This is How to Stop Gun Violence!

[Weird Liberal Head]

Run time: 13:01 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7p6s-AdFMQ   Posted on YouTube: April 22, 2011 By YouTube Member: WeirdLiberalHead Views on YouTube: 2   Posted on DU: April 22, 2011 By DU Member: Weird Liberal Head Views on DU: 2514

 
GUN-LOVERS: Bring it! You love your guns? DEFEND THEM WITH FACTS AND LOGIC!

Chat meeting tonight: http://xat.com/WHRev
Report this Nazi troll: http://www.youtube.com/user/YamotoBattleShip

Barack Obama was right when he said that we, rural/small-town Pennsylvanians, cling to our faith and to our guns.

I report the news of the day, condemn people ignoring and turning a blind eye to CONSTANT gun violence, and discuss my ideas for stopping it.

I'm not trying to take away your gold, guns, or God.
I'm trying to protect other people from them.

Please leave questions and comments. Inappropriate comments will be deleted. Also, please rate and subscribe. Thank you, loyal viewers!
Note: (I did NOT say in this video that I would make concealed firearms illegal if I was president, but I would definitely discourage them, at the very least. Better safe that sorry...)

Sources (here's a link of Ensign's resignation, didn't talk about this because NewLiberalHead did, and because I might discuss this in greater detail tomorrow...):

Kindergarter shoots classmates- http://www.examiner.com/early-childhood-education-in-new-york/recent-shooting-at-texas-kindergarten-puts-gun-control-on-the-hot-seat

Syrian Revolution- http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/babylonbeyond/2011/04/protests-assad-violence-uprising-regime.html

Drones in Pakistan and Libya, Mccain meets rebels- http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/asiapcf/04/22/pakistan.drone.strike/index.html?hpt=T1
http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa/04/22/libya.war/index.html?hpt=T2

[vt_native]

1. so you're in Pennsyltucky

W.L.H., keep on with the Truth. love your posts

[Weird Liberal Head]

3. Thank you!

Pennsyltucky? Never heard that name before... it fits though, unfortunately. Glad to know I have at least one loyal viewer here, anyway!

[AtheistCrusader]

2. "And if you look at Washington DC, they don't have much if any violent crime"

Hard to take you seriously when you get such basic facts completely wrong.


TEN WORST LARGE CITIES FOR MURDER, 2002 CITY PER 100,000
(1) Washington, DC 45.8
(2) Detroit 42.0
(3) Baltimore 38.3
(4) Memphis 24.7
(5) Chicago 22.2
(6) Philadelphia 19.0
(7) Columbus 18.1
(8) Milwaukee 18.0
(9) Los Angeles 17.5
(10) Dallas 15.8


You should have guessed Honolulu, where Hawaii has farily tight gun control, compared to most states on the mainland, and a very low homicide rate (2.0 per 100,000). Probably tougher gun control than California.

Of course, that would beg the question why L.A. is so high, compared to Seattle (4.5 per 100,000), where Seattle and the State of Washington has VERY lax gun laws, compared to L.A./California. But your points are mostly nonsensical anyway, so :shrug:.


I condemn violence in all forms, firearm or otherwise.

(edit for I had a word wrong while quoting you)

[Weird Liberal Head]

4. Got my quote wrong

Ah well.. either way, your information is out of date. It's hard to take YOU seriously when you use irrelevant information. Oh well.

[AtheistCrusader]

19. Close enough.

If you feel I got the statement materially wrong, by all means, point it out.

I used 2002 numbers because A) they are available for all states+territories, where not every state publishes. The numbers are not irrelevant. The trend continues, though it has declined somewhat as of 2009. Chicago, one of the remaining 'handgun ban' cities eeked out Washington DC for murder capital of the world. Unfortunately for you, the correlation may be Heller vs. DC, wherein the handgun ban in DC was ruled unconstitutional. Chigago was overturned as well, but there are no statistics for the year following as of yet, as it has not been a full year.

2002 is not irrelevant, when Washington DC has RELAXED it's gun laws (due to the Supreme Court ruling) and the city has slipped from the highest murder rate, to #2. Your statement was wrong. Period. End of story.

[Weird Liberal Head]

24. Actually, YOU'RE wrong

Here are the ACTUAL statistics (and no, DC is NOT in the Top Ten:
http://www.forbes.com/2009/04/23/most-dangerous-cities-lifestyle-real-estate-dangerous-american-cities.html
Dude, your arguments are sad, pathetic, and just plain wrong. Give it up, gun-lover. Tucson wasn't enough for you? You know how EASY it was for Loughner to get his gun?

[AtheistCrusader]

27. WRONG. Forbes EXCLUDED the District of Columbia in that list. DC is in the top 10 in EVERY category

Next time do some research. You cite what appears to be a very convenient source. I go to the source of the data Forbes used: The FBI Unified Crime Report for 2008.
I will ASSUME you didn't cite a source that would omit Washington DC intentionally, and that you just didn't look very hard.

Out of the top 10 cities listed (injecting Washington DC as the 11th possibility) for 2008
Washington DC ranks 7th in total violent crime and in the subcategories: 3rd in murder/non-negligent manslaughter, 9th in Forcible Rape, 2nd in Robbery, and 9th in aggravated assault.

Forbes and the FBI defined 'violent crime' as murder/non-neg manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault, per 100,000 residents.

I'm impressed, Washington DC has gone from #1 in murder rate in 2002, to #3 for 2008
I will attempt to paste the raw data in a table, but I think it'll look like hell here, so first, I will post the links to each table on the FBI UCR that contains each listed city.

http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2008/data/table_08_mi.html
http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2008/data/table_08_tn.html
http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2008/data/table_08_fl.html
http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2008/data/table_08_tn.html
http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2008/data/table_08_ca.html
http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2008/data/table_08_md.html
http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2008/data/table_08_fl.html
http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2008/data/table_08_ar.html
http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2008/data/table_08_nv.html
http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2008/data/table_08_sc.html
http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2008/data/table_08_dc.html

Now for the raw data. I don't actually expect this to be intelligible as DU does not support tables, but what the hell, why not:

City Population Violent Crime Violent Crime Rate Murder and non-negligent manslaughter Murder/Manslaughter Rate Forcible Rape Forcible Rape Rate Robbery Robbery Rate Aggravated Assault Aggravated Assault Rate Property crime Burglary Larceny-theft Motor vehicle theft Arson1
Detroit 905,783 17,428 1924.081154 306 34 330 36.43256718 6,115 675 10,677 1,179 53,095 17,818 18,836 16,441 691
Memphis 672,046 12,937 1925.017038 138 21 366 54.46055776 4,787 712 7,646 1,138 53,839 15,874 32,548 5,417 190
Orlando 229,808 3,829 1666.173501 43 19 131 57.00410778 1,320 574 2,335 1,016 19,703 4,279 13,693 1,731 33
Nashville 602,181 8,404 1395.593684 76 13 301 49.9849713 2,384 396 5,643 937 32,347 6,326 23,764 2,257 116
Stockton 293,073 4,322 1474.717903 24 8 112 38.21573465 1,558 532 2,628 897 17,955 4,353 11,102 2,500 59
Baltimore 634,549 10,080 1588.529806 234 37 137 21.59013725 4,026 634 5,683 896 30,570 7,832 17,230 5,508 430
Miami 427,740 5,709 1334.689297 63 15 42 9.819048955 2,415 565 3,189 746 22,198 4,941 13,591 3,666 196
Little Rock 187,978 2,356 1253.338157 40 21 132 70.22098331 819 436 1,365 726 15,003 3,576 10,272 1,155 89
Washington DC 591,833 8,135 1374.543157 186 31 186 31.42778453 4,154 702 3,609 610 28,759 3,781 18,787 6,191 51
Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department 1,353,175 13,324 984.6472186 120 9 729 53.87329798 4,932 364 7,543 557 53,160 14,902 26,856 11,402 319
Charleston 111,645 800 716.5569439 14 13 60 53.74177079 288 258 438 392 4,535 724 3,399 412 19

[Atypical Liberal]

5. I could only watch to 3:28

This guy is just painful to watch and listen to. The melodrama is unbearable. It's like watching a parody of an evangelical preacher.

[Weird Liberal Head]

6. Then don't watch.

"Atypical liberal"- you're certainly atypical in the fact that you dislike my videos. Tell me, do you reject anything that doesn't conform to what you ordinarily enjoy?

[Atypical Liberal]

8. It's the presentation, not the content.

Look, I'm not quite sure how to put this tactfully. If you weren't the actual author of the video, as in if we were commenting on some random video on the internet, I'd say what I'm thinking in a heartbeat. But since this is actually you in the video, I'm really torn about what to say without violating the rules of the board.

I guess the best I can say without saying something that sounds like a personal attack is that the video comes across as extremely melodramatic, incoherent, and contradictory.

[Weird Liberal Head]

11. Incorrect.

But I really don't care, even if you're right. I'd say I know a TINY bit more about videos like this than you do. ;)

[Atypical Liberal]

7. OK, forced myself to watch the whole thing.

Insanely painful to watch. Rambling and nearly incoherent.

But to address the points made:

First, the poster says if he were president he would re-instate the Assault Weapons Ban. I'd like to remind the poster that Bill Clinton himself admitted that the AWB was a political disaster and cost many Democrats their seats in Congress. I'll also point out that the Assault Weapons Ban was a complete farce. Because there was no way to make a comprehensive ban without affecting regular semi-automatic hunting rifles that have been available for nearly a hundred years, the ban instead focused on cosmetic features that had no impact on the function of the firearm. Consequently manufacturers made cosmetic changes to the firearms to make them comply with the law. The law did attempt to ban high-capacity magazines, but since there were so many in circulation this was impossible. The only real impact of the law was to artificially raise the price of assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, as well as dramatically increasing their popularity. Prior to the AWB assault weapons were pretty much a fringe style of firearm. Today, the AR-15 is the most popular center-fire target rifle in America. Even Ruger and Remington, which have traditionally stayed in the market of "traditional" civilian firearms, now manufacture AR-15 variants of rifle.

Secondly, he says that he would require an extensive background check, including a "behavioral exam" and researching for a "history of family violence".

Of course all firearm sales through FFL dealers already require a NICS background check. If, through due process of law, you've been found to be a criminal, or involuntarily committed to a mental institution, or adjudicated mentally incompetent, or if you have a restraining order against you, you cannot lawfully buy a firearm, and you'll get bounced on your NICS check.

It is true that there are no background checks on private sales. NICS should be opened up for private sales. Today citizens cannot use it.

The third thing the poster says he would do is make it illegal to have guns in your house. He backpedals a bit and then says that he would only require them to be locked up.

The first idea is absurd, and the second is unenforceable. The best you can do is charge people with negligence after-the-fact if their firearms are misused. I don't have a problem with that.

Interspersed in his ramblings he also says that "Only serious hunters would have access to guns." Yet prior to this he says it's OK to have firearms in defense of tyranny because everyone has enough guns and gold already stockpiled.

Also strangely, he supports open carry of firearms with a permit, but not concealed carry. I don't understand this mentality. Concealed carry causes more problems than the advantages it conveys. I suspect this is some attempt to make people with firearms wear a "scarlet letter" of sorts, but this is ridiculous given that CCW permit holders are hardly ever involved in any kind of crime, let alone firearm-related crime. CCW permit holders are many times less likely to be involved in crime than people without them.

Of course I also take exception to his slipping into accents of either southern people and/or mentally handicapped people whenever he talks about the pro-firearm side of the debate.

But the real hoot is that he labels all of his suggestions as "common sense progressive solutions".

Being progressive is to fight for the underdog. The protection of the weak against the interests of the strong. Yet his philosophy (rambling and contradictory as it is) is basically to eliminate firearms for personal defense. This will make every violent assault a physical contest of strength between the victim and his aggressor. It will insure that the weak will be at the mercy of the strong.

This is not a progressive ideal.

[HolyCity2012]

10. don't waste your time

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x552146#552231
">The kid doesn't care how wrong he is. He just gets combative and defensive.

[Weird Liberal Head]

14. Don't waste MY time

You're the one trolling ME, not the other way around.

[Weird Liberal Head]

12. Cool

I'm glad to see that you are more in the vein of Dixicrats than Democrats. Let me know when you become a TRUE progressive. ;)

[AtheistCrusader]

20. How, by supporting military adventurism and foreign wars, like the neocons?

How is that a progressive ideal?

Whoops, bombed a group of innocent civilians with a Tomahawk Missile, made in America! Good times huh? 'Oopsie, they'll probably forgive us'.

You're not fooling anyone.

[Weird Liberal Head]

23. You're right

I'm not fooling anyone, because I'm not trying to. I'm not a neocon, I consider that an insult. I do, however, support military intervention to stop genocide (see Rwanda, Sudan, Bosnia, Kosovo, and Libya...)

[SkyDaddy7]

15. EXCELLENT REPLY TO THE VIDEO!

I could not have broke it down any better...Seriously, I could not have done such wonderful job as you did showing how ridiculous some of the suggestions were & especially the presentation.

Excellent Job!! :applause: :thumbsup:



:hi: :fistbump:

[Weird Liberal Head]

16. You have Obama/Biden 2012

You know they believe much of what I do on this, right?

[Atypical Liberal]

17. Um, I think you missed the President's Op-Ed?

President Obama agrees with the Supreme Court that the second amendment enumerates an individual right to keep and bear arms. He said so himself.

http://azstarnet.com/news/opinion/mailbag/article_011e7118-8951-5206-a878-39bfbc9dc89d.html

"Now, like the majority of Americans, I believe that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to bear arms. And the courts have settled that as the law of the land."

Doesn't sound like what he believes jives with what you believe much at all.

[Weird Liberal Head]

18. That's NOT what I said

You're using straw men. Pathetic. I was implying Obama favors the return of the assault weapons ban.

[Atypical Liberal]

21. Well, like I said...

What you said was pretty much incoherent. It was like trying to decipher the screeds of the Unabomber. You didn't imply much of anything at all, other than a huge resentment of the second amendment.

You need to work on expressing yourself more precisely if you wish to engage in intellectual debate.

But speaking of the assault weapons ban, you will notice that in the Presidents latest missive on gun control he did not mention an assault weapons ban at all. You'll also notice that while he campaigned on an assault weapons ban, and while it was (and still is) at www.change.gov under urban policy, it was removed from www.whitehouse.gov shortly after he took office.

The bottom line is you claimed, "You have Obama/Biden 2012 You know they believe much of what I do on this, right?", and the fact is your views are radically different from those put forth by the Obama administration.

[Weird Liberal Head]

22. Believe whatever you want to believe

Once the situation in Mexico spirals out of control, people will BEG for the return of the assault-weapon ban. ;)

[Atypical Liberal]

25. Nice moving of the goalposts.

First we were talking about how supposedly Obama/Biden agreed with you on firearms policy, and now we are talking about drug cartels in Mexico?

Stop moving the goalposts in the debate.

And you can forget about another assault weapons ban.

First of all, most voters don't give a shit about Mexico's problems.

Second of all, the way the BATFE has been shown to be allowing firearms to be illegally trafficked to Mexico, they US Government has just blown a shit-load of credibility concerning firearms being trafficked to Mexico from the United States.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31727_162-20053961-10391695.html

Third of all, most people are smart enough to realize that a multi-billion dollar, multi-national narcotics industry is not going to have any problem obtaining firearms from anywhere in the world, or even manufacturing their own. These people are building submarines in the jungle. Making or acquiring firearms is not going to be a problem for them.

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

Fourth of all, As Bill Clinton said himself, the assault weapon ban was a politically disastrous decision the last time around and cost Democrats some 20 seats in 1994, and quite possibly cost Al Gore the presidential election when he lost his home state of Tennessee.

http://books.google.com/books?id=ZGb80RBLHxcC&pg=PA18109&lpg=PA18109&dq=bill+clinton+said+gun+control+cost+seats&source=bl&ots=Yi4iB6Idgp&sig=4b_lIqj2h3IAFqaiTe4ZQ-a3d5E&hl=en&ei=JxezTcayJs-9tgeqm8npDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBsQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=bill%20clinton%20said%20gun%20control%20cost%20seats&f=false

Fifth of all, since the scare of the last Assault Weapons Ban, assault weapon sales of skyrocketed. The AR-15 is now the most popular center-fire target rifle in America. Even mainstream manufacturers like Ruger and Remington, who long have avoided military-style arms, now have AR-15 product lines.

And finally, there is the teensy-weensie little fact that according the the FBU's Uniform Crime Reporting database, all rifles, let alone assault rifles, account for fewer homicides annually than do hands and feet. Less than 350 people annually are killed by all rifles in this country, while over 800 are killed by hands and feet.

http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/data/table_20.html

There is not going to be an assault weapon ban, and it will be political suicide for anyone who tries it.

[HolyCity2012]

26. +1

[AtheistCrusader]

32. I'm guessing he won't be back to review this information.

[AtheistCrusader]

28. Boy, that would do a whole lot of nothing.

Nothing, plus nothing, carry the nothing...

After all, the Cartels kept right on killing people right through 1994/2004 when the AWB was in effect.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

30. Good. Grief

So much wrong with this.

The gun lobby would have us believe all gun purchases have background checks done. Hogwash. They have made sure that hasn't happened.

Only a fool thinks a gun is a bigger weapon than an idea.

Oh nevermind. I forget.....(with sarcasm)....guns don't kill....

[AtheistCrusader]

31. The only sales that involve the 'gun lobby' do have background checks.

Only secondary sales between private individuals do not require background checks.

[HolyCity2012]

9. The Kids of America!

[Weird Liberal Head]

13. Yeah

Soon to be the leaders of it.

[LAGC]

29. Uh... kid...

That town in Arizona is pronounced TWO-SAHN, not TUS-CAN.

FWIW.

[Countdown_3_2_1]

33. Al Gore LOST his home state over gun control.

Had he won his own state in 2000 he would have been President regardless of the shenanigans in Florida.

You live in a pioneer country. We have not lost the frontier mindset. This is a losing issue.
From 2006 to 2010, the Democratic party had control of congress. Not a single gun reform was passed. Not one. Zip. Nada. None. Why?

If the democrats are afraid to have anything to do with gun control then you're outa luck.
Change the party first. I suggest you order them a backbone. Then you can reach out to the people.