Gun Week (a publication of saf.org) talks about liberal gun owners

[Xela]

Thanks to TLGC for sharing.

Xela

--------1st article-------

Right to keep and bear arms transcends political parties
October 1, 2010

by Joseph P. Tartaro
Executive Editor

http://gunweek.com/2010/hs100110.html


----------2nd article------------

More about the many ‘liberal’ pro-gun rights organizations
October 15, 2010

by Joseph P. Tartaro
Executive Editor

http://gunweek.com/2010/hs101510.html

[TheWraith]

1. I recced, but someone had already cancelled it out.

Presumably someone who, like the Republicans, wants it to be believed that there's no such thing as Democrats with guns.

[Glassunion]

3. above nuthin now... +1

[onehandle]

9. No worries. Zombies are on the job. nt

[Glassunion]

10. Indeed...

[Xela]

2. One more

I think this one is related to a couple of earlier posts.

Xela

-----------article------

http://gunweek.com/1101issue/hs110110.html

NRA’s backing of pro-gun Democrats ruffles feathers among Republicans

by Joseph P. Tartaro, Executive Editor
November 1, 2010

[GreenStormCloud]

4. Good articles. K&R N/T

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

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

[DonP]

6. Well ... they probably aren't "Real" Democrats, are they?

At least we've been led to believe that by several posters down here.

[jazzhound]

7. Thanks for passing these links along, Xela.

Here's a link to the Don Kates compilation of enlightened liberal thought on the guns/violence issue -- "Restricting Handguns -- the Liberal Skeptics Speak Out":

http://www.amazon.com/Restricting-Handguns-Liberal-Skeptics-Speak/product-reviews/0884270335/ref=dp_top_cm_cr_acr_txt?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1

[Xela]

21. got it

Thanks Jazzhound.

I got the book a while back :)

I appreciate the suggestion though.

Xela

[jazzhound]

8. Lifelong liberal criminologist Dr. Gary Kleck describes

himself as "beyond skeptical" of the value of gun control. By his own account, early in his career he assumed -- like so many of his contemporaries -- that more guns MUST equal more violence. This idea just seemed to be a no-brainer. It appears as though he was influenced by fellow liberal criminologists James Wright and Peter Rossi -- who were among the first (if not the first) to confront the conventional "wisdom" on the guns/violence issue..........pointing out that offensive gun use was offset by defensive gun use. Here's a link to the amazon.com reviews of "Under the Gun" --- written by three liberal criminologists: (Kathleen Daly, James Wright & Peter Rossi)

http://www.amazon.com/Under-Gun-Kathleen-Daly/product-reviews/0202303063/ref=dp_top_cm_cr_acr_txt?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1

EDIT: Two of the reviews are for Wright & Rossi's "Armed and Considered Dangerous".

[Euromutt]

11. Well, that's a welcome acknowledgement

Though my gut reaction is that if there's anyone who needs to read this, it's Alan Gottlieb himself, because his incessant use of the term "liberal" as if it were synonymous with "anti-RKBA" is most of what prompted me to drop my membership of SAF.

[safeinOhio]

12. I agree with their statement

"We, as Amendment II Democrats, are bound by a different covenant than the one that governs the Brady Campaign, the Coalition to Prevent Gun Violence, and Americans for Gun Safety. We also want to create an America where people are safe from gun violence in their homes, schools, and places of business. We also believe that the gun industry needs to be regulated sensibly and firmly. And we also believe in educating people about gun violence and gun safety. On these issues, we can find much in the way of common ground."

I'd like to see, I can't find it on google, what their view is on background checks on private sales. I'm a liberal Democrat that supports gun rights that allow law abiding citizens access to sporting, target and self defense weapons, while making it more difficult for non-law abiding citizens access to purchase and own guns. The above statement by this group is inline with that view. Just as the automotive and pharmaceutical industries are highly regulated for safety of the public, so should the gun industry.

[jeepnstein]

14. I've got no problem...

with a NICS check on private sales as long as the seller can do the check on his/her own without having to run it through a dealer. It's actually a pretty good idea.

Now for the bad news. Don't look for anything sensible to be passed in Ohio for at least the next four or so years after November's election. Kucinich is no friend of the 2nd Amendment, or anything else held dear by the Common Citizen. We're in for a rough ride ahead.

[oneshooter]

15. What about registration? Can't have total control without it! n/t

[jazzhound]

13. Here's a strong amazon.com review of "Under the Gun".....

...........written by three liberal criminologists. (Daly/Wright/Rossi) I was previously unaware that Kathleen Daly shares a distinction with Gary Kleck in that she was awarded the Michael Hindelang Award from The American Society of Criminology:

Intending to build the case for comprehensive federal gun restrictions, the Carter administration handed out a major gun control research grant to sociology Professor James D. Wright, and his colleagues Peter Rossi and Kathleen Daly. Wright was already on record as favoring much stricter controls, and he and his colleagues were recognized as among sociology's brightest stars. Rossi, a University of Massachusetts professor, would later become President of the American Sociology Association. Wright, who formerly served as Director of the Social and Demographic Research Institute at the University of Massachusetts, now teaches at Tulane. Daly was a relatively young scholar at the time, but she has since gone on to win the Hindelang Prize from the American Society of Criminology. The Hindelang Prize is awarded for the most significant contribution to criminology in a three-year period. Daly is the most recent winner, for her studies of women's issues. Anyway, Wright, Rossi, and Daly were asked to survey the state of research regarding the efficacy of gun control, presumably to show that gun control worked, and America needed more of it. But when Wright, Rossi, and Daly produced their report for the National Institute of Justice, they delivered a document quite different from the one they had expected to write. Carefully reviewing all existing research to date, the three scholars found no persuasive scholarly evidence that America's 20,000 gun control laws had reduced criminal violence. For example, the federal Gun Control Act of 1968, which banned most interstate gun sales, had no discernible impact on the criminal acquisition of guns from other states. Washington, D.C.'s 1977 ban on the ownership of handguns which had not already been registered in the District was not linked to any reduction in gun crime in the District. Even Detroit's law providing mandatory sentences for felonies committed with a gun was found to have no effect on gun crime patterns, in part because judges would often reduce the sentence for the underlying offense in order to balance out the mandatory two-year extra sentence for use of a gun. The Wright/Rossi/Daly team exploded scores of other gun control myths. They discussed the data showing that gun owners-rather then being a violent, aberrant group of nuts-were at least as psychologically stable and morally sound as the rest of the population. Polls claiming to show that a large majority of the population favored "more gun control" were debunked as being the product of biased questions, and of the fact that most people have no idea how strict gun laws already are. As the scholars frankly admitted, they had started out their research as gun control advocates, and had been forced to change their minds by a careful review of the evidence.

[SteveM]

18. Similar "backfire" from Nixon's Shafer Commission Report:

"Marihuana: A Signal of Misunderstanding" (1972). Reportedly, Nixon never read the report (which among other things advocated the legalization of small amounts of marijuana), and in a pique of fury started the first "modern" round in the current War on Drugs.

Interestingly, that report, and others who have studied the War on Drugs, see the motivation behind drug prohibition as primarily cultural, with the marijuana cigarette quite literally a symbol of the hated 60s counter-culture. The GOPers have been bashing the Democratic Party and liberals ever since as immoral adherents to anti-American cultural trends. Rather naively, liberals smugly point to some pasted-together economic determinism as an explanation for this prohibition; it seems "we" don't want to face up to the depth of hatred that fuels the Far Right and its persistent success in dominating (whether in the majority or not) American society and politics. Until this flimsy "follow the money trail" rationale is jettisoned, progressives will not have a clear understanding of what they really face.

Incidentally, while it is entirely appropriate to view other drug prohibitions as linked to hated minorities (opiates to the Chinese rail workers, cocaine to the "cocaine-crazed Negro brain," and marihuana to knife-wielding Mexicans and jazz aficionados), the increase of pot use during the 60s -- which went from around 1 million to over 10 million -- presented very conservative forces with a priceless means to link a drug to huge sectors of the "dominant" white population. IMO, the War on Drugs (specifically marijuana) is the strongest part of the Far Right's culture war foundation: It has allowed vast numbers of cheesy, loud-mouthed right-wing hacks to gain office by waving the image of pot-smoking hippies in front of a chronically frightened population. To the GOP, the War on Drugs is quite successful and cost-effective, but they use other metrics than wordly-sounding economic determinism.

[old mark]

16. Good! I hope many of the RWers who "KNOW" all liberals fear and hate guns

will read this. Many of us gun owning leftists have been slowly trying to make this known to those on the far right for various reasons...we want to end the myth that "Democrats want to confiscate our guns", and we want the extremists who plan armed takeover of the US that we ARE armed and will not just wring our hands as they shoot our families.


I'm happy to see these articles, and hope to see many more.

mark

rec.

[oneshooter]

17. As long as that plank remains in the platform, nothing will change.

[SteveM]

19. Good post! I wonder when he will bring up DU's "Forum: Guns."

[derby378]

20. Thanks, Xela!

How ya doin'? :hi:

[Xela]

22. Greetings

Hi derby,

Doing fine on our end. Thanks. Lotsa work, but trying to have fun at the same time.

Also looking forward to visit one or two upcoming gun shows (Big Town and Market Hall).

Hope all is well with you.

Xela