Skip to main content

That's us folks, we've lost the gun control debate.

Now, before you start moaning, I AM willing to be wrong, I AM willing to work, and willing to argue my position forcefully, but you know what?

Our President isn't.

Our lawmakers aren't.

Our citizenry isn't.

Go read the quotes:

"We're not doing enough"
"We must change"
"Video games"
"Society"

Everything but gun control.

Now you may think the answer isn't gun control; that's fine. But if you DO think that, you're gonna be REALLY disappointed in a few weeks.

And even more disappointed in the coming months and years, as this continues to happen over and over and over.

We're the losers in this discussion, but the real losers are all the Americans who will be shot or injured, or have loved ones and friends shot and injured and massacred or over the coming weeks, months and years.

20,000 kids injured with guns in 2008 - no one did anything.
6000 kids killed in 2008-09 - no one did anything.
11,000 - killed in 2008; another 9000 in 2011 - no one did anything.

20 kids killed in one shooting in 2012 -

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

  •  Your negativity isn't moving the ball forward . (5+ / 0-)

    Throwing in the towel now isn't progressive .

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

    by indycam on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 01:12:06 PM PST

  •  You're wrong according to new polling. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ericlewis0

    Most DO favor some kind of gun control, and particularly high capacity clips.

    Read here.

    202-224-3121 to Congress in D.C. USE it! You can tell how big a person is by what it takes to discourage them. "We're not perfect, but they're nuts."--Barney Frank 01/02/2012

    by cany on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 01:22:23 PM PST

    •  yes but (0+ / 0-)

      at very best a ban on assault rifles slightly minimises the problem... same with the clips.

      Here, the assault weapons ban was in effect in 2003, yes?

      Know how many people died of gunshot wounds in 2003?

      30,000.

      And those favoring it? Only about 60%. After a horrific tragedy.

      What will the numbers be in 6 weeks? Or three months?

      Back to about 50/50.

      And what sort of huge change will a Republican Congress pass when the public is basically 50% any bans or changes to the law?

      •  Well, if you want to continue to be negative about (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        wilderness voice

        it I cannot stop you.

        And this is your personal speculation:

        What will the numbers be in 6 weeks? Or three months?

        Back to about 50/50.

        I'm not on the other side from you and I surely want a lot more than limiting weapon types and high capacity clips. But I'm not going to say no to either of these because I want more. I will say yes and yell for more.

        YMMV.

        202-224-3121 to Congress in D.C. USE it! You can tell how big a person is by what it takes to discourage them. "We're not perfect, but they're nuts."--Barney Frank 01/02/2012

        by cany on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 01:38:08 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Go check the polling data (0+ / 0-)

          What's the highest percentage that favor a ban on assault weapons ever recorded?

          In 2004, when the assault weapons ban wasn't renewed, how many mass shooting were there?

          America, as a society, favors guns over safety. I hope that changes, but it hasn't yet, and it's not going to meaningfully change soon.

          That's not me being negative, but realistic.

          I THINK in fact it will change at some point, but not soon. So really, I'm an optimist.

  •  It will take a bit of time (0+ / 0-)

    but I fully believe that you will be proven very wrong.

    The unspeakable tragedy of Sandy Hook Elementary will go down in history as the single event that caused a sea change in American attitudes, and any politician that does not understand that will find themselves out of office.

    Will there be setbacks and feet-dragging? To be sure, but there will be a tsunami of public demand and support for tightening things up which will ultimately overcome the resistance.

    I am a warrior for peace. And not a gentle man... Steve Mason, 1940-2005

    by Wayward Wind on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 01:25:35 PM PST

    •  I hope you're right (0+ / 0-)

      But SH accounted for 0.3% of the gun murders in 2011.

      This isn't a big surprise.

      Here's all the mass shootings that have happened since Columbine in the US:

      July 1999 - a stock exchange trader in Atlanta, Georgia, killed 12 people including his wife and two children before taking his own life.

      September 1999 - a gunman opened fire at a prayer service in Fort Worth, Texas, killing six people before committing suicide.

      October 2002 - a series of sniper-style shootings occurred in Washington DC, leaving 10 dead.

      August 2003 - in Chicago, a laid-off worker shot and killed six of his former workmates.

      November 2004 - in Birchwood, Wisconsin, a hunter killed six other hunters and wounded two others after an argument with them.

      March 2005 - a man opened fire at a church service in Brookfield, Wisconsin, killing seven people.

      October 2006 - a truck driver killed five schoolgirls and seriously wounded six others in a school in Nickel Mines, Pennsylvania before taking his own life.

      April 2007 - student Seung-Hui Cho shot and killed 32 people and wounded 15 others at Virginia Tech in Blacksburg, Virginia, before shooting himself, making it the deadliest mass shooting in the United States after 2000.

      August 2007 - Three Delaware State University students were shot and killed in “execution style” by a 28-year-old and two 15-year-old boys. A fourth student was shot and stabbed.

      December 2007 - a 20-year-old man killed nine people and injured five others in a shopping center in Omaha, Nebraska.

      December 2007 - a woman and her boyfriend shot dead six members of her family on Christmas Eve in Carnation, Washington.

      February 2008 - a shooter who is still at large tied up and shot six women at a suburban clothing store in Chicago, leaving five of them dead and the remaining one injured.

      February 2008 - a man opened fire in a lecture hall at Northern Illinois University in DeKalb, Illinois, killing five students and wounding 16 others before laying down his weapon and surrendering.

      September 2008 - a mentally ill man who was released from jail one month earlier shot eight people in Alger, Washington, leaving six of them dead and the rest two wounded.

      December 2008 - a man dressed in a Santa Claus suit opened fire at a family Christmas party in Covina, California, then set fire on the house and killed himself. Police later found nine people dead in the debris of the house.

      March 2009 - a 28-year-old laid-off worker opened fire while driving a car through several towns in Alabama, killing 10 people.

      March 2009 - a heavily armed gunman shot dead eight people, many of them elderly and sick people, in a private-owned nursing home in North Carolina.

      March 2009 - six people were shot dead in a high-grade apartment building in Santa Clara, California.

      April 2009 - a man shot dead 13 people at a civic center in Binghamton, New York.

      July 2009 - Six people, including one student, were shot in a drive-by shooting at a community rally on the campus of Texas Southern University, Houston.

      November 2009 - U.S. army psychologist Major Nidal Hasan opened fire at a military base in Fort Hood, Texas, leaving 13 dead and 42 others wounded.

      February 2010 – A professor opened fire 50 minutes into at a Biological Sciences Department faculty meeting at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, killing three colleagues and wounding three others.

      January 2011 - a gunman opened fire at a public gathering outside a grocery in Tucson, Arizona, killing six people including a 9-year-old girl and wounding at least 12 others. Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords was severely injured with a gunshot to the head.

      April 2 - A gunman kills seven people and wounds three in a shooting rampage at a Christian college in Oakland.

      July 20 - A masked gunman kills 12 people and wounds 58 when he opens fire on moviegoers at a showing of the Batman film "The Dark Knight Rises" in Aurora, a suburb of Denver, Colorado.

      Aug. 5 - A gunman kills six people during Sunday services at a Sikh temple in Oak Creek, Wisconsin, before he is shot dead by a police officer.

      Aug. 24 - Two people are killed and eight wounded in a shooting outside the landmark Empire State Building in New York City at the height of the tourist season.

      Sept. 27 - A disgruntled former employee kills five people and takes his own life in a shooting rampage at a Minneapolis sign company from which he had been fired.

      Oct. 21 - Three people are killed in a Milwaukee area spa including the estranged wife of the suspected gunman, who then killed himself.

      •  I know the history (0+ / 0-)

        and the usual pattern - outrage, tears, bitter arguments, then fading from public view.

        But Sandy Hook is somehow different.  Young kids, an elementary school, zero evident motive, and several other factors have somehow combined to become a wake-up call for America.

        Doesn't mean we can sit back - we have a lot of work ahead of us, but I think the road is a lot clearer now.

        I am a warrior for peace. And not a gentle man... Steve Mason, 1940-2005

        by Wayward Wind on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 01:49:45 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I hope (0+ / 0-)

          You're right...

          That this is somehow different.

          But listen, an assault weapons ban is almost exactly meaningless when you're talking about 10+ people being murdered with guns a year... same with high capacity clips...

          That's the scraps we're gonna get... maybe a few stricter licensing bits...

          but do this... in December of 2013, check the gun murder statistics and see how much they've changed... see if another 80 preschoolers have been shot... or another few thousand kids killed...

          If so...  then what...?

  •  If you are not throwing in the towel (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Pirogue

    why write a diary that basically says throw in the towel?

    The 47% also "pay all the taxes that are legally required and not a dollar more" but when Romney does it he thinks it's a virtue, while when they do it, he thinks they are deadbeats.

    by jsfox on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 01:25:38 PM PST

    •  I never said that. (0+ / 0-)

      I said I WAS willing to work.

      But listen, what I'm willing to do have very little to do with what US lawmakers are willing to do and what society as a whole wants.

      You have to separate out your desires from reality.

  •  I thought this was a diary about the most common (5+ / 0-)

    ... misspellings of "loser."

    I often see it spelled here as "looser."

  •  No one did anything.... (0+ / 0-)

    Well, some have been fighting hard to end gun violence all along:

    Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence

    Coalition to Stop Gun Violence

    Violence Policy Center

    It's a hot topic right now -- as usual following one of these unspeakable tragedies.  And maybe more so than usual this time.  But our attention span is generally not much longer than the cable news cycle.  Persistence counts.

    Things work out best for those who make the best of the way things work out.

    by winsock on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 01:29:58 PM PST

    •  this (0+ / 0-)

      this is the point.

      As a society we have the attention span of an ant.

      And we don't REALLY want, as a society, real change, do we?

      60% want to ban the most egregious examples of weaponry, but even that is right after a huge shooting, and even that is only a few points different from where it was BEFORE the shooting.

      There's no REAL appetite for change... some of us REALLY want change, meaningful change, but our lawmakers won't fight for it.

      So.

      Good luck to us.

      We're gonna lose this, like we did after Aurora. And the dozens of other mass shootings since Columbine.

      •  Attitudes. (0+ / 0-)

        In 3 decades, we have reduced drunk-driving fatalities by more than 50% -- reduced fatalities by more than 75% for drivers under age 21.  That's huge.  How did we do this?  We didn't ban alcohol and we didn't ban automobiles.  Stricter laws and better enforcement, yes.  But mostly, it was a change in social attitudes after we as a society finally said, "enough."

        This didn't happen overnight.  And neither will ending gun violence.  Doubtful we'll ever completely eliminate it.  No piece of legislation will stop it -- no amount of tinkering with the constitution.  If you want a quick fix, it ain't gonna happen.  But you know what?  I think our society has collectively, at long last, reached the point of saying, "enough" --  and as we do, change will begin to happen.

        Things work out best for those who make the best of the way things work out.

        by winsock on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 02:01:31 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  This is shit. No ideas, no links, no call (0+ / 0-)

    for action, just "this is bad" and "we should give up."  Maybe you skipped the President's speech last night.  Doesn't sound to me like he's given up.

    Again: this diary is shit.

    •  How many times (0+ / 0-)

      Did Obama say the words "gun control" in his speech?

      Go count them and then report back with a number.

      I'll be here waiting.

      •  He didn't mention "gun control" in his speech (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ericlewis0

        because he is an intelligent man and well understands that any mention of a point that sounded political in that solemn setting would have given the gun advocates all the ammunition they need to claim he is trying to use the deaths of the children to advance a political agenda.

        Any mention of "gun control" at that time would have greatly reduced his moral authority on the issue. IMHO he did set the tone for discussion of gun control and that is exactly what situation demanded. Had he been more eplicit he would have moved the agenda backward, not forward.

        The world is a den of thieves and night is falling. -Ingmar Bergman

        by Pirogue on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 02:05:43 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  No (0+ / 0-)

          He didn't say it because he can't.

          There's NO WILL for gun control. If there was he wouldn't be scared of the words.

          Here, look:

          White House highlights ‘obstacles’ to taking action on guns

          the White House tamped down suggestions Monday that it will act quickly on the issue
          http://news.yahoo.com/...
          •  I'm not sure what you think (0+ / 0-)

            he's "scared" of. Clearly he no longer needs to worry about losing his next election so what might have him frightened?

            And the quotation you included:

            the White House tamped down suggestions Monday that it will act quickly on the issue
            did not represent the President's words or Carney's words but was a characterization by a Yahoo reporter. If you ask me it would have been better characterized as:
            the White House tamped down suggestions Monday that it will act rashly on the issue
            It would be silly to think the President might be ready four days out to specify exactly what measures he is going to take and what agenda he might advance. The current landscape is a swirling mass of debate, acrimonious and otherwise, of proposals and counter proposal, of a fluid body of public opinion and it would be foolish to rashly put forth a set program of measures without due deliberation. A president, to retain his ability to lead, must seem presidential and can't be seen rushing headlong in whatever direction fever pitched emotion might lead. There's no quicker way for him to lose the mantle of presidential authority than to seem like he is acting rashly.

             

            The world is a den of thieves and night is falling. -Ingmar Bergman

            by Pirogue on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 03:07:08 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I'll be more clear (0+ / 0-)

              Obama isn't an island.

              what he does and says effects his party.

              He's scared of saying gun control because he knows his agenda and his party will be hurt if America see him acting like he's going to start taking away people's guns.

              As for the speed issue, there's  a limited time to act, on the back of SH, because the American public in general has the attention span of an ant. On top of that, do YOU need another few weeks to figure out what needs to be done? I don't. Most people don't. It's just that Obama will play this out as a political challenge, not as an emergency public health concern.

              And guess what, as a political challenge, it's basically insurmountable.

              So, in a few months time, the most you'll see in potentially a sale on a few extreme thing, but nothing that will ACTUALLY make a MEANINGFUL impact on the thousands of gun deaths a year.

              •  What I am saying is this. (0+ / 0-)

                I have been watching politics for more than 50 years. It is my opinion that for him to announce a detailed agenda right now would be counterproductive, not only for gun control measures but also for his agenda at large. Now there is absolutely no reason for you to accept my opinion over any other opinion so, if you are interested in continuing this I would ask you to spell out exactly what he should have done by now and I will either explain why I think it would be a mistake or join you in urging him to act immediately.

                In the meantime please consider that, in general, if he comes out with an immediate detailed course of action the opposition will charge, and with some degree of plausibility, that he was set on doing what they were afraid of,  that is he was planning to attack gun rights in his second term, and that he was just waiting for a tragedy like this to set set his plan in motion. They would further contend, on every talk show where they could get a place at the table, that it was a reprehensible thing to do, to wait for a tragedy with the nation's children still bleeding and use it to further his desire to attack gun rights. This argument, whether right or wrong, would be bought by a considerable number of people and it would do damage to both his agenda, as you mention, and to the prospect that any meaningful change would occur in the wake of the tragedy. His doing so would allow the opposition to shift the narrative from the merits of gun control to a process story about Obama's methods, about secret agendas and about using a tragedy to move his policies.

                If you do decide to lay out a number of things you would like for him to have done, please address their relationship to my general objection because it will play in my answers about why I (probably) think they are a mistake this early on.

                The world is a den of thieves and night is falling. -Ingmar Bergman

                by Pirogue on Tue Dec 18, 2012 at 04:52:34 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Basically (0+ / 0-)

                  There's a few well known issues, that are time and time listed as good first steps, by pretty much everyone.

                  But that's not really the point.

                  He couldn't even say the words, "gun control" because that term has been completely coopted, hasn't it.

                  He SHOULD have used those words and COULD have easily said he was interested in things like banning assault rifles.

                  But now, as he's basically refused to even set a back baseline as to what he thinks is an appropriate measure, for political reasons IMO, he can let the divisive politics of DC play out in the same old way.

                  Nothing meaningful will change, and part of it will be on his head, for waiting for being too appeasing, and for playing politics with what amounts to a healthcare emergency.

                  Let a grand vision be beaten to death my the mediocre and small minded political hack that pass for our politicians, but then at least the gauntlet is down.

                  This incredibly "reasoned" approach will, mark my words, end up creating essentially meaningless reforms.

                  In fact, check the gun death statistic in 2014 and see what he'll have accomplished like this.

                  But you know, he's not REALLY the man for this. He's honestly WAY too moderate to try and change the gun situation in America in a meaningful way.

                  Which I find horribly sad.

  •  realistic or pessimistic prognosis? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    riottapes

    the odds aren't good...

    Americans have iPhones, Housewife shows, and plenty other distractions... and short memories.

    if it's not done fast while grief is high- forget about it

    •  time (0+ / 0-)

      takes time...

      the only things that can be done fast are things that both parties agree on ... and that list is very short and mostly inconsequential compared to the endless flood of gun victims.

      100K mudered with guns in a decade?

      300K in gun related deaths?

      A few million injured.

      In just 10 years, approximately 800 preschoolers killed with guns, in one country.

      And the best we can do is ban assault weapons?

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site