide rate in the developed world.

Among Texans convicted of serious crimes, those with concealed-handgun licenses were sentenced for threatening someone with a firearm 4.8 times more than those without. That statement, from the article is a flat-out lie. The Texas Department of Public Safety tracks and publishes, online, the data.

The statement is not actually a lie, you just didn't read the entire sentence (among Texans convicted of serious crimes...).

In states with Stand Your Ground and other laws making it easier to shoot in self-defense, those policies have been linked to a 7 to 10% increase in homicides. What they are omitting is that there has been an increase in justifiable homicides. IOW more criminals are getting shot while they are committing crimes. I do not consider that to be a bad thing.

Another lie by you. There were two studies about SYG laws, and both found a significant increase in non-justifiable homicide. It might be a good idea to pop your head out of the NRA bubble from time to time.

5. For every time a gun is used in self-defense in the home, there are 7 assaults or murders, 11 suicide attempts, and 4 accidents involving guns in or around a home. That study counts only bodies. It does not count cases in which the burglar flees from the armed resident. I personally know several people who have pointed a gun at a burglar but didn't shoot as he ran away. That has happened to me. But article is not willing to accept those as valid self-defense.

Anecdotal evidence is no substitute for hard statistics. Studies have repeatedly found that a gun in a home increases the risk of death by homicide, suicide or accident, whereas, despite the fact that every gun nut worth his salt will brag about all the criminals that he has scared away with his gun, there is no credible statistical evidence that a gun provides a defensive safety benefit.

6. A Philadelphia study found that the odds of an assault victim being shot were 4.5 times greater if he carried a gun. His odds of being killed were 4.2 times greater. That study does not separate out criminals from the law-abiding. Only people with CCWs can legally carry guns in public in PA. They never state if any of the people shot had CCWs. Guns are not bullet magnets. Bullets don't curve in the air and home in on someone with a gun. So the person with the guns had to be someone whose behavior made them a target. Mostly that would be criminals settling disputes.

Yet another lie. The study explicitly controlled for criminal history, as well as a host of other factors including things like drug and alcohol use. You should try and understand how epidemiological studies work before repeating talking points you found on a gun blog.

7. In 2010, nearly 6 times more women were shot by husbands, boyfriends, and ex-partners than murdered by male strangers. Again they don't separate out the criminals from the law-abiding. It is very dangerous for a woman to have a violent criminal for their signifigant other. Peaceful couples rarely suddenly murder each other. Almost alway they already have a history of violence.

A lot of people are "law-abiding" right up until they break the law. Again, anecdotal evidence and NRA talking points are no substitute for statistical evidence. The fact of the matter is that, despite the crazy right-wing woman testifying in front of congress about protecting her family with an AR-15, a gun in the home is a much greater threat to a woman's safety than a protection.

10. An investigation found 62% of online gun sellers were willing to sell to buyers who said they couldn't pass a background check. All online gun sales have to be shipped to an FFL who must complete all Federal paperwork.

Wrong again. For example, if the buyer and seller arrange to meet in person, no background check is required. The internet has facilitated the exploitation of the private sales loophole.

20% of licensed California gun dealers agreed to sell handguns to researchers posing as illegal "straw" buyers. How is a dealer supposed to know if someone is a straw buyer? All he can do is check ID and call NICS to verify legality.

Good point. Looks like we need stronger gun laws, like for example the gun trafficking statute that many Democrats have been pushing for, or mandatory reporting of lost/stolen guns, or a national firearms registry.

[awoke_in_2003]

33. Thank you. nt

[ellisonz]

44. +1000

[derby378]

64. Banning "assault weapons" = banning guns

Sounds like a clear-cut threat to the Second Amendment to me.

[CTyankee]

67. Oh, I see. Whatever happened to your side and your vaunted "gun safety" concerns?

Upthread I hear talk that folks of yours really, really have been in FAVOR of restrictions if only those awful gun banners didn't misrepresent your views in "thread after thread on DU."

No middle ground with that response, cowboy...

[derby378]

73. I have no idea what you're talking about

I opposed a semi-auto ban as far back as 1993 when it was first introduced, and I still oppose it today. So on that point, you're right, I won't compromise.

[CTyankee]

74. why am I not surprised? That seems to be the face of the anti gun safety group on DU...

"sorry, no can do...nothing to see here, move along...no deal, no way...can't, won't, couldn't, wouldn't, shouldn't...Of course you have no idea what I'm talking about...whatever it is, it is always "NO."

That doesn't cut it, IMHO...

[derby378]

75. Get your memes straight

"Gun safety" is a completely different ball of wax from "gun control," which you are obviously championing. I know you're not one of those who are deliberately trying to confuse the public on this issue. I give you more credit than that.

[CTyankee]

77. No. Let me be clear. When I say "gun safety" I mean "gun safety." You want to make it about

people getting training and storing their guns safely and that is fine. But it goes a LOT further than that and you know what I am talking about. Please don't try to snow me, I know your game.

gun safety is public safety and that is when your side breaks down. My side includes what used to be called gun control but I prefer to call public safety. When the statistics about public safety and gun violence is brought into the argument, your side LOSES. that is why you don't prefer to talk about it.

[derby378]

80. I was wrong about you...

You are trying to confuse the memes. Silly me - I thought my fellow DUers had more sense than that.

And considering some of the statistics your side has propped up over the past few weeks, no wonder most pro-RKBA Democrats are feeling good about the current legislative cycle.

[CTyankee]

82. No, you have the meme you want to cling to and not allow any further discussion of. What

are you afraid of?

You know, you are losing this argument with the American public. How long do we allow the people of this country to be slaughtered before we adopt some common sense safety to be enacted into law? THAT is the issue before the American public. Let us face it squarely and fight the fight.

[GreenStormCloud]

108. You are not fooling anybody.

"Gun Safety" is the new euphemism for "Gun Control". The fact that your side has to change the name shows that you are having some difficulty selling your side.

[CTyankee]

110. gun safety is the real goal, IMO. Gun control is the means. We need more of it.

No other civilized nation in the world has the amount of guns and gun violence we have. There HAVE to be controls or we will continue to slaughter our citizens in senseless violence.

[apocalypsehow]

79. Ahhh, facts: they just continue to baffle our "pro gun progressives"*...

Excellent post:




*( )

[GreenStormCloud]

107. Perhaps YOU should read the article.

Here is what they said about Texas:

Among Texans convicted of serious crimes, those with concealed-handgun licenses were sentenced for threatening someone with a firearm 4.8 times more than those without.

The claim is that CHLers threatened someone with a firearm 4.8 ties more than those without. I posted the link to the official Texas statistics. Here it is again: http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/rsd/chl/reports/convrates.htm In 2011 there were over 525,000 Texans with CHLs. Threatening someone with a pistol is Aggrevated Assault With a Deadly Weapon. There were 2,765 convictions statewide, and only three (3) of them were by CHLers. But if you want to compare all all convictions of serious crimes we can do that. Same link. There were 63,679 convictions of serious crimes, statewide in 2011, only 120 of them were by CHLers.

Face it. As a group, CHLers are a select law-abiding group. Your attempt to paint us as dangerous to the general public is a lie.

[Progressive dog]

30. With some people (NRA etc.) myths trump reality nt

[Fresh_Start]

31. K&R nt

nt

[duhneece]

36. Love the list nt

[Drale]

53. Wow I never realized their were so many stupid people on DU

who actually believe the terrorist organization known as the NRA's talking points. What does that say about the left, I though we were smarter than that? I guess I was wrong. Everytime I see a little hope in humanity, BAM some idiots pop up to destroy that hope.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

58. Or: 10 Strawmen Shot Down. And you did so without even using the magic letters "NRA".

Maybe someone will do that for you.

[rightsideout]

60. Red States compared to Blue States

[kudzu22]

105. The problem with that chart

is that it makes an irrelevant point. It implies that those killed in "gun deaths" would still be alive if there were no gun, which is simply not true. You need to graph total homicides vs. gun ownership, preferably excluding suicides.

You could graph blue car deaths vs. blue car ownership and show a strong correlation. It means absolutely nothing about the effect of blue cars on public health.

[apocalypsehow]

76. "Fact-check: Mass shootings stopped by armed civilians in the past 30 years: 0" - And yet

our "RKBA enthusiasts" (see sig line) are constantly assuring us that if just everyone was armed, there would be no shootings whatsoever - except of "bad guys" or "goblins."

It's a strangely self-refuting argument, but you see it routinely right along with the Red Dawn fantasizing about taking on Uncle Sam.

Excellent list - irrefutable facts. Kick, Rec.

[GreenStormCloud]

109. There have been several rampage shootings that were stopped by armed civilians.

I posted a list upthread.

[samsingh]

84. kick

[samsingh]

85. myth #4

Myth #4: More good guys with guns can stop rampaging bad guys.
Fact-check: Mass shootings stopped by armed civilians in the past 30 years: 0
• Chances that a shooting at an ER involves guns taken from guards: 1 in 5

[libodem]

86. Thank you

For the sanity.

[slackmaster]

98. LOL @ "No one in Washington is proposing this." How about Amitai Etzioni, Professor of...

...International Relations at George Washington University?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/amitai-etzioni/gun-control-we-need-domes_b_2718536.html

I've visited George Washington University. It's in Washington, DC.

[NYC_SKP]

106. He's a "communalist" who thinks his way is the best way for everyone.

Interesting man, but I don't care for his ideas as regards how all of us should live.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amitai_Etzioni

Meh.

[graham4anything]

101. We could get rid of guns in the streets, and still protect guns in the home

the pro-gun people always want to distort that.

One can still keep a gun in the house, for protection

wihtout the need to bring ANY gun in the street.

And, as even alot of pro-gun people are now against Wayne LaPierre and the NRA, getting rid of their tax emption, and their exempt from prosecution should be acceptable to 75% of the public.

[Dpm12]

111. No, this is

inexcusable. This is bullshit. Guns help lower violence, not make it more common

[samsingh]

112. recommend these important facts