Guns and rural voters...

[Doctor Venmkan]

http://www.kentucky.com/mld/kentucky/news/editorial/15311557.htm?template=contentModules/printstory.jsp

Posted on Sun, Aug. 20, 2006


Gun issue keeps rural voters away from Dems

By David Gambrel
CONTRIBUTING COLUMNIST

If you look at a U.S. map that shows county by county where candidates for president have won and lost in recent elections, almost none of the counties where Democrats won are in rural areas. As a rural Democrat this greatly concerns me.

**SNIP**

That brings me to a more practical reason that rural people are so staunch in their support of gun rights. When it comes to protection in rural America, more often than not, you're on your own. (emphasis added) It is just not practical to have a law enforcement officer on every corner as it is in the city.

Even in the best circumstances, it sometimes can be 30 minutes before help arrives. My mother just turned 70 and lives alone. How can she protect herself from an intruder twice her size? Call 911? Install a security system? By the time help arrived she would be dead. (emphasis added)

**SNIP**
*************

An excellent article, IMO. You probably don't have to read the whole thing to get the point he makes in his last words: "For those who believe the national party should stay the course on this issue, be warned: If it does, the victory map will continue to be more Republican than Democratic."

[MadMaddie]

1. If they are in rural America I have no problem with them

having guns I support them having their weapons....

It's not the farmer or the rural land dweller that are contributing to the gun crisis....

It's the government allowing military style weapons to be sold in the streets of American and allowing the Gun lobby to dictate how the rules should be written....

If homeowners want handguns in the city to protect their home I am okay with that...but they don't need an Uzi...to do that!

It's common sense...

[Doctor Venmkan]

4. A (full-auto, restricted) Uzi would be a bad choice of home defense gun...

...and yes, there are ways to buy one. If you can pass an invasive background/criminal history check, pay the fees, get permission from your C.L.E.O., have a special dealer (Class 3, I think it's called), and have the $15,000 or so to actually buy the gun!

Thus, the military "style" weapons being sold on the streets are just that...guns that may LOOK like their fully-automatic brothers, but do not have near the rate of fire.

Just an FYI for anyone that think that you can walk into "Uncle Joe's" gun store, plop down $500, pass the instant background check, and walk out in 5 minutes with a full-auto AK-47.

That being said....

Even if I had the $$$, I would not be interested in the full-auto weapons myself. Too much risk of damage to bystanders if used for self-defense. And I sure don't have the money to burn on the ammo to keep one "fed" for "fun-time at the range!" ;)

[benEzra]

27. Uzi's have been VERY tightly controlled ever since they were invented...

they are tightly restricted by the Title 2/Class III provisions of the National Firearms Act of 1934, just like all other automatic weapons.

The gun issue in 2006 isn't about Uzi's; it's about non-automatic, small-caliber civilian carbines with modern styling, and defensive-style handguns and shotguns.

[slackmaster]

38. Appeal to "common sense" is a fallacious argument

So is claiming that you are qualified to say what someone else does or does not need.

[liberal N proud]

2. The only reason gun issue works is because the Dems don't have the guts

to stand up the the repuke bastards who keep claiming that the Democrats are anti gun.
I bet there are as many Democrat gun owners as there are repuke and none of them have shot their lawyer friend in the face.

If anyone will take guns away it will be the republicans when they claim marshall law in their war on terror. The stupid part is these same morons would gladly give over the guns if the repukes ask for them because the furor said it was necessary for NATIONAL security.

[billbuckhead]

6. Do you want guns in schools, churches, government buildings, bars, malls?

This what the neoCONS in "gun lobby" want.

[Doctor Venmkan]

11. Out of school, don't attend church, never in Gov buildings, don't drink...

But I do go to the local mall...or at least I used to. Seems that they don't want my type (Concealed Carry Permit) on their property, so I spend my money elsewhere. But don't worry if you choose to go to the mall! Their ace team of security will take down a detailed report of the thug that cracks you in the head with a pipe and steals your wallet, and provide his description to police like a good witness. :eyes:

No, I kid you not...according to mall management, "security" is not to get involved to protect people during crimes, but just to call the police.

Until I can be assured that there will be no one with any bad intentions in the same places that I frequent, then I will exercise all rights and privileges related to self defense that I can.

[billbuckhead]

16. I'm far more worried about regular people with guns than "thugs"

The prounregulated gun crowd is always throwing thugs and bad guys out there like neoCons throw out Al Queda. There are only 200 or so justified homicides a year according to the FBI and over 600 wives and girlfriends killed by their men every year.

[Doctor Venmkan]

19. Source?

Does it say every one of those women were killed with guns, used by otherwise law-abiding gun owners? Maybe CCWers, so we know that they had clean criminal records at the very least up till when the permit was issued?

If not...what's the difference between these men and any other criminal who uses a gun...?

[billbuckhead]

20. The source is FBI statistics

Female Homicide Victims and Weapons

Firearms—especially handguns—were the most common weapons used by males to murder females in 1999. For homicides in which the weapon could be identified, 53 percent of female victims (865 out of 1,647) were shot and killed with guns—more than 63 percent by male intimates. The number of females shot and killed by their husband or intimate acquaintance (546 victims) was more than four times higher than the total number murdered by male strangers using all weapons combined (133 victims) in single victim/single offender incidents in 1999. In homicides where males used firearms to kill females, handguns were clearly the weapon of choice over rifles and shotguns. In 1999, 76 percent of female firearm homicide victims (656 out of 865) were killed with handguns.


Female Homicide Victims and Circumstance

The overwhelming majority of homicides among females by male offenders in single victim/single offender incidents in 1999 were not related to any other felony crime. Most often, females were killed by males in the course of an argument—usually with a firearm. In 1999 there were 1,464 incidents in which the circumstance of the homicide between the female victim and male offender in single victim/single offender incidents could be identified. Of these, 87 percent (1,270 out of 1,464) were not related to the commission of any other felony.

Of the non-felony homicides, 62 percent (789 out of 1,270) involved arguments between the female victim and male offender and 52 percent (408 out of 789) of those homicides involved guns. According to the Supplementary Homicide Report data, in 1999 there were 317 women shot and killed by their husbands or intimate acquaintances in single victim/single offender incidents during the course of an argument—nearly one such murder every day of the year.

<http://www.vpc.org/studies/dv4one.htm>
<http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/justify.htm>

Way more men killing their wives and girlfriends than all justifiable homicides.

[Doctor Venmkan]

40. If these killers were unstable enough to shoot someone over an argument,

then I agree 100% that they DON'T need guns. I highly doubt all those guns were legally owned, as there are laws against the criminals and the mentally unstable owning them. (I figure at least some of those guys must have had prior criminal records...)

But if these abusive cowards did have clean criminal records until then, all it would take would be for the wife/gf to get a restraining order against her tormenter...thus ending his ability to even handle a gun, let alone OWN one...

[slackmaster]

37. Great example of people talking past each other on this issue

Straw's a flyin' every which way.

[Nozebro]

9. I think your analysis, reasoning, and position are "right on the money".

n/t

[benEzra]

26. oops, misposted (n/t)

[billbuckhead]

30. I takes a lot more "guts" to be anti promiscuous gun laws

Ask Rosie o'Donnell, the gun lovers threatened her children.

Research about guns is stifled by the gun lobby and threats by gun owners. Check out this article. The gun crowd does make it personal.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Scientists also report an environment stifled by fear of gun advocates.

“There are people who are nervous about their personal safety,” said David Hemenway, director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center, which studies firearms. Though he has never been threatened, he said, gun advocates assault his research ability in the medical journals that publish his studies.

“They make it personal,” he said.

Dr. Katherine Kaufer Christoffel, founder of the HELP Network, a public health voice in the national handgun debate, said researchers are gun shy because of these pressure tactics.

“It has reduced the level of gun research, the enthusiasm, and increased the excessive critical review in the sense that it’s got to be perfect or we don’t do anything,” she said.

Christoffel said some researchers even “had to decide whether to jeopardize their academic careers by getting involved in guns, and many of them chose not to.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

<http://www.detnews.com/specialreports/2000/violence/tuestudy/tuestudy.htm>

[MuseRider]

3. That is certainly part of it.

Last week we were as dry as I have ever seen it and had been on a burn ban for weeks. Across the road from my farm there was a fire 20 feet in the air, huge fire. I called and the fire department arrived a little over an hour after my call. We are only about 10 miles out.

I do not like guns, I own them but do not like them but this is an issue that, as he said, needs to be dealt with. Life in the rural areas are totally different and they are worth understanding.

[Somawas]

5. If I have learned nothing else in the last six years

I have learned that owning firearms is an absolute necessity. Maybe a political moral duty.

[billbuckhead]

7. Ireland is the highest rated nation on earth and has almost no guns

Moral duty?

[Somawas]

24. What does that mean?

Highest rated nation on earth?

I'm totally confused.

[billbuckhead]

29. Ireland is regarded as nation with highest qualty of life

<http://www.economist.com/media/pdf/QUALITY_OF_LIFE.pdf#search=%22highest%20rated%20nation%20economist%20ireland%22>

[Doctor Venmkan]

13. I say that every person has a moral duty to protect his/her loved ones

(and yourself of course)...but how you go about it, I leave up to you. Guns are just one of a myriad of viable options.

"The Government will protect us!" is NOT a viable option.

"The police will protect us!" is an "iffy" option at best, depending on location.

Muse, my grandmother had a mild heart attack and it took an HOUR for EMS to arrive. On a drive that I could make in half that time even if someone's life WASN'T on the line! Didn't help that they got lost along the way and wound up in the next county. Thank God for some local first responders that at least kept her comfortable till the ambulance arrived.

[billbuckhead]

17. Japan and Ireland are doing a hell of lot better than gun loving USA

I'm sorry you live in such a backward area for services but it's your choice. Why should urban/suburban people shed their blood for America's promiscuous gun laws? If rugged places like Australia can have strong guns regs then so could rural America.

[napi21]

8. I heard Howard Dean on some show recently where he was asked

about his statnce on the gun control issue. Hesaidsomething like...gun control should be local and NOT a Federal issue. There's a big difference between people carriying guns on the streets of Newark and San Francisco v/s rural Pa. or Idaho or Wyoming. It should be up to the local people to decide what controls they want and how much.

i happen to agree with that position. I have qquite a number of guns in the house. To be honest, most of them haven't been out of the safe in a few years. We used to do a lot of hunting, but haven't in a while, but I don't want to sell them or give them away!

[billbuckhead]

18. Where were all these progun Dem when Dean got beat in every state

except Vermont? Dean even tried waving the Confederate flag and couldn't win.

[CelticWinter]

10. I live in rural America

in a blue state but a very red county and if you talk to most people around here they vote repug on the gun issues alone. I own guns always have always will but I dont go around killing people with it. But I know I have them if I need them, usually scaring away bear. My sister in law shoots at least one bear a week (with rubber bullets) because they come up on her deck looking for bird feeders. There is alot of camps around here and during hunting season people come from all over especially the bigger cities, those are the ones you have to worry about. Their philosophy is if it moves shoot it and they are usually the ones to get hurt first. Dems have to rethink their outlook on guns. Those big semi automatic blow their brains all over hells kitchen guns those are no use for the common person they are for military. But handguns, shotguns and rifles are normal out here in the sticks and if you see someone driving around with a gun rack in their truck you dont think anything about it or if they have a shoot range on their property its not a big deal. Dems have to look at this issue or they will not win in rural America.

[benEzra]

28. And what caliber guns would those be?

Those big semi automatic blow their brains all over hells kitchen guns those are no use for the common person they are for military.

Would you be speaking of something like this?




Oh, surely not. But how about this one?




Is this gun what you mean?




All three photos above are of the same rifle, my little Ruger mini-14 Ranch Rifle, dressed up three different ways. Photo 1, a cowboy-style wooden stock straight out of the late 1800's. Photo 2, an ergonomic stock made of Zytel (glass reinforced nylon), which is stronger than wood and less moisture sensitive. Photo 3, a Zytel-and-steel stock that folds for storage when the rifle is not in use.

With the first stock, the rifle is legal in all 50 states, and was specifically recognized by Dianne Feinstein and the gun-ban lobby in 2004 as being "particularly suitable for sporting purposes." With the second or third stocks, possession of this rifle would be a felony in California, and IIRC the mandatory prison sentence would be greater than for the crime of rape. Just for owning a civilian rifle with a handgrip that sticks out. Make sense to you? It certainly doesn't to me.

Regarding power and lethality, the .223 Remington round that this little carbine uses is the least powerful of common centerfire rifle cartridges--significantly less powerful than even a .30-30 Winchester, and less than half as powerful as a .30-06 deer rifle.

[Paladin]

31. Let's See, That Would Be The Same "Least Powerful" .223.....

...that the D.C. Snipers used to kill 10 people and wound 3 others with. I'm sure the families of those victims would be consoled, knowing how non-powerful the Snipers' weapon was.

But take heart, Ben: it may not have been very powerful, but at least the Snipers' gun wasn't burdened with one of those nasty 19th-century-styled stocks, nor was it constricted by a Civil War era small-capacity magazine. So I guess you're happy, right?

[benEzra]

32. Gotta perpetuate the myth of the "ultra powerful" .223, I see...

they are hardly used in crimes, not powerful enough to hunt deer with, less lethal than shotguns and full-power rifles, so you've gotta come up with SOME way to scare people into banning them, I suppose.

Quick, name five common centerfire rifle calibers that are LESS powerful than .223 Remington. Bet you can't. I can think of two or three, and they're not common. There's a reason why the DC clowns took their shots at point-blank range.

Would you had rather those two had used a hunting rifle, like the Charles Whitman shooting spree?



6mm (.243) Remington bolt-action deer rifle, with only a 4x scope. Killed some victims beyond 500 yards (numbered circles mark fatalities, X's mark people wounded). All shots were taken from the top of the circled tower. A .30-06 would have reached further--after all, it was designed from scratch to kill people at extreme ranges, before it became the most popular deer caliber in America. So ban deer rifles, if you mean what you say about .223's.

What rifles do YOU consider underpowered enough for us mere civilians to own? .22 Hornet? .22 long rifle? .17 HMR? Daisy Red Ryder?

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[benEzra]

36. I did not mean to stir up painful memories for you...

I grew up in Austin and I was there on August 1, 1966...Your tastelesness in bringing it up echoes the most stomach-turning responses down in the Gun Dungeon regarding the DC Snipers---drooling, ugly speculation about how many more people the DC shooters could have killed, if they'd just used a Really Cool Gun, instead of a wussy .223. And you have the unfathomable, snot-nosed, goddamned nerve to ask me if I would have preferred the snipers having more powerful arms? I'd tell you that you ought to be ashamed, but I don't think you have the capacity for it.

You were the one who brought up rifle shooting sprees, after I responded to the poster who thought that AR's and such are ultra-high-powered rifles, and I pointed out they're not. Marshal all the reasons you want for banning .223 caliber rifles, but power or suitability for sniping aren't among them, as they are simply not in the same league as hunting rifles.

I did not mean to stir up painful memories for you, and I will avoid the Whitman incident in the future in discussions with you, out of respect for your closeness to that incident. It was before my time (I was born in 1970), but I'm sure its repercussions do extend to the present for those who were there.

Oh, and one more thing, Mr. Firearms Expert: The 6mm Remington is NOT the same as the .243 Winchester, as you indicate in your post. They're two separate cartridges, although they shoot bullets of the same diameter and weight; of the two, the 6mm is larger, faster, and better designed. If you knew anything about Grownup Guns, you wouldn't make mistakes like this. You're welcome.....

I didn't say .243 Winchester, I said 6mm (.243) Remington. Two different cartridges. The bore diameter of the 6mm Remington is .243, as I stated. The Remington case is indeed larger, as you state, and the Remington can handle somewhat heavier bullets as a result. But both calibers are 6mm/.243.

[tularetom]

12. I live in rural CA and I'm a gun owner

I personally believe there is a lot more to fear regarding confiscation of firearms from the repukes than any Democrat I'm aware of. This is just the kind of big government issue that the pukes embrace and I wouldn't put it past the NRA to sell (or just flat give) the government a list of its members in order to make it easy for them to round up guns from private citizens. Which is one reason I don't support the NRA. (The other reason is they are basically owned by the firearms manufacturers). You can't believe the arguments I've gotten into with my dumbass relatives over this issue.

[cdsilv]

14. I owned guns up to and until my kids were born...

after that I got rid of them (guns, not kids). Now the kids are grown (they've lived with their mom for awhile...).

Still, I have grandkids to look forward to. Yeah, I could keep the guns in a safe, but how useful against home invasion, or any other sort of attack are guns in a safe?

I'd rather keep a stun-gun accessible, or maybe have a large dog.

Right now, I live in an apartment complex that is overwhemlingly populated by military personnel (Navy and Marines), so we don't really worry about gang-bangers coming around (they'd be recruited into the military if they did.... ;-P)

My eldest daughter has a stun-gun, my youngest still lives w/her mom and they are neighbors with some cops.

While I still fear for the safety of my kids, I think they are better off than those kids who are serving in our military in Iraq.

If the draft ever comes back, we're emigrating.

[benEzra]

25. Enacting California-style bans nationwide is what most of us

outside California are worried about. Bans on practically all civilian rifles with handgrips that stick out, including some of the most popular centerfire target rifles in America. Limitation of magazine capacity to only 10 (!) rounds. And no end in sight.

It's Feinstein et al's attempt to shove CA-style restrictions down everybody's throats that helped cost the Dems the House, the Senate, and two presidencies since September 1994.

I don't particularly care if I'm allowed to own a Winchester Model 70 or a Browning skeet gun; I want to keep my modern-looking small-caliber carbines, and pass them along to my children when they are of age. And my wife would just as soon keep her 15-round handgun.

[Skittles]

15. I have read some rural small-town newspapers

conservative propaganda abounds; the Democratic viewpoint is non-existent

[Odin2005]

21. I grew up in a small town of 500 people. A large chunck vote Puke on guns

alone, even if they supports the Dems in everything else. The anti-gun BS is a loosng fight waged by city-slickers who think us country folk as all backward knucle-draggers. Many rural areas would switch to blue if the gun issue were dropped, unfortunately the urban anti-gun fools hate us rural people too much.

[4bucksagallon]

22. I agree..............

[Doctor Venmkan]

23. I also agree....!

[raging moderate]

33. RURAL VOTERS: WE DON'T WANT TO TAKE YOUR GUNS!

Guess what? Most of us own guns, too. My husband and I own several guns, and we have valid gun owner cards. I was born in the city; he was born in the country; we live in a small town. But I have to tell you, the city people I was born among never sneered at country people the way you guys apparently think they do. In fact, they never sneered at country people as I have heard country people sneer at city people! And they did NOT talk about taking guns away or keeping guns away from anybody except those with moral or mental impairments that would be obvious to you as well. Here's a news flash for you: many of us are the children or grandchildren of people who grew up on farms! And many of us have relatives who still do! Good Grief! Don't you guys ever really listen to what we say? Again and again in this discussion as in many others, city-born and Northeastern U.S. people try to tell you that WE DON'T WANT TO TAKE YOUR GUNS! THIS IS A LIE PROMULGATED BY THE RETHUGLICANS! Several people have posted here, telling you that WE DON'T WANT TO TAKE YOUR GUNS! NOR THE GUNS OF YOUR RELATIVES! What's more, John Kerry really DOES know how to shoot a gun, and he really did shoot them during the Vietnam War, and he really has gone hunting! In case you didn't know, there actually are woods in the Northeast. And there are actually country people who do not have Southern accents, just as many people with Southern accents are actually city people. And many city people have gun owner cards and several guns in their homes. Every time any Democrat argues for any effort to help the police reduce the current free flow of guns to convicted dangerous felons, diagnosed maniacs, and pre-pubescent children, the gun manufacturers pay some Rethuglicans to SPREAD THE LIE THAT ALL DEMOCRATS WANT TO TAKE GUNS AWAY FROM COUNTRY PEOPLE! (The last time, it was a quick background check that had been requested by the national association of police chiefs because it would give them a reason to arrest felons just for buying a guns\ without it, instead of having to wait around for them to actually try to use it). This whole city/country divide is a false dichotomy invented by the Rethuglicans in order to divide and conquer so they can consolidate their power. Of course, there are always a few on the fringe who don't realize that rational people can follow careful rules in gun use and ownership. But really, most Democrats are and always have been totally supportive of the right to bear arms.

[benEzra]

39. Even if our guns happen to look like this?

My Ruger mini-14 Ranch Rifle.



My wife's small gun collection (collectible antique SKS and a Glock 26)



My Romanian SAR-1.




Urban dems need to be aware that the vast majority of gun owners (80%) aren't hunters, and that attempts to ban rifles with protruding handgrips, 15-round handguns, etc. are attempts to take away people's guns. The ban-more-guns lobby has created a myth of the average gun owner being a guy with a camo outfit, a blaze orange vest and hat, a pickup truck, and a shotgun. When in fact the average gun owner isn't a hunter at all, and probably doesn't even own a pickup truck.

Dems and the Gun Issue - Now What?

[Doctor Venmkan]

41. "Gun owner card?"

Sorry, I'm not familiar with those...could you explain exactly what that is, how you get one and for what purpose(s)?

[Cobalt-60]

34. Its true

It was an issue that got otherwise solidly Democratic gun owners voting for Bush instead of Gore.
This has been rubbed raw over the last decades. And it was still enough to cause people to vote against their own interests.
As a party policy gun control should be left in the dust of history.
Harping on that single issue cost us the countryside. We clearly couldn't afford it.
Indeed, I suggest our rural candidates be required to display some proficiency with firearms. That kills the anti gun accusation when our man hits the bulls eye more often than his accuser.
Even though it hasn't been pressed for years, the knee jerk of the rural gun owner is democrats = anti gun. That has to change if we're to take the country side.

[Paladin]

42. The Democratic Party Is Pro-Gun Enough.....

....the gun issue is not in play this time around to any appreciable degree, and the only group mouthing off about it and keeping it alive are pro-gun activists. If some rural types are still harboring a grudge against us about our gun policy, if they're still willing to vote Republican after the most disasterous, destructive administration in this nation's history, they're a lost cause. How about we all shut up about it and direct our efforts towards issues that really and truly matter? And how about you DU gun activists commiting right now to supporting the Democratic nominee for president, even if he or she doesn't get an A-triple plus rating from the NRA? What a nice contrast that would be, as compared to the usual ugly slagging the party's nominee gets down in the Gungeon, from people claiming to be Democrats....