Skip to main content

Gun control legislation, in the traditional sense of banning this or that kind of firearm, is not that popular. The Democratic Party doesn't seem to be pushing it precisely for that reason - the NRA basically won the PR war.

But let's think about it, right?

There are several reasons why people buy firearms. There's sport, there's personal defense, and there's show (as in, "Look what I got, a sweet new rifle!") I'm not sure about the distribution of gun sales between sport and defense, but I'm pretty sure that buying weapons explicitly to show them off is not so common - for the reason I'm going to describe in this diary.

Guns are expensive.

If you want a cheap noisemaker to keep in the drawer next to your bed, that's probably not going to set you back too far. But if you want to get serious, buying a firearm is going to set you back a few hundred dollars at least, and that's not counting any additional accessories you may want to buy for it, like locks, safes, cleaning gear, additional magazines if it's an automatic, and of course ammunition.

Needless to say, the more you practice wielding your new firearm, the more it will cost you - ammunition is not exactly cheap, and I recall being told by a few enthusiasts that it's getting more expensive all the time. But, of course, if you don't practice wielding it, you can never be sure you'll hit anything you want to hit, or avoid hitting things you don't want to hit, should you be called upon to fire it outside of training.

Let me just add that sporting-purpose weapons, designed for competitive shooting or hunting, are not that likely to be affected by well-written gun-control legislation, because who goes hunting or shooting in contests with assault rifles or explosive ammunition? Anyone buying a weapon for defense, though, should consider a few things. Things like, "Who are you concerned will be threatening or attacking you, that you would need this defense?" Broadly, I'd say the answers to that question separate into ordinary every-day crooks or the government.

Governments have armies. Those armies, if the government is a wealthy-enough one, tend to be reasonably well-trained in tactics as well as getting marksmanship training. They also tend to be reasonably well-armed, well-armored, and well-supported. In case of some disastrous policy decision, in which the government dispatches an army of either heavily armed police officers or professional soldiers, attempting to protect yourself from them with a firearm is probably a bad decision - it makes you a higher-priority target. At best, you could expect to be shot. At worst, you could expect to be annihilated along with the surrounding block. It depends on how annoyed they are. You might get a few of them, as did the heavily armed white supremacist with the urinating dog, but you will also end up very dead shortly after, so it's not really going to matter.

Crooks, now... if you have to fight off crooks your odds are better, because they tend not to have the training or the fire support to make best use of their assets. The tricky thing, though, is this: by the time you realize that someone is threatening you, he's probably got the initiative, which means that pulling a weapon on him is a very bad idea. Sure, you can train in quick-draw and disarming techniques, but the payoff is modest (how many crooks are after your life, after all, rather than your stuff?) and the cost of a failed attempt at defense is extremely high (you are killed by the crook).

To sum up:

You have the right to bear arms, limited by the cost to the general welfare of letting people buy certain weapons which are more dangerous to the public than they are useful (machine guns, for example)... and if you're getting them to hunt or compete, good for you. But if you want to defend yourself, be aware: it's an expensive gamble that may make you less safe. So, if in this economy you choose to spend a lot of money on a weapon to defend yourself, be aware that it may have all been spent in vain.

(Final note: I'm not referring to anyone who might need to carry a weapon for personal security as part of his job, although I would think these people would get a better deal by buying through their employers, if they have any.)

Originally posted to Shaviv on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 03:33 PM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  For the safety of the public, (0+ / 0-)

    I think broadcasting that message would be helpful. "You're better off defending yourself by being fast, rather than being aggressive," or maybe, "If you had to choose between risking your life and money, vs. risking your money alone, which would you choose?" A sort of PSA.

    Revenge is a dish best served with mayonnaise, and those little cheesy things on sticks. -- Osric the Loopy

    by Shaviv on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 03:36:11 PM PDT

    •  Defense starts with prevention (6+ / 0-)

      I mean, that's obvious, but I've said this before... when I used to teach self-defense, I told the class the first thing is don't be stupid. Don't walk in dangerous parts of town, talking on your cell phone while looking at the ground.  Stay alert. If a situation feels bad, it probably is. GET OUT if it does.

      If you can't, here are techniques you can use for...

      etc.

      You get the idea.

      That said, you make great points in your diary.  A decent firearm, and storing it safely, will definitely set you back.  We have a big gun safe that we use to store other valuables, and it cost about $900, not to mention the installation.

      •  Defense (0+ / 0-)

        Same here. I taught a self defense class for some interested people at work. I echoed your words; '1st rule is - dont be stupid, be aware of your surroundings, etc. etc.' A couple of months later, one of the participants was in a hair place waiting for her appointment. A guy came in and looked around like he was looking for someone. Then, he grabbed a purse and ran out. My former student ran after him. IT WAS NOT EVEN HER PURSE. She chased the guy for several blocks before he just got disgusted and threw the purse down and kept going. She retrieved the purse and took it back to the rightful owner. When I heard about the episode and confronted it with her; basically along the lines of 'what the hell were you thinking!?'. Her reply was 'he pissed me off'. I told her that that would make a wonderful epitaph - 'Here lies ***** - he pissed me off'. Heaven forbid what would of happened if the robber, or the robbee for that matter, had had a weapon :(

        'War is a racket' - Major General Smedley Butler

        by wannabe sailor on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 05:03:21 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  The safe alone was $900? (0+ / 0-)

        Pretty wicked if you build safes. Maybe I should start learning to weld.

        I mean, I figured they'd be mass-produced by now. What do you get for your $900?

        Revenge is a dish best served with mayonnaise, and those little cheesy things on sticks. -- Osric the Loopy

        by Shaviv on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 08:24:14 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  The Supreme Court pretty well settle the gun law (0+ / 0-)

      controversy, there will be precious few.

  •  How's this for a new message? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Sychotic1

    Guns don't kill people - bullets do.

  •  Registration is still the key (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    john07801, Meggie

    Europe has proven that countries are able to ban guns, if it's done through a multi-faceted approach. First President Obama needs to push a bill that would require all firearms to be registered through the federal government. Once the federal government has a working list of firearms, they can begin to take action to confiscate these unnecessary killing machines. However, he needs to be smart and go after guns a classification at a time. First assault rifles, then handguns, and then sniper rifles. If he goes after too much too soon, it will backfire and nothing will get done. We're all smarter than the Teabaggers, it's time we show it.

  •  A Message (0+ / 0-)

    Guns Kill.

    •  Ahh, poop (0+ / 0-)

      A NEW Message:

      Guns Kill.

      •  No, they don't. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        tnproud2b, KVoimakas

        Killers kill. Criminals kill.

        Guns are mechanical devices, and a tiny percentage of them -- less than 1% -- are used by criminals to hurt people. About the same percentage of automobiles are used by drunk drivers to kill and maim people, so we ban the behavior (drunk driving) rather than the weapons (automobiles).

        We have several guns -- big scary ones, including Glocks that hold 10 or 15 rounds and a Saiga (Kalashnikov) 12-gauge shotgun with removable 8- and 10-round magazines -- but we don't kill. I have carried a Glock with me every day for four years, and I haven't killed anyone. I don't plan to kill anyone tomorrow, either.

        I'm not a Democrat, I'm a liberal. Democrats go to meetings.

        by willie horton on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 04:56:10 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Anecdote is no substitute for statistical data (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Meggie

          but then, you misquote that as well.

          One day posterity will remember, this strange era, these strange times, when ordinary common honesty was called courage. -- Yevgeny Yevtushenko

          by RandomActsOfReason on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 05:04:35 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  but we don't kill - yet. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Meggie

          You forgot the 'yet'. As in you haven't aimed the guns you're so proud of at someone and killed them yet.

          No doubt that part isn't important to you, but as the innocent bystander that you may kill it's important to me.

          Because while you have them they may still be a 'yet' and every person who still has one increases the chances of that yet just a little more.

          An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture (CAT art 2.3)

          by OneLawForAll on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 06:22:56 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I'd venture to guess... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            KVoimakas

            that a history of owning firearms without having caused injury to anyone with them is fairly predictive of this continuing.

            Owning a firearm puts the owner at a higher risk of suicide, but as for turning the weapon on other people: persons who are not constantly and personally exposed to violence are probably very unlikely to actually engage in violence, much less lethal violence.

            Although it was very nice of you to imply that, because he happens to own some handguns and a shotgun, he's just a murderer who hasn't found anyone to shoot yet.

            Revenge is a dish best served with mayonnaise, and those little cheesy things on sticks. -- Osric the Loopy

            by Shaviv on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 07:06:49 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  You make it sound like all killing is bad. (0+ / 0-)

            And it's not.

            If I defend myself by killing someone (when I'm in danger of losing life or limb) than I classify that as a 'good kill' and I won't be happy about it. I don't WANT to kill anyone. But I wouldn't classify it as a bad kill.

            But I'm not going to rely on the mercy of a criminal.  

            Abolish gun control, marriage, and helmet laws. -7.62, -3.44

            by KVoimakas on Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 01:38:25 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  Nope. (12+ / 0-)

    Let me just add that sporting-purpose weapons, designed for competitive shooting or hunting, are not that likely to be affected by well-written gun-control legislation, because who goes hunting or shooting in contests with assault rifles or explosive ammunition?

    Funny thing about gun control legislation.  They make shit up -- like "assault weapon," for example -- and arbitrarily apply said made up definitions to whatever guns they think are scary.  (Usually, the big black ones most recently used in a shooting spree.)

    You'd be amazed at which guns fall within certain arbitrary definitions.

    Please, President Obama, remember the ladies and be more generous and favorable to them than your ancestors.

    by Kaili Joy Gray on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 03:46:30 PM PDT

    •  Part of the assault weapon classification (4+ / 0-)

      is about features that make a weapon easier to fire quickly, like pistol grips and extended magazines, but I agree, a lot of the criteria are just about what looks scary.

      We rely on your donations to bring you sigs like this. If you contribute today, we'll send you this free T.R. tote bag. (-10.00,-8.87)

      by Texas Revolutionary on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 03:52:18 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Since there's no definition that will satisfy you (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Meggie

      your argument is disingenuous.

      One day posterity will remember, this strange era, these strange times, when ordinary common honesty was called courage. -- Yevgeny Yevtushenko

      by RandomActsOfReason on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 05:05:17 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Okay. Gimme a definition then. (0+ / 0-)

        You tell me what an assault weapon is.

        Please, President Obama, remember the ladies and be more generous and favorable to them than your ancestors.

        by Kaili Joy Gray on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 05:10:13 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  As I said, there is no definition that will gain (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Meggie

          your support for any kind of limit on individual possession of firearms. No point in debating absolutist 2nd Amendment zealots, it's like trying to reason with a Creationist.

          One day posterity will remember, this strange era, these strange times, when ordinary common honesty was called courage. -- Yevgeny Yevtushenko

          by RandomActsOfReason on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 05:20:28 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I see. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Thinking Fella, snackdoodle

            So, in other words, no.  You can't define "assault weapon."

            You can't be bothered to support your arguments with facts.  You've just decided that everyone who supports the Second Amendment is a zealot, so end of story.

            Look, I'm open to being persuaded.  After all, I wasn't always an avid 2A supporter.  Believe it or not, I was staunchly on the other side of this issue until about 10 years ago.  Man, I was right there after Columbine with the whole "screw the 2A, ban 'em all" crowd.

            But...

            Then I met someone who actually owned guns.  And I started reading and learning and discovering, much to my shock, that pretty much everything I thought I "knew" about guns and gun control was bullshit.

            So, to reiterate, I'm open to good arguments.  But unfortunately, you don't seem to have any.  And by the way, insulting the many millions of gun owners in this country with juvenile descriptions (like your phallic fascination) is hardly a persuasive argument.

            Please, President Obama, remember the ladies and be more generous and favorable to them than your ancestors.

            by Kaili Joy Gray on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 05:23:41 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Not everyone - you (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Meggie

              We've had this discussion before. Several times. And not just with me, and not just with you.

              Each time, you ignore rational arguments and resort to tirades.

              And, in each new thread, you raise the same objections all over again, as if they were never rebutted.

              Starting with the artificial dichotomy - 2nd Amendment vs "ban 'em all".

              Perhaps that is how your mind works. According to you, you swung from one absolutist extreme to the other - because you "met someone who actually owned guns.

              Nuance is lost on you, and reasonable compromises - as, in this case, preserving individual freedom while protecting collective security through reasonable regulation - are not seriously considered.

              You pretend to want to debate, in order to draw people out, only in order to attack them and reduce the whole complex issue to an absurdly, childishly, simplistic binary view.

              That's why I say it is just like arguing with a Creationist.

              Incidentally, unlike you, I've fired guns - many kinds - in anger, at other human beings.

              I was in uniform at the time, and those other human beings wore different uniforms (when I wasn't dressed up to look like them, that is), so that is allowed.

              Look, I'm tired and disheartened by the dogmatic, totalistic irrationalism that some people who call themselves "Democrats" display when it comes to their phallic compensators. Their arguments - your arguments - fly directly in the face of fundamental principles of liberalism and progressive politics and policy.

              We will never make progress as a species when people - even people of the supposedly reasonable and enlightened side of the aisle - refuse to engage in good faith rational consideration of our common good, and instead elevate their own selfish interests over anyone else.

              2nd Amendment absolutists have bought into the "me first, last and only" philosophy of the Right.

              There are no absolute rights. There is no right in the Constitution that is not subject to common sense, judicious restraint in the common interest.

              Ironically, in my experience, the more absolutist the 2nd Amendment dogmatist, the more they tend to favor censorship of speech they find objectionable.

              The same people calling to try and execute Gov. Perry for "sedition" and then burn his home to the ground, are the same people calling for the liberals to "arm themselves" and fight attempt to "take away our freedoms".

              One day posterity will remember, this strange era, these strange times, when ordinary common honesty was called courage. -- Yevgeny Yevtushenko

              by RandomActsOfReason on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 07:42:00 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  Sure there is. (0+ / 0-)

        How bout the current one?

        SELECTIVE FIRE WEAPONS

        These are already highly restricted. Putting an assault rifle 'tag' on a firearm because it looks deadly/military doesn't mean dick.

        Abolish gun control, marriage, and helmet laws. -7.62, -3.44

        by KVoimakas on Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 02:10:54 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  I think there does need to be a change. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Meggie

    We don't need automatics (or handguns either), but I think there's nothing wrong with owning a rifle or shotgun for hunting or self defence - as long as the owner is educated about the dangers. They need to be registered too. And get rid of the gun show loopholes for the waiting period.

    There's a precedent for a liberal gun culture as well - Dr. Hunter Thompson was an avid collector and shooter, as well as a radical liberal (he was also a little paranoid...).

    As for the NRA, the monopoly they have on that demographic needs to be broken. They have gotten more and more militant in their rhetoric as of late, and that is a big problem.

    Really, we can't let the right-wing have all the guns.

    We rely on your donations to bring you sigs like this. If you contribute today, we'll send you this free T.R. tote bag. (-10.00,-8.87)

    by Texas Revolutionary on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 03:47:07 PM PDT

    •  We don't "need" them? Says who? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      willie horton, dewley notid

      How do you arbitrarily decide which guns are okay and which ones aren't?

      Please, President Obama, remember the ladies and be more generous and favorable to them than your ancestors.

      by Kaili Joy Gray on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 04:02:31 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I was expressing an opinion (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Meggie

        I feel there is no reason for someone who isn't in the military to have any automatic weapon. You can't hunt using rapid-fire. They only can cause trouble.

        And looking at handguns, they have caused more death than they have prevented. And they can be concealed on the person, meaning impulse shootings are more likely. I know handguns are firmly entrenched in American culture. I know there is zero chance of a ban on them passing. I'm just expressing an opinion.

        We rely on your donations to bring you sigs like this. If you contribute today, we'll send you this free T.R. tote bag. (-10.00,-8.87)

        by Texas Revolutionary on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 04:11:43 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Automatic weapons are (4+ / 0-)

          already illegal to possess without a special license--one that is very difficult to obtain. many hunting weapons are capable of semi-automatic operation--that is they reload automatically after each shot, but the trigger must be pulled to fire a round.

          "All that serves labor serves the nation. All that harms labor is treason. -Abraham Lincoln

          by happy camper on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 04:16:27 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  But do you see the problem with this logic? (5+ / 0-)

          I feel there is no reason...

          This is the exact same kind of logic the right uses to justify bullshit legislation.  They "feel" that marriage is between one man and one woman.  They "feel" that abortion is icky.  They "feel" that plastering the Ten Commandments all over the place makes the world better.

          There's nothing to substantiate their arguments, but never mind, because it's what they feel.

          This is my constant frustration with these discussions on the left.  While liberals pride themselves on living in the reality-based community, where we like facts and evidence, when it comes to this discussion, usually it all comes down to how people feel about it, rather than actual evidence.

          Please, President Obama, remember the ladies and be more generous and favorable to them than your ancestors.

          by Kaili Joy Gray on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 04:16:52 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I may have used the wrong word, (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Meggie

            but I have reasons for my stance. I told you those reasons. If they are wrong, then tell me why instead of attacking my word choice.

            We rely on your donations to bring you sigs like this. If you contribute today, we'll send you this free T.R. tote bag. (-10.00,-8.87)

            by Texas Revolutionary on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 04:42:32 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  There is no reasoning with zealots. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Meggie

              Believe me, I've tried. Actual data doesn't matter, public opinion polls don't matter.

              If it requires any personal sacrifice, all of a sudden certain seemingly liberal people turn all right-wingy. Particularly when it comes to their phallic compensators.

              One day posterity will remember, this strange era, these strange times, when ordinary common honesty was called courage. -- Yevgeny Yevtushenko

              by RandomActsOfReason on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 05:06:59 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  LOL. (0+ / 0-)

                You know, except for the last two words of your comment, it's impossible to tell which side of this issue you're on.

                Please, President Obama, remember the ladies and be more generous and favorable to them than your ancestors.

                by Kaili Joy Gray on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 05:08:41 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Doesn't matter to you anyway, does it (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Meggie

                  For you, there aren't two sides to this issue. Only one. No point in trying to engage in a rational discussion on this issue, sadly.

                  One day posterity will remember, this strange era, these strange times, when ordinary common honesty was called courage. -- Yevgeny Yevtushenko

                  by RandomActsOfReason on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 05:18:56 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  So why bother trying, right? (0+ / 0-)

                    Seriously.  Provide some evidence to support any of your claims that...wait a minute, what are your claims again?  Because all I've seen you contribute to this conversation thus far are juvenile insults.

                    Please, President Obama, remember the ladies and be more generous and favorable to them than your ancestors.

                    by Kaili Joy Gray on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 05:24:42 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

              •  Good point. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                KVoimakas

                Of course,  the "zealot" in this case would be the person who posted:

                Poll after poll show 9 out of 10 Americans support gun control - and more than 9 out of 10 support more strict enforcement or even new laws.

                9 out of 10 support an assault weapons ban. NINE OUT OF FUCKING TEN!

                and then,  when pressed for evidence of this,  posted:

                   USA Today/Gallup Poll. Feb. 8-10, 2008

                   "Would you like to see gun laws in this country made more strict, less strict, or remain as they are?"

                   More strict: 49%  
                   Less strict: 11%
                   Remain as they are: 38%
                   Unsure: 2%

                along with other polls showing that his contentions about support for various forms of gun control were pure BS.

                •  Thanks for helping my point, ironically (0+ / 0-)

                  And thanks for a textbook example of attempting to attack the messenger with out-of-context, selective quoting. You should work for a Republican administration.

                  Particularly since even the selective cite you choose to include, out of more than a dozen, actually supports my assertion, which you quoted, and undermines yours.

                  Only 11% in the study you quoted support less restrictive gun laws than we have right now. We have gun control right now. I was actually being generous and crediting all 11% with being totalists opposed to any form of gun control whatsoever. More likely, even fewer than 1 our of 10 of our citizens oppose any form of gun control.

                  As I stated, 9 out of 10 citizens support it.

                  So, even though you dishonestly cherry-picked only one out of TEN stats I cited (complete with sources), it doesn't even support your point.

                  Anyone looking at the comment you linked to can note how, right up front, the very first result shows 88% in favor of one form of gun control - "Preventing certain people, such as convicted felons or people with mental health problems, from owning guns."

                  Note how, next, 86% favor "Requiring people who purchase a gun to wait a certain number of days before they receive that gun". More gun control.

                  Next, 79% favor "Requiring gun owners to register their guns with the local government"

                  The quote you chose to selectively include, in order to dishonestly make what is, in any case, a fallacious attack on the messenger, is the very last of all my citations - and it still supports my assertion.

                  Truly, a poor attempt at deception on your part. On further consideration, it's even too blatant for a Republican administration, at least at the national level.

                  It might we, just barely worthy of, say, a fringe candidate for dog catcher in a small mid-western town that has lost most of its population to the 21st century.

                  Points for trying, however. Post this comment on your resume.

                  One day posterity will remember, this strange era, these strange times, when ordinary common honesty was called courage. -- Yevgeny Yevtushenko

                  by RandomActsOfReason on Sat Apr 18, 2009 at 01:13:48 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

            •  Look, I'm not trying to play a semantics game. (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              snackdoodle, Texas Revolutionary

              Feel, believe -- whatever word you want to use.  The bottom line is that you seem to be basing your opinion on just that: your opinion.  Not any evidence that actually supports your opinion.

              I feel there is no reason for someone who isn't in the military to have any automatic weapon. You can't hunt using rapid-fire. They only can cause trouble.

              Well, no.  They don't "only" cause trouble.  Lots of people enjoying target and competitive shooting with all sorts of guns.  And they do so safely, without harming anyone.

              And looking at handguns, they have caused more death than they have prevented.

              You have numbers for that?

              And they can be concealed on the person, meaning impulse shootings are more likely.

              Impulse shootings?  Again, I'll point out that lots of people carry concealed weapons -- safely and legally -- and somehow resist the "impulse" to shoot anyone.

              I don't begrudge you your opinion.  But can you acknowledge that your opinion is based not on facts and evidence, but on that "icky" feeling you get when you think about the very real damage that guns can do?  And can you acknowledge that just because you get that icky feeling does not mean we need to pass laws to make you feel better any more than we need to pass laws to make the wingers feel better?

              Please, President Obama, remember the ladies and be more generous and favorable to them than your ancestors.

              by Kaili Joy Gray on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 05:08:02 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I do aknowledge that just because I don't like it (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Angry Mouse

                doesn't mean we should have laws against handguns. I don't see the point of owning one myself, but I see your point.

                I don't have any antipathy towards all guns - I know how fun it can be to shoot one. I wish I had one of my own, maybe a WWII vintage M1 carbine, for plinking.

                It really isn't that I don't like handguns, if they aren't concealed, or illegally owned, then I have no problem with them. It's that I don't like people being able to carry them around in public. I say that, because whenever I'm in some gas station or restaurant in a small Texas town, I know there's a good chance someone in that room is armed. There's usually alcohol involved as well. It puts you on your toes, and you want to finish what you're doing very quickly and get the hell out of there. You're less open to contact (at least I am). Your eyes look for quick movements and you listen for any sound of anger in someone's voice. The stress is very real.

                So, I guess you could say my opinion is based partly on emotion... :-D

                We rely on your donations to bring you sigs like this. If you contribute today, we'll send you this free T.R. tote bag. (-10.00,-8.87)

                by Texas Revolutionary on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 05:58:33 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Also, I didn't say they should be banned. (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Meggie

                  I said we didn't need them. I chose my words very carefully - I don't know who in this room might have a gun :-D

                  I've lived in a place with some of the strictest weapon laws in the world. The UK doesn't allow handguns at all, and longarms are restricted to a 2-round magazine capacity, plus one chambered. Automatics are completely out of the question there. The only exceptions are historic weapons, which never get fired anyway (and the ammunition is harder to get hold of, too). The Brits use firearms for all the same purposes that Americans do, and get along fine with the restrictions. There's a lot less use of firearms in violent crime as well (a lot less violent crime, too). Some of this is cultural, but the restrictions have a lot to do with it.

                  I know the US will never enact such strict laws, our culture won't allow for such a strict (and in some ways, harsh) interpretation of the second amendment. I don't think we should be that strict either.

                  It does prove, however, that no-one needs handguns or automatics.

                  We rely on your donations to bring you sigs like this. If you contribute today, we'll send you this free T.R. tote bag. (-10.00,-8.87)

                  by Texas Revolutionary on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 06:15:44 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Actually, no they don't. (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Meggie

                    The Brits use firearms for all the same purposes that Americans do, and get along fine with the restrictions

                    Last time I checked, and I could be wrong, you could't carry in Britain. So the self defense option is right out the window.

                    Abolish gun control, marriage, and helmet laws. -7.62, -3.44

                    by KVoimakas on Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 01:41:50 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  However, when you look at the hard (0+ / 0-)

                    numbers behind those "less violent crime" claims,  you find a US violent crime rate of about 466 per 100,000 people in 2007,  while the British report 3.2% of the population were victims of violent crime.

                    So,  either British criminals are a lot more efficient (averaging at least 6 victims per crime),  or they have a lot more violent crimes than we do.

                    •  Not my point. (0+ / 0-)

                      My point was that Brits DON'T use their guns for the exact same things Americans do.

                      And British culture is quite a bit different.

                      Abolish gun control, marriage, and helmet laws. -7.62, -3.44

                      by KVoimakas on Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 04:40:51 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  Less gun violence and gun crime. (0+ / 0-)

                      You know what I meant.

                      We rely on your donations to bring you sigs like this. If you contribute today, we'll send you this free T.R. tote bag. (-10.00,-8.87)

                      by Texas Revolutionary on Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 09:48:37 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  When it comes to the term 'gun crime' (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Texas Revolutionary

                        I tend to focus more on the 'crime' aspect.

                        I think that a few things would reduce the level of gun related violence (and accidents):

                        A. Education to help cut back on accidents. You start at a young age and you ingrain it into their thinking when it comes to firearms. Indoctrination is what I'd call it, but how many people would be saved if they just followed the three rules of gun safety?

                        B. Enforce the laws that we currently have on the books.
                          I. If someone is selling guns illegally (as an FFL) and they get caught, put the dealer in jail. If you try to buy a firearm and you're not able to (and the NICS check comes back that way), there should be consequences, not just "Nope, you can't buy a gun today."
                         II. If you're caught with a firearm while committing a crime, you get the book thrown at you.
                        III. (This is not an exhaustive list, just examples.)

                        Abolish gun control, marriage, and helmet laws. -7.62, -3.44

                        by KVoimakas on Sat Apr 18, 2009 at 05:39:20 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                •  Fair enough. :-) (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Texas Revolutionary

                  Please, President Obama, remember the ladies and be more generous and favorable to them than your ancestors.

                  by Kaili Joy Gray on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 06:25:42 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  asdf (0+ / 0-)

                  It really isn't that I don't like handguns, if they aren't concealed, or illegally owned, then I have no problem with them.

                  So open carry isn't an issue?

                  Also, the comment about impulse shootings rings a bell with the 'concealed carry will turn us into the wild west!' crowd.

                  This has not happened. Not in Michigan, Florida, Vermont (which, along with Alaska, has the most 'open' conceal carry program), or any of the other shall issue states.

                  Abolish gun control, marriage, and helmet laws. -7.62, -3.44

                  by KVoimakas on Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 01:43:42 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

  •  Also, huh? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    willie horton, VClib, snackdoodle

    You have the right to bear arms, limited by the cost to the general welfare of letting people buy certain weapons which are more dangerous to the public than they are useful (machine guns, for example)... and if you're getting them to hunt or compete, good for you. But if you want to defend yourself, be aware: it's an expensive gamble that may make you less safe. So, if in this economy you choose to spend a lot of money on a weapon to defend yourself, be aware that it may have all been spent in vain.

    Funny, that's not what my Second Amendment says.

    Please, President Obama, remember the ladies and be more generous and favorable to them than your ancestors.

    by Kaili Joy Gray on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 03:47:35 PM PDT

  •  I'm no good on this issue (0+ / 0-)

    because my message is "no assault weapons period or concealed-carry in government buildings-- your kids can be the ones accidentally shot because of your 'culture,' but I'm not putting mine at risk by association."  Yeah, I know I should care more about it in principle and worry more about the victims, but honestly, the political cost is so high and while I'm sad when grade-schoolers end up dying at gun shows, apparently that cost is worth it to the NRA crowd that parents them.  I'll just hide in my liberal social circles as best I can, because engaging with the opposition isn't worth the risks of spending time with 'em IMO.

    Obviously, segregating one's family from the gun crowd doesn't protect against the big, grandiose shootouts (and having more armed people around when someone does pull a stunt is no solution-- this ain't the movies), but while random violence is horrible, I think it would beat being videotaped saying "they seemed like such quiet, responsible people" or "he said the cabinet was always locked."

    "Conservative principles" are marketing props used by the Conservative Movement to achieve political power, not actual beliefs. -Glenn Greenwald

    by latts on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 03:50:31 PM PDT

    •  I tend to agree with you. For every gun (0+ / 0-)

      altercation that turns out the way we'd all want, there are probably ten that are all wrong.

      Way way back in the day, our family was sitting at dusk and watching TV.  All of a sudden there was the sound of something hitting the house.  We went out to investigate.  A bullet was embedded in the windowsill about 3/4 of an inch below the glass.  My father had been sitting in the chair by that window watching TV with us.
      The neighbors had been having a target practice with their rifles and swore that they had no idea that a bullet could travel that far!
      We lived way out in the sticks (by NY standards) and there was a wooded area between our house and theirs.  Apparently they'd been shooting at our house for a while before one bullet managed to get through the trees.
      I think intelligence tests should be required AT A MINIMUM for even hunting rifles.

      DailyKos - taking a bag of political snakes and laying them out straight.

      by Meggie on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 04:03:41 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Link? (6+ / 0-)

        For every gun altercation that turns out the way we'd all want, there are probably ten that are all wrong.

        Or is this just what your gut tells you?

        Please, President Obama, remember the ladies and be more generous and favorable to them than your ancestors.

        by Kaili Joy Gray on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 04:07:50 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  shhh (0+ / 0-)

          Don't confuse the emotions by expecting facts.
          "Guns are BAD" is logic enough!

          /snark

          I'm not a Democrat, I'm a liberal. Democrats go to meetings.

          by willie horton on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 04:39:58 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Eh, I don't like guns, but I don't say (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Meggie

            "Guns are BAD" and leave it at that.  Guns are dangerous, and destructive, and powerful... what I reflexively question are the judgment and temperaments of those who are fascinated by those characteristics.  In rural areas, a small rifle and a shotgun are both very useful IMO-- there are sometimes animals that need to be dispatched quickly, after all.  But as a hobby, they're pretty much like muscle cars or motorcycles without the practical value-- at best-- so I just keep away from people who like to play with dangerous toys.  Even my extremely conservative colleague-- a retired Green Beret colonel & former LA cop-- rolls his eyes at the guns-for-home-protection crowd, because he says he saw too many untrained (meaning not prepared for combat- more like shooting-range types) people who made bad situations worse trying to act like badasses.

            It's a personal thing (which I guess is part of the reason I quit worrying about gun policy as much and decided to embrace social avoidance), but I link aggressive hobbies with aggressive personalities.  Haven't yet run into anyone so completely awesome as a person that I've had to rethink that policy, either.

            "Conservative principles" are marketing props used by the Conservative Movement to achieve political power, not actual beliefs. -Glenn Greenwald

            by latts on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 06:18:52 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Nowhere in there did I say guns are bad. I DID (0+ / 0-)

              say that maybe we should require an intelligence test.  These people apparently had no clue as to how far a bullet could travel, and what that distance actually looks like.
              I don't think guns are bad. I own some. I hunt.  I also support all the "gun sports" in the Olympics.  However, groups like the NRA have made it difficult in this country for us to compete in the Olympics in activities like Biathlon.  They make the whole issue look teabag-fringe nuts.  If all these people think gun ownership is so mandatory and they're all so expert in their use, then why oh why does the USA suck at Biathlon?  Against countries with strict controls?  
              Perhaps there are Americans who can be reasonable about firearms and do not want to be associated with people who act all teabag crazy on the issue.

              Hunters need to break off from the NRA, and then not let the new group be taken over by these people.  
              Your analogy to muscle cars and motorcycles is right on.  But even muscle cars and motorcycles have strict regulations if they're going to be brought out around other Americans.  That's reasonable.

              DailyKos - taking a bag of political snakes and laying them out straight.

              by Meggie on Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 07:07:44 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  asdf (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                kestrel9000

                why oh why does the USA suck at Biathlon?

                Because it's not sitting in a chair on the back porch shooting squirrels?

                I love me some squirrel shootin'.

                Oh, and I'm lazy because I'm an American.

                Abolish gun control, marriage, and helmet laws. -7.62, -3.44

                by KVoimakas on Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 07:12:33 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

  •  You will never talk these nutjobs out of their (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    john07801

    guns.  Most Americans are not interested in their neighbor owning an assault weapon.  I just can't believe they'd want that!  Just when is this idiot going to shoot it and where will he go beyond his back yard - next to where your own kids might be playing?

    I don't think it's the message, I think it's a way to fight back from the barrage of right wing media that will keep anything rational from happening. And they've already got a head start with all this secession talk and socialist talk.  No new message will matter.  I don't believe it would even get through.

    I grew up in upstate NY with a dad and older brothers who hunted.  Heck, I hunted and actually killed more critters than idiot tool Romney.  I used to belong to the NRA.  But when they started sounding like scarey lunatics and the hunters became an afterthought that really is no more than a money fund, I dropped out - that would be over 20 years ago.

    I don't know why you can't separate hunting guns from assault weapons with these people, but you cant.  I've tried on a one-to-one basis for years, and it has been impossible.

    DailyKos - taking a bag of political snakes and laying them out straight.

    by Meggie on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 03:55:42 PM PDT

    •  Respectfully, bite me. (4+ / 0-)

      Not everyone who owns guns is a nutjob.  But gee, thanks for sounding like a Republican by smearing your fellow Americans with an insultingly broad brush.

      Please, President Obama, remember the ladies and be more generous and favorable to them than your ancestors.

      by Kaili Joy Gray on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 04:00:10 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  My husband and I own guns. I've hunted for years. (0+ / 0-)

        In my opinion, anyone who thinks they need an assault weapon in their home is a nutjob.
        You're entitled to think they're rational.  I don't much care.
        The sole purpose of assault weapons and hand guns is to kill people.  As a former NewYorker, the state that winds up with most of the weapons sold in Virginia, I can only say that I'm glad for small favors - when those very weapons do their damage in Virginia and not NYS.

        DailyKos - taking a bag of political snakes and laying them out straight.

        by Meggie on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 04:07:35 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Hmmm. I'm gonna call bullshit. (3+ / 0-)

          In my experience, gun owners don't refer to guns as "assault weapons," nor do they insist that the purpose of guns is to kill people, nor do they refer to gun owners as "nutjobs."

          Please, President Obama, remember the ladies and be more generous and favorable to them than your ancestors.

          by Kaili Joy Gray on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 04:08:54 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Could you define "assault weapon" please? (0+ / 0-)

          I don't intend this to be a snappy "no u" response. Really, I would like to know what most people mean when they say "assault weapon", because when I hear the term, I think of flamethrowers, hand grenades, rifle grenades and the like. All of which are already banned under separate legislation.

          Revenge is a dish best served with mayonnaise, and those little cheesy things on sticks. -- Osric the Loopy

          by Shaviv on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 08:11:52 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I'd consider it any weapon that can easily be (0+ / 0-)

            changed to full automatic, the better to mow down whole schoolyards of children quickly and easily - as is most often the case in this country.
            There is no possible reason for that type of weapon to be sold here.  For the very same reason that hand grenades and the like are already banned.
            They are only used to kill people - see the current situation on the Mex/US border.  Completely unnecessary.  In my opinion.  But, since I was once an NRA member and do still own guns and hunt, I am apparently the biggest threat on this thread to the likes of "angrymouse"

            DailyKos - taking a bag of political snakes and laying them out straight.

            by Meggie on Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 06:37:10 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  And you know (0+ / 0-)

              how to easily accomplish this, of course.
              Don't you DARE speak to me of "mowing down whole schoolyards of children."

              I am a native of Stockton, CA. Does that mean anything to the likes of you?

              There is no possible reason for that type of weapon to be sold here.  For the very same reason that hand grenades and the like are already banned.

              You haven't identified a type of weapon. Only a weapon that happens to be on a list of scary black guns that make Dianne fucking Feinstein wet her pants.

              Gun control is a losing issue. Write it on your hand so you don't forget it.

              The "likes of you" cost us the Congress in 1996, which began a long period of Republican misgovernance and hell which will take generations to undo.

              I'll be damned if I'll go through it again because some people don't understand the Bill of Rights.

              In the battle of meaningless political terms, my assault weapon beats your partial birth abortion. - Eddie Garcia aka kestrel9000

              by kestrel9000 on Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 06:45:52 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  "easily be changed to full automatic" (0+ / 0-)

              How "easily" does it have to be to be easy? Do you have a cost level in mind? Curious.

              Revenge is a dish best served with mayonnaise, and those little cheesy things on sticks. -- Osric the Loopy

              by Shaviv on Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 10:13:23 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

  •  you underestimate the collector culture (0+ / 0-)

    I think the vast majority of the high end weapons are owned as collector's items, and because they keep their value, so while they are expensive, they have a good resale value. A lot of history buffs out there, plus many veterans get into guns in the military and continue collecting them out of historical considerations and jsut for fun and to show off to their buddies. I knew a guy who had about 15 guns, he didn't use them for home protection, he needed to up his protection in fact because he owned this valuable gun collection.

    Law is a light which in different countries attracts to it different species of blind insects. Nietzsche

    by Marcion on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 03:59:50 PM PDT

    •  Oh yeah, I have no issue with that. (0+ / 0-)

      I know a few people who collect interesting firearms; I have not heard from any of them that they would defend themselves with lethal force.

      I mean, I took a couple of years of hand-to-hand self defense training, and one of the big rules was: if someone pulls a weapon on you, don't try to take it away, don't try to punch him in the face. You're better off handing over your wallet, or running like an idiot and sacrificing an iota of dignity, than risking a blade or a bullet.

      I've been told the same is true of arms training classes. You never, ever draw a weapon unless you're prepared to fire it; and never draw a weapon on someone who already has one on you.

      I've known a few other people who wanted to get firearms for self-defense, and I don't know if they would have exercised that common sense. I have this conceit that people who collect weapons are more likely to train in their actual care and use than people who merely buy one or two for security... is that fair, I wonder.

      Revenge is a dish best served with mayonnaise, and those little cheesy things on sticks. -- Osric the Loopy

      by Shaviv on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 08:09:38 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  asdf (0+ / 0-)

        I've been told the same is true of arms training classes. You never, ever draw a weapon unless you're prepared to fire it; and never draw a weapon on someone who already has one on you.

        +1 (coming from a firearms instructor who teaches the class)

        Abolish gun control, marriage, and helmet laws. -7.62, -3.44

        by KVoimakas on Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 01:55:46 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  This diary makes no sense... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    willie horton

    There's nothing here that adds up to a responsible gun policy discussion. People make bad choices all the time, it doesn't add up to legislation. You have to talk about gun ownership scenarios that affect society. This personal stuff just doesn't help much.

    ...we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals.
    -- Pres. Barack H. Obama, Jan. 20, 2009

    by davewill on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 04:01:12 PM PDT

    •  I wasn't proposing policy. (0+ / 0-)

      Just a PSA from the Democratic party - and rational pro-2nd Republicans, if there are any - saying, "Hey guys, guns are not actually that useful in terms of defense, in that they can make you more vulnerable rather than less."

      Revenge is a dish best served with mayonnaise, and those little cheesy things on sticks. -- Osric the Loopy

      by Shaviv on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 08:05:00 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  About 15 years back, our family attended a (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Shaviv

        meeting held by MI State Police, which was intended to talk about firearms in the home, make recommendations to those who felt the need to have one for protection, what someone shot would look like and the mess they'd make in your livingroom, and explain what would happen to you if you used one on an intruder - from the initial police contact to the courts, and they threw in some accidental shooting stories.  

        The officers did a great job.  The meeting wound up lasting several hours.  They recommended a SHOTGUN of you insisted on having something in your home for protection.  Their reasoning is that someone in that situation is nervous, and a shotgun blast will stand the best chance of hitting your target.  No pistols. No automatic weapons.  A simple shotgun.
        They went on, in explaining the laws, that you could not shoot someone who had turned and was running away, and that a dead person does not come back at you with some lawsuit for any injuries sustained while illegally in your home.  They said that someone who is "excited" and shooting often empties their gun and doesn't even realize it.  
        Excellent program. Don't remember if it had a specific name, and don't know if they still do it, but they should.  

        DailyKos - taking a bag of political snakes and laying them out straight.

        by Meggie on Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 07:20:51 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Maybe we should just go "strict Constructionist" (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Texas Revolutionary, Meggie

    on their ass and say that only flintlock weapons that existed when they wrote the 2nd Amendment will be permitted?

    Just outlaw the percussion cap weapons like we outlaw nukes for average Americans.

    I mean, nobody thinks Americans have the right to own a nuke.

    Or chemical weapons.

    Nukes are "arms." That's why we say dis-arm North Korea.

    •  I have this dreadful image (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Meggie

      of a period-dressed Glenn Beck firing a musket randomly in multiple directions, like Yosemite Sam in tights...

      Nothing requires a greater effort of thought than arguments to justify the rule of nonthought. -- Milan Kundera

      by Dale on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 04:45:47 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I don't know... (0+ / 0-)

      I'm not in favor of NK having nuclear weapons, but let's face it, they do have some. So a policy of deterrence would seem to be in order: you don't attack anyone, and we won't bomb your country into rubble. Other than that, live and let live.

      Revenge is a dish best served with mayonnaise, and those little cheesy things on sticks. -- Osric the Loopy

      by Shaviv on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 08:03:16 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  No freedom of speech on TV! (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Meggie

      That wasn't around then.

      None on the internet either.

      And freedom of religion shouldn't apply to any religions that came about after the Bill of Rights was written.

      Abolish gun control, marriage, and helmet laws. -7.62, -3.44

      by KVoimakas on Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 01:58:32 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Um (6+ / 0-)
    Let me just add that sporting-purpose weapons, designed for competitive shooting or hunting, are not that likely to be affected by well-written gun-control legislation, because who goes hunting or shooting in contests with assault rifles or explosive ammunition?

    Pretty much every hunter uses hollow-point bullets.

    SKS rifles are great for hunting deer, as are Saika's modified AKs.

    AR-15s are superior target shooting rifles, as are M-14s and M1 Garands.

    You are operating out of ignorance.

    "Do What Thou Wilt" isn't in the platform of either party; it's just The Law.
    Finding God in a Dog

    by maxomai on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 04:06:46 PM PDT

  •  Three is Enough... (4+ / 0-)

    I'm still trying to figure out why hunters or target/skeet shooters need rifles/shotguns that hold more than three rounds.

    I'm still trying to figure out why anyone would want a handgun for home defense when a shotgun makes so much more sense.  

    I'm tired of reading how someone has gone wacko and shot a whole bunch of people with weapons that hold dozens of rounds. I just can't come up with a rational for allowing common citizens to own anything that holds that can fire that many times without reloading.

    (And, no, collecting because you enjoy the hobby is not a valid reason in my book....)

    15 to 6. Pulled ahead as soon as the gate opened and never looked back....

    by BobTrips on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 04:09:12 PM PDT

    •  even if I accepted your 'logic' (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      dewley notid

      Every one of my firearms holds more than three rounds.
      You are proposing, then, that the government buys all of them from me, at a price I consider fair?
      You must be, because they can't simply take them, and allowing me to keep them or sell them privately defeats your brilliant idea.

      Start saving now. I want $2500 per gun, and that will go up before you get that law passed. There are 160 million privately owned firearms in this country.

      I'm not a Democrat, I'm a liberal. Democrats go to meetings.

      by willie horton on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 04:44:04 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Meggie

        (I'm not really that callow, but after my evening glass of wine it's what sprung to mind.)

        I think we need to revisit the concept of what is reasonable for individuals to own in terms of firepower.

        I'm not anti-gun, I own one and have owned one most of my life.  For me a gun is a tool that I can use to kill a rattlesnake that's too big for a shovel and once in a while I need to put down an animal rather than watch it suffer.

        But I can't get my head around the idea of private individuals owning guns that can shoot 10, 30, 50 times without reloading.  

        We wrote our existing gun laws in the days when rapid fire automatics with very large magazines weren't available (or at least common).  We decided that it was in our best interest to disallow the ownership of fully automatic weapons, etc.  

        We left people with pump and double barrel shotguns, bolt action and lever action rifles, six-shooters, etc.  Pretty mild stuff compared to what many own today.

        It's time to rethink, IMHO, private ownership of the types of weapons and ammunition that is being used in the mass killings that we are suffering.

        If we decide to restrict private ownership to less lethal weapons we can deal with how to remove the existing non-conforming weapons at that point.

        We can pay you or we can require you to "neuter" your guns back to a lower standard or we can pass laws that anyone who takes a such a weapon outside their house without a "special one day transport permit"/whatever spends a long time in prison (and the weapon gets melted down).  Or something else that we can think of after we've dealt with whether we want to share our space with "spray and pray" firearms.

        Can you convince me why a society should allow individuals to own weapons which were basically designed for warfare?

        15 to 6. Pulled ahead as soon as the gate opened and never looked back....

        by BobTrips on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 09:07:44 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Your history is wrong. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          kestrel9000

          The majority of gun laws were passed after the introduction of semi-automatic rifles and handguns:  the M1 became the US Army standard in 1936,  and the M1911 (forerunner of the majority of today's popular handguns,  and still very popular in its own right) wasn't named because the Army Ordnance geeks were Nostradamus fans who read his prophecy of the fall of the Twin Towers...

          So,  what level of "neutering" are you proposing?

          •  Not to mention the regulations passed in the 30s (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            kestrel9000

            about fully auto weapons (the Tommy guns, etc.) didn't mention those high capacity drum mags that were around back then...

            Abolish gun control, marriage, and helmet laws. -7.62, -3.44

            by KVoimakas on Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 02:14:53 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Whatever dude... (0+ / 0-)

              We got a problem right now.  

              Argue minutia if you must.  

              I'm more interested in looking for an answer and I can't see how staying in an arms race makes any sense.  

              15 to 6. Pulled ahead as soon as the gate opened and never looked back....

              by BobTrips on Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 08:51:41 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Education is the answer. n/t (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                kestrel9000

                Abolish gun control, marriage, and helmet laws. -7.62, -3.44

                by KVoimakas on Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 08:54:58 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I call bull shit! (0+ / 0-)

                  Great smoking, stinking piles of bull shit!!!

                  What kind of education keeps someone from flipping out and wasting the factory floor?  

                  Limit him to three rounds and a lot of people get a chance to flee or jump his ass.

                  What sort of education keeps a car full of thugs from cruising by the "enemy's block" and spraying dozens of rounds at random?

                  Limit these fools to a few rounds and there will be a lot less collateral damage.  Little kids will be less likely to be hit than during a spray and pray.

                  --

                  And I'm all for abolishing helmet laws.  

                  As long as the helmet-less rider carries adequate insurance to take care for them for the rest of their lives when they go veg....

                  15 to 6. Pulled ahead as soon as the gate opened and never looked back....

                  by BobTrips on Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 09:03:02 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

          •  Are you friggin' kiddin' me? (0+ / 0-)

            Show me some Army Ordnance geeks reference please.

            And check your history.  Semi-automatic rifles were not commonly in private hands back in then.  

            Certainly the type of firearms that our police have to go up against and the type of firearms that blast away in our schools, workplaces and malls weren't.

            Neutering?  If we decide that three is enough, then modify capacities to limit a three round load.

            If it can't be done with particular weapons, then melt them down.

            Tough gun love....

            15 to 6. Pulled ahead as soon as the gate opened and never looked back....

            by BobTrips on Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 08:49:37 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Fortunately for my rights (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              KVoimakas

              and responsibilities to maintain the means to defend my home and family as I deem appropriate, your "let's energize the right and cost Democrats elections" bullshit will go exactly nowhere.
              And if it does?
              As soon as the Republicans take back over, which they would, you can kiss all your anti-gun bullshit proposals goodbye.

              In the battle of meaningless political terms, my assault weapon beats your partial birth abortion. - Eddie Garcia aka kestrel9000

              by kestrel9000 on Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 09:16:49 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Hopefully thinking people... (0+ / 0-)

                Will weigh the cost of their owning "extreme" weapons against the greater good of the society and find a way in which they can "defend my home and family" while keeping very dangerous weapons out of the hands of dangerous people.

                15 to 6. Pulled ahead as soon as the gate opened and never looked back....

                by BobTrips on Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 09:54:01 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Hopefully you'll realize (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  KVoimakas

                  that the bad guys will get whatever they want no matter what you do.
                  And the greater good of society means my kids live to contribute to it.
                  Again, and I've said it before, I've moved back to Vermont partly because even the liberals here aren't hysterical hoplophobes.
                  You to yours, and me to mine.
                  Peace
                  through superior firepower

                  In the battle of meaningless political terms, my assault weapon beats your partial birth abortion. - Eddie Garcia aka kestrel9000

                  by kestrel9000 on Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 10:00:50 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Just please think... (0+ / 0-)

                    How many high school kids would be able to get the kind of stuff they play with now?

                    Sure, we couldn't prevent the most motivated from building an arsenal, but we could make it harder and likely prevent the "just snapped" guy from killing lots of us without having to reload.

                    Not having the discussion because you don't want to give up your weapon isn't a convincing argument....

                    15 to 6. Pulled ahead as soon as the gate opened and never looked back....

                    by BobTrips on Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 11:24:44 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

            •  No, I'm not. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              KVoimakas

              The M1911 was so named because it was introduced to Army use almost a hundred years ago,  and was very common at the time the feds decided to clamp down on "gangster weapons" in the 1930s (Bonnie and Clyde were packing seven of them when they were finally nailed).

              And,  during the time since WWII,  when most of today's gun laws were passed,  the federal government has been actively placing semi-automatic rifles in private hands.

              So your assertion that no gun law authors could have foreseen private citizens having semi-autos is stunningly wrong.

    •  You completely bypassed self defense. n/t (0+ / 0-)

      Abolish gun control, marriage, and helmet laws. -7.62, -3.44

      by KVoimakas on Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 02:17:36 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  my observation is, the poorer the country, (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Meggie

    the more expensive the police/army weaponry & the more on display it is.

    "Michele Bachmann is like the demi glace of wingnuttia." - Chris Hayes, Countdown, 2/18/09

    by rasbobbo on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 04:13:40 PM PDT

  •  Hmmmm (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    willie horton, dewley notid

    But if you want to defend yourself, be aware: it's an expensive gamble that may make you less safe.
    I respectfully disagree, If or when an intruder would enter your home, knowing people are home,
    should make you as "less safe" as I could ever imagine. The best thing going for you would be self defense, if they are that crazy to begin with, it's probably already expected. What really is the difference between an assult rifle and a sporting-purpose weapon? A very common bullet on the market is the .223, this bullet can be fired in competition, military, sporting, hunting, and yes assualt weapons  its just some guns look scarier than others. All leave the same hole.

    •  Home invasions are one of those... (0+ / 0-)

      scenarios with crooks where it all comes down to who has the initiative. A burglar probably isn't looking to kill anyone. Granted, you don't necessarily know why someone's breaking into your house.

      But, you know, like I said, it comes down to who gets the jump on whom.

      Revenge is a dish best served with mayonnaise, and those little cheesy things on sticks. -- Osric the Loopy

      by Shaviv on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 08:01:33 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  asdf (0+ / 0-)

        A burglar probably isn't looking to kill anyone. Granted, you don't necessarily know why someone's breaking into your house.

        The second sentence has the important part. I'm not putting myself at the mercy of some criminal.

        Also, guns are only PART of the home defense scenario. Motion detector lights, an alarm system, etc all help out. You also need a PLAN (just like if there's a fire.) You should have a way to contact the outside world (cell, phone in safe room, etc.)

        Abolish gun control, marriage, and helmet laws. -7.62, -3.44

        by KVoimakas on Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 02:20:00 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  I hate guns! and wish they were band, simply (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Meggie

    because of the idiots out there using guns in the wrong way. I agreed with what Obama said during bitter-gate, that some people are bitter,angy and they cling to GOD and GUN. It was true then, and it true now.  Alot of the mis-informed and uneducated on the right don't know alot about anything, but they know about their rights to bear arms. Looking at this tea party crap yesterday, there were alot of signs out there about guns rights, which don't have anything to do with TAXES.  I say tax guns and bullets at 90%.

  •  The Second Amendment, for better (7+ / 0-)

    or for worse, is in the Bill Of Rights. There is absolutely no personal safety argument. 50,000 people die every year in their automobiles, 100,000s from alcohol and tobacco abuse. Millions have their health compromised by the use of high fructose corn syrup.
    Owning guns is a right - maybe a dangerous one - bestowed on the citizenry. Like every freedom, there is a cost.

    The paternalistic government only uses personal safety to reduce the freedoms and rights of its citizenry. It is an excuse used in this country for any number of issues, including the incarceration of millions of its citizens in the quixotic "war on drugs," to maintain the multibillion $ law-enforcement/prison industry.

    On the other hand, the US government does not routinely provide the most obvious services to increase the health and welfare of all its citizens, such as free early child health care, early childhood education, childcare, etc.

    •  I'm not saying that the Federal gov't should (0+ / 0-)

      regulate firearms to promote personal safety (as I think they definitely should, to promote public safety), merely that the Democratic policitians' PR machines should promote this view.

      Revenge is a dish best served with mayonnaise, and those little cheesy things on sticks. -- Osric the Loopy

      by Shaviv on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 07:49:54 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I kept looking for your idea and... (7+ / 0-)

    ...never found it. The Obama administration has more important things to do than waste time trying to control guns which look dangerous to people who know nothing about weapons aka assault weapons. The Germans (no sissies) tried to ban only one horrific weapon from the trenches on the western front in WWI - the 12 gauge pump shotgun. Assault weapons have features like bayonet lugs, but bayoneting hasn’t been a huge problem in the Mexican drug wars. As for "explosive ammunition", its illegal.

  •  Stop calling them "guns" (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    john07801, Meggie

    Call them what they are - phallic compensators.

    One day posterity will remember, this strange era, these strange times, when ordinary common honesty was called courage. -- Yevgeny Yevtushenko

    by RandomActsOfReason on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 05:07:23 PM PDT

    •  Is it possible they're both? (0+ / 0-)

      In that sense, a firearm is like a fancy sports car - expensive, impractical, used to "enhance" one's sense of masculinity and power.

      (I own no firearms and drive a station wagon. Draw what conclusions you may.)

      Revenge is a dish best served with mayonnaise, and those little cheesy things on sticks. -- Osric the Loopy

      by Shaviv on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 07:26:17 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  So because I own a firearm (0+ / 0-)

      I have a small penis?

      Abolish gun control, marriage, and helmet laws. -7.62, -3.44

      by KVoimakas on Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 02:02:05 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Honest question (0+ / 0-)

    I really don't know, and since all of you seem to know everything there is to know about guns...

    Can I buy an AK-47?
    How about an AR-15?

    ...and by "buy", I mean legally?

    well, it seemed like the right thing to do at the time...

    by Thinking Fella on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 05:33:28 PM PDT

  •  The End of the World (0+ / 0-)

    It's related to defense, but preparing for The End Of The World As We Know It is another reason for the survivalists. Don't let real life get in the way of your Rambo or Zombie Apocalypse fantasies.

    I think the War Nerd summed it up best.

    1. Good luck without clean water.

    Whoever controls water supply will control So Cal, if it ever collapsed. And that won’t be a lone gunman in a tract house in Santa Ana. Those people will die like flies, waiting for an attack they’ve been dreaming of their whole lives while their kids die of waterborne diseases from drinking what’s left at the bottom of the pool.

    1. Even if the the attack comes and you get your chance to go down in a blaze of glory

    -You have to sleep sometime
    -Maybe that angry mob outside will just burn down your house instead of rushing it

    http://exiledonline.com/...

    •  Current weaponry available to the US military (0+ / 0-)

      makes the second amendment argument about protecting themselves from the federal government moot - unless they're saying they want to be able to own a tank or grenade launchers or stuff like that.  Missle armed drones?  
      Anyway, all good points dwcal.

      DailyKos - taking a bag of political snakes and laying them out straight.

      by Meggie on Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 07:30:45 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Pacifist liking guns (0+ / 0-)

    OK, I'm a pacifist.  I don't kill bugs in my own house.  I would be your worst army recruit because I would be the most passive resisting uncooperative soldier in the platoon.  I'd be a sniper who intentionally missed his targets.

    But I like guns.  I have four guns; the requisite shotgun, 30-06 deer rifle, .22 lever action, and .357 magnum revolver.  Don't shoot much, but I'm a good shot at targets.

    I also have a concealed weapons permit in NC, and can walk around with heat and no one knows it. But I never do. It's completely pointless.  But I encourage everyone to go through the training, and you'll see how pointless it is to carry.

    I'm in favor of making it damn near impossible to buy a gun unless you want to go through months of checks.  Then get your gun and play with it.  

    I'm in favor of fining and imprisoning people for unlawfully owning a gun, more harshly than for unlawfully owning a marijuana joint.

    Regarding assault weapons, fine, no big deal, just don't make them fully automatic.  A gun of any shape - classic, wood stock or metal and plastic military zombie blaster - they all kill about the same and work the same: firing pin hits a primer, ignites some powder, and a bullet squirts out the front.  It's a personal preference.

    Home protection? The only sensible thing to do is move somewhere safe.  If you can't do that, get training and a .44 magnum full of bird shot locked up in your closet, with a key around your neck, to be used only by you as a last resort.  Try not to shoot your wife or kids when they come home late.

    so my point?  not much of a point, really, except chill out and regulate the hell out of these damn things so only responsible people can touch them.

    •  When did you get your .357? (0+ / 0-)

      We got our only handgun when we were young and now it sits unused - not even target practice, which was the point at the time.

      DailyKos - taking a bag of political snakes and laying them out straight.

      by Meggie on Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 07:33:23 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Just briefly (0+ / 0-)

    Your fourth tag describes you, and your diary.
    i go now.

    In the battle of meaningless political terms, my assault weapon beats your partial birth abortion. - Eddie Garcia aka kestrel9000

    by kestrel9000 on Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 02:25:01 AM PDT

  •  Baloney (0+ / 0-)

    Let me just add that sporting-purpose weapons, designed for competitive shooting or hunting, are not that likely to be affected by well-written gun-control legislation, because who goes hunting or shooting in contests with assault rifles or explosive ammunition?

    Many people do compete with "assault weapons" (assault rifles and incendiary ammunition are already heavily restricted):

    http://www.actshooters.com/
    http://www.odcmp.com/
    http://www.3gunmatch.com/

    And there are many more.

    "We cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong." - Abraham Lincoln

    by AztecRed on Sat Apr 18, 2009 at 07:36:13 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site