Skip to main content

A slight majority (51 percent) of respondents to a survey conducted Jan. 10-11 by Vision Critical & Angus Reid believe the Tucson shooting last Saturday was an isolated incident resulting from an individual's action. About a third (31 percent) said the shooting was the consequence of a negative tone in U.S. politics. And 37 percent said they expect there will soon be more such incidents. In addition, 73 percent of respondents said that citizens should be allowed to carry a concealed firearm, although only 9 percent said they should be able to do so without obtaining a permit. In Arizona, as well as Alaska and Vermont, no such permit is required.

The poll surveyed 1008 American adults and had a 3.1 percent margin of error.

Some 56 percent of respondents said they were satisfied with the way President Barack Obama handled the aftermath of the shooting and 50 percent voiced satisfaction with the way the media handled their coverage.

The surveyors asked several questions about attitudes toward firearms, including:

"If it were up to you, would you prefer to have stricter firearm laws, looser firearm laws, or would you
keep existing regulations the way they are?"

Stricter:
   All - 50 percent;
   Democrats - 65 percent
   Republicans - 30 percent
   Independents - 51 percent

Looser:
   All - 13 percent;
   Democrats - 6 percent
   Republicans - 19 percent
   Independents - 15 percent

 Keep existing:
   All - 27 percent;
   Democrats - 18 percent
   Republicans - 44 percent
   Independents - 31 percent

Not sure:
   All - 10 percent;
   Democrats - 10 percent
   Republicans - 7 percent
   Independents - 4 percent

"Below is a list of weapons. For each one, please say whether this type of weapon should be
available to every American who is eligible to own firearms, or only to the police and other authorized
persons."

Every American who is eligible to own firearms should have access to these weapons:
    Handguns - 70 percent
    Rifles/Shotguns - 73 percent
    Semi-automatic firearms - 26 percent

Only the police and other authorized persons should have access to these weapons:
   Handguns - 21 percent
   Rifles/Shotguns - 18 percent
   Semi-automatic firerms - 63 percent

Unsure:
   Handguns - 9 percent
   Rifles/Shotguns - 8 percent
   Semi-automatic firerms - 10 percent

"Across the U.S, states have different regulations related to how individuals can carry a concealed
weapon in public. Thinking about your own state, which one of these options would you prefer to
implement?"

Citizens should not be allowed to carry a concealed weapon at all:
    All - 24 percent
    Democrats - 32 percent
    Republicans - 15 percent
    Independents - 25 percent

Citizens should be granted a permit to carry a concealed weapon if local authorities agree to it:
    All - 16 percent
    Democrats - 17 percent
    Republicans - 19 percent
    Independents -  16 percent

Citizens should be granted a permit to carry a concealed weapon if they meet specific criteria laid out in the law:
    All - 47 percent
    Democrats - 45 percent
    Republicans - 54 percent
    Independents -  44 percent

Citizens should be allowed to carry a  concealed weapon without any permit.:
    All - 9 percent
    Democrats - 4 percent
    Republicans - 11 percent
    Independents -  11 percent

Not sure:
    All - 4 percent
    Democrats - 2 percent
    Republicans - 2 percent
    Independents - 4 percent

Vision Critical did not report whether it found differences between men and women or by race or age.

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 06:46 AM PST.

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

  •  80% of adults also believed in Santa while kids (11+ / 0-)

    does it mean that Santa is real?

    Republicans secret dream = the impeachment of Bo the Dog LOL

    by LaurenMonica on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 06:47:31 AM PST

  •  Wow. Looks like Americans still love their guns. (8+ / 0-)

    Not surprising.

    (RKBA) Right to Keep and Bear Arms: interested in a DKos RKBA group? Email in profile. Share Our Wealth

    by KVoimakas on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 06:50:07 AM PST

    •  That poll tells me the opposite (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      fivefouranonymous, esquimaux, dfe

      Only 9 percent believe a concealed weapon without a permit is ok.

      50% want stricter laws.

      •  So? (6+ / 0-)

        Only 24% said there shouldn't be any way to carry a concealed weapon.

        And this is the important one:

        Every American who is eligible to own firearms should have access to these weapons:
           Handguns - 70 percent
           Rifles/Shotguns - 73 percent
           Semi-automatic firearms - 26 percent

        Since most handguns are semi-auto, I would make the assumption that people don't understand that part of the question.

        (RKBA) Right to Keep and Bear Arms: interested in a DKos RKBA group? Email in profile. Share Our Wealth

        by KVoimakas on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 07:40:40 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Semi-Automatic (6+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          cdreid, Joe Bob, Stoy, cappy, rockhound, KVoimakas

          Yeah, a lot of news reporters apparently don't, either.  I've watched numerous anchorpersons and reporters fail to grasp what a semi-automatic is and are astounded that most handguns are semi-automatic.  I guess that the respondents to the poll just want everyone to have revolvers or flintlocks.

        •  So??? (0+ / 0-)

          The facts speak for themselves and are not at all consistent with your initial conclusion. 86% believe you should never be allowed to conceal a weapon, or that you should if authorities agree, or that a permit should be required. Right now, Arizona law reflects the will of 9% and ignores the vast majority.

          Since most handguns are semi-auto, I would make the assumption that people don't understand that part of the question.

          Now is the time for serious discussion, not semantical games. Yes, there's some abiguity as to what a "semi-automatic" weapon means. If the poll had been more specific and said "a Glock with a 31 round magazine", you would have likely been even more disappointed in the results.

          The point is, while you are one of the more moderate RKBA'ers, many in your group strongly disagree with any controls whatsoever.

          •  You're talking to me, not them. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            cdreid

            And how can you group NO carry whatsoever with carry of some sort?

            (RKBA) Right to Keep and Bear Arms: interested in a DKos RKBA group? Email in profile. Share Our Wealth

            by KVoimakas on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 07:51:53 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Because the baseline (0+ / 0-)

              is the Arizona law. That poll tells me that the vast majority want more control than what Arizona currently has - which is unfettered CCA.

              •  Fine. (4+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                cdreid, Stoy, rockhound, Crookshanks

                I'm grouping the should be able to carry statistics together because we hear so often how handguns should be banned or concealed carry shouldn't be allowed.

                Looks like the majority of America disagrees.

                (RKBA) Right to Keep and Bear Arms: interested in a DKos RKBA group? Email in profile. Share Our Wealth

                by KVoimakas on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 07:59:24 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  People should be allowed to own guns (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Meteor Blades

                  with strict controls. From reading many of your diaries and comments, I know you agree with that. But, you are a minority in that view amongst your RKBA kin, and I know that because I read them too.

                  •  As usual (0+ / 0-)

                    you create strawment and tell supporters of the constitution what we believe.

                    I dont think concealed carry is a good idea. Only a coward feels the need to secretly carry a gun. If you really do need to carry put it in a belt holster. Theres nothing the cops can do about that, it is constitutionally protected.

                    Concealed carry was a big "fuck you" to the gun control nuts. Thats all. And btw.. it hasnt resulted in the mass carnage the gun control extremists claimed, possibly due to their dismay.

                    Voters will choose a person who fights a losing battle for his principles over one who fights winning battles against them every time.

                    by cdreid on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 02:26:32 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                •  It's a moveable feast (0+ / 0-)

                  and the majority aren't always right.

                  Kinda depends what they were asked.

                  We do not forgive our candidates their humanity, therefore we compel them to appear inhuman

                  by twigg on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 08:09:06 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

        •  I agree (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          cdreid, KVoimakas

          I am a stauch advocate of increaing the licensing and education requirements and access to firearms in general, both on a Fed and State level, but I have been highly annoyed when the media mis-represents gun violence speaking in terms of "a semi-automatic weapon was used".

          As already noted, unless you are talking about flintlock black powder weapons or bolt action rifles, almost every rifle and pistol is "semi-automatic".

          In order to get rid of "semi-automatic" gun violence we would have to pretty much remove the 2nd Amendment and most likely the 4th so that the police and ATF could go house to house searching for the millions of guns that are probably unlicensed in this country.

          •  The single biggest problem (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            KVoimakas

            with the debate, and the reason the gun controllers had their asses kicked, and probably permanently is lies, lack of information, spinning etc. Hell people still think the AWB outlawed machine guns... its nuts.
            You have HCI etc making money off spinning lies one way. You have gun dealers making a FORTUNE off spinning lies the other way.

            Voters will choose a person who fights a losing battle for his principles over one who fights winning battles against them every time.

            by cdreid on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 02:28:48 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Your statistics are a bit off (0+ / 0-)

            As already noted, unless you are talking about flintlock black powder weapons or bolt action rifles, almost every rifle and pistol is "semi-automatic".

            This isn't true.  Revolvers are still very popular.  It would be correct to say that most handguns are semi-automatic, but certainly not "almost every".

            Once we get to rifles, it's less than that.  Bolt-action rifles are very popular, especially amongst the hunting and target shooting crowd.  Lever-actions are popular as well amongst the collectors and hunters.  And yes, there are still single-shot breech-loaders around (in addition to various blackpowder muzzle-loaders).  I wouldn't want to make a guess, but I would say it's possible that less than half of all rifles in America are semi-automatic.

            Anyway, I am a Second Amendment supporter; it just doesn't help if the arguments you're using to support gun ownership can be trivially shown to be false.

      •  What needs to happen is a dialogue (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        a gilas girl, gardnerjf

        on why guns won't protect you very much.

        They don't stop you from getting shot. That's what Kevlar is for.

        They DO allow you to shoot back at people, which doesn't necessarily make you any safer.

        I think they are like security blankets.

        A couple of times I could have used a handgun in traffic scenes, but I was just uncomfortable and was able to speed away from the shit.

        Other than that I haven't really needed one.

        My martial arts make me feel about as safe and the ability to shot at people.

        But I'm a freak.

        America legalized torture before they legalized marijuana.
        Take your stinking paws off me, you damned dirty ape!

        by xxdr zombiexx on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 07:41:45 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Except for those 1.5 million times (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          cdreid, Stoy, rockhound, Jaime Frontero

          a year they actually do protect someone. (Per a DoJ sponsored study from the 90s. Not Kleck.)

          (RKBA) Right to Keep and Bear Arms: interested in a DKos RKBA group? Email in profile. Share Our Wealth

          by KVoimakas on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 07:44:56 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  was your life in danger in those "scenes"? (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          cdreid, Stoy, Jaime Frontero, KVoimakas

          Because if it wasn't you could not have used a gun.

          There are four boxes to be used in the defense of liberty: soap box, ballot box, jury box and ammo box. Use in that order.

          by Crookshanks on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 07:47:56 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  How many people in Tucson (4+ / 0-)

          at the scene had guns? At least a few? How much of a difference did it make in preventing or stopping what happened? Zero.

          What made the difference? The ability of two men and a woman to muster the courage to disarm and restrain the offender with their bare hands a large dose of courage.

          We often hear the argument that every person should be required to have a weapon. That if a criminal knew their victims had weapons, they're would be far less crime. I suspect it made zero difference to Loughlin.

          •  I live at the end of 3 dead end road, last house. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            cdreid

            it's dark here in the night. One way in and out.

            My house is 30 yards off the road. Anybody that comes into the house MUST cross deep into my property.

            MOST people around here (this is Georgia) understand that it is unhealthy to mess around, at least in the dark, because you can be shot legally.

            So yes, gun ownership has merits, I never said it didn't. (I don't have a gun, but I have NO TRESPASSING signs which are the legal warning and sufficient to ward off MOST transgressors.)

            But there is this flavor in the speech of most gun defenders that they are somehow a magic shield that will defend against all manner of assaults and problems.

            I will be getting shotguns this year to deal with what I think is a coming crime wave as the economy languishes in the toilet for us commoners. I expect more desperate people and I will protect my home.

            But I don't think its magical.

            America legalized torture before they legalized marijuana.
            Take your stinking paws off me, you damned dirty ape!

            by xxdr zombiexx on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 09:18:54 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  Agree Poll Contradicts Common Wisdom (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        cdreid

        It sounds like Americans overwelming want to tightly control who can carry a concealed weapon. They also want to  eliminate access to weapons that can discharge a large amount of bullets in a short amount of time without reloading.

        The question about semi-automatic weapons was a poor because most people don't know what that means and the ones that do know that is not the important distinction. My guess is that most Americans think it is OK for to have hunting rifles and for self-defense traditional pistols that hold 6 bullets and can't attach to an external magazine. I am willing to bet that if you ask how many bullets you should be able to fire without reloading very few would come with a number higher then 12.

        •  By traditional pistol ... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          rockhound

          that holds six bullets without "an external magazine" I assume you mean a revolver?  Because that is what you seem to be describing.  Though perhaps you mean detachable magazine instead of external magazine.

          Also, your assumption that if most people were asked what capacity magazine is reasonable they would say 12 seems rather arbitrary, especially considering that the AWB limited capacity to 10 rd magazines.  So are saying that these hypothetical people you are asking would say that 10 rounds is an unreasonable restriction on magazine capacity?

          •  Not A Gun Expert (0+ / 0-)

            As someone who dislikes guns and doesn't know a whole lot about them, I am concerned about how many bullets a gun can fire within a given timeframe and I think that is probably the real thing to be regulating. A weapon that forces a person to think about each shot they are taking because they have to do something before they can pull the trigger is much safer then a weapon that can rain out dozens of bullets in seconds.

  •  with so many different laws in different (11+ / 0-)

    states and municipalities I'd have a hard time answering the strickter/looser question.

    I'd also wish people had to correctly identify semi auto in order to answer. I often hear people who think that means a machine gun where it could well mean a 22 plinker.

    "Don't fall or we both go." Derek Hersey 1957-1993

    by ban nock on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 06:50:45 AM PST

    •  Thanks to disinformation campaigns (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      cdreid, esquimaux, gardnerjf

      people doubtless think there's more of a legal impediment than there is.   Most Americans would think owning a gun has a higher bar in sanity than, say, attending community college.

      Nobody ever bombed a pro-life office.

      by Inland on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 06:56:42 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I'd really like to hear one serious suggestion (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        cdreid, Stoy

        from you on how this individual's "insanity" could have detected beforehand.  All you've done thus far is snipe from the sidelines and it's counterproductive.

        So let's hear it, one serious suggestion on how this individual could have been prevented from owning a gun.  Keep in mind that he was never diagnosed as or adjudicated a mental defective.  He slipped through the cracks of our piss poor mental health care system.

        Unless you propose fixing that system (my preference) or moving to a guilty until proven innocent theory with regards to firearms purchases (good luck with that) I'm not seeing what could have been done here.

        There are four boxes to be used in the defense of liberty: soap box, ballot box, jury box and ammo box. Use in that order.

        by Crookshanks on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 07:36:02 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Community college figured it out. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          fcvaguy

          It's not hard.

          So let's hear it, one serious suggestion on how this individual could have been prevented from owning a gun.

          It's only not "serious" if you accept the premise that gun ownership is sacred and taking a gun away is a much higher bar than going to community college.

          Nobody ever bombed a pro-life office.

          by Inland on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 07:47:11 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  it is a much higher bar when the state tries to (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            cdreid, Stoy, KVoimakas

            take away a right.  It requires due process of law, whereas a private institution can kick you out for almost any reason other than "You are black/gay/etc".

            I'm sorry if you can't wrap your head around this concept, but we don't let the state take away rights without due process in this country.  That's not even part of the 2nd amendment, try reading the 5th sometime.

            You've again failed to offer any serious suggestion besides your sniping and stereotyping.  Good day to you.

            There are four boxes to be used in the defense of liberty: soap box, ballot box, jury box and ammo box. Use in that order.

            by Crookshanks on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 07:53:12 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  That's what they say. It's false but convenient. (0+ / 0-)

              Having talked yourself into this box that it's a right that's impossible to remove without the process of a trial first, you find that I don't have any "serious" solution.  

              That someone can have a gun removed without a jury trial and a finding of insanity is ruled out from the beginning with the mere recitation that there's a "right".  

              I reject your premise.  Your definitional trick of ruling out every sensible action and then saying that nobody has a sensible action is transparent.  Your faux declarations of great principle notwithstanding, you don't want a solution.  You want to preempt one.

              It was only a few years ago that various rights and state sovreignties and REGRETFUL public opinion were the reason why it was impossible to have a law against discrimination that makes the free institution accept gays and blacks.  We managed, without the people who were vested in finding reasons why it couldn't be done.

              Nobody ever bombed a pro-life office.

              by Inland on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 08:33:22 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  see, now you are making up shit that I never said (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                cdreid, Joe Bob, Stoy

                ... all I said was the state can't take away your rights without due process of law.

                If someone is committed to a mental institution against their will (an automatic disqualification from legal firearms ownership) they presumably received that due process when they were committed.

                As I've maintained all along the solution to this problem is to fix our mental hygiene laws to make it easier to see that individuals like Mr. Loughner get the help that they need.  He should have been compelled to submit to a mental evaluation.  If he refused any treatment that was recommended as a result of that evaluation he could have then been committed (if warranted) and would have automatically lost his firearm ownership rights.

                Please explain to me why that is not sufficient?

                There are four boxes to be used in the defense of liberty: soap box, ballot box, jury box and ammo box. Use in that order.

                by Crookshanks on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 09:07:03 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Heh. (0+ / 0-)

                  Sure, as soon as someone fixes those laws committing people for being insane, you'll let us suggest how to ban guns.  As long as it's limited to "don't let those adjudictated insane have them".

                  You're not looking for solutions, you're pre-empting them.

                  Any other hoops we have to jump through?  Because nothing is so much fun as having someone sneer at me for having no sensible solution while preempting any sensible solution I might propose for no good reason.

                  Nobody ever bombed a pro-life office.

                  by Inland on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 09:59:52 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  see, this is why I called you out as a troll.... (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    cdreid, Stoy

                    ... I offer real suggestions on how to solve these problems and you turn it back around on me.  I've offered solutions, you just don't want to hear them because they don't rise to your preferred level of prohibition.

                    I think we are done here.  Have fun tilting at windmills in your quest for prohibition.

                    There are four boxes to be used in the defense of liberty: soap box, ballot box, jury box and ammo box. Use in that order.

                    by Crookshanks on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 10:10:19 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Yep, you're all about preventing the solutions. (0+ / 0-)

                      If you can't shut people up by putting up all these preconditions on what solutions are allowable for no reason at all, you call them trolls and run away.

                      Nobody ever bombed a pro-life office.

                      by Inland on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 10:56:08 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  the only precondition I've imposed is the one (3+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        cdreid, Stoy, rockhound

                        required by the 5th amendment to the United States Constitution.  Due process of law before you deprive someone of their life, liberty or property.  If you don't like that precondition I suggest you start trying to convince 38 state legislatures to repeal the 5th amendment.

                        There are four boxes to be used in the defense of liberty: soap box, ballot box, jury box and ammo box. Use in that order.

                        by Crookshanks on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 11:04:09 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                  •  But you haven't proposed any (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    cdreid, Crookshanks

                    solutions whatsoever.  All you have said, or rather implied, is that owning a firearm should not be a right.

                    Only thing, it is a right.  And rights cannot be taken away without due process of law.

                    Whether you like that reality or not has no bearing.  Of course we don't take you seriously because nothing you say is based in reality nor do you actually propose anything, serious or otherwise.  Even if you said that everyone who wants to buy a gun should be required to meet with a psychologist five times and have a polygraph, while completely outrageous, would still be a proposal.  

                    Why don't you come right out and say all guns, period, should be banned?  I think that is really what you believe.

                    At this point, you deserve any sneering at you receive.

                    •  Because it's a bad faith question. (0+ / 0-)

                      There's no solutions allowed short of a full trial on sanity.  IOW, the only solution that's allowed is no solution.

                      I could propose tons of solutions, all of which are pre-rejected by people who's sole purpose is to pre empt anyone doing anything because it's a right that prevents anyone from doing anything.

                      Nobody ever bombed a pro-life office.

                      by Inland on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 10:58:00 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  you are the one acting in bad faith... (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        cdreid, Stoy

                        ... because once again you've chosen to put words in my mouth.

                        There's no solutions allowed short of a full trial on sanity.

                        I really wish your friend fcvaguy was still around to see just how far you've fallen.  Wonder if he still thinks I'm an "abusive name caller"?

                        BTW, how many times are you going to say that you could "propose tons of solutions" without actually offering any?

                        There are four boxes to be used in the defense of liberty: soap box, ballot box, jury box and ammo box. Use in that order.

                        by Crookshanks on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 11:10:54 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Are you someone important? (0+ / 0-)

                          Because you sure act like someone who gets to make the rules.  Not only do you get to decide which solutions are going to be offered, and which are prerejected, but you get to insist that I waste my time offering solutions to you just so you get reject them again.  And you get to be a prick when I refuse to acknowledge that you're the boss of me.

                          Since we both know your chosen role is to prevent solutions and to preempt them, unless you're someone really important, I'm not going to pretend that you're anything better than a waste of time trying to get in the way of saving lives.  

                          Nobody ever bombed a pro-life office.

                          by Inland on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 12:00:49 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  amazing how many different excuses you can come (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            cdreid, Stoy

                            up with for refusing to offer any suggestions.

                            You are a troll in the truest sense of the word.

                            There are four boxes to be used in the defense of liberty: soap box, ballot box, jury box and ammo box. Use in that order.

                            by Crookshanks on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 12:04:16 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I'll take that as an "in my own mind". (0+ / 0-)

                            Since your purpose is to preempt any solutions, why not just pat yourself on mission accomplished, you've derailed any substantive discussion and were a real dick while you did it, the very definition of troll.  You don't need me to pretend you're doing something else, do you?  Because I'm not going to.

                            Nobody ever bombed a pro-life office.

                            by Inland on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 12:35:57 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  yawn (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Ana Thema

                            There are four boxes to be used in the defense of liberty: soap box, ballot box, jury box and ammo box. Use in that order.

                            by Crookshanks on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 08:58:02 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Wow. (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            cdreid, Crookshanks

                            Do you even read what you write?

                            All you do is claim to know what Crookshanks is going to say to what you aren't going to say because of what you imagine he is going to say.

                            You've got nothing!

                            You are a total troll!  LOL!

                •  a different approach (0+ / 0-)

                  The shortcoming of the gun ownership restrictions we have now is that your mental illness has to be severe in order to lose your rights. I think most people would agree that there are a lot of individuals out there who don’t merit involuntary commitment, aren’t an imminent danger to themselves or others, but shouldn’t own a gun either.

                  That said, I wouldn’t be so quick to suggest that Loughner should have been compelled to submit to mental health evaluation. Bringing the legal system to bear and compulsory medical treatments are serious infringements on personal liberty.

                  Instead, I would advocate for laws where people aren’t subjected to the legal or medical systems until they try and buy a gun. Have some sort of licensing or qualification process for buying one. Everyone would have the right to try to qualify, but you still have to meet a standard, just like with a driver’s license. In this scenario, an obviously unbalanced person would come to the attention of a licensing authority and be denied the right to own a gun.

                  Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. - Groucho Marx

                  by Joe Bob on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 11:07:16 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  New York State has such a licensing system and (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Stoy

                    Mr. Jiverly Wong still managed to procure a pistol license.  NYS is so strict that I've heard of people being denied a pistol license because they were proscribed anti-depressants after a traumatic event.  In spite of that Mr. Wong still managed to procure a license.  This shows the folly of licensing, IMHO anyway.

                    I'm not comfortable with the notion of compensatory treatment either.  I would be comfortable with the notion of someone losing their gun rights if they declined treatment though.

                    There are four boxes to be used in the defense of liberty: soap box, ballot box, jury box and ammo box. Use in that order.

                    by Crookshanks on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 12:02:26 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

        •  I'd like you to be able to debate this issue (0+ / 0-)

          without resorting to personal attacks as you did to Inland just yesterday, completely unprovoked, while your fellow RKBA'ers gave you a complete pass for your behavior.

          We should all be able to discuss this without that kind of behavior.

          http://www.dailykos.com/...

          •  sorry, Inland was being a troll in that diary (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Stoy

            and I call them as I see them.

            He's starting to do the same here, refusing to offer any serious suggestions and instead sniping and stereotyping.  I ask him for a serious suggestion and he replies with some nonsense about gun ownership being "sacred".  He's clearly not interested in having a dialog, he's only interested in stereotyping gun owners and RKBA supporters.

            If you want to have such a dialog I'd be game but if your only purpose is to complain about me calling him out for what he is I'm not going to waste any further time responding to you.

            There are four boxes to be used in the defense of liberty: soap box, ballot box, jury box and ammo box. Use in that order.

            by Crookshanks on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 07:58:51 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  And you're wrong (0+ / 0-)

              You must have a wildly loose definition of troll. He is far from it. Maybe you need a FAQ refresher.

              I have no interest in a meaningful dialogue with you until you agree to cease and desist on the abusive namecalling. And, yesterday you clearly stated you will continue to do so at will.

        •  You are asking for a solution (7+ / 0-)

          that is similar to Airport Security.

          Most folk accept that if a terrorist gets as far as the airport, we lose. The scanners are the very last line of a comprehensive defence.

          Expecting a law about mental illness to keep guns from the mentally ill, without the required infrastructure to spot and effectively treat mental illness, is similar to hoping that the airport scanner is the only security we need.

          We do not forgive our candidates their humanity, therefore we compel them to appear inhuman

          by twigg on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 08:01:36 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  I pointed this fact out yesterday. Even some (13+ / 0-)

      people who are vaguely familiar with firearms are awestruck by TV anchors' hushed use of the words 'semi-automatic':  my own mother who watched my late father shoot for a lifetime, a man who had a number of semi-automatics (both handguns and rifles), asked me the day after the AZ shooting, 'What is a semi-automatic?'

      I told her it was a magazine-fed, self-loading gun that shot one shot each time each time the trigger was pulled  --  an action design that has been around since the late 1800's. "It's like dad's .22 rifle that you've shot many times," I told her.

      "Oh," she said, "I understand now. I thought it was some new kind of gun with the ability to do something guns have never been able to do."

      •  Its a weapon (0+ / 0-)

        That allows you to shoot as many bottles as possible in the shortest amount of time, or people.

        •  Dude (0+ / 0-)

          You are a coward.

          Just come out and say what you mean instead of these lame ass elliptical comments you keep making at the edges of other people's posts.

          We get it, you don't like people possessing the means to kill other people.

          And I'd like to win the Power Ball even though I don't play.

          People kill people, that is the way it is.  I will grant you, guns make the job easier. But its pretty safe to say, if all guns completely disappeared off of the planet and all gun makers were forced to shut down, people would continue to kill other people.  Before guns, there were edged weapons and clubs and sling shots and bows and arrows.  Before those things there were rocks and fists and feet.

          Even if all guns were taken away, people would reinvent them and build them in their basements and garages.  Criminals would still use them, just like people continued to make alcohol during Prohibition and just like people still grow or make illegal drugs.

          There will always be poor people and crazy people and addicts and murderers and the only way to stop the human condition is to end humans.

          Grow up and accept reality.  Once you accept reality then you can work to change it.

          Otherwise, you will just continue to be a whiner with no ideas and no suggestions and no courage to state what you really feel.

  •  How about crazy people? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Churchill, esquimaux, ontheleftcoast

    should they be allowed to have guns? why don't they ask that in the surveys?

    "I've taken up sculpting recently. Landscapes mostly." ~ Yogi Bear

    by eXtina on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 06:52:18 AM PST

    •  Unfortunately (6+ / 0-)

      Republicans are allowed to have guns.

      I have a purpose in life, I am my cat's doorman.

      by ontheleftcoast on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 06:53:41 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I don't think that's really helpful (6+ / 0-)

        Especially given the reality of mental illness which may have played into this incident.

        •  Oh lighten up (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          fivefouranonymous

          Just what do you think qualifies as "crazy"? Do you think people would have a reasonable definition of that when polled?

          I have a purpose in life, I am my cat's doorman.

          by ontheleftcoast on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 06:57:18 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Mentally insane (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Adam B, Stoy, Crookshanks

            shizophrenic
            bipolar
            paranoid

            etc.

            not, republican

            it's not a joke

            "I've taken up sculpting recently. Landscapes mostly." ~ Yogi Bear

            by eXtina on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 06:58:27 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Great (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              duckhunter, Matt Z

              So I'm bipolar and you want to strip my rights away. Apparently you're a bigot when it comes to people who aren't "normal" by some arbitrary standard.

              I have a purpose in life, I am my cat's doorman.

              by ontheleftcoast on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 07:02:56 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Besides Republicans are stupid, not crazy. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                eXtina
              •  here's a survey of the laws (5+ / 0-)

                FWIW:

                According to the report, individuals who are restricted from gun ownership include those who currently receive outpatient psychiatric treatment, those who have been civilly committed to treatment, and those who have been declared not guilty by reason of insanity. Some are prohibited because they have a history of alcohol or substance abuse.

                The laws vary in their range of restrictiveness. In Pennsylvania, for example, prohibitions extend to those who have been “adjucated as an incompetent,” been committed to receive psychiatric care on an inpatient unit, or been convicted of driving under the influence of alcohol or a controlled substance on three or more occasions within a five-year period.

                Texas law prohibits the ownership and carrying of guns by those with certain psychiatric diagnoses, including schizophrenia, delusional disorder, bipolar disorder, chronic dementia, dissociative identity disorder, intermittent explosive disorder, and antisocial personality disorder. In addition, gun restrictions are in place for five years following an involuntary psychiatric hospitalization, inpatient or residential treatment for substance abuse, diagnosis of alcohol or drug dependence, or diagnosis of mental illness by a licensed physician.

                Patients in certain states who wish to apply for permission to purchase, possess, or transfer a handgun must present with their application a written affidavit from their psychiatrist or physician. In Massachusetts, for instance, this affidavit must state that the physician is aware of the patient's mental illness and the patient is not disabled by the illness“ in a manner that should prevent the applicant from possessing a firearm, rifle, or shotgun....” The statute goes on to specify that if the applicant has been treated for drug or alcohol addiction, he or she must have been “cured” of the addiction by a licensed physician to own a firearm.

              •  Yes! (0+ / 0-)

                Because you are in a group of people who, on average, pose a very high risk of suicide at certain times.

                I would hate to be the one making that easy.

                On the wider point ... You just highlighted just how difficult it is to "categorise" this area.

                I would take that particular Right away from everyone, without discriminating against you ...

                But I am in the minority :)

                We do not forgive our candidates their humanity, therefore we compel them to appear inhuman

                by twigg on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 07:23:46 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

          •  I think ... (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Stoy, twigg, eXtina

            ... that especially given the President's remarks last night, we should regard Republicans as our frequent opponents and as being "wrong" when they are, but not "crazy."

            •  And you avoided my question (0+ / 0-)

              What qualifies as "crazy"? There is no meaningful definition. It's "in the eye of the beholder". Or are you a fan of "I know it when I see it" rulings on free-speech as well.

              I have a purpose in life, I am my cat's doorman.

              by ontheleftcoast on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 07:04:19 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  How about this? (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Stoy

                Sufficient to mitigate legal responsibility for one's actions.  

                •  Before or after the fact? (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  cdreid

                  Are you proposing that everyone who wants to own a gun be subjected to a full mental workup? Even then it's difficult for trained professionals to agree on those determinations.

                  I have a purpose in life, I am my cat's doorman.

                  by ontheleftcoast on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 07:40:47 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  see the survey of laws I found (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Stoy

                    I'm not proposing universal screening.

                    •  So after the fact then (0+ / 0-)

                      After someone has been determined to suffer one of those conditions they shouldn't be allowed to own a gun for some period of time.

                      Had the shooter in AZ ever been committed?
                      Had he been diagnosed before the crime with any of the said conditions?
                      And here's the whopper, can you prove that having from one of the conditions will directly lead to an act of violence?

                      I have a purpose in life, I am my cat's doorman.

                      by ontheleftcoast on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 07:51:29 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  no, no and no. (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Joe Bob, Stoy

                        I don't believe anyone has argued that it violated Arizona law to sell him a gun.  The problem is that those who believed Loughner needed a mental health evaluation didn't pursue the full legal means to force one.

                        •  So tell me again (0+ / 0-)

                          Why do you think your proposal would do any good? Sounds like a totally ineffective means for preventing a tragedy like the one in AZ. But it'll make people feel more secure and that's all that really matters.

                          I have a purpose in life, I am my cat's doorman.

                          by ontheleftcoast on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 08:02:49 AM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                        •  question (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          cdreid, ontheleftcoast

                          Of all the people who came in contact with Loughner: police, college staff, etc., which of those people had the means to compel him to be evaluated and didn’t use it? Maybe there’s some detail of the story I’m not aware of but it seems to me that, as odd as his behavior may have been, prior to the shooting his actions never crossed the threshold that would have allowed for involuntary medical treatment.

                          Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. - Groucho Marx

                          by Joe Bob on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 11:17:03 AM PST

                          [ Parent ]

              •  How about (0+ / 0-)

                Suffering from a mental disorder which makes the individual a danger to themselves or others.

                Voters will choose a person who fights a losing battle for his principles over one who fights winning battles against them every time.

                by cdreid on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 02:41:58 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

            •  yeah, the speech everyone is praising to high (0+ / 0-)

              heaven, is really reflected in people's reactions today isn't it - they're so much more civil as a result, aren't they? Boom, republicans are crazy. But he said to be civil and let's think about shared values. "Wow, that speech was great but I'm just going to ignore it anyway and be uncivil. "

              UNBELIEVABLE COGNITIVE DISSONANCE

              "I've taken up sculpting recently. Landscapes mostly." ~ Yogi Bear

              by eXtina on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 07:20:03 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  He isnt our god (0+ / 0-)

                Nor is he given the power to compel us to practice doublethink. I refuse to kick the football lucy. I refuse to pretend a group of racist proponents of neofascism are "friends i disagree with".

                Voters will choose a person who fights a losing battle for his principles over one who fights winning battles against them every time.

                by cdreid on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 02:43:54 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

            •  I agree with this (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Adam B, Crookshanks

              Attempts to frame the debate by labeling our opponents is counter-productive.

              We need to persuade Independent voters that the GOP is wrong. We cannot do that by calling them "crazy" even if they fit the description. Voters HAVE to realise that for themselves. Telling them how to think never works.

              If we push back hard on policy and outcomes, demonstrate why their solutions are not the answer, and refuse to accept even a hint of false equivalence, then we allow adults to make up their minds with more, and better information.

              If you are a Republican .... Don't tell me that Barack Obama is a Muslim, Socialist non-American ... Show me how that is hurting me, and why he is bad for America.

              They play that game all the time, and it doesn't work. Why do we think we can play by their rules, and play better than them?

              We do not forgive our candidates their humanity, therefore we compel them to appear inhuman

              by twigg on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 07:30:29 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  The president (0+ / 0-)

              doesnt determine what or how i think. He also cannot command me to deny reality, no matter how well spoken.

              I wont pretend Haley Barbour and Newt Gingrich arent racists. I refuse pretend sarah palin and the rest of the tea party nuts werent covertly calling for the assassination of democrats and liberals. I wont pretend Bush is anything but a corrupt, evil moron. I wont pretend that the GOP would prefer slavery be brought back, women lose the right to vote and illegal immigrantss be converted to a serf class whos only purpose is to gut american wages. I wont pretend people who are successfully reinstituting feudalism in america are "of good intent".

              Voters will choose a person who fights a losing battle for his principles over one who fights winning battles against them every time.

              by cdreid on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 02:40:19 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

      •  <snark> (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ontheleftcoast

        There, that's better :)

        We do not forgive our candidates their humanity, therefore we compel them to appear inhuman

        by twigg on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 07:21:07 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Under federal law, people who have... (14+ / 0-)

      ...been ruled mentally incompetent or involuntarily confined to a mental institution are disallowed from buying firearms, just as felons are. The problem is that the states are haphazard in making this information available to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System database. Some do so, some do so haphazardly and some do not do so at all. In any case, Loughner would not have been excluded a firearm purchase because he had never been ruled incompetent or confined.

      Don't tell me what you believe. Tell me what you do and I'll tell you what you believe.

      by Meteor Blades on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 07:04:27 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Deciding how we keep mentally ill from obtaining (8+ / 0-)

        guns is an important and very difficult question, but maybe we're missing another question.
        If he had received the help he needed, he very likely would not have wanted to get a weapon to kill someone.

        If he had had a productive job, maybe he wouldn't have spiraled off the deep end.

        If we had had adequate diagnosis and treatment options, maybe we would have caught him early in his spiral.

        Maybe he wouldn't have developed the pathological misogyny he exhibited.
        How did his illness "interact" with the destructive ideas he found on the internet. This is a human phenomenon that is literally "brand new".

        All of these questions are going to be deflected.

        They will push his "craziness".
        his "left-leaning", (bogus,of course)
        There will be a segment who puts all of the blame on his supposed "atheism".
        ETc.
        There are so many broad issues of our social pathology that converge in this event, that it is critical that we insist on an honest assessment.
        It goes way beyond just gun control and just whether he had "right" or "left" political ideas.  

        •  EXACTLY (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          duckhunter, Robobagpiper, David54

          If he had received the help he needed, he very likely would not have wanted to get a weapon to kill someone.

          Exactly.
          He fell thru the cracks. No one paid attention.

          If he had had a productive job, maybe he wouldn't have spiraled off the deep end.

          Exactly. No one cared.

          If we had had adequate diagnosis and treatment options, maybe we would have caught him early in his spiral.

          Exactly.No one cared enough. There is no system to prevent this.

          Maybe he wouldn't have developed the pathological misogyny he exhibited.

          Exactly.

          All of these questions are going to be deflected.

          Defelcted? Hell, they're not even being asked. The calls to civility and unity have nothing, absolutely nothing to do with this issue, and are not helping it.

          "I've taken up sculpting recently. Landscapes mostly." ~ Yogi Bear

          by eXtina on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 07:24:58 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  Okay, So now can we please ban (4+ / 0-)

    semi-automatic weapons? What is the problem? The NRA??? Do they really have the democrats in their back pocket? Or is it that the NRA will unleash blistering ads against re-eclection of anyone who crosses them.

    This is what we have come to. If there was ever a time to ban automatic weapons and the extended clips, as was the case in 1994-2004, it is NOW.

    If not now, when. If that doesn't happen (and it is not likely it will, I know) I have little faith in congresspeople. They should try. At least TRY.

    "People don't eat in the long run-- they eat every day." Harry Hopkins (who ran FDR's FERA program)

    by hester on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 06:52:38 AM PST

    •  What is the definition of semi-automatic? (11+ / 0-)

      And how does it not include run of the mill revolvers?

      LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

      by dinotrac on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 06:56:55 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  No, we cannot ban semi-automatic guns. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      cdreid, rockhound

      You don't even seem to know the difference between semi-automatic and full automatic based on your comments.

      This is why gun owners have so much distain for the anti-gun crowd, because most anti-gunners have no clue what they are talking about.  This is why the gun control debate is dead and why democratic lawmakers have not pushed for more gun control legislation.

      Semi-automatic means one bullet is fired for every pull of the trigger until the gun runs out of ammunition.  Revolvers are not considered semi-automatic but they operate in the same manner.

      Fully automatic, or full auto, or just automatic guns fire as many bullets as quickly as possible as long as the trigger is held down.  These are generally called machine guns and include machine pistols and sub-machine guns.

      There is also something called "select fire" which means that the gun can be switched between full auto and semi-auto  or between semi-auto and burst  and/or full auto.  Burst fire is a designated number of bullets fired with each trigger pull, for instance a two or three shot burst.

      Select fire and fully automatic firearms, along with several other types of devices are restricted by the 1934 National Firearms Act.  To purchase such weapons or devices requires that the item be registered with the NFA branch of the ATF and a $200 tax stamp be paid in edition to submission of duplicate finger print cards, passport sized photos and the appropriate form signed off by your chief of local law enforcement.  Additionally, newly manufactured machine guns were no longer allowed for sale to civilians after May 1986.  The market of existing automatic weapons was thus frozen and prices have risen steeply with demand.  What was once a $700 machine gun can now go for $18,000 or more.  Quite the investment.

      All the stuff that was banned by the Assault Weapons Ban, except magazine capacity, was by and large cosmetic and had no effect on the actual functioning of the firearm.

      Flash hiders were banned.  A flash hider mere reduces the flash seen by the shooter in low light situations.

      Bayonet lugs were banned. Oh my, now I cannot stab you with a bayonet attached to my rifle.

      Heat shields were banned, because uh, because it protects shooters from burning themselves on the barrel when it gets hot.

      Collapsible stocks were banned because, uh, now it will be that much harder to hide your rifle in a gym bag, maybe.  And we certainly don't want people adjusting the stock to better fit their build.

      The Assault Weapons Ban forced guns to look less Darth Vader but thats about it.

      And don't even get me started about "cop killer" ammo and all that horse shit.

      •  The (0+ / 0-)

        "Ban scary black guns" bill. More aptly the "ban specific trademark" law. Or even more aptly the "send some of the shittiest weapons ever mades price through the roof".

        An ak you can get the world over for 80 bucks is worth half a grand minimum in the US. An SKS.. one of the shittiest weapons ever made, about the same. A quality FN Fal will run you at least a grand now...
        Gunshop owners frickin LOVE gun control fears as do collectors. Hell a Curio/Relic gun that used to sell for 50 bucks and has a 10% chance of blowing up in yoru face will run you a couple hundred minimum now.

        Voters will choose a person who fights a losing battle for his principles over one who fights winning battles against them every time.

        by cdreid on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 02:49:47 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Nothing sold guns (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          cdreid

          like the fear of Obama trying to ban guns.  It was a banner year.

          •  I bought an extra FNFAL (0+ / 0-)

            parts kit back in the day. I think for $100 plus shipping. Then the gun controllers started shrieking. Sold it a year and a halfish later for 350. If id bothered to buy a reciever for that one at the time for $100 i could have put it together and cleared a cool grand easy. If i ever get money again (like 10 grand) im going to stock up on cheap garbage semi kits like the AK or sks or whatever , come to DK and scream for gun control next time some psychotic bastard kills a bunch of people and make a frickin fortune a year later.

            Voters will choose a person who fights a losing battle for his principles over one who fights winning battles against them every time.

            by cdreid on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 03:19:53 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I wish... (0+ / 0-)

              I had had money and been of age in 1985.

              Especially when guys talk about paying off their house with the proceeds from  selling three machine guns.

              •  Dont need to bother with automatics now (0+ / 0-)

                You can (or could) buy an automatic whatever for 3-4 grand. That market has stayed the same as most people dont really want one and dont really want to pay 4 grand + 700 in fees plus have the atf up your ass doing the paperwork.

                But now you can sell a piece of CRAP  beat up import for 1200 if you put some doodad crap on it and sell it to thevery gun controllers here ranting about "phallic symbols!" and "evil black guns are eating our chiiiiildren". (Notice their fascination with both "phallic" and "black").

                Voters will choose a person who fights a losing battle for his principles over one who fights winning battles against them every time.

                by cdreid on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 03:30:22 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

  •  Should Loughner have been allowed to purchase (5+ / 0-)

    a gun?.......Uhhhhh...

    •  Seems like a legitimate question. (0+ / 0-)

      But the point of calling it "isolated" is to pretend like there's no point to it.  Same as getting wrapped up in what a "semi automatic" is.  Or whether the magazine made a difference.  

      I'd just like to start with the basics.  

      Nobody ever bombed a pro-life office.

      by Inland on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 07:18:08 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  problem is, no one asked the question (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      skillet

      "I've taken up sculpting recently. Landscapes mostly." ~ Yogi Bear

      by eXtina on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 07:25:34 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  yes, he should have been.... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Stoy, nickrud, skillet

      ... seeing as how he was never diagnosed as or adjudicated a mental defective.

      Given his actions he SHOULD have been adjudicated a mental defective but that's an indictment of Arizona's mental hygiene laws, not the Federal gun purchasing laws.

      Fix the mental hygiene laws so people like him can be compelled to receive the treatment they need.  No changes to the gun laws are required.

      There are four boxes to be used in the defense of liberty: soap box, ballot box, jury box and ammo box. Use in that order.

      by Crookshanks on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 07:39:51 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  this is an odd question (12+ / 0-)

    "If it were up to you, would you prefer to have stricter firearm laws, looser firearm laws, or would you keep existing regulations the way they are?"

    It presupposes that folks know what the state of the law is.

    •  I've found it interesting that people who (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Stoy, Shadan7, rockhound, Matt Z, Crookshanks

      aren't involved with shooting sports always assume that there's much laxer laws already in place when it comes to an incident-driven gun control debate (demanding more), and much stricter laws otherwise.

      The same person who will decry guns as completely deregulated when upset over some news incident, will ask a friend if they have a permit for their gun and be incredulous that none is (in most jusidictions) required.

      Because of this, such poll questions, IMO, measure emotion, not knowledge.

      Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

      by Robobagpiper on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 07:09:47 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Thats not actually accurate (0+ / 0-)

        Handguns require a permit just about anywhere. Which is one reason the "must issue" laws were written. Too many sheriffs shore didnt like them black folks and hispanics getting guns.

        Voters will choose a person who fights a losing battle for his principles over one who fights winning battles against them every time.

        by cdreid on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 02:51:23 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Get ready. There will be hundreds of polls with (0+ / 0-)

      all kinds of results. But there will probably be a lot more with "more guns, more guns, please, more guns" as the takeaway.

  •  An insanity defense that would work... (8+ / 0-)

    Here we are now Entertain us I feel stupid and contagious

    by Scarce on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 06:55:11 AM PST

  •  Semi-automatic firearms? (6+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cdreid, Stoy, cappy, rockhound, Matt Z, Robobagpiper

    How, exactly, is that defined?

    If the definition is one shot per pull of the trigger, with no intervening action, don't most weapons qualify?

    A revolver, for example, can shoot round after round until it's chamber is emptied.

    LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

    by dinotrac on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 06:55:57 AM PST

  •  15,000 shot/yr; isolated incident? WTF? (5+ / 0-)


    80% of SUCCESS is JUST showing up

    Christina Green,RIP - Gun Control NOW

    by Churchill on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 06:56:26 AM PST

    •  Random, isolated....just different words for the (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      papicek, The Dead Man

      conclusion that nothing can be done, or should be done, and that we're helpless.  God's will, fate, whatever.

      Nobody ever bombed a pro-life office.

      by Inland on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 06:58:32 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Each and every shooting was an isolated incident. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Matt Z, papicek

      Unfortunately.
      Therein lies the problem.

    •  isolated as in (0+ / 0-)

      not part of an extended plot between multiple actors. Not isolated as in unique.

    •  And how many lives saved by gun ownership? (0+ / 0-)

      Theres a reason gun laws were passed giving local sheriffs control over who could buy guns and who didnt. When you're going to burn a cross in someones yard or hang them its much easier if they dont have a gun.

      BTW.. while guns are used by people to kill... medical professionals refusing to be sanitary actually Does kill a similar number of peope every year. Why arent you enraged by that? Because a room full of bacteria isnt as "sexy"?

      Voters will choose a person who fights a losing battle for his principles over one who fights winning battles against them every time.

      by cdreid on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 03:07:19 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  ATF director named..after 4 1/2 years w/o one (9+ / 0-)

    At a time when some members of Congress are advocating new gun laws and raising questions about the eligibility of the Tucson shooting suspect to buy a gun, it's worth noting that the agency responsible for enforcing federal gun laws has been without a director for more than four years.
    Congress changed the law in 2006 to require that directors of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives receive Senate confirmation. Since then, there has been no confirmed director. All have been acting. During the George W. Bush administration, ATF's acting director was a commuter: Michael Sullivan was trying to run the agency, while also serving as the U.S. attorney in Boston.

    The Obama White House did not nominate a director, Andrew Traver, until 23 months into the administration. Officials say a major problem was finding someone who would take the job. Several people, who were approached, said they did not want to get caught up in a confirmation process that would be long and tortured, these officials say. Others said even if they could get confirmed, they thought being ATF director would be a career-killer, given that the agency's powers are constantly in danger of being reduced in the face of aggressive lobbying by the National Rifle Association, administration officials say.

    Traver, a career agent and chief of the agency's Chicago office, was quickly opposed by the NRA, dooming his prospects for confirmation.

    http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/...

    Here we are now Entertain us I feel stupid and contagious

    by Scarce on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 06:57:15 AM PST

    •  Fuck the NRA. Seriously. (10+ / 0-)

      My father and I both used to belong to them.  Now I actively try to convince people to cancel their memberships.

      It's amazing how many responsible gun owners will pause when you explain to them that the NRA is lobbying for a law that would allow people to CCW without a permit.  As this poll shows, it's a deeply unpopular idea even among Republicans.

      The play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king.

      by KroneckerD on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 07:01:57 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  The NRA is viewed with revulsion (0+ / 0-)

      and targetted for destruction for multiple reasons.

      The most popular being their killing a hell of a lot of children at Waco, their involvement with the execution of an infant at ruby ridge, and to those who support rule of law - their refusal to actually comply with the law. They kept a database of gunowners for years despite explicit law requiring them to destroy it. Their response "it takes time..."... im a programmer. I can wipe or selectively wipe any database you have in 12 seconds.

      Voters will choose a person who fights a losing battle for his principles over one who fights winning battles against them every time.

      by cdreid on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 03:10:07 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Can someone point me to a gun stats (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    papicek

    link that has Info regarding monthly, annual, etc. numbers that show how often gun owners/carriers used their guns to save themselves?  

    Curious about the details...

    Did they just show the gun & end the matter?

    Shoot the aggressor?  Kill or wound?

    Loose control of the gun?  Used against them?  Stolen?

    Asante

    The lion does not turn around when a small dog barks.

    by mawazo on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 06:57:25 AM PST

    •  Lose. Done typing for the day :-) (0+ / 0-)

      The lion does not turn around when a small dog barks.

      by mawazo on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 07:01:40 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Impossible to get statistics on (7+ / 0-)

      preventive use of firearms. If there is no crime it's not reported or tracked, and even if there's a  crime only recorded when it's fired.

      "Don't fall or we both go." Derek Hersey 1957-1993

      by ban nock on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 07:12:38 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Thanks for responding. I can understand (0+ / 0-)

        many reasons why attempted crimes are not reported.

        However, many attempted crimes are reported to assist in preventing another.  Every incident report would have trackable data including victim use of their own gun, frying pan or whatever.

        Now that I think about incident reporting a bit further, I think perhaps I can get the data via police, mayor, etc. resources.

        Thanks again.

        The lion does not turn around when a small dog barks.

        by mawazo on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 08:14:46 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Stats are (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          mawazo

          taken when someone has a political interest in using them and only then.

          When the whole dui hysteria started the .gov backed it up with stats it required cops to provide with things like "alcohol involvement". Of course that literally meant if there was a six pack in the trunk or an empty beer can in the truck bed the accident was "alcohol involved' so the stats looked horrendous.

          The only stats on lives saved due to firearms posession come from groups like the NRA who are only slightly more credible than the discredited hangun control, inc. So gun rights activists dont bother using them as, honestly, in this debate they're far more honest.

          Voters will choose a person who fights a losing battle for his principles over one who fights winning battles against them every time.

          by cdreid on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 03:15:23 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  Wow! Only 11% of Republicans think you should (5+ / 0-)

    be able to CCW without a permit.  I figured it would be more like 40%.  Also, only 19% of Republicans want looser gun laws.

    Those are very heartening results.  If only the NRA would look at those numbers and back off their "THEY WANT TO TAKE YOUR GUNS!!!!!!!!!" stance.

    The play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king.

    by KroneckerD on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 06:57:45 AM PST

    •  The NRA do look (0+ / 0-)

      at the numbers then they cherry pick and twist them to match up exactly with the desired conclusion.

    •  do you honestly believe that the requirement for (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Stoy

      a CCW would have prevented this from occurring or does the notion of people carrying without such a permit just bother you in general?

      The former is just silly.  Someone who has decided to commit murder is not going to be deterred by the prospect of a weapons charge.  The latter is something that people can have a good faith disagreement on -- I would just point out the fact that Vermont has never required a permit to carry concealed and they have one of the lowest rates of violence (including gun violence) in the United States.

      There are four boxes to be used in the defense of liberty: soap box, ballot box, jury box and ammo box. Use in that order.

      by Crookshanks on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 07:43:53 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Good for Vermont, but I am completely opposed (0+ / 0-)

        to the idea of being able to carry a concealed weapon without a permit.  If nothing else, the fact that you have to obtain a permit to carry helps to drive home the seriousness of carrying a weapon in public.

        Would requiring a permit to carry in AZ have stopped this tragedy?  Probably not, but that doesn't change the fact that allowing CCW without a permit is a bad idea.

        The play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king.

        by KroneckerD on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 07:53:52 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I don't see why it's a bad idea, but as I said, (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Stoy, rockhound

          people of good conscience can disagree on this particular issue.

          I just don't like hearing it brought up in relation to this horrible event.  Anybody who says that a CCW licensing requirement would have prevented this is being extremely naive.   Murder > weapons violations.

          There are four boxes to be used in the defense of liberty: soap box, ballot box, jury box and ammo box. Use in that order.

          by Crookshanks on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 07:55:44 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  Of course laws are only for the rest of us. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    eXtina, A Runner

    Lawmaker brings concealed gun to 'gun-free' Arizona Senate

    A new state lawmaker is bringing her concealed gun into the Senate despite signs on the doors making the building a weapons-free zone.

    And the president of the Senate doesn't intend to do anything about that.

    Sen. Lori Klein, R-Anthem, said she has had a gun for years. When a new law kicked in last year allowing anyone to have a concealed weapon, she began carrying a .380 Ruger in her purse.

    "I believe that my responsibility is to protect myself,'' she told Capitol Media Services. "I'm comfortable carrying. And I had no intention of creating any concern.''

    http://azstarnet.com/...

    Arizona. It's a dry hate.

    by Desert Rose on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 06:58:19 AM PST

  •  Who did they poll? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Desert Rose, mconvente, DRo

    The membership of the "Sheriff Joe Fan Club"?

    "Valerie, why am I getting all these emails calling me a classless boor?"

    by TLS66 on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 06:58:28 AM PST

  •  MB, the survey link in story is incorrect. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Meteor Blades, Shadan7
    (goes to a National Debt vs. GDP graph)

    " It's shocking what Republicans will do to avoid being the 2012 presidential nominee."

    by jwinIL14 on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 06:59:09 AM PST

  •  Considering that most pistols are semi-auto (16+ / 0-)

    and that the public widely supports pistol ownership, it's clear to me that this poll simply shows that most respondents don't know what "semi-auto" means, and likely thinks it means "machine-gun".

    Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

    by Robobagpiper on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 06:59:24 AM PST

    •  this is the exact comment i was going to say (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Shadan7, Robobagpiper

      it's too common for people for stricted gun laws to lead the reader to believe that semi-automatics are the same as fully-automatic. They are not nearly the same and it makes this poll dishonest and the results unreliable.

    •  Or that most people have no idea of firepower (0+ / 0-)

      thinking that people are buying the saturday night specials, the cheap and readily available handgun of the seventies, instead of the expensive and readily and much more deadly handgun of this century. With your larger magazines, natch.

      Nobody ever bombed a pro-life office.

      by Inland on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 07:11:14 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  You're accidentally right in one area (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        rockhound, Crookshanks

        The phrase "high-powered" is as ignorantly and ritually tossed about by gun control advocates as "semi-automatic".

        Who that doesn't listen to Skynnard hae even heard of a Saturday Night Special? Might as well claim that people are thinking "zip guns" when talking about pistols.

        Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

        by Robobagpiper on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 07:15:07 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  You claiming ignorance notwithstanding, (0+ / 0-)

          everyone else is able to figure out basic meanings of words.  For example, the people who sell guns on the basis that they are "semi automatic"

          http://www.armchairgunshow.com/...

          Nobody is as dumb as you wish they were, so they can not only make laws, but they don't eat your shit up with a spoon.  Sorry.

          Nobody ever bombed a pro-life office.

          by Inland on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 07:25:44 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  People who sell guns almost certainly responded (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Stoy

            differently in this poll than the majority of respondents, who are demonstrably ignorant of the term.

            Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

            by Robobagpiper on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 07:27:17 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Heh. Two definitions, neither of which you know, (0+ / 0-)

              But you're able to say both are wrong.

              You're really vested in the entire "no we can't" approach to guns.  It's amazing that the some of the same supposed progressives who think the government can figure out and regulate just about everything and should be trusted to do so suddenly pretend we're a nation of morons and power grabbing tyrants when it comes to guns.

              Whatever. You're just slinging it.

              Nobody ever bombed a pro-life office.

              by Inland on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 07:33:36 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  The definitions *I* know (and know with far (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Stoy

                greater specificity than you) have zilch to do with the erroneous definitions poll respondents from the general public repeatedly demonstrate they labor under.

                Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

                by Robobagpiper on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 10:03:54 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

            •  With a sample of 1,008 people, RB... (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              rockhound, Robobagpiper

              ...I have my doubts - on a statistical basis - that anyone who sells guns was included.

              It ain't called paranoia - when they're really out to get you. 6 points.

              by Jaime Frontero on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 07:44:53 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  As for ignorance of definitions (0+ / 0-)

            Explain to me who the ignorant ones are, when a .223 round is routinely described as "high-powered".

            Or those that routinely describe the action of shooting a semi-auto as "spraying".

            Yes, there is widespread ignorance of the definitions, and those like you opposed to a basic Constitutional right are very active in promulgating that ignorance.

            Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

            by Robobagpiper on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 10:06:52 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  I have no doubt of that at all. n/t (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Robobagpiper

      It ain't called paranoia - when they're really out to get you. 6 points.

      by Jaime Frontero on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 07:38:55 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  40 isolated incidents a day (6+ / 0-)

    Maddow had quite a list, edited even, of isolated incidents, just since Loughner was born in 88. That's the problem with America, we have to see overwhelming evidence before maybe possibly start thinking about talking about proposing some mild legislation. That the NRA will reflexively defeat.

    If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people. Dr. House

    by Uosdwis on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 07:01:24 AM PST

    •  but did the shooter in this case... (0+ / 0-)

      have any permit to carry concealed?  Wasn't he already in violation of Arizona law?  How does making conceal laws stricter prevent someone who doesn't give a shit about laws?

      •  The Diary, at the least... (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Stoy, rockhound, Hind2, Matt Z

        ...made clear that no permit to carry is required in Arizona.

        But:

        How does making conceal laws stricter prevent someone who doesn't give a shit about laws?

        ...you're right about that.

        It ain't called paranoia - when they're really out to get you. 6 points.

        by Jaime Frontero on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 07:46:27 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I read that... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Stoy

          I just didn't think it was correct.  I thought it was a grandfathered law or something.  I thought only those born before a certain date were exempt.  

          Guns in the hands of males ages 15-30 will always result in violence.  I would support a law that gave females the right to carry without a permit but limited mens access.

          Either way I think we agree.  Anyone that has such disregard for basic things like human life will not care about a concealed carry law.  Newark,NJ has all sorts of laws regarding guns and they still find thousands in the hands of drug dealers.  It seems laws only effect people who are law abiding.

          •  How true. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Stoy, rockhound

            It seems laws only effect people who are law abiding.

            Alas, how not true:

            Guns in the hands of males ages 15-30 will always result in violence.

            A bit higher percentage cohort.  Not even remotely close to 'always'.  Please.

            It ain't called paranoia - when they're really out to get you. 6 points.

            by Jaime Frontero on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 09:50:18 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

  •  I Wonder Why (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    fivefouranonymous, A Runner

    Anyone who is not an undercover law enforcement officer would need to conceal the fact that he or she is armed.

    "It's always been a class war, Frodo."

    by bink on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 07:01:37 AM PST

  •  9/11 was an isolated incident. (7+ / 0-)

    Why did we start 2 wars because of it. Those hijackers were crazy. It's as simple as that.

    "A mind is a terrible thing"- Glenn Beck's followers

    by buckshot face on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 07:04:44 AM PST

    •  not so (0+ / 0-)

      that (as well as many other coordinated acts of terrorism) was conceived, panned, implemented, and celebrated by a whole lot of people with a purpose and intent. As far back as 1995 they had designed three phases of the plan ( Operation Bojinka - a plan that was not executed). Originally conceived by Khalid Sheikh Mohammed  & Ramzi Yousef. The initial plans included assassination of Pope John Paul II, Bill Clinton, Pervez Musharraf, Benazir Bhutto and the bombing of eleven airliners. The two are not even remotely similar.

  •  Good Lord, but Americans are crazy (4+ / 0-)

    Repeated massacres aren't enough to persuade people that perhaps widespread easy access to handguns isn't such a great idea.

    So I guess we're doomed to see tens of thousands of firearm deaths per year in this country.

    Year after year after year.

  •  The more their earth-bound diety Paylin is (0+ / 0-)

    criticized, the more talk about possible legislation restricting large magazines and assault weapons, the more the fringy, far right gun zealots feel targeted.

    They already believe Oabama is after their guns.

    With discussions occurring around restrictions, many of the unstable, paranoid well-armed gun "entheusiasts" may be moved to act. If these folks feel more threatened, expect more violence as a result.

    And Dems will be blamed for the violence by the rw bc we just wont leave them alone.

    America beckons. Americans repel.

    by A Runner on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 07:06:22 AM PST

  •  33% said people should not shoot anyone in any (0+ / 0-)

    part of the body, 33% said they should be allowed to shoot anyone at any time, but only below the waist.
    33% said they should be allowed to shoot anyone, anytime on any part of the body.

  •  There's some hidden (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    gardnerjf

    good news here - the numbers are changing.  Fewer people are supportive of wide-spread gun ownership and fewer support concealed carry or open carry laws.  The numbers aren't big, but they're there, and that's at a time when the NRA is dog-whistling like crazy.

    I think there's hope, if we can stay out of attack mode and keep things simple:  There's only one thing an automatic weapon is meant to do, kill people efficiently.  I think there's a chance of strengthening gun control laws if we don't get caught up in extreme positions because some believe it's best to get rid of all guns.  Let's start with the automatics and keep in mind that it will take decades to alter America's love affair with guns.

    I'm not looking for a love that will lift me up and carry me away. A love that will stroll alongside and make a few amusing comments will suffice.

    by I love OCD on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 07:07:26 AM PST

    •  an automatic weapon... (5+ / 0-)

      was not used in this tragedy.  There will never be a ban on semi-auto pistols.  That would mean all pistols.  I am more left than most on this website and I love my guns.  

      I think having better education and healthcare, and by extension having better mental health care, we would see shit like this drop.  I am not so sure that making laws on gun control will do all that much.  Newark,NJ has extremely strict gun laws and it does little to curb the number of guns on the streets there...

      •  Your freedom to love guns conflicts with (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        fivefouranonymous, gardnerjf

        my freedom to love children.  Gun violence in this country is nothing short of collective insanity, foisted upon us by the profit driven private arms industry. Loving guns is just plain wrong in so many ways.

        "Welcome to Costco, I love you"

        by martinjedlicka on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 07:55:40 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  get real... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Stoy, cappy

          That is such a straw man its not even worth arguing.  If you eat meat, drive cars and produce any where near the average amount of waste that a regular US citizen creates than you are doing way more to hurt my childs future than me owning guns is doing to hurt your childrens future.  This earth is not going to be a hospitable place for human life in about 100 years or so and you want me to believe hand guns are the problem?

          Yeah right.  I take it from your sig that you shop at costco... if so shame on you.  Their products are from factory farms and they are part of the problem just as much as walmart.  Please join a CSA, quit eating factory farmed meat (even if organic), and quit plundering earths resources because if you love children those actions will have much more of an impact.

        •  I don't need Smith & Wesson and Glock to tell me (0+ / 0-)

          to buy their guns, 'cause the quality of their products alone is enough to open my wallet.

          If gun ownership some how prevents you from being able to love your children then you have serious issues.  Kinda like heterosexuals that are threatened by gay marriage.

          Or maybe you were just trying to be clever and create an alliteration and it just didn't quite work.

      •  A ban (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        cappy, Hind2

        on 31 round cartridges is entirely possible.

        •  sure. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Stoy

          But it wont stop people just learning how to reload quickly...

          http://www.youtube.com/...

          http://www.youtube.com/...

          A 31 round magazine is pretty insane.  I will agree with that.  No sane person needs to have a 31 round mag.  However, if we try and ban them I am not so sure the ban will really prevent much violence but it will provide a very good blow back against "liburawls that wunt our gunz!!".

          Guns are a very weird issue in the US.  

          •  Well, in this case (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            cappy, Hind2

            having to reload certainly allowed 2 guys and an old lady enough time to stop the violence.

            If it had been a 10 round cartridge, perhaps far fewer people would have been killed or injured.

            I think the annoying inconvenience of having to reload a cartridge after 10 rounds rather than 31 is a reasonable tradeoff.

        •  You mean magazines. (0+ / 0-)

          Cartridges is a largely obsolete term for ammunition.

          But more to your point, magazines over 10 rds were banned by the Assault Weapons Ban, but they were still available because there are so many already produced.  They just cost more.  I don't think someone bent on killing a U.S. Congress member and including a little mass murder in the deal gives a shit whether the magazine cost $40 at a gun shop or $150 at a gun show.

    •  This statement is rubbish (5+ / 0-)

      There's only one thing an automatic weapon is meant to do, kill people efficiently.

      No, really, the only thing an automatic weapon is meant to is lay down suppressive fire. Good thing that automatic weapons have been restricted to the point of near-ban since the 1930s and are almost unheard of in crime, no matter how often they turn up on the teevee and movie screen.

      Proving our point that the average person, especially a gun contol advocate, has no understanding of what "semi-automatic" means.

      Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

      by Robobagpiper on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 07:25:49 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Does it shoot faster (0+ / 0-)

        than the old colt 45?  In my book that makes it an automatic weapon, and laying down suppressive fire is not the reason people buy guns like that.  They buy them because they feel less frightened and more powerful.  There are better ways to develop  healthy self-esteem.  Guns don't protect people.  In a situation like the one at Congresswoman Gifford's meeting, even experienced cops or military are overwhelmed by the scene.  

        Don't fool yourself into thinking you'd be cool and calm under fire.  

        I'm not looking for a love that will lift me up and carry me away. A love that will stroll alongside and make a few amusing comments will suffice.

        by I love OCD on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 07:50:40 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  NOTHING shoots faster than "an old... (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Stoy, cappy, rockhound

          Colt 45". ;-)

          http://www.youtube.com/...

          In your "book"?  Really?

          It ain't called paranoia - when they're really out to get you. 6 points.

          by Jaime Frontero on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 07:56:38 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Really? Then I guess it's (0+ / 0-)

            going to have to be muzzle loading muskets.  Why are you so defensive?  Do you really believe that lives would have been saved on Saturday if someone else had pulled out a gun?  That's such a strange way of looking at things.  The solution to gun violence is more guns?  More terrified people should be armed during this kind of unholy mess?  My book says no, sorry.

            I'm not looking for a love that will lift me up and carry me away. A love that will stroll alongside and make a few amusing comments will suffice.

            by I love OCD on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 10:36:03 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Why are you putting... (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Stoy, rockhound

              ...all these words into my mouth, which I never said?

              It ain't called paranoia - when they're really out to get you. 6 points.

              by Jaime Frontero on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 11:02:02 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  I don't know. why are (0+ / 0-)

                there so many people here I can't keep track of who's telling me I'm dumb?  ;-)

                I'm not looking for a love that will lift me up and carry me away. A love that will stroll alongside and make a few amusing comments will suffice.

                by I love OCD on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 11:53:52 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

            •  Yes. (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              rockhound, ban nock

              Lives may have been saved if Giffords had a security detail, who would, you know, maybe had a chance to pull out guns and shoot the attacker.

              Guns don't work at stopping violent attackers, that is why all police officers are required to carry them.  Is that really your line of reasoning?

              The argument that because no one stopped the attacker with a gun in this one instance means that guns are never effective is just moronic.

  •  There's even some guy wrote a book (5+ / 0-)

    called More Guns Less Crime. Everybody goes everywhere armed. "Terrorists" and "criminals" will be afraid to attack anyone.

    Look for my forthcoming book. Tentatively I'm calling it More Germs Less Illness. We infect everybody with everything. Presto! Antibodies for everybody, against every disease imaginable.

    But best of all, we get the last laugh on Big Drugs, Big Insurance and Big Hospitals.

    History will witness that Barack Obama was America's first self-rolling president.

    by Wom Bat on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 07:08:09 AM PST

  •  This is insane. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Stoy, rockhound, Robobagpiper

    Why would someone who obviously did not care about strict laws prohibiting shooting people in the head care about stricter concealed weapon laws?  

    Laws only work if people give a shit about them.  There are all sorts of laws saying you can't kill children and this guy didn't give a shit about them.  If the democrats are dumb enough to make this about gun control they will automatically lose a large portion of the populace.

  •  There is so much shooting in America (8+ / 0-)

    we have to have more guns.

    Everybody needs several guns of various kinds, because it's just not safe to not have one.

    First, a variety of loaded handguns should be scattered through the house in easy-to-reach places: under the couch, under the bed, in the bathroom drawers.

    shotguns should be mounted above eah door.

    Got a corner? AK-47 belongs there.

    Your vehicle should have a minimum of 3 handguns, each with as big a magazine as you can get.

    But do not smoke mara-ju-wanna. It's dangerous.

    America legalized torture before they legalized marijuana.
    Take your stinking paws off me, you damned dirty ape!

    by xxdr zombiexx on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 07:08:56 AM PST

  •  what if he could have easily gone to the doctor? (6+ / 0-)

    what if he had a lifetime of primary medical care?

    what if that included a referral to mental help as needed?

    what if he had a solid, science-based education and meaningful work?

    what if he had acess to fair affordbale housing?

    what if his life was free from the political warfare and cultural warfare that results from private campaign financing and corporate, ratings driven media?

    I don't know. But I think making society better, a long, slow, difficult process, is the best way to reduce gun crime (and drug addiction and other serious crime and probably terrorism (his act of terrorism and international terrorism)).

    Ban concealed carry, semi-auto, whatever you want. It may help, but I say that's waging war on the tactics and ignoring the root causes (just like the "GWOT")

    My contrarian two cents for today.

    •  Unfortunately this is a very knee jerk (1+ / 0-)

      reactionary country.

      A tragedy happens and we focus on how to deal with it emotionally, not on how to prevent it.

      "I've taken up sculpting recently. Landscapes mostly." ~ Yogi Bear

      by eXtina on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 07:29:31 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  RIGHT ON! (2+ / 0-)

      There are already laws banning shooting someone in the head and this guy was not too worried about those laws... why would anyone think he would have worried about a freaking concealed carry law?

      You hit the nail on the head.  Take away the environment and situation that creates such hopelessness and delusion and viola... you decrease this type of thing.  The state of our mental health is terrible.  We are materialistic to a disgusting level, eat poison sold to us as food, and although we readily admit our environment is terrible for our bodies we think it is okay for our minds?  We live in a toxic mental environment.

  •  What about the weapons that will (8+ / 0-)

    really keep me safe?  I don't leave the house and head to Starbucks without my RPG and shoulder fired missile launchers.  I don't get out of my car unless Desert Eagle .50 is gripped tightly in my live warm hands.  I have made preliminary strides in my "iron man" suit...a poor man's suit to be sure...but complete with space flight capability, anti-anything missiles, and those cool auto targeting shoulder fired sniper chambers.  "Like Dad always said, I prefer the weapon that only has to fired...once".

    And since my paranoia drives my armed state...there is NO way anything can ever go wrong with my packing more heat than special forces headed into combat.

    But I, being poor, have only my dreams; I have laid my dreams under your feet; tread softly, because you tread on my dreams. -- Yeats

    by Bill O Rights on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 07:13:35 AM PST

    •  Your logicky stuff is just too much! LOL! (0+ / 0-)

      Then they came for me - and by that time there was nobody left to speak up.

      by DefendOurConstitution on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 07:15:04 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I'm thinking Arizona tourism has got be hurt..... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Senor Unoball

      ....by this kind of stuff. I'm almost 63 and was looking in the Lake Mohave area to relocate for most of the year because this Boston area weather sucks and we need/want to "downsize" our lives. Our next trip will be to explore Nevada-need someplace with a big lake; a costco;  no snow
      (and a hospital if we get sick Not shot. Pse advise.

      •  Consider (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Notreadytobenice

        Reno or Laughlin.

        Reno does get a bit of snow on occasion, but not too much, and only rarely. Biggest lake is an hour away: Lake Tahoe.

        Laughlin is warmer and definitely no snow. No lake, but the Colorado River runs right through it.

        Or California desert towns like Needles, etc.

        •  We looked in Laughlin which is Lake Mohave..... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Senor Unoball

          territory but the costco/shopping is across river in AZ. The hospital is close-by if I'm in Costco and something goes down. Reno weather is kind of like New England. Maybe San Diego suburbs?

          I'll be spending some time in San Diego later this year on our way to Puerto Vallarta for 2 weeks for "medical holiday"(teeth implants).
          But Az. is now out of the question and Laughlin (I think) is kind of like Arizona. My wife will now not hear of it.

          •  flagstaff (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Joe Bob, Senor Unoball

            cooler winters but also cooler summers when compared to so. AZ.  Flagstaff rocks.  Also check out St George, UT...similar weather and great town...couple reservoirs nearby.  

            Laughlin is ok...or Mesquite...Lake Mead/Lake Havasu near enough.  Hell, Vegas isn't that far from reservoirs and you can buy a house there for pretty damn cheap right now...

            But I, being poor, have only my dreams; I have laid my dreams under your feet; tread softly, because you tread on my dreams. -- Yeats

            by Bill O Rights on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 09:17:55 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  San Diego very expensive (0+ / 0-)

            Look at other places in California desert as opposed to San Diego, if costs are important.

            Otherwise, Las Vegas might fit the bill, as noted below.

            Face it... it's hard to find year-round warm places in the Southwest that have lakes, unless you settle around the reservoir system along the Colorado River.

            So if you discount Arizona, you are greatly limiting your options, with only Nevada and California meeting your requirements.

            Much of Nevada is high desert, so it can get cold and sometimes snowy unless you stick to the far southern sections. Utah is also cold and snowy in winter.

            So Southern California is your other option, but again, it's expensive to live unless you move to desert areas -- Needles, Blythe, etc., however those places may not have the lakes you require.

            I don't know the area well, so can't comment on water recreation, but check out the Inland Empire of California, Riverside County, etc.

            I'd take some time on your upcoming trip to just get in a car and drive around, check out some likely locations.

    •  roflmao! Delta Fuckin' Force~! (0+ / 0-)

      "It's hell to pay when the fiddler stops." ~Leonard Cohen

      by Annalize5 on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 01:09:16 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Opinions are irrelevant (0+ / 0-)

    the facts stand for themselves.

  •  Bad Poll. Who's responsible- words or the bullet? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Stoy, Hind2, Crookshanks

    I don't think Daily Kos should be highlighting such poorly worded polls, at least without commenting on their ridiculousness.

    What might not be clear from this diary is that the pollster didn't ask whether the negative tone was partially culpable, but whether it OR the shooter was responsible. How ridiculous.

    From what you have seen, read or heard about the Arizona shooting, which of these statements comes closest to your own point of view?

    This shooting is the result of the current negative tone of politics in America

    OR

    This shooting is the result of an individual’s actions and should be regarded as an isolated incident

    So, let me get this straight- If I want to express that I believe that negative tone created an environment that perpetuated and perhaps incited this violence, I have to simultaneously reject the notion that this shooting was the result of an individual's actions?

    I call bullshit.

  •  One of the biggest differences between us and (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Hind2, Crookshanks

    the Chinese is guns. If someone were to fly over China and drop about 800 million guns (which is about what it would take to get the Chinese up-to-snuff), the Chinese government would think twice before it ever tried to pull another Tiananmen Square.
    Fuck a bunch of gun laws. We should be talking about increasing punishment for people who commit crimes with guns.

  •  Armed society (0+ / 0-)

    An Armed Society is a Polite Society - or is just simply a Paranoid Society?

    Far be it for logic to stand in the way of overwhelming stupidity

    by ronindave on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 07:27:14 AM PST

    •  It's a paranoid society (0+ / 0-)

      The 15th century was armed to the teeth, and it was Hatfield-McCoy time all over. English vs. French, Lancaster vs. York, war, civil war, violence.

      What ended the civil wars - and I'm pretty sure Cartoon Peril is going to get around to this point in the "Wars of the Roses" series - wasn't attrition or exhaustion - it was the king laying down the law about how many followers the nobles were allowed to have. No private armies, no more civil war.

      If it's
      Not your body
      Then it's
      Not your choice
      AND it's
      None of your damn business!

      by TheOtherMaven on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 08:29:50 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  "No one could have predicted"-ism. (0+ / 0-)

    Except for all those who did. lols

    I'm gonna go eat a steak. And fuck my wife. And pray to GOD - hatemailapalooza, 052210

    by punditician on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 07:32:54 AM PST

  •  I've never been particularly anti-gun (5+ / 0-)

    Even if I don't have one myself, don't hunt, or do target shooting or any of that stuff. A number of perfectly sane family members and friends of mine hunt responsibly.

    But I can't help but feel that as a country, this obsession with guns and the right to own any sort of hideous weapon is unspeakably nuts.

  •  In my book, anyone with a handgun, and especially (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Joe Bob, Matt Z, ban nock, gardnerjf

    anyone who feels compelled to carry it around all the time, is a potential killer and if the son of a bitch is around me, he or she had better be prepared to use it because I'm sick AND FUCKING TIRED of having to kiss the asses of yet another group of FUCKING sicko AMERIKANS who somehow feel it is their RIGHT to have the power to take away ALL my FUCKING rights and justify it with their ass-ignorant "interpretation" of the Constitution.  

    To the gun-nut crowd (a contingent of which regularly shits up this site with their fuckstick gun obsession): FUCK your 2nd Amendments rights and FUCK YOU - you're a clear and present threat to the public safety, and should be treated as such on sight!  You wanna play with guns, asshole?  Then join the FUCKING Marines!

    In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king; in the land of the braindead, the intelligent person is cast as the village idiot.

    by dendron gnostic on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 07:46:33 AM PST

    •  If you attack me... (0+ / 0-)

      I will shoot you and I will be justified and you will have deserved it.

      You sound like you have aggression issues.

      I carry a gun almost daily, but you could never tell by looking at me.  Am I a potential killer?  Yes, indeed I am.  But you know what, pretty much everyone is a potential killer.  If you drive a car you have a very powerful means of killing someone, intentionally or unintentionally.  If you are a nurse or a doctor or work in a pharmacy or are an air traffic controller you too could potentially kill someone.

      But there is more, I don't need a gun to kill you.  I could stab you with a knife, or, like most relatively young and fit people, I could beat you to death with my fists or feet.  Or maybe I could pick up a large rock and smash your skull in.  But why would I do that?  You are obnoxious, but unless you physically attack me -- as you claim I should prepare for you to do -- I have no reason to harm you.

      Because I carry a gun and have determined ahead of time when it is and is not appropriate to use it and steeled myself for those situations in which I would have to, I avoid situations where I might need it.  Its called "a higher standard of care."  If someone flips me the bird while driving, I let it go because I don't want to get into a situation where I am facing an angry driver on the side of the road.  I drive defensively, I am polite to people on the street and I don't let stupid shit get me riled up.  I am a lot more cool headed then you, I am certain.

      I think you are afraid of guns because you project all of the violence you feel in yourself on to everyone else.

      As for joining the military, I probably would have except for my the fact that I am ineligible because of an organ transplant and subsequent lung problems.

      And as for arguing that gun ownership somehow threatens your rights, that makes a much sense as heterosexuals claiming that gay marriage threatens straight marriage.

    •  reced for your enthusiasm and humor (0+ / 0-)

      "Don't fall or we both go." Derek Hersey 1957-1993

      by ban nock on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 02:40:47 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  based on this poll, and another from CBS (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    fcvaguy

    democrats overwhemingly support stricter gun safety laws, including the banning of semi-automatic weapons. americans mostly agree, and would more if a real debate occurred. we need to start pushing this.

  •  These are ideas that almost everyone agrees on. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Meteor Blades

    Now if only the NRA could see otherwise.  But so many politicians are afraid of the NRA that nothing will happen.

    "Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." --M. L. King "You can't fix stupid" --Ron White

    by zenbassoon on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 08:00:47 AM PST

  •  I don't need a poll to understand that (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Annalize5, Matt Z

    Jared Loughner had a GUN.  Whether he's a Marxist or a tea bagger, whether he's manic depressive or paranoid schizophrenic, whether he reads Marx or Ayn Rand, that's just irrelevant at this point to the simple fact that the man had a GUN.  And he used it.  And the gun performed exactly as it was designed to - to kill the maximum number of people in the shortest time period possible.  

    This tired NRA bs about "guns don't kill people" is best left to be trumpeted on Red State.  RBKA is basically driven by anti-Government paranoia, the sort of hatred of US Government that currently powers the Right.  

    If you think your TEC-9 or your Uzi is going to protect you from the tyranny of the federal goverment, you better start looking on Ebay for something more suitable, like an Apache helicopter or better yet, your personal nuclear warhead.

    "Welcome to Costco, I love you"

    by martinjedlicka on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 08:07:06 AM PST

  •  Another suggested polling question (0+ / 0-)

    Which of the following do you think Jesus would carry?

    a.  Handgun
    b.  Rifle/Shotgun
    c.  Semi-automatic firerm
    d.  Loaf of bread

  •  Has anyone really looked at the role parents (0+ / 0-)

    played here?

    This guy Loughner certainly had a diverse range of influences, from movies, to books, to friends, etc.

    But there's no way to know--cut and dried--where he was getting his tinfoil.

    It wouldn't be reported, would it, if his father watched FoxNews constantly? His father maybe had a lot to be unhappy about (longterm unemployed, the little tidbit about 30 packs of beer which are colorful but again don't tell us much).

    There's no way for the right or the left to know how much of the public discourse infiltrated this kid's brain.

    There seemed to have been a break in the last few years with him, but to dismiss the media's influence out of hand is totally premature.

    There are two kinds of people in this world. The kind who divide the world into two kinds of people, and the kind who don't.

    by upstate NY on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 08:13:57 AM PST

  •  So guns should be allowed but (0+ / 0-)

    we should have tighter control of them by law.

    While rather vague that is not an unreasonable position and it appears to be held to varying degrees by Democrats, Independents and Republicans.

    Peace,

    Andrew

    "Do what you can with what you have where you are." - Teddy Roosevelt

    by Andrew C White on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 08:26:28 AM PST

  •  People are irrational and inconsistent--- (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Matt Z

    ---this, of course, is not news.
    But how can 50% of people believe that existing gun laws should not be tightened, while 63% of them think citizens should not be able to purchase semiautomatic weapons? These semiautomatic weapons are legal now; some of them have legitimate hunting/sport uses, while others are built and bought for other intended purposes.
    I think that the survey results would have been far different if descriptions of the weapons had been available. A survey of gun-owners would be interesting, too. (Some surveys in the past showed gun owners generally in favor of tighter controls.)
    Joe

    Save energy! Install the dimmest bulbs available: Vote Republican.

    by CitizenJoe on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 08:52:38 AM PST

  •  Angus Reid? In the USA? (0+ / 0-)

    I used to work for Angus Reid; his outfit has been the biggest and most highly-visible polling and research company in Canada for decades. How long have they been working in the USA?

    •  I am not certain, but for at least... (0+ / 0-)

      ...three years. I subscribed to them ($50 or so) in 2007. I'm not sure they are requiring those who want to see their polls on line to do that anymore.

      Don't tell me what you believe. Tell me what you do and I'll tell you what you believe.

      by Meteor Blades on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 12:27:02 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I used to make calls for them (0+ / 0-)

        Hello, my name is Phil and I'm calling from the Angus Reid Group. We're conducting a poll on some of the important issues of the day and were wondering if you might have a few minutes to give us your opinions?

        I'm sure I'd be far too longwinded for today's market.

  •  "Father Of 9 Year Old Murder Victim In Tucson (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Matt Z

    Does Not Want Restrictions Of Freedoms"
    http://www.youtube.com/...

    Great interview with the father. I had heard that she had just been elected to student government, but not that she was the only girl on the otherwise all boy baseball team. It's a very touching interview with her father.

  •  if guns are so useful in stopping crime (0+ / 0-)

    I find it curious that, in gun-friendly Arizona, there were no Safeway shoppers packing heat to step in and take out Jared Loughren. I had the same thought a few months ago when a gunman showed up at the University of Texas in Austin. Isn't this one of the NRA's main talking points, that an armed society is a polite society?  Gee, if this keeps up the NRA might have to come up with some new arguments to keep those gun manufacturing profits rolling in.  

  •  Amazing (0+ / 0-)

    From the perspective of another country, it's hard to understand this and makes the prospect of improvement seem remote.  I've never met anyone in my own country or in the many countries I travel to every year on business who would think that concealed handguns, semi automatic weapons, assault weapons etc. should not be banned.  This has created a growing sense of unease with and reduction of credibility of the US and that is what has become so noticeable since 2000.  
    Most people of good will want to see the US get over its present difficulties but these things make it hard to see how that will happen

  •  In 1960 a "Majority" of Americans believed (0+ / 0-)

    That Blacks shouldn't Marry Whites and That White Only Bathrooms and Water Fountains was the right thing have.So I guess all the effort by Progressives and Liberals to change the Majority of peoples minds on things shouldn't have been made cause well 'The Majority" said they believe in stupid heinous harmful hateful dumb Things so don't try doing anything about it,like way should Blacks be in the Military and Why Should Women Vote and why shouldn't 10 year olds work in Factories and why should well The 13 Colonies be convinced that Civil War with The King is a Good thing in 1763 cause "The Majority" still Loved England.

  •  The Majority of people believe Action Movies (0+ / 0-)

    were everyday "Hero" people can Shoot like Annie Oakley and the "Bad Guys" can't hit the side of a Barn with a 1000-round Machine Gun as long as "The Hero" is standing and then Jogging in front of it and that "The Hero" can Outrun and then "ride" an Exploding Bombs Shock-wave with the Fireball right on their ass to Safety with out more than a few minor cuts and a some burned Hairs.

  •  "The pen is mightier than that of the sword." n/t (0+ / 0-)
  •  What about the people (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Meteor Blades, Matt Z

    like me, who believe that all of those things can be true at the same time?

    Words can sometimes, in moments of grace, attain the quality of deeds. --Elie Wiesel

    by a gilas girl on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 11:23:37 AM PST

  •  Lead lawyer for D.C. sniper victims explains case (0+ / 0-)

    Please someone, anyone explain to me how licensing makes one whit of difference as far as "controlling" who can or cannot own a gun?

    Is a background check required to buy a gun in the US?

    While it's easy to find out what the laws are in any given state as to buying/owning a gun, these laws are  laughable given the gun show scenario, classifed ads..etc.

    BradyCampaign | November 13, 2009

    Colin Goddard, a student who was shot four times at Virginia Tech on April 16, 2007, talks about his experience going to gun shows across America. Click here to sign Colin's petition: http://www.bradycampaign.org/

    After being shot, he decided to do something to help make America safer. He took a hidden camera to gun shows to show Americans just how easy it is to buy assault weapons and handguns without a criminal background check and without even having to show a driver's license. Colin urges you to support closing the gun show loophole that allows dangerous people to buy weapons at gun shows without a criminal background check. He states "No background check, no gun, no excuses."

    "It's hell to pay when the fiddler stops." ~Leonard Cohen

    by Annalize5 on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 12:31:55 PM PST

  •  These polls are... (0+ / 0-)

    ... such a crock.

    You cannot convince me that you can talk to 1008 American adults and only get a 3.1% margin of error.

    If we figure that half the US population (150M) is an adult -- which is generously on the low side -- 1008 people represents a whopping 0.000672% of the population. And from that you can infer that 75% of Americans want access to handguns?

    Where did they find these poll respondents? In the Western states? Imagine if the pollsters had actually gone into parts of the country where handguns are killing innocent people every day. It wouldn't long for pollsters knocking on doors or calling people in, say, the West side of Chicago to find opinions that would severely skew the results regarding handguns in a completely different direction. 3.1% margin of error? Hah! I'd think that 31% would be a more accurate assessment of error.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site