Letterman Throws Down on Guns: 'For the Love of Christ! When Are We Gonna Do Something?'

[SecularMotion]

[center]

[/center]

David Letterman let loose on Anderson Cooper Wednesday night by telling him that he's fed up with legislative inaction on gun control following Sandy Hook, which he thought would be a turning point. Cooper concurred, and said if that didn't prompt efforts to curb the availability of guns, nothing would.

"For the love of Christ, when are we going to do something about this nonsense?" inquired Letterman, rhetorically. "Nothing will move until everyone knows or has a family member that has been gunned down."

http://politix.topix.com/story/12429-letterman-throws-down-on-guns-for-the-love-of-christ-when-are-we-gonna-do-something

[KT2000]

1. Letterman feels passionately

about this and climate change. I hope he uses his retirement to give voice to these issues.

[shenmue]

2. Amen

[valerief]

18. Thanks for telling us ignore you. nt

[friendly_iconoclast]

27. It was a perfectly cromulent request. Why put them on ignore?

Protip: False consensus effect and groupthink don't actually work very well
in the political sphere over the long run...

[Fearless]

35. They certainly don't embiggen the debate.

[friendly_iconoclast]

40. Having a noble spirit certainly will...

[Fearless]

63. Can't we have one meeting that doesn't end with us digging up a corpse?

[blueridge3210]

41. Considering the OP has an extensive track record

of never debating or commenting upon his posts it is a perfectly reasonable request. Four jurors appeared to think otherwise. Oh well.

[beevul]

98. Yeah, theres no effort to silence pro-gun posters...

Yeah, theres no effort to silence pro-gun posters.

None at all.

Nothing to see here folks.

Move along.


There was NOTHING in that post which violated community standards in any way shape size or form.


Pro-control posters:


What have you to say about this?

Keep in mind, at some point, turnabout becomes fair play.

[liberalmuse]

39. Not really relevant to the discussion.

Trained, armed security is a bit different than the average gun toting citizen without training or a given a specific task to protect a celebrity that might be endangered and who has been endangered in the past by a mentally unstable stalker. That being said, I wouldn't have voted to hide this (and I may or may not have been on this particular jury).

[friendly_iconoclast]

44. Some discussion about this from the OP would be nice

Since they are notorious for not discussing what they
glean from the net and repost here, pointing it out isn't really a call-out

[Eleanors38]

77. Caution Pro-2A folks: The trees are filled with crows.

[HALO141]

109. Don't hold your breath. n/t

[pablo_marmol]

108. Got some news for you.

I'm a "trained, armed security guard." As it happens, I was quite proficient with a semi-auto pistol prior to my "training". You wouldn't believe how easy it is to get firearm certified.

During my 'training' class, my instructor seemed to "correct" me much more regularly that the other students. I knew from experienced that he was biased against folks who weren't in the military. When it came down to the actual qualification on the range, I outscored (by a wide margin) two former Marines who had recently lost their jobs when the nuclear facility they were guarding closed. The only guy who really aced the qualification was a Marine Corps firearm instructor.

This is speculation on my part, but the relatively few gun owners who get carry permits most likely fall into the category of shooters who spend regular time at the range. But whatever the case -- the idea that "trained armed security guards" are generally more capable shooters than permit holders is not just speculation, but uninformed speculation.

[HALO141]

110. Indeed.

The average cop is terrible. Terrible shot, terrible gun-handling skills, etc. Some of the most unsafe conduct I've seen at public ranges was perpetrated by LEO's. SWAT officers, on balance, seem to be pretty good but the average officer is not impressive in the least.

[pablo_marmol]

112. I think that part of the reason that law enforcement has their own

section of the indoor range where I shoot is because they don't want to shoot side-by-side with us "untrained unprofessionals".

Then again, one day I was close to the wall separating a group of CHP officers from the citizen shooters and was hearing nothing but crisp double and triple taps. Based on what I was hearing I'm guessing that the targets looked pretty damn good.

On another day I was shooting the shorts off a rookie cop in the lane to my left.

Bottom line........anyone who knows the score on this issue knows that the proficiency of law enforcement shooting is generally inflated, and the proficiency of permit holders under-credited.

[A Simple Game]

52. And of course group think can only affect one side, oddly every time, that being the side

you are not on.

Do you agree that the OP is spam?

[friendly_iconoclast]

75. The OP is spam because the poster is not discussing what they post

That they post here at all is probably due to the fact that the group they
host...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1262

Discuss how to enact progressive gun control reform in a supportive environment. The group serves as a safe haven in which to mobilize supporters in support of measures reducing gun violence by changing laws, culture and practice at the municipal, state, and federal levels. While there is no single solution to the tragic epidemic of gun violence, members agree that more guns are not the solution to gun violence, and are expected to be supportive of the policies of progressive gun control reform organizations.

...isn't nearly as popular as this one (figures as of 15 minutes ago or so):

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1167

Category: Justice & Public Safety

Posts: 30 days

Gun Control & RKBA 1,918

Gun Control Reform Activism 223

Of course, their defenders alternate between claiming that gun control really
is popular and The Man (read 'the NRA') Is Keeping It Down and
acknowledging that it isn't but will become so Real Soon Now

[A Simple Game]

86. But I see many posts that are just put up for consideration without any comment

by the OP.

The fact that you know so much about the poster and their normal activities tells me if the poster had commented, you would discount anything written by the poster. I have to assume you have checked my profile (at least) or will after reading this post. That's creepy.

So now tell me this: if as you say this poster supports a certain position, what is wrong with them posting something by a celebrity that supports that position?

As for your last paragraph, the claim that gun control is popular is a well known fact and the NRA is trying to suppress it, also well known. I also support the notion that when the tipping point is reached the backlash will be swift and cut very deep, causing the NRA to wish they had compromised earlier to prevent it.

Finally, the fact that you oppose this poster posting in this group just shows you don't want any debate nor do you care what the majority want or would be comfortable with. You have closed out any debate. Have fun checking my profile, and know that I couldn't care less what your says, I learned all I need to know from one post.

[Jenoch]

89. "...the fact that you oppose this poster posting in this group..."

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

We wish people to post in this group. The problem is the lack of participation in their own threads by this particular DUer.

[beevul]

94. Theres just so much wrong with this I almost don't know where to start.

Theres just so much wrong with this I almost don't know where to start.

Almost.

The fact that you know so much about the poster and their normal activities tells me if the poster had commented, you would discount anything written by the poster. I have to assume you have checked my profile (at least) or will after reading this post. That's creepy.

The poster you are referring to here, has very consistent habits, of posting and NEVER commenting on his original OP. This has been the case for a long long time. So long in fact, that the only people they don't see it, are those who haven't been here in this forum much, or those who have but are in denial, due to their ideological blinders.

Second, the poster you refer to, is a host of the gun control reform activism forum, and enforces the SOP of that group extra strict against people who are pro-gun, and gives quite the comfortable amount of lee way for those who aren't. There have been dozens of posters blocked over there, for a single post, simply correcting incorrect information, for example.

Third, the poster in question comes into this forum, and takes a (google) dump on our SOP on a regular basis.

Evidence? Sure:

SecularMotion (4,814 posts)

6. I have no interest in your "discussions"


http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=142268


Our SOP says:


Statement of Purpose

Discuss gun politics, gun control laws, the Second Amendment, the use of firearms for self-defense, and the use of firearms to commit crime and violence.

Thin? No thinner than blocking numerous pro-gun posters in their group after a single post. People here, expect that poster to practice what they preach. To adhere to the same standards that that person expects US to adhere to. And that poster clearly doesn't.

"As for your last paragraph, the claim that gun control is popular is a well known fact and the NRA is trying to suppress it, also well known. I also support the notion that when the tipping point is reached the backlash will be swift and cut very deep, causing the NRA to wish they had compromised earlier to prevent it."

Yeah, its so popular that moms demand action has to pay people to show up.

And theres that word again, "compromise".

Where was the compromise with the NFA of 1934?

Where was the compromise with the GCA of 1968?

Where was the compromise with the 15 thousand plus state and local gun laws?


In short, since 1934, gun laws have ratcheted down tighter and tighter, and more and more, and generally speaking, nothing was given in return. Any gains that gun rights might have made, was against resistance, not because anyone said "hey, lets compromise, we have taken a lot so lets give a bit back".

Is that how you define compromise?

"Finally, the fact that you oppose this poster posting in this group just shows you don't want any debate nor do you care what the majority want or would be comfortable with. You have closed out any debate."

Nobody opposes any poster from posting in this group.

Not.A.Single.One.Of.Us.

It is however, expected that people who do, practice what they preach.

On top of that, accusing anyone of "closing debate" is beyond the pale, considering that the poster in question essentially never attempts any debate or discussion what so ever.

[friendly_iconoclast]

99. That does not explain the lack of activity in the GCRA group

I also observe that your statement...

the claim that gun control is popular is a well known fact and the NRA is trying to suppress it, (is) also well known.

...seems to be refuted by the observation that the NRA has +/- four million paid
members (at a minimum of $25/year), while the largest gun control organization
(Everytown For Gun Safety) has about 1/20th as many- and all it takes to 'join'
them is clicking "Like" on one of their Facebook pages.

While it may not be palatable for you to accept the above, you must admit it's
'rather more likely than the NRA has somehow hacked DU and Facebook...

[Starboard Tack]

104. Do you think 4 million is a lot?

It's less than 5% of gun owners and I'd wager at least 3 of those 4 million do not vote Democrat.

[friendly_iconoclast]

105. 4 million motivated voters>200 thousand or so slacktivists

Especially when said slacktivists regularly mistake photo-ops and telling each
other how wonderful they are and how awful those people are for real-life
political organization...

[Starboard Tack]

106. There's always a tipping point. Just not there yet.

Then non of the so-called activists. The politicians will jump when the people roar.

[Thinkingabout]

4. If the gun industry would sensibily regulate their market it just might make a change.

Instead of the woosies at NRA would stick to their first thoughts on the open carry crazy bunch and tell them this is doing harm but they cow down and declare it is okay. For the few nuts who have torn up their NRA card they just may be able to get the return of members who left after Sandy Hook.

[Duckhunter935]

5. what sensible regulations?

[Thinkingabout]

6. You should not have to ask this question. If you can not look and see where the

Regulation should then my question is do you need laws to get sensible and safe operations of guns?
We have speed limits, etc, regulate your fellow gun owners and tell them it is time to be responsible and allow safety first and foremost before people cking up a gun.

[friendly_iconoclast]

11. If you can't articulate specifically what you want, then why should you be listened to?

I'd remind the discerning reader of what happened when a great moral
panic was ginned up after 9/11 and we were told that Something Needed To
Be Done Right Now To Make Us All Safe. We are still debating the fallout of
that particular bout of "We need to act now, just trust the authorities to
get the details right"...

[Duckhunter935]

15. That worked out well

we just have to do something, don't know what but we must do something. Birth of the PATRIOT laws.

[SammyWinstonJack]

56. OMG!

[blueridge3210]

58. What?

It's now unreasonable to ask those demanding "something be done!!!" to specify what they would like to see accomplished?

[S_B_Jackson]

8. It would be nice if those who continually call for "sensible regulations"

could actually provide examples of those "sensible regulations".

If so, it might provide a groundwork for productive discussion...unfortunately, I have come to accept that those calling for such have no desire for productive discussion.

[Warpy]

10. Liability insurance.

That's a place to begin.

[friendly_iconoclast]

13. The NRA would love that- they're the biggest seller of gun insurance in the US

Not being stupid, they'd also sell memberships as a loss leader alongside the insurance.

I've come to the conclusion that at least half of the NRA's power derives from
the actions of those who proclaim themselves their enemy...

[Duckhunter935]

14. will not cover

criminal use. The NRA would make a fortune on it and it would be dirt cheep.

A standard homeowner or renters insurance policy provides policyholders coverage against theft and liabilities, such as someone slipping and falling on your property or against injuries from dog bites. These policies also provide some coverage for firearms.

Specifically, a homeowner or renters insurance policy will typically cover theft of a firearm stolen from the premises and liability due to the accidental discharge of a firearm causing injury up to the limits of the policy. However, intentional acts, such as shooting an individual, is not covered under such policies.

Specialty firearm liability insurance coverage is available to members of national gun organizations from a few insurers. Policies will vary, but premiums typically range in price from $130 up to about $300 per year.

http://www.iinc.org/articles/460/1/Homeowner-Insurance-Gun-Liability/Page1.html

[blueridge3210]

19. Liability insurance to cover what, exactly?

Criminal misuse of the firearm by the owner? No policy I know of will cover intentional criminal acts.

Accidental injury of death? Should be dirt cheap; the number of incident has been falling over the years and is a small fraction of the total firearms owned.

Criminal misuse of the firearm if stolen? Same as number one; once the weapon is reported as stolen the insurance company is off the hook at the weapon is no longer owned by the insured.

[HALO141]

111. Oh, you mean you want to

put a price of admission on exercising a right? Can you say, poll tax?

I'm not being argumentative. I think liability insurance is a good thing. I also think prepaid legal services are a good thing considering the cost of going to trial over a legal shooting that some D.A. thinks he can still nail you on. The bottom line, however, is that firearm ownership is recognized as a personal, Constitutionally protected right.

[canuckledragger]

16. You know what regulations.

Stop pretending ignorance.

[blueridge3210]

17. Please specify what regulations.

My crystal ball is at the shop for maintenance.

[canuckledragger]

30. Not going to do your research for you.

And stop pretending ignorance as well.

[blueridge3210]

36. You're the one claiming something needs to be done.

It would appear to be incumbent upon you to present an idea or two.

[Duckhunter935]

20. I am quite serious

UBC would not have helped. All of the murderers seem to have passed a background check. AWB, nope most of the killings were not "assault weapons. Many were with handguns and shotguns. Not even the Sandy Hook rife was an "assault weapon". Magazine limits, California has limits and the VA Tech shooter had low capacity magazines. Shall I go on......

So what NEW laws do you want that would PREVENT these murders?

I think single payer with strong mental health care would prevent most of them along with UBC that includes good mental health data.

[canuckledragger]

29. Of course you have no answers.

Can't suggest anything that would curb the use of the precious, right?

[krispos42]

66. Neither can you, apparently

I guess we could try to make our society more progressive so that the conditions that cause people to snap and kill a bunch of strangers are reduced. That would not only reduce mass shootings but also increase the standard of living for everybody.

To bad the persistent clinging to pandering, useless gun-control ideas keeps costing us seats.

But carry on.... I'm sure banning protruding Paul grips will save far more lives than, say, universal health insurance.

[friendly_iconoclast]

25. You want Something Done, but can't/won't tell us what

You lot are quite voluble about the need for further gun regulation-until you're
asked what specifically it is you want. Why is that?

[canuckledragger]

28. You haven't asked me anything at all.

Whatsoever.

And yet you claim I won't answer. Why is that?

[friendly_iconoclast]

33. OK, then. I'll ask- what sensible regulations do you want?

And why was Duckhunter935 supposed to know what they are beforehand?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=147291

[canuckledragger]

42. Because Duckhunter935 ALWAYS claim ignorance!

Yet there isn't a gun-related thread he doesn't jump on, always in defense of the precious.

I don't believe him for a second.

[friendly_iconoclast]

45. That doesn't answer our question- what sensible regulations do you want?

[Sweet Freedom]

31. Why is this the only comeback now?

Why can't there be some sort of intelligent compromise? Why does it have to be black and white? Why don't responsible gun owners be the mediators and come up with some sensible ideas?

I don't own a gun and I've lived my entire life without one, so it wouldn't matter to me: if gun shows were outlawed; if gun sellers who failed to properly conduct background checks were imprisoned and never allowed to sell guns again; if all guns required registration; if gun owners were held accountable based upon the degree of negligence if their gun was used to kill someone, especially if they made guns accessible to their children/family/friends who they knew were mentally unstable; if the amount of ammunition sold be monitored; if those who shoot guns for target practice obtain ammo only from the range; if those with restraining orders issued against them not be allowed to possess a firearm, etc.

Actually, it wouldn't matter to me if guns were outlawed, but I'd at least be willing to work with responsible Americans to find a gray area between the right to bear arms and the right to life, liberty and the pursuit happiness and at least try to do something to prevent raging lunatics from owning guns because our current system does not work.

[friendly_iconoclast]

49. Sensible ideas *are* proposed- and studiously ignored

Open the background check system to private sellers, with teeth in it? Gun owners here
have been proposing that for years. Response?:



Universal background checks- ditto (see post #20 above). Response: the same


In response, we hear proposals that are politically suicidal, of doubtful effect,
thoroughly un-Constitutional (or some combination thereof), mixed in with a
heaping portion of bile directed at gun owners. Google "False consensus effect"
and get back to us...

[gejohnston]

50. nothing will prevent raging lunatics from getting guns

or killing without them any more than you can prevent gangsters and drug dealers from getting them. These are crimes that are planned out months in advance.
The guy convicted for the Port Authur murders in Australia didn't have the required license to buy any firearm (I doubt he would pass the test, his IQ is 66). He did not get them legally.
Spree murders, they exist everywhere in the world, are hard to predict and might be impossible to prevent. Fortunately, that is a small percentage of murders.
80 percent are gang related "business disputes" and innocents caught in their crossfire. Dealing with those, involve many things that few people on the left or right would be willing to do.

[safeinOhio]

65. Seems full autos are highly

Regulated and very few are used in mass murders. That does make them hard to get and expensive.

[gejohnston]

76. Before 1977, they were less regulated in Canada

than handguns. How many crimes with full autos were there in Canada before then? From what I read, they were regulated about the same as bolt action rifles, other than having to register them. Yet, they weren't used in crimes.
In the US before NFA, such things were pretty nonexistent as well. Why did the vice principle of Bath Elementary use bombs instead of buying a Thompson and a case of .45 ACP?
In the US, they were rarely used in crimes before NFA. There was the Mafia during Prohibition, and the high profile roving bandits like John Dillinger.
The St. Valentines Day Massacre caused became a public relations disaster for the mob. Capone went from Robin Hood, to hated villain among the public. Public pressure on the government to do something about the mob. Bad PR was bad for business.
Dillinger etc. stole theirs from police and national guard armories. The Thompsons Dillinger used were returned to the PDs he stole them from a few years ago. NFA didn't do anything about the mob's public executions, it was the Commission noticing that it was bad for business. Increased security at police and national guard armories helped in the other regard.

Yes, they are highly regulated in the US. They are banned in Mexico, so that prevents them from being used in mass murders there too..... Oh wait, the cartels are even making their own M-16s and they have Chinese assault rifles and Korean grenades flowing across their southern border and huge coast line.
Handguns are strictly regulated in California, how did that go?
IIRC, we discussed this a few times. Nice non sequitur though.

[Eleanors38]

78. Despite Hollywood, full-auto was never that popular...

They aren't very popular or useful to criminals even now, or they would be smuggled in like other prohibited stuff. There are more "killed" by submachine guns on 2 episodes of CSI than in 2 decades of real life in the U.S.

[NYC_SKP]

100. I'm sorry to see that your post was hidden.

I have had a number of posts hidden over the years, often for what seemed to me to be pretty sketchy grounds.

I wonder if some of us should begin using the ignore feature.

Take care.

[Jenoch]

7. I wonder if Letterman has armed security?

[friendly_iconoclast]

9. Probably- he had a rather well-known stalker

[Hissyspit]

12. Wow, talking point straight from Free Republic.

And beside the point.

[beevul]

21. Pointing out potential hypocrisy is no talking point.

Something that most people generally learn as children:


If it hurts, don't do it.

[eggplant]

24. Comparing armed security to mass shootings is false equivalency.

And it isn't even subtle. Dave isn't hypocritical on this point.

[beevul]

26. Where, in this subthread, did anyone mention mass shootings?

Strawman, obviously.


On edit: I suggest you scroll up, and re-read for context.

[Oakenshield]

32. There is no "potential hypocricy".

It was a completely bullshit rightwing talking point. Celebrities are always in the public eye, and potential targets for disgruntled fans or other unhinged people. Your average person isn't going to be considered a target by those people. Furthermore the call for absolutist idealism is childish. As if to say anyone who calls for stronger gun-control shouldn't own a gun or have a security detail. It's this completely backwards black and white view of the world that has made compromise so unreachable today.

[samsingh]

37. it is a bullshit talking point - exactly. agreed

I'm sick and tired of these lies and stupid arguments

[Eleanors38]

80. Elites are more equal than others? Elites get guns....

any time they want them, but have no problem making it difficult for others to have them.

You will continue to hear about this as often as it occurs, and it occurs a lot.

[samsingh]

84. it's not all about getting guns all the time - controls on guns does not meet people still can't

get them.

that's like saying elites get cars, why have driver's licences.

[blueridge3210]

93. Only if those same elites were opposed to others having a driver's license.

The position of a number of "elites" is that they should have access to firearms or armed security but those of more "common" means cannot be trusted to own the means of effective self defense.

[friendly_iconoclast]

38. Most crime victims aren't celebrities. Are they worth less?

[beevul]

46. The only thing bullshit, is the spin coming from you folks.

The only thing bullshit, is the spin coming from you folks.

Pointing out potential hypocrisy is not related to ideology, political affiliation, race creed or color.

"As if to say anyone who calls for stronger gun-control shouldn't own a gun or have a security detail."

Oh yes, please insert more words into the mouths of others, and attribute to the words of others, things they did not mean. You know very well, that nobody expressed that sentiment, or posted anything that could be reasonable construed to mean what you imply it does.

People who push for more and more and more gun control are completely free to have armed security, own and carry guns, etc.

And people who notice it are free to point it out if it raises to the level of hypocrisy. If people don't want to be pointed out as hypocrites, its easy to avoid.

Don't be a hypocrite.

" It's this completely backwards black and white view of the world that has made compromise so unreachable today."

No. Its the idea that compromise means giving, and giving, and giving some more, while getting nothing in return. People that push hard for more and more and more gun control have made VERY clear, that that is how they define it for those doing the giving.

Would you like some examples, and then to discuss it?

Somehow, I doubt it.

[Oakenshield]

51. Except he DID express that sentiment.

Are you really telling me that Jenoch innocently, and without political motive, just wondered aloud? REALLY? And you're still trumpeting the idea that Letterman is being a hypocrite. HOW is he being a hypocrite? He enjoys shooting clay pigeons, therefore he should completely oppose gun-control? Come on make your argument.

So far your argument amounts to "Nuh-uh!".

Now as for compromise where gun-control is concerned, now that would be an interesting discussion. One that must begin with, in my opinion, what exactly ought to be given to gun-owners in return for universal background checks, more demanding written tests or smaller magazines? Let's not forget that these reforms would be lowering gun-violence, something we would all benefit from. So if that's not enough, which it ought to be, then what do these people want? No more ten day wait periods between purchasing a gun and being able to pick it up at the store? They want access to bigger magazines?

[blueridge3210]

55. IMHO the general argument regarding celebrities with bodyguards

is that some do not want to extend the same ability for self-protection to those who cannot afford armed security.

Regarding UBC; open NICS to private sellers or set a reasonable (there's that devilish word) fee for a FFL to conduct a BGC. Since you're compensating the dealer for his time it should be pegged to a fraction of the average hourly rate for someone in a similar position of responsibility; about $25 sounds appropriate.

Regarding magazine size; I don't see that having much impact on crime. Most criminal firearm use doesn't involve more that 3 or 4 shots. I don't recall who proposed it, but for handguns the magazine should be flush with the magazine well; for long guns 20-30 is appropriate as this is what is commonly used by LEO/military.

Regarding more demanding written tests; no argument from me as long as passage of the test is married to "shall issue". You have to know the rules of the road to operate a vehicle on a public road; the same should be true to carry in public. The test wouldn't be too stringent; review the use of force continuum, understand was a "reasonable fear of death/serious bodily harm" actually means and understand restrictions on shooting "fleeing felons" as per TN v Garner. I could even agree to restrictions on carry of long guns in a non-rural environment as these weapons are not commonly used for self defense due to a lack of practicality.

[Oakenshield]

59. Most shootings may have been less severe if..

Most shootings may have been less severe if the shooter had to reload more frequently. There was a great Maddow segment on the Sandy Hook killings that supports that statement. Twenty to thirty round magazines should be banned. Maybe we could provide a condition that shooting ranges could rent a high capacity magazine to a customer for the duration of their time at the range. The idea that the citizen should have access to hardware that competes with the military is intellectually bankrupt as far as I'm concerned. We've already determined that citizens shouldn't have access to fully automatic firearms or explosives. The debate has been had already. The citizen isn't a soldier.

[blueridge3210]

60. Lanza conducted "tactical reloads"

dropping magazines out that still contained several rounds. Smaller magazines likely would have had little effect. Regarding the bulk if criminal misuse of firearms; the fact still stands that most firearm crimes do not consist of more than 3-4 rounds discharged and smaller magazine capacity would have no effect on these crimes.

[Oakenshield]

62. In the time it took him for one of those reloads...

In the time it took him for one of those reloads children were able to escape. That "little effect" can save lives. It'd be worth it. I should hope we would all agree that saving lives is more important than convenience at the shooting range.

[blueridge3210]

64. Interesting argument.

What magazine capacity would you recommend for pistols/long guns?

[Oakenshield]

68. Capacity between pistols and long-guns would largely be the same.

Seven rounds would be the target. Special exceptions would be made for revolvers I'd imagine.

[blueridge3210]

69. 7? Really?

What do you propose to do about all the 10+ capacity magazines in circulation? My Glock has 15 round magazines as standard capacity; Cho at VA Tech used 10 round magazines to great effect. Grandfathering in would leave millions in circulation; attempt to ban them w/o compensation would run afoul of the 5th Amendment regarding unlawful taking w/o due compensation?

BTW; I'm enjoying the civil discussion.

[Oakenshield]

71. We could introduce a buy-back program....

We could introduce a buy-back program to compensate those individuals who already own those kinds of magazines. It would be a hell of an undertaking though, no doubt about that. I've also enjoyed the civil discussion. Cheers.

[Straw Man]

88. New York tried to do seven.

A federal judge overturned it on the basis of its being arbitrary. Essentially, he asked the state to defend the seven-round limit empirically, and they sort of shrugged and mumbled.

Keep in mind that in New York's version, one was allowed to possess ten-round magazines but wasn't supposed to load more than 10 in them. Brilliant legal reasoning: a law is guaranteed to have no effect whatsoever on criminal behavior.

[blueridge3210]

95. I agree that New York's seven round limit was unreasonable.

Especially the expectation that those who owned magazines of larger capacity would not load them past 7 rounds. To expect such a law to stand, after Heller and McDonald, the state would have demonstrate a more compelling interest than "it makes us feel better".

A number of laws have no effect on criminal behavior until after the fact. That does not, in and of itself, make the law unreasonable.

[Straw Man]

101. Law and effect.

A number of laws have no effect on criminal behavior until after the fact. That does not, in and of itself, make the law unreasonable.

Agreed -- but in the context of real criminal behavior with guns, having ten rounds rather than seven in the magazine becomes absurdly trivial: a minor charge to be tacked onto the major ones, and not a deterrent in any sense.

[Straw Man]

87. You don't understand the concept of "tactical reloads."

In the time it took him for one of those reloads children were able to escape. That "little effect" can save lives.

I'd like to see the evidence that supports your contention. Was this eyewitness testimony? I doubt its accuracy, mostly because of what a "tactical reload" involves.

In a "tactical reload," the shooter takes advantage of a lull in the "action" to place a full magazine in the gun, regardless of whether the magazine is empty or not. The idea is to be at maximum readiness. Why would Lanza have allowed children to escape in order to do such a reload? That makes no sense. It's more likely that at that moment he had no "targets" in front of him -- while moving from room to room, perhaps.

[beevul]

61. Bull.

"Are you really telling me that Jenoch innocently, and without political motive, just wondered aloud?"

Issue motive? Perhaps. But unless you're going to claim right here right now, that posters on DU aren't allowed to be pro-gun, you haven't a point.

If someone with a motive points out hypocrisy, and the person next to him without motive points it out, are they both bad for pointing it out? Unless your answer is yes, it is clear that for you, it is all about who is doing the saying, and not what is being said.

"And you're still trumpeting the idea that Letterman is being a hypocrite. HOW is he being a hypocrite? He enjoys shooting clay pigeons, therefore he should completely oppose gun-control? Come on make your argument."

Aww, isn't that cute. Attributing to me an argument I never made.

Please consult the dictionary for the definition of the word "potential". I used it for a reason.

"So far your argument amounts to "Nuh-uh!".

And the argument I was responding to, was "look what so and so said", which he did not in fact say, so "Nuh-uh!" was both appropriate and correct.

"Now as for compromise where gun-control is concerned, now that would be an interesting discussion. One that must begin with, in my opinion, what exactly ought to be given to gun-owners in return for universal background checks, more demanding written tests or smaller magazines?"

No. First it means talking about evening the scales for the things we've already had taken, and were given nothing for in return. Go back to 1934. The NFA was passed, and gun owners were given nothing in return. Then in 1968 the GCA was passed, and we were given nothing in return. After that, how many states passed strict and often stupid restrictions, and nothing was given in return. New Jersey and the ban on hollow point ammunition, for example. Then the hughes amendment closed the NFA registry in 1986, and very little was given in return, and that which was, is generally ignored. Then the brady bill and AWB. Nothing given in return.

Are you detecting a trend here? Those things might mean nothing to you, but they do to others. That methodology has not changed on the part of people that push push push, has made those that are on the other end of the pushing quite unwilling to be as cooperative as they once were. And it doesn't help when groups like "moms demand action" try to appear as not being anti-gun, then turn around and protest opening of gun stores. You can't have it both ways.

"Let's not forget that these reforms would be lowering gun-violence, something we would all benefit from."

What happened in CA, with the tragedy the other day, and happens there daily, brings into question whether that's really true. Not to mention, that the loud outspoken "gun violence prevention" groups, seem only to be interested in going after guns.

"So if that's not enough, which it ought to be, then what do these people want? No more ten day wait periods between purchasing a gun and being able to pick it up at the store? They want access to bigger magazines?"

Keep in mind, the things below are not my desires. I own few firearms, and have no desire to own any others. I don't argue the pro-gun side out of any desire to own more guns, or that something I own will be banned, or that something I want will be banned before I can get one. I argue out of sheer principle. I deeply value my rights where guns, speech, and every other thing are concerned.


However, I have seen others state some of these things:

Kill the hughes amendment.

Nationwide CCW reciprocity.

And I'm sure there are a number of others.

[Oakenshield]

67. My point was Jenoch shared a right wing talking point.

If that makes you uncomfortable, you should avoid sharing it. Such an argument has been used for guns, and also to attack people like Michael Moore and Warren Buffet. "He criticizes the wealthy...isn't he wealthy? What a hypocrite hurr durr."

Moving on, if you're going to use the word "potential" then explain how Letterman could "potentially" be a hypocrite...because right now all you have is a baseless accusation.

So, because gun control failed to stop the recent shooting in CA we should consider if gun control works at all? Look even if gun control advocates achieved everything they wanted, eliminating gun violence entirely would be impossible. What we can do is work at making those instances of gun-violence as rare as possible. That's what gun-control is about.

That the law-abiding gun owner might be inconvenienced is just par for the course. Would I like to avoid going to the DMV every few years to get my license renewed? Of course I would, but I understand that the system makes the road safer for everyone. Gun control regulations are the same way.

With that said, why should we put the Hughes Amendment back on the table? Why should citizens have access to fully automatic firearms? As for concealed and carry, I'm happy with leaving that up to the individual state to decide.

[beevul]

70. Its still a bullshit claim.

"My point was Jenoch shared a right wing talking point."

That, is still a bullshit claim. Pointing out potential hypocrisy is neither left nor right wing.

"Such an argument has been used for guns, and also to attack people like Michael Moore and Warren Buffet. "He criticizes the wealthy...isn't he wealthy? What a hypocrite hurr durr."

Again, that is still a bullshit claim. Pointing out potential hypocrisy is neither left nor right wing.

Some of us make no special "allowances" or believe in using discretion when it comes to people on our side.

Get over it.

Moving on, if you're going to use the word "potential" then explain how Letterman could "potentially" be a hypocrite...because right now all you have is a baseless accusation.

I never accused the man of anything, baseless or otherwise.

"So, because gun control failed to stop the recent shooting in CA we should consider if gun control works at all? Look even if gun control advocates achieved everything they wanted, eliminating gun violence entirely would be impossible. What we can do is work at making those instances of gun-violence as rare as possible. That's what gun-control is about."

In CA, they pretty much DO have everything they want. And, so many of the hard pushing "gun violence prevention" types see it as a road that runs through the rights of people who don't and wont commit acts of gun violence.

"That the law-abiding gun owner might be inconvenienced is just par for the course. Would I like to avoid going to the DMV every few years to get my license renewed? Of course I would, but I understand that the system makes the road safer for everyone. Gun control regulations are the same way."

Your license applies only to use of motor vehicles in public. Not to ownership or use on private property.

You folks want licenses for ownership.

With that said, why should we put the Hughes Amendment back on the table? Why should citizens have access to fully automatic firearms? As for concealed and carry, I'm happy with leaving that up to the individual state to decide.

As I suspected.

You see no reason to discuss what many on the other side see as greivances.

Why then, should you be surprised when nobody wants to compromise anymore?

[Oakenshield]

72. *Sigh*

The method of how he attempted to point out hypocrisy was right wing. Here's an example. And that's the last of what I'll say on that topic.

As for the laws they do have on the books in CA, they're not strong enough. The written test you have to take a purchase a hand-gun for instance is almost insultingly dumb. "When cleaning your handgun, do you point the muzzle towards the floor, the ceiling, or north?"

Worst of all perhaps is the fact you can pass without a perfect score or at least a very high score. California has hardly reached the ideal state of gun-control. It's certainly better than Texas, but that's not saying much. As for my question of fully automatic fire-arms, you didn't answer.

[beevul]

73. You're right I didn't.

I don't buy into arguments of why should X be allowed.

Its never a question of "if" something should be allowed.

Its a question of "why" something should be forbidden. It puts the burden of explaining why on the people that want to forbid...as and where it belongs..

If the hughes amendment disappeared tomorrow, all NFA weapons would still be NFA weapons, subject to strict controls like they are now.

[Oakenshield]

74. Cute semantics.

The fact remains however that under the Hughes Amendment they ARE currently forbidden. That's the law. You say the the Hughes Amendment should be scrapped, so asking why full auto weapons should once again be allowed is quite appropriate.

[beevul]

79. It would be great if you knew what you were talking about. You don't.

"The fact remains however that under the Hughes Amendment they ARE currently forbidden."

Wrong.

"That's the law."

Wrong.

"You say the the Hughes Amendment should be scrapped, so asking why full auto weapons should once again be allowed is quite appropriate."

Wrong. Automatic weapons ARE allowed.

"You say the the Hughes Amendment should be scrapped..."

No, actually I said that many believe the hughes amendment should be scrapped. I said nothing about my position on it, or why my position is what it is.


It would be great if you knew what you were talking about. You don't.

You just made it crystal clear, for all to see, that you do not know what you are talking about.

Read up on what the hughs amendment actually does, and why people might want it gone, and get back to us with with an admission that you had no clue what you were talking about. And a new argument based on facts and reality, rather than misconceptions and ignorance.

[Oakenshield]

81. The only thing that's been made crystal clear is your own beligerance.

Time and time again I've tried to get a dialogue going and the only thing you're interesting in doing is making snotty remarks and otherwise shutting down any kind of conversation. I bid you good evening.

[friendly_iconoclast]

82. What's clearer is a willful ignorance of the subject on which you pontificate...

...along with a dogged refusal to enlighten said ignorance.

Your embrace of the George Aiken approach (i.e. declare victory and leave)
is probably for the best...

[beevul]

90. "Time and time again I've tried to get a dialogue going..."

Shall I quote all the things in this exchange that we've had, which I've said, and you've completely ignored?

In the long post I wrote in response to you, for example?

Ignoring those things, which are legitimate grievances from people on the other side of the issue from you, is that what you characterize as "tried to get a dialogue going"?

If that be the case, I think either you aren't trying very hard, or you mistake a dialogue with a monologue.

"Getting a dialogue going", also means admitting you are wrong when you are, and if you can't do that, I doubt very much you are really as interested in doing so, as you claim you are.


Heres your chance:


The hughes amendment doesn't outlaw or ban automatic weapons. It closes the NFA registry in which NFA firearms are recorded. That prevents any NFA firearms manufactured after some time in 1986 from being added to the registry, in effect making all NFA firearms manufactured after that date unlawful for private ownership.

All NFA firearms manufactured before that date are, however, quite legal to own, but because the number is now fixed, their market value has been artificially inflated by a factor of ten or more.

While this does not effect me (I have no desire to own one, and couldn't afford to feed one for that matter) it does effect many, and IS a legitimate grievance.

Doing away with it would have exactly zero effect on the in depth background checks done for ownership of NFA weapons.

So tell us, why should it remain?

If you're truly interested in a dialogue, that is.

[gejohnston]

91. correction

That prevents any NFA firearms manufactured after some time in 1986 from being added to the registry, in effect making all NFA firearms manufactured after that date unlawful for private ownership.

AFAIK, only the machine guns registry is closed. SBS, SBR, silencers, and AOW is still open.

[beevul]

92. That might be the case, I'll have to look it up.

I don't generally delve into such things as I have no connection to that actual issue.

[blueridge3210]

96. This is what I would be interested in seeing more of.

Exchange of information instead of trying to score points and "win" arguments. The open exchange of information could result in laws that are actually effective at reducing criminal use of firearms and address the mental health issues that drive too many to suicide.

[beevul]

97. What I'd like to see is this.

Solutions and proposals on the part of the "gun violence prevention" types that are genuinely effective at their stated goal, which respect the fact that people have rights where firearms are concerned, and respect those rights.

So far, I'm not seeing much of any.

Compromise ≠ capitulation.

[samsingh]

34. armed security guards for protection are not the same as having every imbecile armed with guns

[beevul]

47. Please show us anyone hereabouts that wants "every imbecile armed with guns".

Please show us anyone hereabouts that wants "every imbecile armed with guns".

Oh, that's right, its a strawman.

Nevermind.

[samsingh]

85. the nra is a great example

the standing rules are another

I see many imbeciles with guns committing crimes

[friendly_iconoclast]

22. Then it should be easily refutable. Care to do so?

[gejohnston]

23. David Letterman shares my interest

in single action revolvers, who knew?

[locks]

43. Nobody answered

Do you think nothing will move until everyone knows or has a family member that has been gunned down? I believe this is an honest question and I'm afraid the answer is yes.

[blueridge3210]

48. I think something will move forward

when serious proposals to actually address criminal misuse of firearms are put forward. Proposals to ban weapons based on cosmetic features do not do this; proposing to ban the weapons least used in crimes does not do this. Referring to firearm owners as "gun humpers" or other pejoratives does not do this.

[Oakenshield]

53. Nothing will move forward until Democratic politicians stand up to the NRA.

&list=PLOKWcH1zBl2kfnCwyyZWk5MW28lgaNa7L

[blueridge3210]

57. That's a simple solution.

How many registered Democrats? How many NRA members? Start a Democratic membership drive and when enough people are members, vote in a new Board of Directors. Problem solved.

[blkmusclmachine]

54. As soon as the DC DEMS grow a set. Maybe by 2116. Maybe...

But only if the GOP lets them!

[ileus]

83. The 1%ers are poutraged about the common mans rights...

[AtheistCrusader]

102. I really like Cooper. He comes off not just intelligent, but professionally honest in these

discussions. Letterman, more just ignorant. Means well. Nice guy. Doesn't really have a grasp of the issue.

What Letterman described for clay pigeons, is what was used to kill one, and injure more at a local college last week.
There is no 'firearm mild enough' that we won't still sometimes, in some cases, have these attacks. And as Cooper noted, a gun isn't a prerequisite.

[Boom Sound 416]

103. When are WE gonna do something?

Said the multi-millionaire with the tv talk show and tv production company.

Yes, Dave. Thanks for reminding us it's up to US

[pablo_marmol]

107. For the love of Christ........

.........when are the people who are 'demanding' action going to demand just a little of themselves in the form of education on the issue?!

True compassion reveals itself through action and sacrifice. The pro-restriction lobby displays neither in any meaningful way. They pridefully refuse to even consider the possibility that some pro-restriction policies have been utterly useless or counter-productive, and they don't donate to the Brady Campaign and other similar groups.