Gun Control & RKBA
Related: About this forumThis country needs stronger gun regulations
I could wax eloquent about reasons, emotional and intellectual, why we need stricter gun regulation and list specific steps we should take to keep guns from falling into the hands of criminals and the mentally ill. But that wouldn’t move anyone’s thinking an inch one way or the other. Some readers would nod their heads in vigorous agreement, others would accuse me of wanting to take away their guns and their freedoms, and some would simply shrug and say, “I don’t know. It’s just too complicated.”
Instead, I want to take another approach. Let’s step outside our raging battle over gun ownership and look at how another country approaches the issue. No, not a country in Europe. I can already hear the cries of “We don’t want to be like Europe!” And not a third world country where some autocratic leader has every reason to fear an armed populace. Let’s look at gun laws in Israel, a democracy which is in a constant state of military readiness, where its citizens have every reason to fear violent attacks. If arming citizens is the best way to secure people’s safety, Israel seems like just the kind of place that would encourage a heavily armed citizenry. Which is why Israel’s gun laws may come as a surprise. Most people don’t own guns, because few people meet the strict qualifications. And licensed gun owners usually are allowed only one pistol.
Israelis can only get a gun license if they reached a reasonably high rank in the military or they can demonstrate the need to own a firearm. If they’re in a business where they have reason to fear being harmed – full time jewelry dealers, people who deal in large quantities of cash or valuables and licensed drivers of public transportation are common examples – they can own one. So can people who live in truly dangerous areas. Licensed hunters can own guns as well. Some Israelis can have guns as souvenirs or if they’re handed down from family members, but only with proper documentation and not in quantity.
http://explorernews.com/opinion/columns/article_2dcf3f2e-ebda-11e1-b906-0019bb2963f4.html
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
trouble.smith
(374 posts)apples and oranges.
Reasonable_Argument
(881 posts)But our constitution provides for the means to fight the military should they turn on the people, Israel's does not. If you take issue with that, please contact your representative and express your opinion about the 2nd amendment.
baldguy
(36,649 posts)I don't think so.
Reasonable_Argument
(881 posts)Should the state turn against the people.
baldguy
(36,649 posts)And showing why it's so blitheringly stupid, fucking insane, truly dangerous and incompatible with a functioning democracy.
You can't destroy the village in order to save it. When you destroy it - IT'S DESTROYED! It's lost by definition.
Similarly, when you use the democratic freedoms we have to stockpile weapons in fear of the normally remote possibility of a totalitarian govt, you help to create an environment of violence that destroys our democratic values and gives rise to the very totalitarianism you fear.
holdencaufield
(2,927 posts)... were destroyed to establish a free and independent United States of America?
... were destroyed to preserve that Union of States when it was in danger of dissolving?
... were destroyed to remove the threat of totalitarianism from Europe and Asia and to save an entire group of people from annihilation?
Even a cursory reading of History shows that a progressive democracy can go to totalitarian nightmare before we know what is happening. The best thing we have in this country to prevent it is our Constitution -- and you want to discard a huge chunk of that Constitution because you don't want someone to have something you don't think is useful?
DanTex
(20,709 posts)The talk of "second amendment solutions" and the militia people and the survivalists and the rest of the right-wingers who push silly interpretations of the second amendment trivialize the entire document. Any reasonable interpretation of the second amendment allows for significantly stricter gun laws.
The constitution doesn't actually require us to endure all this needless gun violence and death. The real problem is a political one -- the gun lobby is better funded and better organized than the gun control lobby. Actually, it happens a lot with our current political system: right-wing lobbies backed with corporate money get their way.
hack89
(39,171 posts)could the issue simply be that a majority of voters don't agree with you?
holdencaufield
(2,927 posts)... if everyone agrees with you?
DanTex
(20,709 posts)I'm aware that the teabaggers won big in the 2010 election, a result which I have no doubt you were thrilled about. And the right wing generally has been making a lot of progress in the last two decades. But, across the board, polls consistently show that the government is to the right of popular opinion on a whole bunch of issues, including gun control but also other things like taxes on the rich, the public option in HCR, etc. You can't really be so naive as to think that well-funded special interests don't have a big impact on politics.
hack89
(39,171 posts)I guess the question is why gun control is not well funded. Why does it appear that you a simply part of a small and whiny minority which is adept at rationalizing their failures but nothing more.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)That explains a lot of your beliefs, actually...
hack89
(39,171 posts)those are hard facts that explain a lot. Americans are smart enough to see past your emotional hyperbole.
You represent a steadily growing minority view. You naturally think it is because the rest of the world is not as smart as your are. The rest of us know better.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)...you'd see that our levels of gun violence are 10X or more what you find in other industrialized nations, the major difference being the number of guns and the laxness of gun control laws in the US. I understand that right-wingers don't care or know much about what happens outside of 'murka, but maybe someday you could, like, go on a trip to Canada or England or something and check it out.
hack89
(39,171 posts)You might have a point about gun control if gun violence is evenly distributed. But it is extremely concentrated. The most violent neighborhoods in America are orders of magnitudes more violent than the safest. My town is just as safe as any comparable town in Europe. How can that be if access to guns is the problem? Could it be things like drug gangs, ineffective drug laws, poverty, poor education, and other social issues? Nah - of course not. It has to be the evil guns.
Here is my solution to gun violence.
2. Empty the prisons of non-violent drug offenders. It will save billions that can be spent on education, health care and social services.
3. Focus the justice system on like a laser on violent crime. Use a gun in committing a crime and go to prison for a very long time.
4. Single payer health care with mental health coverage.
My plan would actually address roots causes.
btw - I spent 20 years in the Navy. I have seen parts of the world you couldn't imagine. And now I live in a town that is just as safe as any town in Canada or Europe - we have had exactly one murder in 12 years. Not everyone disagrees with you out of ignorance - you really are not smarter than the rest of America.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)The fact that there is more crime in dense urban areas afflicted with poverty is not a uniquely American phenomenon. What is uniquely American is the gun availability. And high homicide rates. Gun homicide rates specifically.
PS -- Who said anything about being smarter than "the rest of America". Though I will I admit, I do think I've gotten something right versus the 60% of Americans think creationism should be taught in public schools...
hack89
(39,171 posts)there are lots of guns in my town yet there is no gun violence. So laws focused on me will do nothing. Laws focused on criminals and drugs, on the other hand, will greatly reduce gun violence. And they will get the support of gun owners so there is an actual chance that they will work. Your approach flies in the face of political reality - you will never get enough support to pass the laws you want. So why not face reality and do something that has a chance to succeed? Or is feeling morally superior really what this is all about to you?
rDigital
(2,239 posts)There are no legal handguns in Russia. It's about the people silly, not the guns. The Brady Campaign would give Russia an A+ on firearms laws and regulations.
If you dig a little deeper, you'll find there is no correlation between gun control and murder rates.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)No, but what IS a uniquely American phenomenon is that we have huge swaths of our urban populations who have suffered decades or even centuries of oppression who have little opportunity other than crime to advance.
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)While the U.S. gun violence is high, our overall level of violent crime is fairly low compared to Europe, especially the UK. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html
DanTex
(20,709 posts)The drastic differences in that chart are primarily due to this:
Still, it is true that we don't have exceptionally high rates of violent crime -- rape, robbery, assault. We have exceptionally high murder rates, and the reason for this, which criminologists have known for some time now, is that in the US it is easy for criminals and other potential murderers to get guns, and gun crimes are much more likely to turn into homicides than non-gun crimes. It's pretty straightforward, really, less guns, less homicide.
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)El Paso has a population that is almost as large as Chicago, is just across the river from Juarez, Mexico, and has more guns than people. The violent crime rate and murder rate in El Paso is extremely low. They average 14 murders per year. 2011 saw 16 murders.
Chicago, which has a virtual gun ban, had 420+ murders in 2011.
Why didn't El Paso's huge number of guns send the murder rate skyrocketing? Instead they had barely more than one per month.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)PavePusher
(15,374 posts)Caught up in his own contradiction....
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Did you forget already? Or did you never really know at all.
I'm betting on never knew at all.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)what a cogent argument was. You never did know, nor do you know anything about investigative journalism.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)gejohnston
(17,502 posts)because you can't.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)The answer is: the fact that gun ownership and homicide are correlated doesn't mean that you can exactly predict the number of homicides based on the number of guns. There are other factors too, and there is "noise". So it's entirely expected that you will be able to come up with some low-gun areas with high gun violence and some high-gun areas with low gun violence.
I thought this was too obvious to spell out, but I won't make the mistake of overestimating your statistical literacy again.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)anyone can cherry pick areas and make any claim they want, true but there isn't a correlation either way.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Actually, there are ways to measure a correlation statistically. That's the think I keep talking about that you keep pretending to understand. And people have done that. And they've found that the two are correlated.
Here's the thing. The fact that people on your side do nothing but cherry pick data and avoid any kind of formal statistical techniques or peer reviewed studies doesn't mean that that's the only way to approach the issue. It is possible to actually do a proper study. Only it doesn't come out the way you want it to.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)If the guns = gun crime causation was as strong as you claim then it should have been strong enough to push El Paso's murder rate up. After all, El Paso is flooded with guns and Chicago has as close to a gun ban as one can get. Surely the guns-cause-crime effect should be visible in El Paso. Instead we find it to be one of the safest major cities in the U.S.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)Vancouver's is twice El Paso's and Thunder Bay is three to four times higher.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)gejohnston
(17,502 posts)and it takes an expert to recognized talent.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)This is a statistical question. You will always be able to cherry pick the data and find counterexamples to the general trend, given that there are other factors involved and guns are just one of them. You argument is the equivalent of the guys on FOX that claim that every big snowstorm is proof that global warming isn't happening: "but this is a HUGE snowstorm. If there were really global warming we wouldn't be having snowstorms THIS BIG..."
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)Such theories will produce statistical curves that the data points will be expected to lie upon. There will be a statistical distribution that will account for those points that aren't exactly on the curve. Such distribution will usually be some variation of a bell curve. If a data point shows up that is far outside the expected values it indicates that there is an error in the theory. And when you have a flood of such extreme data points then a new theory is definately needed.
We can easily provide a flood of data points of places with very strong gun control that have rampant crime and places that are flooded with guns that have low crime. You need a new theory as guns = crime doesn't hold up.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)The statistical studies I've read have things like standard deviations and confidence intervals in them. For example, the multiple statistical studies that have concluded that gun ownership is correlated with homicide. And there's a reason for this. Because without doing actual calculations, you can't tell whether or not the data is consistent with a certain hypothesis just by eyeballing it, no matter how "HUGE" it seems.
The reason you are able to believe the things you believe is because you don't actually know anything at all about statistical methods. It allows you to ramble on about bell curves and extreme data points, and then arrive at whatever conclusion you want. In order to get published in a peer-reviewed journal, you have to actually crunch the numbers, but you're not looking to make a scientifically valid argument, you're just looking for some way to cling to a conclusion that supports your political outlook.
rl6214
(8,142 posts)I live in El Paso and would love to hear this.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)Canada's gun laws were not stricter than ours, on balance, until 1977. The only major difference was that they had stricter regulations on pistols, while we had stricter regulations on machine guns. Whenever our crime rate raises or falls, so does theirs.
Most of our violence is concentrated in a few areas of a few cities. Many US states have European level murder rates. Minnesota has a slightly lower one than Manitoba. Your standard "if you don't agree with me, you must be uneducated right wingers" BS is getting pretty stale.
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)But when you exclude certain demographics suddenly the gun violence becomes a lot more comparable.
We have huge African-American and Latino urban communities that have been the victim of hundreds of years of oppression and lost opportunity. We are hardly one generation out of the first real change from that situation. Countless minorities in this country don't know what it is like to have parents with stable jobs, let alone white-collar jobs. They don't know what it is like to own homes, or even rent one. And so for these people crime is a way of life caused by no opportunity and hopelessness.
Look at this NYC crime map:
http://projects.nytimes.com/crime/homicides/map/
61% of homicides in NYC are committed by African-Americans. 29% by Latinos. That is 89% of homicides! Likewise 61% of homicide victims are African-American, and 27% of victims are Latinos.
America has a gun crime problem mostly because we have huge, huge social problems in this country that have screwed over minorities for decades or even centuries. We have entire demographics of people for whom crime, particularly gang-related and drug-related crime, looks like a great career opportunity.
When you compare white America to these other industrialized nations, suddenly the crime rate doesn't look so out of whack. Maybe it's because most of those other industrialized nations have far superior social programs?
When people have health care, liberal drug laws, and good social safety nets, suddenly people don't have to become so desperate and hopeless that crime looks like a way out.
America doesn't have a gun crime problem. It has a social problem of huge swaths of its population being denied opportunity.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)...is that they don't explain why it is just homicide and not violent crime in general that the US stands out. If the US were really uniquely prone to violence, due to problems with minorities, social safety nets, etc., what we'd see is that the rates of violent crime in general (robbery, assault, rape) would all be higher than the rest of the developed world. But they aren't. And this is because other countries also have social problems they are struggling with, which is why overall crime rates for the US are not outside the range of normal industrialized nations.
The big difference is in homicide, where we are number 1 by a large margin. In the US, it is much easier to get a gun, which means that more crimes are committed with guns, and more conflicts include at least one armed person. It is well documented that gun assaults are more likely to result in death than non-gun assaults, so it is pretty logical that there will be more homicides in the US than in places where criminals have a much more difficult time getting hold of guns, simply because the same crime, when committed by a gun, is more likely to turn lethal. And that's what the statistics show.
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)It's the demographics.
If you exclude African-American and Latino murderers, I bet our homicide rates are right in line with everyone else.
You don't see white people laying waste to each other with firearms. And the reason is simple - white people in this country have had 200+ years of relatively equal opportunity. They just buy the drugs - they don't have to get involved in the outside-the-law distribution.
I am not surprised to hear that when people with access to guns decide to commit violence, they do so with a gun. Who wouldn't? People no doubt choose guns for violent crime for the same reason police and civilians choose them for self-defense - they work, and they are a far better choice for the job than a knife or other item that requires physical strength to wield.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Again, the alternate hypotheses don't explain why it's homicide specifically, rather than violent crime in general, where the US comes out on top. I'm sure demographics play a role, but other countries have social and demographic problems also, they have drug trafficking, and overall they have comparable levels of violent crime to the US. But, without the guns, violent crime is much less lethal.
If you were right, if it were about demographics, then we'd see the US have more violent crime across the board, not just more murder.
rDigital
(2,239 posts)DanTex
(20,709 posts)Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)No, I addressed this quite clearly in my previous post:
"I am not surprised to hear that when people with access to guns decide to commit violence, they do so with a gun. Who wouldn't? People no doubt choose guns for violent crime for the same reason police and civilians choose them for self-defense - they work, and they are a far better choice for the job than a knife or other item that requires physical strength to wield."
In other words, if you have to commit violence, and you have access to guns, you're going to use them. Why settle for a contest of physical strength when you can use a gun instead?
And moreover, since most of these murders are likely drug and/or gang-related, it's not surprising that death is the end result. When organized crime sets out to use violence to solve business disputes, it's generally an all-or-nothing approach. You don't risk showing up with brass knuckles or knives anymore when the other guy is armed with firearms. It's warfare, plain and simple. Look at the drug gang violence down in Mexico with people being chopped up and hung from overpasses. They are not out to injure.
If you were right, if it were about demographics, then we'd see the US have more violent crime across the board, not just more murder.
But if it wasn't about demographics, then white people would be committing homicides at the same rates as African-Americans and Latinos, since they have the same access to firearms and generally more money to spend on them.
But we don't see that. White people in this country, particularly high-crime urban areas like New York City, are in a very small minority of homicide offenders and victims.
And again, the reason is simple - white people just buy the drugs. It's the disadvantaged minorities stuck doing the dirty work of the illegal drug trade.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)If your hypothesis were correct -- if it were really all about other factors like demographics, etc., then you'd find that the US would have higher rates of violent crime across the board, because those demographic factors would also cause more robberies and assaults. But we don't. Only homicide.
Other developed nations have drugs. They have poverty. They have racism. They have crime. They have gangs. They have all these things. What they don't have is all the guns.
You haven't addressed the argument against your hypothesis. You keep going off on tangents about how guns are an effective tool and blah blah blah but that misses the point. How does the US manage to have pretty average violent crime statistics across the board, but a large multiple of the homicides of the rest of the developed world. The data fits the firearm instrumentality hypothesis almost perfectly. It doesn't fit your hypothesis at all.
That's not true at all. I'm not arguing that it's only about the guns. I'm arguing that it's about both guns and demographics. Obviously, demographics, things like poverty etc. make a difference, but guns do as well.
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)If it were just about guns, then we would expect to have higher homicide rates across all demographics. But we don't.
Guns are universally accessible. Particularly to privileged whites who are more likely to have disposable income to spend on firearms and less likely to have a criminal record that prohibits them from owning them.
So if it was just access to guns that increased homicide rates, we would expect to find homicide rates equally high across all demographics.
That is not the case. Why?
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Guns are one factor. They are not the only factor. Nobody is arguing that you can predict the exact number of homicides if you know the number of guns. Just that, all other things being equal, more guns result in more homicide. This is no way inconsistent with the fact that, say, wealthier areas have lower crime/homicide rates than poorer areas, or that rural areas have less crime/homicide than dense urban areas.
That is not the case. Why?
Because it's not just access to guns.
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)That's right, it's not.
Just that, all other things being equal, more guns result in more homicide.
When you look at only Caucasian homicide rates, how do we compare with other countries?
From what I'm able to deduce, it looks to me like we would fall pretty much in line with countries like Ireland, Germany, and Norway.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States#International_comparison
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_crime_in_the_United_States
From what I've been able to gather from the net, it appears that African-Americans are at least 7 times more likely to commit murder than other races, and almost 40 times more likely to commit violent crime. Latinos are 3 times more likely than whites to commit violent crimes.
I found this quote particularly relevant:
http://www.examiner.com/article/federal-statistics-of-black-on-white-violence-with-links-and-mathematical-extrapolation-formulas
"The best indicator of violent crime levels in an area is the percent of the population that is black and Hispanic."
Note the best indicator is not the availability of firearms.
Guns are one factor. They are not the only factor.
In fact, they are probably a very minor factor.
The irrefutable fact is that African-American's commit roughly half of the homicides in this country, while only constituting roughly 13% of the population. The availability of guns has no bearing on this, as they are at least equally available to all races, and in fact they are probably more available to whites in practice.
And again, for those coming late to the thread, this has nothing to do with some farcical notion that there is something inherently more violent about African-Americans or Latinos. It has everything to do with centuries of oppression that has only begun to even be attempted to be corrected in the last 50 years. It has resulted in generations of people who are and who believe they are disenfranchised from the opportunity of the "American Dream" and thus for whom crime seems like a viable alternative. Minorities run the drug industry and suffer the criminal consequences of it while wealthy whites support it.
That is your factor.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)If you look at other nations, you can also find certain subsets of their population commit an abnormally large fraction of the violent crimes. In the US, African Americans both commit and are victims of crimes at much higher rates than white people, but in countries with a different ethnic composition, a different social history, it will be a different group. If you start slicing the population up in different ways, and excluding certain groups, then you can change the statistics drastically.
For example, France has a relatively large Muslim population (around 10%), and in fact the majority of prisoners in France are Muslims. Just like you pointed out with African Americans in the US, this isn't because there is something inherently violent about Muslims, it's because in France they are not well integrated, Muslim communities have high unemployment and low opportunities, etc. So excluding Muslims would make France look more favorable in comparison to the US. And if you go nation by nation, you will generally be able to find groups like this that you could slice out of the statistics to give a different picture. The thing is, Muslims are part of France, and African Americans are part of the US, which is why, for international comparisons, it is necessary to compare the overall numbers.
Also, as I've pointed out many times, gun ownership doesn't correlate very much with violent crime per se, but with homicide. That is, guns don't cause (much) more crime, but they do make crime more lethal. This is because crimes committed with guns are more likely to result in homicide. And if you do an overall international comparison, the US has overall violent crime rates that are relatively in line with other developed nations, but homicide rates that are much higher. So the reason we have more homicide is not something in our society that makes our people generally more likely to be violent criminals.
If you are interested in the statistics within the US, yes, the percentage of black and Hispanic residents is a strong indicator of violent crime levels. But that doesn't mean gun ownership is not a factor. Probably the best statistical study of the effect of gun ownership on homicide within the US estimates that an increase in 10,000 gun owning households will result in between 6 and 18 additional gunshot injuries, and between one and three additional homicides.
http://home.uchicago.edu/~ludwigj/papers/JPubE_guns_2006FINAL.pdf
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)It's just not a very important one.
African-Americans are 30 times more likely to commit violent crimes than whites, and 7 times more likely to commit homicide. But African-Americans don't have 7-30 times greater access to firearms. If anything, they probably are at a disadvantage to obtaining firearms, just as they are at a disadvantage to obtaining everything else white people take for granted.
For example, France has a relatively large Muslim population (around 10%), and in fact the majority of prisoners in France are Muslims.
And if you divide our homicide rate by 7, you find our homicide rate is half that of France, and more in line with the very homogenous societies of places like Norway and Iceland.
But this is all academic. Your fundamental assertion:
If you would expand your view just slightly you'd see that our levels of gun violence are 10X or more what you find in other industrialized nations, the major difference being the number of guns and the laxness of gun control laws in the US.
Is clearly incorrect. The major difference is not"the number of guns and the laxness of gun control laws".
The major difference is race, a race that has been the victim of centuries of oppression and lack of opportunity driving them into crime and undermining their communities.
The number of guns and the laxness of gun control laws is clearly a very minor factor.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)First of all, since blacks account for about half the murders in the US, even if you did only count murders committed by white people, the US would still have an extremely high homicide rate by international standards. The amount that you would divide the homicide rate by is 2, not 7. The rate of homicide by white people may be 1/7 that of black people, but it is not anywhere close to 1/7 of the overall US homicide rate, since white people are the majority. You've got your math wrong.
But, like I said, if you are going to subtract away the effects of African Americans in the US, you also have to subtract away the effects of Muslims in France. In every country you are going to find some group that, if you subtract them away, will result in large reductions of violent crime rates. So, after you perform all the adjustments, you are still going to find that the US has the highest homicide rate.
However, those minority groups are part of the nations. You can't actually subtract them away. There is no such thing as a USA without African Americans, any more than there is a France without Muslims.
Here's the thing. If it all really were due to the fact that the US has African Americans, then the US would actually have higher rates of violent crime across the board. But we don't. We only have higher rates of homicide. Even without subtracting away the effects of race, we still don't have especially high rates of violent crime. But we do have especially high rates of homicide.
Also, that study I pointed to actually controlled for percentage of population that was black, and even after controlling for that (and other factors), still found a significant effect from gun ownership.
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)You are correct on my math error, but like I said, it's all academic.
The fundamental premise that our crime rate is primarily a result of the number of guns and our gun laws is demonstrably false. If it were true, we would have a uniform distribution of firearm-related crime, and we don't.
Firearm crime in the United States is not a firearm problem, it is a social problem.
Also, that study I pointed to actually controlled for percentage of population that was black, and even after controlling for that (and other factors), still found a significant effect from gun ownership.
But not significant enough to make up for the social problems that make African-Americans 7 times more likely to commit murder and 30 times more likely to commit violent crimes than whites.
Your bigotry on full display.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)Unless the NRA has some inexplicable power to cloud minds, the obvious conclusion is gun control just isn't as popular as you make it out to be.
SecularMotion
(7,981 posts)NRA Members Agree: More Gun Regulation Makes Sense
It seems obvious to many that advocating for regulating the sale, ownership, and use of guns is a political loser. Indeed, there is a wealth of polling data suggesting Americans oppose “gun control” and favor “gun rights.” However, new research obtained by ThinkProgress indicates that this opposition exists only in the abstract. According to a poll conducted in May by Republican pollster Frank Luntz for the group Mayors against Illegal Guns, gun-owning Americans, including National Rifle Association (NRA) members, overwhelmingly support a raft of common-sense measures typically described as “gun control:”
http://thinkprogress.org/election/2012/07/24/577091/nra-members-agree-regulating-guns-makes-sense/?mobile=nc
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)it supports the status quo on the federal level as well as the state level in some places. The think progress writer does not know current laws. Guns are regulated, everyone supports some regulation. The difference is degree of regulation,
SecularMotion
(7,981 posts)gejohnston
(17,502 posts)and since the US has had federal gun regulations since 1927, I am missing your point.
SecularMotion
(7,981 posts)because is it only based on total membership numbers, not the opinions of individual members.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)Brady does not support the status quo, the NRA does for the most part. Unless you can show me someone wanting to repeal all of the current federal gun laws dating back to 1927......................................
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)And the fact is, you believe what you do about the opinions of NRA members because of a Frank Luntz poll. Which leads to two obvious questions:
Did you find Luntz credible before that?
And if not, what made you change your mind?
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)The NRA helped draft some of the current gun regulations, such as the NICS. The NRA does not automatically oppose all gun regulation, but they do oppose gun regulations that are an undue limitation on a law-abiding citizen's right to own and carry guns. That the NRA membership accepts some gun regulations does not mean that they accept the extremists positions of those who wish to ban guns.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)Let's take a look at Luntz's own website:
http://www.luntzglobal.com/wordsthatwork.php
In Words That Work, Dr, Luntz not only raises the curtain on the craft of effective language, but also offers priceless insight on how to find and use the right words to get what you want out of life. Whether your goal is to boost company sales, win political office, inspire your employees, or get that raise you deserve, Dr. Luntz has something instructive to say about how language can help. Learn about the phenomenon of transforming mere words into an effective arsenal for the war of perception we all wage each and every day.
Take it from the man who helped craft "The Contract with America," who turned the mild-mannered term "estate tax" into the more politically charged "death tax," who reframed "drilling for oil" into "exploring for energy" - words can and do mean the difference between success and failure. We all submit to the power of language, whether we know it or not. And the right words can give you the edge in any venture.
But now he's saying what you want to hear, so it's accurate? Here's a few more example of Luntz's "work":
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021019980#post4
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002157557
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002334766
holdencaufield
(2,927 posts)... I guess it it no longer valid to bash either the NRA or people who support or are members of the same?
Great! I can finally come out of the closet!
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)Why do you think the founders created a decentralized militia system rather than a centralized one under the control of the federal government?
The answer is, of course, absurdly simple. Just like the decentralization of power installed in all other aspects of the government, the same concept was applied to the military, and for the same reason - to prevent concentrations of power that could be used to impose a tyranny.
Yes, revolution destroys, just like it destroyed the rule of the English crown back in 1776. It is supposed to.
MercutioATC
(28,470 posts)For a populace to fend off an oppressive government with force and, in the process, "destroying" that government would not be "destroying the village".
The "village" is the populace, not the government.
baldguy
(36,649 posts)Bueller? Beuller?
In the United States, as a representative republic with democratic ideals, the people ARE the govt! They always have been. Trying to characterize it as otherwise is one of the classic radical RW Big Lies straight out of the GOP playbook - all the way back to that evil bag of puss Ronald Reagan - and to John Birchers & the Dixiecrats before him.
Next you'll be saying "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice."
The theoretical "oppressive govt" you've got a hard-on to kill doesn't exist. What you're targeting instead duly-enacted laws supported by the great majority of the people who desire to live in a safer & saner environment. What you're targeting is our democracy.
MercutioATC
(28,470 posts)If that was ever the case, it ended long ago.
That aside, the scenario in which the general population would have to defend itself from our government or another government hasn't arrived...and may never. I'd argue that we're moving in that direction, however.
The point is that our country was founded with a mechanism to deal with this issue, should it arise. Our forefathers gave us the power and responsibility to defend our country from its government, should the need arise. That responsibility is not something to be taken lightly...and certainly not something to be dismissed because we're supposedly a nation governed by "duly-elected" officials.
baldguy
(36,649 posts)THAT'S the very thing that creates the fascism you fear. Which you'd accept it with loving, open arms.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)some of those folks say fascism is already here.
MercutioATC
(28,470 posts)I believe that both the government and the economy are increasingly manipulated by special interests (money). I do not believe that our government truly represents the populace nor do I believe that the economy (be it lending, the stock market, etc.) reflects anything other than manipulation by the few at the expense of the many.
I honestly do not expect the need to overthrow our government any time in my lifespan. I do, however, see indicators that suggest an increasing shift of power to a select few and appreciate the rights that we all have to protect ourselves should the worst occur.
baldguy
(36,649 posts)You can write it off & hole up in Galtland with Ron Paul and the other loonies. The rest of us will be better off.
MercutioATC
(28,470 posts)I'm acknowledging the situation and am supportive of our right to preserve our society, if things go awry.
baldguy
(36,649 posts)And it'll have a handgun on it's hip. When that happens it'll stop being "America".
When govt is functioning properly, it says to people like George Zimmerman "No, you can't have a gun". Because people like George Zimmerman have no reason to have a gun, and they cause actual harm to the community when they do.
When "things go awry", we have govt say "Yes, George Zimmerman. Not only can you have a gun, but we'll let you hunt down & kill any random black man you choose without any questions." This is the type of society you're being an advocate for, and it has no resemblance to America.
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)It doesn't matter what other countries have decided is acceptable firearm policy for them.
Our government was created with the principle of an armed citizenry capable of military service.
It's a simple as that.
It doesn't matter how bad our crime rate might be compared to other countries. It doesn't matter what kind of regulations other countries have decided are OK.
Our country was created with the principle, enshrined in the very Constitution, that the people should keep and bear arms so that they could serve as infantry. Note that this is not the only reason why they can keep and bear arms, just the only one mentioned as a reason by the Constitution.
No matter what other countries do, we are free to own firearms, by our prime governing document.
ileus
(15,396 posts)The old prove you need some 1%er's permission to carry a gun, is dying a shitty 1800's death in most parts of the country. Regressive gun policies don't belong in our society.
Jenoch
(7,720 posts)stand on current gun laws, it is apparent to all that you like the gun laws already on the books and are satisfied with the manner in which they are enforced. Since that is the case, why did you post this blog?
4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)and basic logic.
Try A: doesn't work.
Try A again: doesn't work.
Try A a third time: doesn't work.
Try B: crime drops.
WE NEED TO TRY A AGAIN, B IS KILLING US!
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,479 posts)...with someone or something to blame for misfortune. 
SlimJimmy
(3,180 posts)rl6214
(8,142 posts)GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)You antis constantly complain that private owners aren't that proficient with guns yet you want to limit the amount of rounds we can have to practice with.
The limit of one gun is ridiculous. I would want at least two handguns, one a .22 to be able to practice cheaply (.22 ammo is cheap) and a handgun of serious caliber for actual self-defense.
The Israeli model is not practical.
4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)they'll go on and on about how poorly trained average citizens are so the 2nd amendment doesn't apply.
Then they protest free courses in gun safety and work to limit the amount of practice you can have.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)
ManiacJoe
(10,136 posts)Of the ones that do sell it, you can often get it cheaper elsewhere.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)there is a limit of what you can buy at the store, but the government subsidizes sales at ranges and you buy all you want. Of course, the idea is that you shoot what you buy.
MercutioATC
(28,470 posts)200 acres of woods, and I'm shooting from the top toward the bottom of a glacial valley. Very safe. The rub...my parents don't sell ammo.
Why are some people so fixated on ammunition? When is that last time that 500+ rounds were fired in a "mass-shooting"? 500 rounds is nothing to the average shooter, and just 50 rounds could create one of the most deadly shootings this country has experienced.
If you want to get technical, somebody could kill plenty of people with a 6-shot revolver and a single box of .38 Special ammunition. More ammunition (or larger magazine capacity) does NOT make a situation more potentially deadly.
4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)Even in a limited capacity heads would explode.
spin
(17,493 posts)If someone breaks into my home at night, do I have a right to defend myself? What if he is armed? Should I throw a can of beans at him as one poster here has suggested?
Last week a girl and her boyfriend stopped by our home to visit. The girl left my room to take an aluminum can to our recycle bin. Her boyfriend got up shortly after and calmly walked out of my room. About a minute later I heard a loud commotion.
I left my room and found my son in law throwing the boyfriend out the door. The girl friend had dropped the can off and stopped to sit and talk with my son in law. For some strange reason the boyfriend noticed this and became infuriated. He walked up behind her and started punching her in the head. He got in five or six blows before my son in law could stop him. After my son in law threw him out he stood there for a minute or so yelling threats.
I found the girl sitting on the living room floor bleeding profusely. She had a badly cut lip, a bloody nose and also a large lump on her forehead. She left a large puddle of blood on the living room floor.
We called 911 and an ambulance. Fortunately she was not seriously injured. The police arrested the boyfriend an hour later but he bonded out of jail the next day.
Obviously this guy is dangerous and could hold a grudge against my son in law or me. He also has a history of abusing this girlfriend. He is 40 years younger than I am and in great shape. If he breaks into my home, it is reassuring to know that I have firearms available and I know how to use them.
Under the Israeli system you discuss I might now possibly have a good reason to get a firearm. It would probably require some time before I could get the license and then I would have to buy one and learn how to use it effectively.
Under Florida law I don't have to have a reason to own a firearm. I do own firearms and I know how and when to use them. I also have a concealed weapons permit and I was not required to have a reason to get one.
In my opinion, Florida law is far superior to Israeli law. You of course will disagree.
4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)there are certain people who view freedom as somewhat offensive. You have to prove to their satisfaction that you deserve the rights and that you would use those rights as they would before they can begrudgingly allow you that freedom.
It's not a right/left thing and it isn't limited to guns (far from it). It's an ingrained mentality that some people have and can be applied to anything (prove you need an abortion, or an SUV, or the right to privacy, or . . .) and I don't think it will ever change.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,479 posts)Sadly true.
spin
(17,493 posts)
Callisto32
(2,997 posts)Well since you don't even know what "liberal" means...let's just say I have my doubts about the truth of the hereinabove mentioned statement.