Brady Campaign response to Gun Owners

[jpak]

http://inthearena.blogs.cnn.com/2011/04/28/brady-campaign-response-to-gun-owners/

<snip>

For most of the 70,000 Americans injured by guns (in addition to the 30,000 killed by guns) each year in this country, recovery is filled with constant reminders of the pain and the continual drains on their finances, families, and friends. As a country, we do too little to prevent gun violence – and we make it too easy for irresponsible and dangerous people, like the Tucson shooter, to get guns and ammunition capable of shooting a lot of people very quickly.

If more guns made us safer, we'd be the safest industrialized country in the world- and we're far from that. Instead, our homicide rate is 7 times higher than the combined rates of 22 peer countries, driven by a gun murder rate that is 20 times higher.

More guns in a home, in a city, or in a state, lead to more gun violence in that home, city, and state. Studies show that a gun in a home is 22 times more likely to be used against that home's family and friends than to be used in self-defense.

There was a "good guy" with a gun in Tucson when six were killed and 13 injured. He was around the corner and responded immediately. Since it took the killer less than 16 seconds to fire 32 bullets from his "assault clip," an immediate response was still too late.

<more>

:popcorn:

[rrneck]

1. Incoherent blather

larded with ersatz jargon and fearmongering bullshit.

[AtheistCrusader]

2. Love the attempts to misconstrue the fellow that was carrying and tried to help.

That's what, the 20th variation on the story I have seen so far?

[DonP]

5. They tried the; "He almost shot the wrong person" and failed

So I guess now they are trying the; "See, he had a gun and it didn't help at all" approach.

They have nothing else to work with and state legislators and even the President has slammed their POV in writing and on top of all that crime is way down.

It's a terrible and frustrating time to be a gun control freak.

Yay!

[Hangingon]

3. Pleasure to unrec this agitprop

[DWC]

4. Immediate means Immediate

If one or more good citizens had been exercising their 2nd amendment right to bear arms at the meeting on the Safeway parking lot, the carnage could have been stopped in its first few seconds.

In any violent, criminal attack 15 seconds is an eternity.

Semper Fi,

[iverglas]

17. mandatory gun carrying, that's what I say

If one or more good citizens had been exercising their 2nd amendment right to bear arms at the meeting on the Safeway parking lot, the carnage could have been stopped in its first few seconds.
In any violent, criminal attack 15 seconds is an eternity.

How dare any good citizen NOT have a loaded firearm on their person at all times??

[DWC]

27. Good question. n/t

[RSillsbee]

28. I agree 100%

It's always good to hear from another pro RKBA voice

[iverglas]

29. I've always understood

That freedom of speech includes the right not to speak ...

Just to note that that's an interesting interpretation of the RightKBA you have there.

But then, I was facetious first.

[RSillsbee]

30. Interesting point

That freedom of speech includes the right not to speak


Offtopic but, do you believe the freedom of speech includes an obligation to speak out against injustice?

[iverglas]

32. absolutely not

I do not believe that any right entails any obligation, responsibility, etc. etc.

I believe that the exercise of rights by individuals may be legitimately limited by a society. But a society may not premise the individual's rights, or the exercise of those rights, on fulfilling some allegedly corresponding responsibility.

In a liberal democracy, individuals do not owe duties to the society or the state. I am not averse to the idea of a different kind of society in which individuals do owe duties, but that would be a very different kind of society and I will not live to see it.

This is why, in our present-day liberal democracies, I oppose mandatory voting, for instance (even with the option of declining or destroying the ballot).

The duties that we owe to each other individually and one another collectively are moral only, and I think we have innate impulses to fulfil those duties, as evolutionary mechanisms for both individual and collective survival. I think that human groups are morally entitled to expect and demand certain behaviours from their members; of course I also think it goes the other way, individuals are morally entitled to expect certain supports from the groups they are members of.

But in a liberal democracy, neither of those -- a duty to vote, say, in the case of an individual, or a duty to house or heal, in the case of the society -- can be framed as enforceable rights and obligations.

[RSillsbee]

34. I want time to read over and digest your response before responding

but I do disagree w/ this point I do not believe that any right entails any obligation, responsibility, etc. etc.

I believe every right includes an obligation to exercise that right responsibly. I think we may dis agree on what constitues responsibly though

[iverglas]

36. yeah, but

I believe every right includes an obligation to exercise that right responsibly.

I'm right, and you're wrong. ;)


It ain't an obligation if it ain't enforceable.

And the obligation you posit ain't.

[RSillsbee]

38. It ain't an obligation if it ain't enforceable.

You let me walk out side and shoot my gun into the air and watch how fast they enforce my obligation to exercise my RKBA responsibly

[iverglas]

39. nope ;)

You let me walk out side and shoot my gun into the air and watch how fast they enforce my obligation to exercise my RKBA responsibly

They're enforcing the law that prohibits you from shooting your gun in the air.

If there were no such law, there would be nothing to enforce. You would have no responsibility or obligation to do or not do anything in that regard. Probably there are places where you would be permitted to shoot your gun in the air to your heart's content, no? Like if you owned 1,000 acres in an unorganized territory (no municipal bylaws)?

The law that prohibits you from doing that, and provides for punishment if you do, is a restriction on your freedom, one that is considered to be justified to protect the important public interest in public safety.

I'm not personally happy that we have not moved farther beyond "negative" rights in our broad global society -- the rights that protect us from interference. We are making our way into the realm of equality rights, much more so in many parts of the world than in the US (most comparable countries have stronger equality protections than the US, e.g. same-sex marriage rights are spreading).

But we haven't made it along to solidarity rights at all, we haven't even got far on the theoretical basis for them (these are things like the right to a healthy environment, the duty to protect, and other areas that require positive action by the collective and give the individual remedies to enforce those rights). These are evolutionary changes that take lots of time.

The three generations of rights are expressed in the French Revolution's liberté, égalité, fraternité, and in fact solidarité, as the third is now expressed, is more advanced in France (and other European countries) and Quebec than in Canada generally and certainly than in the U.S.

So, say, if the day comes when the right to health care, for instance, was regarded as a real, enforceable right (not just as something the government provides if the electorate feels like it), will there be a corresponding obligation on the individual not to live on a diet of chips, coffee and cigarettes? Logically, yes. And this is what you probably know as the "nanny state", except that it isn't actually about the state telling people what to do because it knows best, it's about a different kind of social contract, where the state does have obligations to the individual and the individual has corresponding obligations to their society. We're just not ready for that yet. ;)

[RSillsbee]

41. It seems like you’re talking about two different things here

Maybe I didn’t say it right the first time but there are certain things that are wrong whether or not a law against them exists. I could be waaaaaaay out in the middle of the Wet Mountains where I can reasonably assume that I am the only person w/in pistol shot and it still wouldn’t be OK for me to recklessly discharge my firearm because I don’t have the right to endanger people that I don’t know are there or not. Plus even if there are no people around what if I hit an animal and kill or cripple it for no valid purpose.

Law or not you are morally responsible for every round that comes out of your gun

As for the health care it isn’t (IMO) OK for me to sit on my ass, neglect my immunizations, eat like a biggest loser candidate, not exercise and then expect the government to take care of me when I have a coronary

[iverglas]

43. now you are

I started out saying moral responsibility is one thing, but a responsibility/obligation that is not somehow enforceable is meaningless.

I have a moral responsibility to be out pounding the pavement tonight pulling the vote for my party/candidate. But I'm not. At least, I say I have that moral responsibility, and the candidate and the other campaign workers would say I do; you might not agree. That's the problem with "moral", eh?

Law or not you are morally responsible for every round that comes out of your gun

Responsible to what or whom? On pain of what for breach of that responsibility?


As for the health care it isn’t (IMO) OK for me to sit on my ass, neglect my immunizations, eat like a biggest loser candidate, not exercise and then expect the government to take care of me when I have a coronary

Nope, it may be immoral indeed. (Again, matter of opinion.) But a universal healthcare system doesn't punish you for failing to fulfil your responsibility, by denying you treatment.

We can all try to exercise moral suasion by telling people what we think their moral responsibilities are, and what our opinion of them is if they don't live up to them.

But if they don't live up to them, that's an end of it.

That's actually why we have laws. So that if someone acts in a way that we can show is sufficiently contrary to a public interest that it calls for positive action, we can prosecute and punish them.

You can't prosecute or punish someone for failing to live up to a moral responsibility. So you have no deterrent with which to back up your moral responsibility lectures.

So if the person whose behaviour you're trying to alter doesn't give a shit about you and your moral responsibilities, you have no recourse, and they may simply become a serial harm-doer.

This is why it is as meaningless as meaningless can be to talk about the responsibilities of firearms owners, or about responsible firearms owners. Society has no way of enforcing those responsibilities unless it has laws. And it has no way of minimizing the risks presented by irresponsible firearms owners unless it has oversight, the kind that comes with licensing and registration.

[DWC]

37. I may be wrong, but I'm pretty sure

We live in a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy - liberal or otherwise.

Thomas Jefferson said of Democracy, “A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.”

When Benjamin Franklin was asked, “What kind of government have you given us?” His reply, A republic if you can keep it.”

Semper Fi,

[iverglas]

40. yeah, you're wrong

You can google liberal democracy, if you like.


Oh, heck, I'm feeling helpful. Wiki is a good start, here.

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

Liberal democracy, also known as constitutional democracy, is a common form of representative democracy. According to the principles of liberal democracy, elections should be free and fair, and the political process should be competitive. Political pluralism is usually defined as the presence of multiple and distinct political parties.

A liberal democracy may take various constitutional forms: it may be a constitutional republic; as the United States, India, Germany or Brazil, or a constitutional monarchy, such as the United Kingdom, Japan, Canada or Spain. It may have a presidential system (United States, Brazil), a parliamentary system (Westminster system, UK and Commonwealth countries, Spain), or a hybrid, semi-presidential system (France).

Two whole different kinds of things, you see.

You live in a constitutional republic with a presidential/congressional system. I live in a constitutional monarchy with a parliamentary system. We both live in liberal democracies.

Much as it pains the right wing to have to admit it.

[DWC]

42. I learn something new every day (hopefully). Thanks! n/t

[iverglas]

44. Moost welcome! n/t ... er, most welcome, n/t

[ileus]

6. Yes we know guns kill people....they should be kept on a leash or something

[lawodevolution]

7. Overall throughout the world the most violent half of nations have 1/3 the guns as the least violent

nations. Less guns does not mean more safety. In nigeria there are 1.5 guns per 100 people and in the USA 90 per 100 people, yet the guns in nigeria are being used a lot more often. To make our country more safe we need to focus on the real problems causing violence and not try to hide the symptom.

The brady campaign is against the Eddie Eagle program and gun safety because they legitimize guns. They are against teaching marksmanship in school because that legitimizes guns. But teaching gun safety and giving shooting instruction will introduce a non-violent use of firearms as a person's first exposure to firearms in their lives and would do more to reduce crime than anything else.

[gejohnston]

9. If they hate Eddie Eagle

Imagine how they would feel about Billy Hook done by New Zealand's Mountain Safety Council and the police. Billy even teaches kids shooting sports are a good wholesome thing.

[iverglas]

20. how does it feel

to have to compare your country to fucking NIGERIA to make a point?

:rofl:

[rl6214]

23. How does it feel to be on the losing side all the time now?

:rofl:

[iverglas]

25. eh?

I'm not counting my chickens, but at least in my own riding tomorrow, I'm going to be on the big winning side -- a safe NDP seat here. There's an outside chance that my party could actually form the government after tomorrow, and even if not, we're going to be one huge force that the vile gun-sucking Conservative Party is going to have to reckon with this time around.

Losing side? WTF you talking about?

I'm sure not going to have to scrape around at the bottom of the barrel and come up with fucking NIGERIA to compare myself to, to prove my superiority, no matter what happens.

[RSillsbee]

31. What will you be riding? NT

[iverglas]

33. The Orange Wave!

Aren't you glad you asked? ;)

orange wave search results

http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/decision-canada/Layton+hopes+ride+Orange+wave+historic+minority/4709071/story.html

Layton hopes to ride 'Orange wave' to historic minority
By Mike De Souza, Postmedia News May 2, 2011 9:01 AM

When the votes are counted at the end of the evening, Jack Layton could be in position to put a New Democratic stamp on the government of Canada.

It would bring some politicians who served in provincial governments into power, as well as many new faces — some with very little political experience — who would be benefiting from a cross-country "orange wave."

Deputy leader Thomas Mulcair, a former provincial Liberal environment minister in Quebec, could be Layton's right-hand man in a new NDP-led government. The other deputy leader, Libby Davies, from British Columbia, could also expect to have a prominent role in cabinet.

The party's political opponents have not hesitated to drum up doomsday scenarios about economic chaos and fantasy promises, but the New Democrats have cited some specific priorities in the first few months of government, including tax cuts for small businesses, incentives for job creation, caps on credit-card interest rates and eliminating the sales tax on home heating bills. ...

[RSillsbee]

35. Damn

And here I was hoping you were a Denver Broncos fan

[beevul]

8. A gun owners response to the lieing (edit republican MORAN) brady bunch.

Fuck off and go away.

[Euromutt]

10. "Studies show"? Why the plural?

To the best of my knowledge, there is one single study that comes to this conclusion, that being Arthur Kellermann's 1998 study "Injuries and Deaths Due to Firearms in the Home" (Journal of Trauma 45:263-267). And, as usual with Kellermann, the data does not support his conclusion, as in the assaultive shootings studied, only 14.2% of the guns used of which the origins were known were determined to have been kept in the victim's home; just over six times (295 against 49) as many guns used were determined to have been brought into the home from outside.

So in actual fact, contrary to the claim that "studies show," we have one study which, upon closer inspection, shows no such thing.

And why do I have the sneaking suspicion that the "22 peer countries" were carefully selected on the basis of having a lower homicide rate than the United States'?

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

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

[iverglas]

18. um ...................

And why do I have the sneaking suspicion that the "22 peer countries" were carefully selected on the basis of having a lower homicide rate than the United States'?

............... Because it would be impossible to find one that DIDN'T???

[krispos42]

13. I love it

Income disparity, irrational drug laws, crappy educational system, gutted unions, corporate dominance of the political and governmental process, lack of a social safety net... none of this matters, of course.


If we just had as few guns in as few hands as the UK, we'd have about the same homicide rate! :think:



Or not.



In fact, if I had to guess, I'd say it was the conservatives pushing "less guns will solve our problems" because it distracts from the REAL issues. And to fix the REAL issues would require:

• A Johnson/Nixon/Ford/Carter-era progressive income tax for corporations and individuals


• Legalization of recreational drugs and the subsequent gutting of the prison-industrial, private-prison complex, and the DEA.


• Increasing government-run schools and raising taxes for those schools


• Restoring skilled labor rights and privileges at the cost of corporate profits


• Ending globalization; withdrawing from the WTO and NAFTA; re-imposing protective tariffs; breaking up monopolies; campaign-finance reform


• Removing the income cap on FICA taxes and as a result taxing the rich more; universal-single payer health insurance and as a result gutting the private insurance companies.

So, do the above list? Or blame guns?

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

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

[DissedByBush]

15. Wow, you rarely see an FN F2000 around

How do you like it?

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

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

[iverglas]

19. ooooh, I just love

the tasteful panelling motif you have chosen for your home, and the wonderful artisanship evident in your dining room suite.

I didn't spend thousands of dollars on my collection to just hand it over.

I guess the safest way to protect your home furnishings from government confiscation is to make sure the government wouldn't be able to give them away once it had them. ;)

Hm, do you suppose that would work for the gunz too?

Spend one's money on something useful and maybe even beneficial to someone, and not sit up nights fretting about the gu'mint plotting to take it away.

Quelle idée.

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

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

[rl6214]

24. "Spend one's money on something useful and maybe even beneficial to someone"

Actually spending that money on firearms is a FANTASTIC investment. I have rifles that have appreciated 5 times in the past couple of years.

[iverglas]

26. oh, dang

My new little friend had made it to, what was it, 5 posts? and I was hoping for some more fun, but here he's gone already and I even missed his last missive. :(

Plus I go away for a few weeks or months, plus things stay the same.

[rl6214]

22. Blah, blah, blah

No such thing as a fucking "assault clip" and yes there was a CCL holder there and guess what, he didn't shoot anyone or have his gun taken away and used on himself.

STFU Bradies, nobody cares what you have to say.