Skip to main content

Whenever a gun tragedy happens (like Sandy Hook Elementary school, the shootings in a mental hospital yesterday in Alabama, or the Gabby Giffords shootings), we can depend on the gun lobby to spout several dependable talking points within hours after the news hits the 'Net:

1. "Guns don't kill people, people kill people."

2. "We need better mental health care in order to prevent these tragedies. The guns aren't the problem."

3. "It's not appropriate to talk about gun control reforms right now; have some respect for the dead!"

[EDIT] 4. "If the teachers had had guns, this wouldn't have happened!"

I'm sure there are others, but these are the -three- four that keep getting thrown at me by various gun nuts on my Facebook page and in other venues. I think the third one is the one that makes me the most angry - it's a version of "Close your eyes and ignore it; put your fingers in your ears and sing La La La."

Forget that shit.

Please to follow me past the fleur-de-Kos for some discussion.

With respect to point 1:

- Yes, people kill people, and they find all kinds of ways to do it. But let's be honest: a person with a gun can kill far more people in a far shorter period of time than a person with a machete, or a rope, or a broken bottle, or any other form of weaponry short of poison gas. Reducing guns may not stop the problem, but it will definitely reduce the problem.

With respect to point 2:

- Yes, we need better mental health care. Yes, we need to find and treat people with illnesses that make them more likely to become violent (although research shows that most people who are mentally ill are victims of violence, not perpetrators of it). Yes, we need to stop stigmatizing those who are mentally ill and make sure they get help instead of condemnation. But in the meantime, we also need to control the supply of guns and make them less available and harder to get, because until we can address the mental health problem, we need to use whatever stopgaps are available to control the gun problem.

Finally, with respect to point 3:

I posted this yesterday night in the Open Thread about the shootings in Sandy Hook. I'm just going to reprise the idea here.

So far, the meme that is making me the most enraged is the one that says "This is not the time to talk about gun control; have some respect for the children." And I'm hearing a speech in my head in response. It's Matthew Modine's speech from And The Band Played On, when he's told by the FDA that it's not cost-effective (i.e. not appropriate) to try to find a test for HIV.

How many hemophiliacs have to die before it'll be cost effective for you people to do something about it? A hundred? A thousand? Give us a number so we won't annoy you until the amount of money you start losing on LAWSUITS makes it more PROFITABLE for you to save people than to kill them!
Here's my question, along the same lines:

How many children have to die before it'll be appropriate for us to talk about it? A hundred? A thousand? Give me a number so we won't annoy you until the number of people that are murdered by guns every year becomes important enough that you can start focusing on people's right to LIVE, instead of people's right to own machinery that has, AS ITS SOLE PURPOSE, the REMOVAL of that right from other human beings!

(I mean, for god's sake, if your biggest worry on hearing this news was that someone might take away your guns, your priorities are a) evil and b) really fucked up.)

Now, of course, people will say "Well, how are we supposed to fix this problem? Guns are a right!"

Here's how.

Gun homicide rates in countries that have licensing laws are uniformly microscopic compared to the United States' rates:

Gun Homicide Deaths Per 100,000 Population

Japan: 0.01
Great Britain: 0.14
Switzerland: 0.05
Canada: 0.17
Israel: 0.06
Sweden: 0.02
Germany: 0.19
United States: 9.15

This means that the US has a gun homicide death rate that is enormously higher than the rate of any of these other countries. That's obscene.

(Edit: My bad on the original numbers; it helps not to divide by percentages when everything else is proportions. I was simply trying to get to a point where the numbers were entire human beings, as rates don't seem to mean much to many people. But the disproportion between the US rate and every other nation's rate is still striking.)

So the solution is simple: let's require gun licensing. Gun owners should have to take an exam to get a gun license. Second, they should have to purchase liability insurance on every gun they own. Third, every gun should have to be registered with an annual fee.

If we require it for cars, which are not expressly designed for the sole purpose of killing human beings, we damn well ought to require it for guns, which are.

Not registering a gun, using an unregistered gun, using a gun when you have no license, or using a gun when you have no insurance should carry stiff penalties - two to five years in jail, I'm thinking, or large fines.

And frankly, I'm ready to shame anyone who objects to this by saying "So, you're willing to enable murderers?" I'm that angry about it, because that's really what they're doing.

Those kids could have been my kids, or my students. I could have been one of those teachers. This shit has to stop.

With respect to point 4, I can't do better than to quote the fantastic rebuttal from rlk's diary "It's time to have this discussion."

So now we get into the controversy of "self-defense". Really, I don't object to someone using deadly force to defend his or her home, if your life is under real threat. If someone violently invades your home, and gets scragged in the process, that's OK. But hopefully those flying bullets won't fly out the window, or through the walls or floor or ceiling into some neighbor's home. Or the "burglar" actually is someone with ill intent, and not a meter reader, a salesman, or a friend whom you don't happen to recognize, or someone whose car broke down and is simply looking for assistance. Hopefully you're well-trained and practiced in your tactics, and you're fully awake and alert, or you might find yourself looking down the barrel of your own gun for the final seconds of your life. I'm far from convinced that many of the people who say that they need a gun for self-defense really could defend themselves with it and not put innocent bystanders at risk. All of the gun safety classes and all the tactics you can learn won't help you if you don't have everything so well ingrained that you can recognize the situation and react appropriately. Even the military, with its extensive command, control, and communication infrastructure, loses a lot of people to "friendly" fire. If there are multiple guns on the scene, are you sure you could instantly recognize which ones are friendly and which aren't? Or that another friendly gun-wielder would recognize that you're a good guy and not a bad one?
Thoughts, comments?
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

  •  Tip Jar (15+ / 0-)

    "Compassion is not weakness, and concern for the unfortunate is not socialism." - Hubert Humphrey

    by Killer of Sacred Cows on Sat Dec 15, 2012 at 10:15:25 AM PST

  •  Where did you get your (3+ / 0-)

    deaths per 100,000 numbers ?
    The number for Japan ?

    "Drop the name-calling." Meteor Blades 2/4/11

    by indycam on Sat Dec 15, 2012 at 10:22:15 AM PST

  •  I like this! (4+ / 0-)
    So the solution is simple: let's require gun licensing. Gun owners should have to take an exam to get a gun license. Second, they should have to purchase liability insurance on every gun they own. Third, every gun should have to be registered with an annual fee.
    Here, here, and right on!

    The only point you missed is this notion that some gun supporters believe that teachers and others should be armed -- let's debunk that canard as soon as possible! How would law enforcement know who the shooter was? What about ricochets during a gun fight? What if the shooter got hold of the extra gun? What if the bystander/hero/vigilante shot another innocent bystander, even by accident?

    The civil rights, gay rights and women's movements, designed to allow others to reach for power previously grasped only by white men, have made a real difference, and the outlines of 21st century America have emerged. -- Paul West of LA Times

    by LiberalLady on Sat Dec 15, 2012 at 10:22:17 AM PST

    •  The answer to guns is not to bring in more guns. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Avila

      It's to reduce how many guns are in the population.

      I saw a debunking of it somewhere - it may have been here, on Kos - and if I find it I'll add it to the diary.

      "Compassion is not weakness, and concern for the unfortunate is not socialism." - Hubert Humphrey

      by Killer of Sacred Cows on Sat Dec 15, 2012 at 10:25:13 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  That chart of gun deaths per country (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Killer of Sacred Cows

    is really striking.  What's the source and year?

    Strongly agree that guns should be licensed and registered.  Mandatory liability insurance is also an excellent idea.

    •  2009 is the most recent year that I could get (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Timaeus, Avila

      uniform data for all of those nations.

      The source is gunpolicy.org, which aggregates data on anything related to guns - including laws, ownership rates, and death rates.

      "Compassion is not weakness, and concern for the unfortunate is not socialism." - Hubert Humphrey

      by Killer of Sacred Cows on Sat Dec 15, 2012 at 10:25:56 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  To get that chart (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Timaeus, Avila

      I looked up the number of gun-related homicides in each country in 2009 from gunpolicy.org, and then found the population for each nation in 2009 using Wikipedia and other sources. Divide the number of deaths by the total population to get the overall rate for total population. Divide the total population by 100,000 and multiply the rate by that number, and you get number of deaths per hundred thousand in the population.

      "Compassion is not weakness, and concern for the unfortunate is not socialism." - Hubert Humphrey

      by Killer of Sacred Cows on Sat Dec 15, 2012 at 10:31:46 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Don't believe this diarist's ridiculous (0+ / 0-)

      numbers. I checked out the diarist's link and the number for USA is completely fabricated as noted above.

      There are two types of republicans, the rich and the stupid. The rich ones strive to keep the stupid ones stupid and the stupid ones strive to keep the rich ones rich.

      by frankzappatista on Sat Dec 15, 2012 at 11:03:24 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Update: diarist has fixed this (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Killer of Sacred Cows, Hey338Too

      Looks like an honest error.

      I agree with diarist premise, numbers are way too high, comparatively, for a supposedly advanced Western country.

      There are two types of republicans, the rich and the stupid. The rich ones strive to keep the stupid ones stupid and the stupid ones strive to keep the rich ones rich.

      by frankzappatista on Sat Dec 15, 2012 at 11:16:29 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  What truly saddens me... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Killer of Sacred Cows

    Is that once the news cycle changes, this will be the new bar for some evil bastard to surpass.

    How low must we go before we can retire the rhetoric?

    Well, I suppose if he was a Muslim there would be calls for registration...  of Muslims.

    Oh god I wish I was kidding.  

    I don't blame Christians. I blame Stupid. Which sadly is a much more popular religion these days.

    by detroitmechworks on Sat Dec 15, 2012 at 10:24:17 AM PST

    •  If he were a Muslim (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Killer of Sacred Cows

      there would be no mental health meme; it would be called what this should be called...an act of terrorism.

      The reason it won't be is because the would force these communities to do a self examination to determine why their community that excludes, in many instances, "those people"... The ones who do all the crime; the ones that bring down property values; the ones whose absence in any large number makes their community "safe"...why their community full of upper middle class to affluent families where most have not only anything they need but also pretty much anything they want...could set the match to the powder keg and produce someone who would commit such an act of terrorism.

      The denial of making him crazy...of making him an outlier is far easier and less painful in the short term... But it continues to leave the conditions in place for that perfect storm to form and just like this time no one will even see it coming...

      Fear doesn't just breed incomprehension. It also breeds a spiteful, resentful hate of anyone and everyone who is in any way different from you.

      by awesumtenor on Sat Dec 15, 2012 at 10:49:07 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  It's not really an act of terrorism (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Killer of Sacred Cows

        Here's a good, useful, definition

        the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear
        This particualr instance, as with many, was the apparent result of a deranged individual. No hint of any kind that he had a wider agenda. That said, had a deranged Muslim committed such an act there would no doubt be shrieks about terrorists.

        "...you can’t find any oxygen from outside the aircraft to get in the aircraft, because the windows don’t open. I don’t know why they don’t do that. It’s a real problem." Mitt Romney

        by Catte Nappe on Sat Dec 15, 2012 at 11:00:05 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  And until we can fix mental health care (0+ / 0-)

          perhaps it would be a good idea to make guns harder to get. Just sayin'.

          "Compassion is not weakness, and concern for the unfortunate is not socialism." - Hubert Humphrey

          by Killer of Sacred Cows on Sat Dec 15, 2012 at 11:14:16 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Disagree (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Hey338Too

            I would really rather make guns harder to get regardless of the state of the mental health system. And I would like us to address the state of the mental health system without regard for the very rare potential such folk have to act violently.

            I repeat a comment I just posted elsewhere:

            I'm not sure I want to limit my concern to the rare events of mentally ill people causing mass murders. I think we can do some things about gun control (ahem, safety) that could also reduce the murder and murder/suicides around domestic violence scenarios, or the "child shoots friend by accident" scenarios, and others that do not involve the mentally ill.

            While you are wordsmithing, I would also point out that this drumbeat about "shooting deaths" = "do something about the mentally ill" is a huge and unspeakable injustice to those living with mental illness since they are no more likely (in fact less likely) to be perpetrators of crime and violence.

            Whether sane, or insane, the person who violently kills others was able to do so more easily with a gun than not. The gun also requires less forethought and chance of second thought than many other methods of fatal violence might. And it is more impersonal, in that the shooter can effect death from a greater distance, and need not be in close proximity to their victim as would be the case with some other weapons.

            "...you can’t find any oxygen from outside the aircraft to get in the aircraft, because the windows don’t open. I don’t know why they don’t do that. It’s a real problem." Mitt Romney

            by Catte Nappe on Sat Dec 15, 2012 at 11:18:25 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  By that definition (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Killer of Sacred Cows

          the Ft Hood shootings were not terrorism since he did not shoot civilians... your definition has some pretty large holes in it... but if it works for you, then you use it. My definition of terrorism is not that narrow... and just because I have an opinion that does not mean my opinion must be yours... or vice versa.

          Fear doesn't just breed incomprehension. It also breeds a spiteful, resentful hate of anyone and everyone who is in any way different from you.

          by awesumtenor on Sat Dec 15, 2012 at 05:56:15 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  4. The kindergarteners shoulda been packing heat (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Killer of Sacred Cows

    for their self protection.  

    Power to the Peaceful!

    by misterwade on Sat Dec 15, 2012 at 10:25:21 AM PST

    •  That's a meme I need to find rebuttals for (2+ / 0-)

      but the main rebuttal is, I think, the one here:

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

      The third paragraph addresses the ridiculous idea that having more people armed will reduce violence:

      So now we get into the controversy of "self-defense". Really, I don't object to someone using deadly force to defend his or her home, if your life is under real threat. If someone violently invades your home, and gets scragged in the process, that's OK. But hopefully those flying bullets won't fly out the window, or through the walls or floor or ceiling into some neighbor's home. Or the "burglar" actually is someone with ill intent, and not a meter reader, a salesman, or a friend whom you don't happen to recognize, or someone whose car broke down and is simply looking for assistance. Hopefully you're well-trained and practiced in your tactics, and you're fully awake and alert, or you might find yourself looking down the barrel of your own gun for the final seconds of your life. I'm far from convinced that many of the people who say that they need a gun for self-defense really could defend themselves with it and not put innocent bystanders at risk. All of the gun safety classes and all the tactics you can learn won't help you if you don't have everything so well ingrained that you can recognize the situation and react appropriately. Even the military, with its extensive command, control, and communication infrastructure, loses a lot of people to "friendly" fire. If there are multiple guns on the scene, are you sure you could instantly recognize which ones are friendly and which aren't? Or that another friendly gun-wielder would recognize that you're a good guy and not a bad one?

      "Compassion is not weakness, and concern for the unfortunate is not socialism." - Hubert Humphrey

      by Killer of Sacred Cows on Sat Dec 15, 2012 at 10:36:18 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Pro-gun death. (5+ / 0-)

    The pro-gun crowd is often find of inventing other ways killers could have killed people if guns weren't available, to make their point that people kill, not guns.  But in doing so, they always make the argument that we should not, therefore, restrict or over-regulate guns or gun ownership.  They are essentially arguing that they would prefer to see people being killed by guns rather than by some other means.

    Let's call them what they are, then: the pro-gun death crowd.

    The road to Hell is paved with pragmatism.

    by TheOrchid on Sat Dec 15, 2012 at 10:32:19 AM PST

  •  collective responsibility... (0+ / 0-)

    for an individual's behavior is profoundly undemocratic. And un-Democratic.

    And - surprise - the United States does NOT make into the list of top-ten gun death per-capita countries. All the countries among these top ten have tougher gun laws than the US, by the way.  

    •  Let's compare apples to apples, shall we? (5+ / 0-)

      The nations with the highest gun death rates are third world nations that have drug cartels, terrorist organizations, and corrupt governments. Let's compare first world to first world; it's called honesty.

      Among the first world nations, the US is disproportionate in its gun homicide death rates.

      "Compassion is not weakness, and concern for the unfortunate is not socialism." - Hubert Humphrey

      by Killer of Sacred Cows on Sat Dec 15, 2012 at 10:56:44 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  It's good that we are in apparent agreement... (0+ / 0-)

        that

        collective responsibility...
        for an individual's behavior is profoundly undemocratic. And un-Democratic.
      •  thanks for the metric (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Killer of Sacred Cows
        Among the first world nations, the US is disproportionate in its gun homicide death rates.
        Interesting, though, how some areas with a modern history of armed conflict show on the list.  Serbia/Slovenia, way down there.  Mexico only 2 per 100,000 more than US.

        Some other things to compare: the disparity between rich and poor, socio-economic mobility, the rate of incarceration,  educational attainment, access to quality healthcare, water quality, infant mortality rates, longevity, voter suppression. I must get a better understanding of the first world/third world nomenclature.

        America's still the best declining super power I've ever lived in.

    •  Why yes, we have reached the point (2+ / 0-)

      where we congratulate ourselves because we are not in the top ten but the top 13 most violent countries (even though the US  is the only supposedly industrialized, Western nation in that top 15). Let's rejoice over the fact that more even MORE people die from gun violence per capita in Columbia, Swaziland, Honduras, Guatemala, El Salvador, Jamaica, Brazil, Panama, Mexico and the Philippines than in the US. Go AMERICA! FREEDOM!

      It's like being proud to be the only industrialized nation on the list of countries that do not have legislation concerning paid maternity leave (Liberia, Papua New Guinea, Swaziland, and the US) because women in Swaziland have it worse.

  •  I'm not okay with cowardice. (0+ / 0-)

    I'm not okay with blaming victims.

    If you're so damn hot about the "pro-gun death crowd," get the Constitution changed. The anti-Prohibitionists were able to do so.

    Oh, right. That takes work. Way easier to just scream insults at people who had nothing whatsoever to do with the tragedy in Sandy Hook yesterday because you don't like how they think.

    LBJ, Lady Bird, Anne Richards, Barbara Jordan, Sully Sullenberger, Ike, Drew Brees, Molly Ivins --Texas is no Bush league! -7.50,-5.59

    by BlackSheep1 on Sat Dec 15, 2012 at 10:36:51 AM PST

    •  Which victims is he blaming here? (5+ / 0-)

      If you mean the gun lobby, that's just laughable.  If you mean someone else, let's see the blockquote.

      Molly Ivins would be ashamed of you for using her name to support that comment.

      -7.75, -8.10; All it takes is security in your own civil rights to make you complacent.

      by Dave in Northridge on Sat Dec 15, 2012 at 10:40:49 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  TheOrchid is just pointing out the obvious (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Killer of Sacred Cows, Sandino

      The typical arguments from the pro-gun folk have zero moral or intellectual integrity.

      Yes, it will require an enormous amount of work to realize any sort of meaningful policy change related to guns.  It may not even be possible. But until we do, we as a society, would have more integrity if we admit that we acquiesce to these mass murder events, because we do. So long as the status quo gun policies are in effect, there is a 100% chance (no need for Nate Silver on this one) that these events will happen again and again and again. This fact is undeniable.  So if a particular reading of the second amendment is that cherished by society, we should be honest enough to say it's okay that these mass killing events happen.

      Power to the Peaceful!

      by misterwade on Sat Dec 15, 2012 at 10:46:45 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Where does the Constitution cover that? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Killer of Sacred Cows

      I don't recall any part of it saying that anyone is entitled to all the weapons one wants with no questions asked nor any controls imposed.

      "...you can’t find any oxygen from outside the aircraft to get in the aircraft, because the windows don’t open. I don’t know why they don’t do that. It’s a real problem." Mitt Romney

      by Catte Nappe on Sat Dec 15, 2012 at 11:02:36 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yeah, there's that thing about a "well-regulated" (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Catte Nappe

        militia. I notice the gun lobby ignores that part of the 2nd. It's really inconvenient when they want to own an Uzi.

        "Compassion is not weakness, and concern for the unfortunate is not socialism." - Hubert Humphrey

        by Killer of Sacred Cows on Sat Dec 15, 2012 at 11:06:39 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Catte Nappe: I'm not advocating (0+ / 0-)

        "all the weapons one wants with no questions asked nor any controls imposed." That's not the situation now.

        I'm saying if the anti-gun lobby is strong enough to change the Constitution, it should do so.

        It's a complicated issue. How are the owners of firearms that are legal today to be compensated in the event we do away with the 2nd Amendment?  The right of the people to keep and bear arms in 1789 addressed concerns that are still very real today: threats to life, limb, family, liberty, livestock, home and property, not to mention civil rights.

        Once we've banned guns, what do we ban next?
        Absent guns, still we have events like the Bath School, the Murrah Building, and 9-11-01.So because Oklahoma City and AMFO do we ban ammonium nitrate fertilizer, or diesel fuel, or rental trucks?

        Not just us, either -- look at China, also yesterday. Look at Oslo in July a year ago.

        Do we go all TSA so embroidery scissors and corkscrews have to be registered?  Do we make it a crime to have a Leatherman?

        People still behave like the evil, venal, greedy, unthinking beasts they can be. We have to find a way to stop them.

        LBJ, Lady Bird, Anne Richards, Barbara Jordan, Sully Sullenberger, Ike, Drew Brees, Molly Ivins --Texas is no Bush league! -7.50,-5.59

        by BlackSheep1 on Sat Dec 15, 2012 at 11:58:01 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I do not get all this extremist hyperbole (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Killer of Sacred Cows

          "Do away with the 2nd amendment"? "banning guns"? Really? I hear very few calling for anything remotely that extreme. A few here are suggesting things almost that dramatic out of the excess of emotion created in the recent shootings, but even many of them are open to some sensible regulations.  As a jumping off point, here are some ideas that would still leave your RKBA intact

          Registration of guns
          Licensing of gun users
          Liability insurance
          (think in terms of what we require of responsible car owners)

          Background checks would help with many of the issues, and gun show loopholes.

          Is there any thing in there that would prevent BlackSheep1 from having appropriate firearms for hunting, sport, or self-protection?

          "...you can’t find any oxygen from outside the aircraft to get in the aircraft, because the windows don’t open. I don’t know why they don’t do that. It’s a real problem." Mitt Romney

          by Catte Nappe on Sat Dec 15, 2012 at 12:31:16 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  There's nothing in there that affects ME adversely (0+ / 0-)

            I've never purchased a firearm.

            I was issued .38 revolvers in the Air Force, as well as M-16s and an M-60.

            The one rifle I own was a gift to me last Mother's Day. I have enjoyed taking it to the range. But I have no paperwork on it: I'm not even the buyer of record.

            I live in Texas.

            But I am not the universal case.

            LBJ, Lady Bird, Anne Richards, Barbara Jordan, Sully Sullenberger, Ike, Drew Brees, Molly Ivins --Texas is no Bush league! -7.50,-5.59

            by BlackSheep1 on Sat Dec 15, 2012 at 01:02:48 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  add to that (0+ / 0-)

            Reduce the economic incentive to manufacture, import or sell military grade firearms.

            Or perhaps if gun owners were required to participate in their respective well-regulated militias one Saturday a month -- don't get excited, the National Guard already exists -- many would decide that not owning a gun gives them better options for time management.

            •  I would fully support participation in (0+ / 0-)

              the National Guard. I'm a military vet myself -- in fact, that's where I learned about firearms that used ammunition other than the 12-gauge shotguns and .22LR longarms my parents had in our farmhouse.

              LBJ, Lady Bird, Anne Richards, Barbara Jordan, Sully Sullenberger, Ike, Drew Brees, Molly Ivins --Texas is no Bush league! -7.50,-5.59

              by BlackSheep1 on Sat Dec 15, 2012 at 05:02:32 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

    •  Touched a nerve? (4+ / 0-)

      Don't see a victim being blamed here.  Unless, as a pro 2nd amendment supporter you are feeling victimized by the deaths of 20 children and 7 adults.

      It seems that the screaming being done here is by you.  And frankly those who blindly support the 2nd Amendment without admitting that we have an out of control gun culture, out of control gun lobby (NRA), and out of control gun manufacturers ARE CULPABLE.

      Time to grow up, look in the mirror and maybe, just maybe admit that we don't need 15+ shot clips for our semi-automatic handguns, that we don't need semi-automatic rifles at all (not for hunting, and a rifle is all but useless for in-home self defense), that we absolutely do not need semi-automatic shotguns, etc...

      Yes, there are other pieces to the overall solution, but having a discussion and beginning the "work" to resolve the out of control gun culture is the most important.

    •  the time is past for your diversionary platitudes. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Killer of Sacred Cows

      ...the time is now, for gun enthusiasts to step up and join in with progress, rather than dragging your collective feet in obstructionism.

      Cheers.

  •  Diarist needs to post a link to the (0+ / 0-)

    statistics. They are way off the most current numbers posted at Wikipedia by factors of up to x100. Way off on Canada, Great Britain, Germany; I hope this isn't intentional just to make a point.

    There are two types of republicans, the rich and the stupid. The rich ones strive to keep the stupid ones stupid and the stupid ones strive to keep the rich ones rich.

    by frankzappatista on Sat Dec 15, 2012 at 10:47:39 AM PST

  •  I too bring up the drivers license analogy (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Killer of Sacred Cows, Tonedevil

    For some reason, it doesn't bother the right wingers that it takes more effort to get a drivers license than buying a gun. A person can still drive unlicensed and kill a person. It doesn't mean we abandon the drivers licensing process.

    I say this because I frequently get the nonsensical response from right wingers that it is still possible for criminals to get guns. Well, let's make it harder without disrupting the right of citizens to own guns if they follow the laws and are of sane mind.

  •  YeeeaaaaaBBUT... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Killer of Sacred Cows
    Now, of course, people will say "Well, how are we supposed to fix this problem? Guns are a right!"
    An absolute right, no matter what...?  OR... a right with conditions attached...?!?
    Amendment II
    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
    Firearms fanatics ALWAYS FORGET the FIRST PART of the Second Amendment!!!

    Notice the wording (it's an If this, Then that format):  A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State... [THEN] ... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

    So, TECHNICALLY, IF the gun owners are not in a militia where their guns & ammo are necessary to be used for defense of the security of a free state, THEN their  "right" to keep and bear arms CAN be "infringed" - aka regulated.

    SOOOOOOO, busters and busteresses who are gun fanatics, form/join your local militia and bring your guns & ammo with you since you'll need them to defend yourselves if we are ever attacked.

    Otherwise, your firearms CAN be regulated from here to Hell and back.

    That's how I read the Second amendment..., since I don't forget the FIRST PART of the Second Amendment.

    I'm sick of attempts to steer this nation from principles evolved in The Age of Reason to hallucinations derived from illiterate herdsmen. ~ Crashing Vor

    by NonnyO on Sat Dec 15, 2012 at 01:09:34 PM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site