Skip to main content

nutcracker choking on Newtown

Adam Zyglis via politicalcartoons.com

Gun control. That's what it was called before Newtown. Remember how no one was talking about gun control?

Except for the NRA. They never stopped talking about it. This is from June 2012:

President Barack Obama has shown little interest in peddling a gun control agenda during his first term, but the National Rifle Association is urging its members not to let its guard down ahead of the 2012 election.

In a new mailer, forwarded to us by a reader, the gun rights group lists "Ten Reasons Why Obama is Bad for the Second Amendment." We’ve been exploring several claims on the list this week -- you can see our findings here...

The NRA has taken a fragment of an unclear quote and prescribed the most far-reaching, conspiratorial conclusion. There simply isn't enough evidence for such a sweeping claim. We rate it Pants on Fire.

For an interesting reminder of how Newtown changed the President's priorities, check out this brief video from Bloomberg on Dec 19th, or this one, same date, with Chuck Todd, entitled Tipping Point:

David Maraniss has more:
If Dec. 14, 2012, was, as he said, his most difficult day in the White House, one unspoken aspect of his despair was a sense of deep remorse that, in the service of political survival, in the pursuit of power, in the obsession with avoiding traps, he had given little more than perfunctory attention to the issue of gun control. In word and deed since then, he has shown more passion and resolve. Perhaps the conscience of his late mother kicked in, her idealism finally overtaking his concern that people like her were too naive. Certainly the empathy of a father with young daughters had a transformative effect.
So does Jodi Kantor:
When the president returned from consoling families of teachers and children killed in the Newtown, Conn., massacre — he wept as they handed him photos and told him stories of victim after victim — aides could see in his face the toll of absorbing the nation’s traumas. “This is what I do,” Mr. Obama told them.
But it wasn't just the President. All over the country, from local forums to national platforms, everyone has been talking and debating about gun violence and what to do about it. From the Danbury News-Times:
Top police commanders from several of the state's cities and towns have thrown their weight behind Newtown police Chief Michael Kehoe, who inserted himself firmly into the gun-control debate last week by calling for a ban on assault weapons.
Because it isn't just the NRA now, the discussion has been much more thoughtful and balanced than this guy:
DAVID GREGORY: You don't think guns should be part of the conversation?

WAYNE LAPIERRE: I think that is the one thing that we can do immediately that will immediately make our children safe.

DAVID GREGORY: Is it the only thing?

WAYNE LAPIERRE: Gun control, you could ban all Dianne Feinstein's, you could do whatever she wants to do with magazines, it's not going to make any kid safer. We've got to get to the real problems, the real causes. And that's what the N.R.A. is trying to do.

And I think, I'll tell you this, I have people all over the country calling me saying, "Wayne, I went to bed safer last night because I have a firearm. Don't let the media try to make this a gun issue."

The media didn't make it a gun issue. Shooting 20 first graders multiple times each—along with the brave adults who were shot trying to protect them from being massacred—made this a gun issue. Only a gun issue? No, not by any means. But a gun issue nonetheless? Despite LaPierre's tone-deaf response, yes.

And has it mattered? Here's the headline from the Jan 18th NY Times, referring to their own poll:

Massacre Sways Public in Way Others Did Not
The massacre of children at an elementary school in Newtown, Conn., appears to be profoundly swaying Americans’ views on guns, galvanizing the broadest support for stricter gun laws in about a decade, according to a New York Times/CBS News poll.
Here's an even broader view, looking specifically at the question (not all polls ask it) of making gun laws more strict:

chart of 5 polls post newtown on stricter gun laws (
Collation from pollingreport.com

Join us below the fold as we talk more about how Newtown changed the landscape.

Gallup captures changing public opinion:

gallup polling on public opinion of gun laws over the years
Modified from gallup.com
Poll after public opinion poll shows the same thing. This one is from AP (here is the .pdf):
Some 58 percent favor strengthening gun laws in the United States. Just 5 percent felt such laws should be loosened, while 35 percent said they should be left unchanged.

In comparison, after the Virginia Tech shootings in 2007, an Associated Press-Ipsos poll found that 47 percent wanted stricter gun laws, 38 percent thought they should remain as is and 11 percent wanted to see them loosened.

And this one is from Reuters (here are the topline results):
About three-quarters of Americans surveyed support proposals to ban the sale of automatic weapons, ban high-capacity ammunition clips and expand background checks on all gun buyers, according to an online Reuters/Ipsos poll released on Thursday.

Those proposals were at the heart of President Barack Obama's package of recommendations to Congress on Wednesday designed to curb gun violence after last month's elementary school shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, that killed 20 children and six adults.

Speaking of the President's proposals, this Gallup poll actually looked at them.
Americans' immediate reaction to President Barack Obama's proposals for new laws designed to reduce gun violence is more positive than negative, with 53% saying they would want their representative in Congress to vote for the set of proposed new laws, while 41% say their representative should vote against them.
The only sub-groups that oppose it are conservatives and Republicans. Duh. Hugely popular in the East (68-30), marginally popular out West (47-45). Midwest (50-42) and South (49-44) okay with it.

Meanwhile and more broadly, the Republican response so far isn't encouraging. "Lie about what you really think" isn't a way to govern, it's a way to win elections. That's a distinction lost on many in the House, since they are not especially interested in governance. Then again, that's why their numbers are so bad. In this poll, the negative Republican number is at an all-time high. No, it's not the messaging. Yes, it's the policy content.

NBC WSJ poll on favorability of Democrts republicans and tea party
Republican party unfavorability at all-time high in NBC/WSJ poll
Until we see where they stand and where they actually vote on measures the President has suggested, I'm skeptical that they have the courage and the guts to stand up to the NRA leadership and support what the public and NRA membership wants.

But, and these are vital points to consider:

• The public supports specific parts of Obama's proposals and, in general, supports the concept of stricter gun laws.

• In 2011, NRA members supported specific proposals like background checks, and in July 2012, the same was true. Wayne LaPierre does not speak for all of them (even though 70% of NRA members are conservatives). Link

• After Newtown, 85% of NRA households support background checks. Link. (For the distinction between NRA households and members, see previous link - it's men vs women.)

• The Republican party itself is extremely unpopular, limiting the leverage of opposing everything for the sake of opposition.

• Obama is seen as a strong leader (61%, WaPo poll).

• The intensity, for a change, is not entirely on the side of the NRA (link):

support and strong support for gun proposals

From Washington Post polling

With those kinds of numbers, and a determined White House, don't assume anything about what happens next, even if the conventional wisdom is that nothing will pass Congress. It might be that, as speculated by many, the assault weapons ban gets traded for everything else (not a terrible outcome). Or it might be some other outcome entirely.

But understand that simply writing about the NRA's past successes is a lazy way to approach the issue. Things are simply not the same as the way they were before.

Ask anyone in Newtown.

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 06:00 AM PST.

Also republished by Repeal or Amend the Second Amendment (RASA) and Shut Down the NRA.

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

  •  Even Pat Toomey is trying to sound relatively (8+ / 0-)

    moderate on guns. Of course, he knows what happened to Santorum's reelection bid when he was exposed as a radical to Pa. moderates.

    "They will not collect a ransom in exchange for not crashing the American economy. The full faith and credit of the United States of America is not a bargaining chip."

    by TofG on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 06:04:55 AM PST

    •  Don't be so comfortable. (0+ / 0-)

      Santorum was sank through his uber-religious flavor of radicalism.

      On guns, my state is still philly and pittsburgh with alabama in between. Rural alabama. Any MY county went blue for obama, but we also have some of the most deer hunting in the nation. The damn forest rats are all over the damn place. Come hunting season, I'll see a couple dozen cars/pickups over the course of one mile of woodland - that's hunters removing the glut of wildlife that would otherwise enter yards and eat the flower bed.

      Toomey being moderate is actually a move to take votes from the burbs of philly and pittsburgh, not a soft stepping around the city crowds.

      It's safe to trust a sane person with the keys to nuclear weapons, but it's not safe to trust an insane person with the cleaners under the kitchen sink. The answer is not gun control, it's people care.

      by JayFromPA on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 09:24:00 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Good for the deer hunters. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Laconic Lib

        They perform a useful service. But no deer hunter needs a 30-round magazine. One shot should be enough, but occasionally a second or third shot may be needed.

        •  There ARE other animals around. (0+ / 0-)

          It has not been unknown for someone out for one animal to have a run-in with another.

          It's not like the forest has neat little paddocks where the animals are segregated, like in jurassic park.

          We all share the rural countryside.

          It's safe to trust a sane person with the keys to nuclear weapons, but it's not safe to trust an insane person with the cleaners under the kitchen sink. The answer is not gun control, it's people care.

          by JayFromPA on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 02:06:33 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  There are no grizzly bears in Iowa (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Laconic Lib

            or anything else that would be a threat to a deer hunter. Actually, we're not allowed to shoot deer with a rifle; it's shotguns with buckshot or rifled slugs (or bow-and-arrow). Of course, a deer hunter might encounter a squirrel or rabbit, but there wouldn't be much left if they were shot with a deer slug.

            •  Iowa is minor league. Sorry, but it is. (0+ / 0-)

              The november 2011 to jan 2012 season in iowa, hunters took 121,407 deer.

              The same season in pennsylvania, hunters took about  336,200 deer. And according to the sourced article that's only slightly above average because previous seasons weren't controlling deer population numbers. In other words, we will have to bump that up a few tens of thousands before we begin to harvest more than can be replenished... every year.

              And I'm here on the edge of the northeastern megalopolis - about 17% of the U.S. population on less than 2% of the nation’s land area. http://en.wikipedia.org/...

              Deer sources:

              PDF
              http://www.iowadnr.gov/...

              and

              http://articles.mcall.com/...

              It's safe to trust a sane person with the keys to nuclear weapons, but it's not safe to trust an insane person with the cleaners under the kitchen sink. The answer is not gun control, it's people care.

              by JayFromPA on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 04:33:55 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  The point of that was (0+ / 0-)

                that iowa hardly has as vigorous of a wildlife population as pennsylvania, if the pa deer population is so strong that we have to cull close to three times as many just to keep it in control.

                More deer in pa means there is more woodland in pa.
                More woodland in pa means more space for the great variety of other animals to be present in larger numbers in pa.
                More of other animals means more likelihood that one of our many many hunters / trappers will encounter that other wildlife.

                It's safe to trust a sane person with the keys to nuclear weapons, but it's not safe to trust an insane person with the cleaners under the kitchen sink. The answer is not gun control, it's people care.

                by JayFromPA on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 04:39:00 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

  •  got a box of tissues handy? (77+ / 0-)
    Five weeks after the killings at Sandy Hook Elementary School, a remarkable story is emerging.

    A journalist for the Jewish Daily Forward has reported that the mother of one of the slain children asked Gov. Dannel P. Malloy to view her son's body.

    Veronique Pozner wanted Malloy to see what the bullets did to Noah, who was barely 6, the youngest Newtown victim.

    In the casket, Noah's eyes were closed, his long lashes resting on his cheeks, Naomi Zeveloff reported in the Forward. The bottom half of his face was covered by a cloth. "There was no mouth left," Veronique Pozner told the newspaper. "His jaw was blown away."

    In Noah's right hand she placed a clear stone with a white angel inside. She wanted to place one in his left hand, too, but that hand was gone.

    `I had to do it'

    Noah was shot 11 times.

    Zeveloff asked Pozner why she wanted to see the damage to Noah's body.

    "I owed it to him as his mother -- the good, the bad, the ugly," Pozner said. "It is not up to me to say I am only going to look at you and deal with you when you are alive, that I am going to block out the reality of what you look like when you are dead. And as a little boy, you have to go in the ground. If I am going to shut my eyes to that I am not his mother. I had to bear it. I had to do it."

    Zeveloff asked Pozner why she wanted Malloy to see the damage. "I needed it to have a face for him," Pozner said. "If there is ever a piece of legislation that comes across his desk, I needed it to be real for him."

    http://www.ctpost.com/...

    "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

    by Greg Dworkin on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 06:05:10 AM PST

  •  GOP now = Guns Over People (23+ / 0-)

    unless and until they get the f*&k out of the way and allow the Congress to pass meaningful legislation for public safety AKA the President's gun control proposals

    That is why I wrote 4 diaries yesterday dealing with guns

    that is why I have been on radio stations arguing for gun control

    that is why I will hammer every elected official I know and every candidate for any level of political office who wants my support

    this is NOT negotiable

    "We didn't set out to save the world; we set out to wonder how other people are doing and to reflect on how our actions affect other people's hearts." - Pema Chodron

    by teacherken on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 06:12:18 AM PST

    •  How many more must de sacrificed at the altar of (7+ / 0-)

      the NRA and the gun Cult that they lead before we retake our Government and demand sensible national regulations - which no one has been able to tell me violated the Second Amendment - like FULL criminal background checks, licensing and registration?

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

      by DefendOurConstitution on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 06:31:27 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  No--- it is Not negotiable. (8+ / 0-)

      There should be no backing down from this.  

      We should demand our elected officials attend these funerals.

      We should demand the NRA's representatives attend---as well.

      If they'll go on televison and promote the gun lobby---- they should be required to attend the services---as well.

      They should be made to view---what they have wrought.

      We should demand this.

      The Onion says----scholars have discovered---the Mayan word for "Apocalypse" in fact---translates more accurately as: "Time of pale obese gun monsters."

      by lyvwyr101 on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 07:12:13 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  They won't get out of the way... (6+ / 0-)

      ...at least not without a great deal of effort and persistence. We'll have to overrule them in the court of public opinion, the streets and town halls of public forums and anything else thinking people can and should do.

      They - and by this I mean the personal weapons lobby, the NRA and those political enablers - are still calculating that in a couple of months this will "blow over." That our attention spans are still short enough that we will forget Noah Pozner and the other 19 children and move on to who's going to wear what (and how little of it) at the Academy Awards.  

      Sadly, there will probably be another horrific multiple victim shooting with an AR-15 with a high capacity magazine in some very public place before Mid-Summer.

      And the NRA will reiterate that the only thing that could have stopped it was a good guy with a bigger badder gun. As I said in a number of comments since Newtown, I know we can't completely eliminate these horrific episodes, but we can make them occur less frequently.

      Years instead of months in between the tragedies. The less often it happens, the better, though it will never be acceptable.

      When you are right you cannot be too radical; when you are wrong, you cannot be too conservative. --Martin Luther King Jr.

      by Egalitare on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 07:35:48 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Think the conspiracy nuts can't go further? Try (11+ / 0-)

    this from International Business Daily:
    ================
    BY Charles Poladian | January 16 2013 5:25 PM

    James Tracy, the professor peddling the Newtown conspiracy theory, now says the same sort of deliberate media orchestration was at work in the Taft High School shooting in California last week. According to Tracy, the Taft shooting was supposed to be a drill until it “went live.”
    =
    ================

    "They will not collect a ransom in exchange for not crashing the American economy. The full faith and credit of the United States of America is not a bargaining chip."

    by TofG on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 06:16:02 AM PST

    •  Perfect...Counterintelligence Work... (0+ / 0-)

      this is what the descent into Empire has meant for us; we now have thousands of people trained by our own governments and corporations to stystematically deceive the gullible and fearful.

      This method by Mr. Tracy was devised by the Communists and Fascists as they vied for control of the public mind, and now, our own amoral citizens are fully trained to lead people astray in their own journey of control.

      I wonder who is paying Mr. Tracy? What is his background?

      Figures don't lie, but liars do figure-Mark Twain

      by OregonOak on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 09:21:20 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Interesting that the worst polling item (14+ / 0-)

    is the only one proposed by the NRA.

    This fight won't be won by the polls, nor will it be won by elite opinion.  It will be won by grassroots organizing to pressure legislators to change their vote, to break with the NRA.  The most encouraging development of the last week is the president's decision to change OFA into such a grassroots organizing body.

    With OFA behind us, we'll have the muscle to consign the NRA to the ashheap of history.  Twenty dead babies too late.

    When the union's inspiration /Through the workers' blood shall run /There can be no power greater /Anywhere beneath the sun /Solidarity Forever!

    by litho on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 06:16:27 AM PST

  •  Congresscritters back in session this week....they (6+ / 0-)

    should perhaps start paying attention to the grassroots....BEFORE the next Newtown occurs.

  •  Some questions on this mental health registry? (18+ / 0-)

    Wouldn't it be more intrusive than gun registration?

    When would your name go in the registry?  When you visit a psychiatrist?  What about doctor-patient privilege?  Wouldn't the invasion of privacy discourage people from seeking help for their mental health issues?

    And would the purchaser of the firearms, Nancy Lanza, have been in the registry? Or does the government become Big Brother to intrude to make sure that no one in your family has mental health issues?

    "We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals, now we know that it is bad economics." Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Jan. 20, 1937

    by Navy Vet Terp on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 06:16:32 AM PST

    •  great questions (11+ / 0-)

      we all have questions about this part and I don't have answers, but I'm thinking it's like reporting child abuse. There could, broad stroke,  be a list of mandated reporters and the minimum standard rules of who to report (those a therapist feels is violent) would be set either by the state or by the feds.

      Doubt Nancy Lanza would be affected at all, not sure the perp would have, but there's very little known about that whole piece.

      "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

      by Greg Dworkin on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 06:30:37 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Don't we have something like that already (13+ / 0-)

        I go see my psychiatrist and say "I'm going to kill x."  Doesn't the psychiartist have a duty to assess the threat and, and if the doctor believes there is a reasonable chance this threat will be carried out, report the threat to the authorities, or have the person committed?

        "We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals, now we know that it is bad economics." Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Jan. 20, 1937

        by Navy Vet Terp on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 06:39:18 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  you'd think we do (15+ / 0-)

          I'd bet we don't, or it's state by state, based on the judgment of the therapist. Not my field, and I don't really know.

          Confidentiality is paramount between a patient and a therapist, but it's not ironclad -- confession to a crime, or the possibility of a potential crime, is not supposed to remain a secret.

          "There is no clear-cut rule that psychiatrists are ever taught, but frankly, the bar is set very low in terms of breaking confidentiality," says Xavier Amador, a clinical psychologist and adjunct professor of psychology at Columbia University's Teachers College. "If there is any certain specific threat made, you have an obligation to report it."...

          There remains a gray area for clinicians when it comes to flagging concerns about a patient. Simply put, it comes down to a therapist's interpretation about how specific a patient is when talking about violent thoughts or plans.

          A specific threat means the patient clearly identified a targeted person or group, or gave specific details like a location or a time frame.

          http://www.cnn.com/...

          "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

          by Greg Dworkin on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 06:44:32 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Most states do (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          kyril, PavePusher, Sychotic1, WakeUpNeo

          There was a case back in the 70's called Tarasoff, out of California, that created a duty for psychiatrists to notify intended victims if the psychiatrist reasonably believed that the patient was intent on harming the intended victim.  I believe most states have incorporated something like this duty into their laws, in one way or another.

          While I'm not a mental health worker, I believe that this standard would only encompass a very small proportion of patients seeking mental health services.  The majority of patients (who don't evidence an intent to harm someone else) would not - I assume - be caught up in any sort of registry.

        •  Yes we were taught that if we had patients who (6+ / 0-)

          made a threat to a person or we believed could be violent and act out on their violent fantasies or thoughts, we were told to call the police ASAP.  We were told to press for the person to agree voluntarily to be admitted to the psychiatric until. If they refused, we would seek a commitment from the judge with the police present to take the person to the facility involuntarily.

          Follow PA Keystone Liberals on Twitter: @KeystoneLibs

          by wishingwell on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 08:09:08 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  I'm thinking that the best way (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        kyril, Greg Dworkin, Joy of Fishes

        to proceed on this aspect is to have the CDC and other stats-keepers run the actual numbers on mental health in general in this country, and on the percentage of people with identified mental illness who commit murder. Not suicide (a separate statistic that of course needs including).

        I am curious to know if that percentage of people suffering mental illnesses (those who have sought/are in treatment) is actually higher than the percentage of 'regular' people (those who haven't sought/are in treatment for mental illness). Because I'm getting the sneaking suspicion that the percentages are about equal. Which would mitigate for not penalizing those who seek treatment for mental conditions as if they are a graver threat to the community than 'normal' people who get mad enough to kill.

        I guess we could assert that everyone who murders - especially mass murders - is mentally ill, even if they aren't previously identified. But that would necessitate an actual designation of 'Evil' [Malignant Narcissism] as a genuine mental illness that requires official diagnosis and treatment. Is it even possible to treat/cure Evil? Worse, it would obviate a need to address our justice system's presumption that people who do evil deeds are responsible for their choices and need punishment instead of treatment.

    •  In New York (6+ / 0-)

      which had some of the toughest gun laws in the country even before the recent legislation, she might have been denied a pistol permit if the investigation disclosed the son's mental problems, but even there, the long guns would likely have been freely available.

      I don't know how we can effectively factor mental health issues which have not resulted in an adjudication into the decision making process, but we can certainly try. Mental health prognosis is obviously nowhere near an exact science, but I think we just have to put our trust in the mental health professionals, and err on the side of caution.

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

      by Wayward Wind on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 06:42:34 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  It should be the product (9+ / 0-)

      of psychiatric interviews triggered by applying to purchase a gun. The non-gun-buying public should not be put on a list otherwise. For exactly the reasons that you outline.
      But a gun buyer waves that privacy, voluntarily, in order to buy a gun.
      And yes, one of the questions should be about the other people in your life, like spouse and offspring, because they will be in close proximity, have access and possibly present a danger.

      If I ran this circus, things would be DIFFERENT!

      by CwV on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 06:45:02 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Pls clarify. Are you thinking (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Hangpilot, Joieau, kyril

        everyone who applies to buy a gun should be required to have a psychiatric exam?

        If so, that doesn't sound very realistic, IMO.

        "Who the hell is Grover Norquist, anyway?" - George H.W. Bush

        by rsmpdx on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 07:23:55 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yes that's exactly what I'm saying. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          DefendOurConstitution, poco

          How else do we keep people that are psychologically unstable from buying guns? We DO want to keep guns away from nuts, right?
          And I understand that it would be a burden and would take time and cost money, Oh well.
          The alternative is continuing mass slaughter.

          If I ran this circus, things would be DIFFERENT!

          by CwV on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 07:31:42 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Charles Krauthamer is a psychiatrist. n/t (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            msmacgyver

            Alpacas spit if you piss them off. So don't do that.

            by alpaca farmer on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 07:40:49 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  psychiatrists are not all powerful (5+ / 0-)

            and cannot predict the future terribly well.

            Just sayin'.

            "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

            by Greg Dworkin on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 07:44:03 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Actually CWV, that is a rather good idea, will it (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            CwV

            ever happen? I doubt it but I think you are onto something.

            Follow PA Keystone Liberals on Twitter: @KeystoneLibs

            by wishingwell on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 08:11:51 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  I haven't heard the suggestion before (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            PavePusher

            Which organizations are currently advocating for it?

            Good luck getting it passed!

            It should keep the nation's (already backlogged) psychiatrists very busy.

            "Who the hell is Grover Norquist, anyway?" - George H.W. Bush

            by rsmpdx on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 09:32:39 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  None that I know of (0+ / 0-)

              but everyone is including "better mental healthcare" as part of the solution.
              If that means that everyone that is receiving treatment or has received treatment, regardless of whether or not that want to own firearms, is now on a searchable database in case they decide, spur of the moment, to buy a slaughter weapon, that exposes a lot of people to a loss of their fifth amendment rights, over an issue they want nothing to do with in the first place. That would be counterproductive to better mental health overall, privacy issues prevent a lot of people from seeking help.
              Whereas, if the list is composed of people who have passed or failed some kind of standardized psych exam as part of the process of buying a gun, they opt in to the list.
              And I'm under no illusions that this will solve the entire problem. If it weeds out the obvious ones, it's a win.
              My concern is that if a list is part of the solution, that it not come at the cost of medical records privacy, unless the participant opts in.

              If I ran this circus, things would be DIFFERENT!

              by CwV on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 12:27:05 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  I'll follow the actual proposals as they (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                CwV

                emerge.  Don't hold your breath for the required psych exam.

                I share your concern for the privacy of psychiatric patients who may not ever want to purchase a gun.

                "Who the hell is Grover Norquist, anyway?" - George H.W. Bush

                by rsmpdx on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 01:24:58 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

      •  I can't imagine how that would (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        kyril, elfling, PavePusher

        work, given the paucity of 'good' mental health providers in this country and the absurdity of thinking any provider could judge (and sign off on) any stranger's mental stability after an hour's time. Especially if the 'patient' is only there to get the shrink to sign off on his/her stability, not there to talk about personal coping issues.

        That said, I had to see a Navy shrink for 6 months before they'd let me get my tubes tied back in the early '70s so I wouldn't be pregnant all the damned time. If that can be a requirement for sterilization, perhaps clearance from a shrink to buy a gun can be a requirement. But my shrink was free. I could never have afforded it out of our own pockets on Navy pay.

    •  As a therapist and an advocate for the mentally (5+ / 0-)

      ill, that troubles me as well. I can see reporting and keeping very detailed documentation on clients who express homicidal thoughts and have some viiolent tendencies and show signs of being a danger to others. In fact, if a therapist has a patient who he or she believes it is a danger to others, they can try to get the person committed for evaluation.

      But I do not want a list that goes public or even a list that goes national or ends up in some database of every person who seeks counseling or of every schizophrenic or bipolar patient..that would be horrible as most mentally ill people are not violent.  It is more often that we worry about then becoming suicidal.

      Follow PA Keystone Liberals on Twitter: @KeystoneLibs

      by wishingwell on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 08:07:17 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yes, it would be horrible (4+ / 0-)

        not just from an ethical perspective but from a public health perspective. And there's a damn good chance it would be counterproductive.

        If you know that seeing a counselor (or perhaps they'd make it more restrictive, like being diagnosed with cetrain conditions) gets you in some federal database that's currently used to restrict your Second Amendment rights, but is available to anyone who might in the future want to restrict other rights...are you going to voluntarily seek mental healthcare? Are you going to discuss your mental health with your primary care doctor? If you're somehow required to see a provider, are you going to cooperate?

        I bet you feel uneasy about that as a stable, healthy citizen who doesn't even want a gun.

        Now suppose you're the sort of potentially-unstable individual who's suspicious of/antagonistic toward the government and society in general. What are the odds of you seeking and cooperating with any sort of treatment in this scenario?

        "Let’s just move on, treat everybody with firmness, fairness, dignity, compassion and respect. Let’s be Marines." - Sgt. Maj Michael Barrett on DADT repeal

        by kyril on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 08:47:12 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  As an HIV+ guy, I have a different perspective. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        a2nite, murrayewv, glorificus

        Everyone discussing this whole gun control issue seems absolutely terrified of any kind of recording or registration requirement, be it the recording of names of the mentally ill or registering all guns.  Honestly, I fail to see why this is such a tremendous concern.

        Because I have HIV, my name, address, telephone number, and other identifying information are maintained in a database operated by the California Department of Health Services.  This is required by law, and it is the law in all 50 states.  The laws were enacted pursuant to guidelines issued by the CDC on the name reporting and tracking of all people with HIV in the United States.

        It would be difficult to imagine a piece of information more personal -- or more potentially stigmatizing -- than one's HIV status.  Yet the government knows all about me and my disease, and somehow the Republic has not collapsed.  So I honestly don't understand all the hand wringing over things like this.

        I would agree that there wouldn't be much point to creating a list of all mentally ill people unless we were actually going to do something for them.  You know, like offer them treatment.  But when people start raising the alarm about just having a registry, well, frankly, I can't see what all the fuss is about.

        "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

        by FogCityJohn on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 11:47:02 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Good point but in the case of mental illness, some (0+ / 0-)

          would be quite reluctant to seek counseling if they know their name is going into some database and remember, some needing the counseling are paranoid and this would feed their paranoia.  I worry about people refusing to go to counseling for this reason or avoiding the help they so desperately need for this reason.

          But with HIV patients, I would think they would still seek medical treatment even knowing their name goes into a database because the medical intervention can save their life.  That is different from those patients out there with undiagnosed mental illness or they have been diagnosed but refuse therapy because they worry about privacy issues.

          Follow PA Keystone Liberals on Twitter: @KeystoneLibs

          by wishingwell on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 03:27:49 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  HIV is no different. (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            murrayewv, glorificus, wishingwell

            There are many people who avoid getting tested because they fear their status will be known to others.  I acknowledge and understand that fear.  But the answer is to make testing worthwhile, by providing those who test positive with treatment and support.  

            "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

            by FogCityJohn on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 05:29:50 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

  •  things changed after Newtown (17+ / 0-)

    even though in comparison it is less that what happened in Australia in 1996 when 35 died in one incident in a country with a population less than 10% of ours

    and what happened in the UK in the Dunblane school shooting where 16 children and one adult died in a country with a population about 1/5 of ours.

    Remember, more died at Virginia Tech and we did not act.

    Remember that since Newtown over 1,000 Americans have died from gunshots

    remember that if a teen tries to commit suicide by poison s/e wil be successful only 5% of the time, but if by gun at least 90% of the time

    this is a public health crisis

    this is a moral crisis

    the time to act is long overdue

    "We didn't set out to save the world; we set out to wonder how other people are doing and to reflect on how our actions affect other people's hearts." - Pema Chodron

    by teacherken on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 06:17:28 AM PST

    •  and remember that (5+ / 0-)

      the most likely person to kill you with a gun is yourself.  Hardly a 'bad guy out there'

      Conservatives need to realize that their Silent Moral Majority is neither silent, nor moral, nor a majority.

      by nominalize on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 07:06:39 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Until we can ask and answer the question of (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      noway2, a2nite, Laconic Lib

      how many gun deaths are acceptable in order to protect the freedoms ascribed to the Second Amendment?  It is not realistic to think that we can go from 30k + annual gun deaths to zero (or even to 2k-3k), so short of a total ban (which no one is advocating even though we get accused of that all the time) we will still have many thousands die from GSWs every year, so the question is: are we aiming for cutting GSW deaths in half or some other number?

      Sadly we make decisions like this all the time (I mean we live with about as many auto fatalities as GSW deaths every year; I know there are many differences with the biggest one IMHO being that we are at least doing something to stem auto fatalities so that in 40 years auto fatalities have been cut by nearly 50% - in spite of large increases in drivers/cars. I know to others another big difference is that automobiles have useful purposes other than causing death) and will have to consider this.

      The gun enthusiasts flame me for "push polling" when I ask this question (not surprising), but those that seek regulations also flame me for nothing that we must accept a number of annual deaths that is not zero.

      Maybe someone that is a good writer can write a diary on this topic (hint, hint TeacherKen) to flesh out the issues and engage our community in a real discussion, not on the regulations we seek, per se, but on what are we willing to accept as a society.

      FWIW, I think that 30k + deaths are too many and we need to cut at least in half short term and have programs to cut it by at least 70% withing 15-20 years.  Now those "drastic" long-term reductions I propose will still leave us with nearly 10k GSW deaths every year! Horrible, but much better than now.

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

      by DefendOurConstitution on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 08:17:05 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  In order to begin to answer that question we would (4+ / 0-)

        need to break down those deaths.  
        How many of them are:
        1 - suicide
        2 - justifiable self defense including by law enforcement
        3 - gang violence
        4 - accidental
        5 - mass murder type catastrophic event
        6 - caused by someone illegally possessing a gun

        Each of the above categories requires different approaches, has different solutions and different degrees of being able to be solved.

        •  That data would be good, but taken as an aggregate (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Laconic Lib, murrayewv

          the numbers are just as valid.  

          Here are the 2010 (latest available complete data) numbers from the CDC:

          1 Intentional self-harm (suicide) by discharge of firearms 19,392

          2 Assault (homicide) by discharge of firearms 11,078

          3 No numbers on gang violence

          4 Accidental discharge of firearms 606

          5 No numbers on mass murder type catastrophic event

          6 No numbers on deaths caused by someone illegally possessing a gun

          7 Legal intervention 412 (doesn't say, but I presume this is by firearms)

          Those numbers add up to 31,488, short of total 31,672 reported by CDC for 2010.

          Still that is a pretty clear picture and the way to reduce all of the categories is making sure that people that are not trained or qualified to own these firearms do not have such easy access.  Thus FULL criminal background checks, licensing (making sure people are trained and demonstrate the ability to use firearms safely), and registration (making someone who owns a firearm responsible for keeping that firearm away from the hands of people that should not have them - remember that most illegal guns started their happy lives as legal guns before being sold, usually in a private & undocumented sale, to someone else).

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

          by DefendOurConstitution on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 10:07:55 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  maybe those are self defense..... (0+ / 0-)

            or the one not charge with homicide based on laws like those in Florida where you can kill someone you think will harm you and not be charged.

            You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you mad. Aldous Huxley

            by murrayewv on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 07:40:11 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

  •  I am Angry, But Disagree "Newtown Changed (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    lyvwyr101, a2nite, Laconic Lib

    Everything".

    I'm not sure how you can draw this conclusion when we have no new gun/ammo regulations passed by congress, no additional mental health care for the obviously large number of people in our nation who need it, and little to no new security at our public places.

    What Newtown did was briefly focus our attention on this one particular massive problem we have. Focus on the problem is merely the first step in the problem solving process.

    Congress must act, congress must stop serving the gun industry. The gun industry has flooded our nation with 300 million guns, and in fact should be considered a HAZARD to public health, safety and well being.

    "A civilization which does not provide young people with a way to earn a living is pretty poor". Eleanor Roosevelt

    by Superpole on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 06:17:42 AM PST

    •  Good lord! (16+ / 0-)

      The president announced his initiatives last week.  And you want all of them enacted into law and policy already?

      The NRA continues to have major sway over the majority party in the House of Representatives.  It's going to take some time to smash their power.

      When the union's inspiration /Through the workers' blood shall run /There can be no power greater /Anywhere beneath the sun /Solidarity Forever!

      by litho on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 06:20:22 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Good Lord, LOL... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        lyvwyr101, Laconic Lib

        Apparently you've not been paying attention to what congress is actually doing, or more accurately, what they are not doing.

        It took congress what? Fifteen months to pass a transportation bill in 2012?? This was legislation providing transportation funding for just over two years-- a "long term" bill had not been passed since 2005.

        Prior to the hopeless gridlock which congress is now mired in, I'm guessing transportation bills passed easily in a few weeks-- not after months of wrangling/stalling.

        You appear to be suggesting precedent can be ignored because of Newtown.

        I disagree. If it takes over a year to pass something as simple and UN politically-charged as transportation legislation, I'm not not sure how congress is going to promptly addess our gun violence/death problem.

        Given the ongoing trend, there will be more rampage killings over the next year. They're not going to stop while congress ponders what actions to take.

        http://www.reuters.com/...

        "A civilization which does not provide young people with a way to earn a living is pretty poor". Eleanor Roosevelt

        by Superpole on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 06:38:57 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  So what am I supposed to do (6+ / 0-)

          while Congress refuses to act?  Look at the sky and tut-tut?

          Or can I organize my butt off, taking advantage of the changed political environment, and use every single new mass killing as yet another weapon to pound my Congressmen over the head, blaming the NRA and the legislators themselves for their lack of action?

          The times have changed.  We've still got work to do.

          Roll up your sleeves.

          When the union's inspiration /Through the workers' blood shall run /There can be no power greater /Anywhere beneath the sun /Solidarity Forever!

          by litho on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 07:07:00 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Stop Pretending Congress CARES (0+ / 0-)

            for starters...

            FYI, there's a reason why public approval rating of congress is ten percent.

            "A civilization which does not provide young people with a way to earn a living is pretty poor". Eleanor Roosevelt

            by Superpole on Mon Jan 21, 2013 at 06:58:35 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  What has changed isn't in Washington (20+ / 0-)

          It's out here.  It's us.  Even here at dailykos, where guns were not on anybody's radar.  Until the Newtown gun massacre, that is.  

          The NRA and its parroters have been squelching the conversation about even admitting our nation's gun problem for decades, out of fear that the solution to that problem might infringe on their lifestyle.  

          So, we remained silent.  We didn't really believe their excuses, but we felt they had the political heft to let them be and to be wary of them.

          What happened to all our rage and righteous anger at the death and destruction that come from these instruments designed for death?  It pent up, like a reservoir behind a dam.  A dam that kept getting cracks with every new gun massacre: Columbine, Red Lake, Virginia Tech, Tucson, Aurora, and so on. Then came Newtown.

          The Newtown gun massacre was the crack that broke the dam.  Once a dam breaks, neither you nor I nor the NRA itself can put the water back in the reservoir; they can only try to scurry to safer ground.   So far, they're failing miserably, and the conversation continues.   If legislation doesn't come, well... those trying to stop the water cascading down the valley aren't going to have much luck.

          That is what has changed.

          Conservatives need to realize that their Silent Moral Majority is neither silent, nor moral, nor a majority.

          by nominalize on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 07:14:45 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Amen n/t (7+ / 0-)

            "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

            by Greg Dworkin on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 07:24:15 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  The first step (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            blueness, Laconic Lib, blue in NC

            with any addiction is to admit you have a problem. Most Americans have taken that step, we need to have an intervention for the rest. The gun addiction needs to be addressed for those who aren't hunters, but true 'overthrow the goverment, I need a gun to protect what's mine' crowd. With conservative media morons fostering a terror of the goverment this will not be easy. There is a difference between having a gun and carrying a military grade weapon everywhere you go.

            They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but it's not one half so bad as a lot of ignorance.

            by Shippo1776 on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 07:42:48 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  My AR15 is not a "military grade weapon". (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              noway2, FrankRose

              If they tried to issue me one for my military duties, I'd force them to give me a real military firearm.

              •  Why? (5+ / 0-)

                Why do you need it? Before you start, I have an AR15, also an AK47. Other than target shooting or collecting I really can't think why.  I was raised with guns, I was in the military as was my husband. I'm not afraid of guns. There are too many people who have too many guns. Many of them shouldn't have guns. No one said they were going to confiscate your gun. But can we not at least do something to make it harder for people who shouldn't have guns to get guns?

                They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but it's not one half so bad as a lot of ignorance.

                by Shippo1776 on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 10:41:27 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Why? well, why not (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  PavePusher, FrankRose

                  Why does one have a Macbook Pro when a desktop PC would do the job.  Why does anyone drive a BMW when a Honda would get them to work.  Why does anyone have a 60+ inch TV when they can see a standard model just fine.

                  Like any other product the AR was marketed to appeal to people in various ways.  Obviously the marketing has been successful as it is one of, if not the one, most commonly owned rifle in the USA.  

                  At the same time, those who own or want to own them don't need to explain their preferences and certainly don't need to justify their choice.  What matters is that they are obtaining them within the parameters set forth by the law.

                  I ordered an AR last December.  I had planned to get one someday.  I know people who own them and they enjoy shooting them at the range.  The possibility of a ban caused me to expedite my plan and put one on order now.

                  Like anyone else, I feel for the parents and families of the children slaughtered at school.  The difference seems to be that I blame the person not the AR.

                  •  I blame the person as well (8+ / 0-)

                    But we have a problem with unstable or incompetent people buying massive guns and lots of them. I live in the middle of nowhere surrounded by tea party crazies. A rifle is needed (rabid animals, feral dog packs), I've never had to shoot the dogs, but I have had to scattered them. I understand need, I understand want, I don't want anyone else shredding children. So, to protect our right to have a gun, can we not promote responsible gun ownership? I really don't want to face a rabid coyote with a machete, so I am responsible. This means background checks, training and safety, it means keeping crazies from getting guns. So far I've seen nothing that threatens my rights. I've seen a few comments that are unrealistic, but nothing Obama said threatens me.

                    They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but it's not one half so bad as a lot of ignorance.

                    by Shippo1776 on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 11:32:21 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  What is a "massive gun"? Just curious. n/t (0+ / 0-)
                      •  Any gun carried in public (5+ / 0-)

                        By someone I neither know nor trust. Anything modified to fire full auto. If you are wearing an AR at the mall (permit or not) you are wrong. Anyone who 'shows off' that they are carrying is not to be trusted. Anyone who target shoots without an impact zone is also dangerous. Many who buy guns because they can...not competent to own one, not all, but many.

                        They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but it's not one half so bad as a lot of ignorance.

                        by Shippo1776 on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 11:46:55 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Who's carrying full-auto firearms... (0+ / 0-)

                          except the LEO's?

                          Please don't carry books in public, that would just be "showing off".

                          But my question remains unanswered.

                          •  I confiscated my fathers (5+ / 0-)

                            Gun (full auto) when he devolved Alzheimer's. I have had a couple of instances of people (I left I didn't ask names) stroll into stores I was in carrying large capacity weapons. A BAR is not a welcome sight in the hands of a stranger. Had some fool show up at a ham fest with a freaking tommy gun.  I am aware of a guy a county over who owns a howitzer (why he has it I don't know, and yes it works). It's a shade over the top don't you think?

                            They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but it's not one half so bad as a lot of ignorance.

                            by Shippo1776 on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 05:36:53 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  No, I don't. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            noway2

                            Are you claiming to have an unregistered full-auto firearm?  The BATFE doesn't joke on that subject.  Please tread carefully and consult a lawyer.

                            "large capacity weapon" is pretty vague, and does not mean "full-auto weapon".

                            Was the "tommy gun" full-auto?  They do make replicas in semi-auto-only these days.  Fun, but expensive, range toys, and props for reinactors.  

                            Howitzers are generally not exactly portable side-arms.  And essentially are nothing more than metal tube and aiming devices.  Harmless.  Now, if he has the money to afford the ammunition for it, and the land to use it safely, more power to him.  One of my buddies at school was son of a gun-shop owner/gun-smith.  He also had a small mortar.  We used to launch cement-filled beer cans via black powder, across the small valley they were the only inhabitants of (rural Vemont) into an abandoned gravel quarry.  

                            Fun times.

                          •  No I do not (5+ / 0-)

                            I removed and delt with the problem legally. You are picking an argument where none exists, you are also not helping your cause any. One does not stand in Vatican square during mass and scream 'all gods are fake'. I answered you as you seemed sensible enough. But you are picking a fight where none exists, this does not help your credibility. No I don't think anyone anywhere should own whatever gun they can afford with it being no ones business. There should be accountability before the fact, not after. Since your only objective was to be as rude as possible and pick a fight, mission accomplished, be happy. Now, this conversation is over and you have lost a lot of ground for your point of view. Have a beer and a laugh with your buddies and congratulate yourself Air Force. We are done

                            They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but it's not one half so bad as a lot of ignorance.

                            by Shippo1776 on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 07:20:14 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  That's what PavePusher does. (5+ / 0-)

                            PR for the RKBA.

                            *There are two sides to every horseshit.* Kos

                            by glorificus on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 09:47:55 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  full auto weapon with all licenses..... (0+ / 0-)

                            owner dies and two sons inherit it and dozens of other weapons.  Still have it, can't sell it.  I am sure they are out there.

                            You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you mad. Aldous Huxley

                            by murrayewv on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 07:50:22 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  If it was Federally registered... (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            43north

                            it is transferable.

                    •  Nobody in their right minds wants to see (4+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      happy camper, PavePusher, 43north, ER Doc

                      anyone shredding children.  However the answer is not to ban the AR and magazine limits.

                      I too advocate responsible ownership.  Responsible ownership does not equal banning the AR and magazine limits.

                      There is nothing wrong with background checks, training, safety, and checks and measures to keep guns from crazies.  None of these things equate to banning the AR and magazine limits.

                      The only thing those items do is lash out at citizens who have done no wrong.  This is why I keep saying I support most of what Obama is proposing.  In fact, I would go further in some areas.  Somehow, the anti gun nuts don't see this and start screaming at me about dead kids and blaming me for the NRA.

                      •  fair point (3+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Shippo1776, 43north, ER Doc

                        although there's room for disagreement.

                        "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

                        by Greg Dworkin on Mon Jan 21, 2013 at 05:11:59 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  meaning fair point (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          43north, ER Doc

                          about the reasonable suggestions gun owners have contributed.

                          While I'm for a high capacity magazine ban, and I'd be for an AWB if it were workable, the background checks seem to be to be the consensus important step.

                          "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

                          by Greg Dworkin on Mon Jan 21, 2013 at 05:21:10 AM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                •  I own mine for target shooting, defensive purposes (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  happy camper

                  and hunting.  All legitimate reasons.  Not that I need any justification to exercise a Constitutional Right.

                  But I have no problem with working to keep them out of the hands of unstable people.  What I object to is doing so in a way that makes them unavailable to stable people.

                •  Let's Face It: (0+ / 0-)

                  Not only is our nation Chock-Full-O-Nuts (with guns) it's also Chock-Full-O-Bigots (with guns).

                  The Trayvon Martin murder proved just how far the bigotry still goes in our nation. The Sikh Temple shooting is another prime example

                  "A civilization which does not provide young people with a way to earn a living is pretty poor". Eleanor Roosevelt

                  by Superpole on Mon Jan 21, 2013 at 07:02:47 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

              •  Huh? (0+ / 0-)

                I believe there's a YouTube video demonstrating how to convert an AR-15 into a fully automatic weapon.

                "A civilization which does not provide young people with a way to earn a living is pretty poor". Eleanor Roosevelt

                by Superpole on Mon Jan 21, 2013 at 07:00:12 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

            •  an intervention is a nice idea (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Shippo1776
              we need to have an intervention for the rest
              When you're driven by strong paranoia, as "the rest" you mention are, no intervention makes a difference--- anything anyone says will be interpreted through the lens of confirmation bias.  

              The good news is, the thing about a democracy is that we don't have to get every last person on board.  

              Conservatives need to realize that their Silent Moral Majority is neither silent, nor moral, nor a majority.

              by nominalize on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 11:43:52 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  Excellent point (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Shippo1776

              When a person has a drinking problem, we commend them for acknowledging it and taking steps to change behavior.

              Our country has a gun problem, and I'm really surprised that the gun apologists are not the first in line to admit it.  After all, the words "well regulated" are part of the amendment they love so much.

          •  recent polls show this demand for action slipping (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            PavePusher

            CNN:

            According to the survey, 56% support a ban on semi-automatic guns, but that's down from 62% in a CNN poll taken in the days after the shooting at Sandy Hook. The same is true for a ban on high-capacity ammunition clips - 62% in December, down to 58% now - as well as a requirement for all gun owners to register their firearms with the local government - 78% last month, down to 69% now.

            "Those changes are likely due to the passage of time, as the initial shock of the Newtown tragedy has begun to wear off, and may indicate why the White House has put the gun issue on a fast track," says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland.

            A reminder, the White House put the USA PATRIOT Act on the "fast track" too.  Eliminating much of the 4th and 5th Amendment via an illegal "roll-back" of our Rights.

            We're entering the 5th year of the Obama reign, and that's still the law.  

            Similar slippage via NYT/CBS.

            Now to be fair, there's a half-dozen blogs and opinion pieces who claim a seismic shift in American politics, long-enduring, which will result in our becoming another Australia (gun wise).
            If that's the case, then why the fast-track?

            Name the most effective gun control law since 1980.

            DiFi's AWB.  Right?  Removed the production and importation of automatic weapons "Assault Weapons" from the hands of the gun nuts, teabaggers, freepers, birthers, etc... Right?  I mean that's the one - right??

            No.
            Hughes Amendment.  Attached to a pro-gun bill.

            Think on that.
            A youtube of the sausage-making as it happened.

            Synopsis offered on wikipedia:

            Machine Gun Ban

            As debate for FOPA was in its final stages in the House before moving on to the Senate, Rep. William J. Hughes (D-N.J.) proposed several amendments including House Amendment 777 to H.R. 4332 [4] that would ban a civilian from ownership or transfer rights of any fully automatic weapon which was not registered as of May 19, 1986. The amendment also held that any such weapon manufactured and registered before the May 19 cutoff date could still be legally owned and transferred by civilians.
            In the morning hours of April 10, 1986, the House held recorded votes on three amendments to FOPA in Record Vote No's 72, 73, and 74. Recorded Vote 72 was on H.AMDT. 776, an amendment to H.AMDT 770 involving the interstate sale of handguns; while Recorded Vote 74 was on H.AMDT 770, involving primarily the easing of interstate sales and the safe passage provision. Recorded Vote 74 was the controversial Hughes Amendment that called for the banning of machine guns. Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.), at the time presiding as Chairman over the proceedings, claimed that the "amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended, was agreed to." However, after the voice vote on the Hughes Amendment, Rangel ignored a plea to take a recorded vote and moved on to Recorded Vote 74 where the Hughes Amendment failed.[5][6] The bill, H.R. 4332, as a whole passed in Record Vote No: 75 on a motion to recommit. Despite the controversial amendment, the Senate, in S.B. 49, adopted H.R. 4332 as an amendment to the final bill. The bill was subsequently passed and signed on May 19, 1986 by President Ronald Reagan to become Public Law 99-308, the Firearms Owners' Protection Act.

            •  I read it as enduring majority support (11+ / 0-)

              ymmv.

              People see what they want to see in polls. it was always ever such.

              I acknowledge the 1994 AWB didn't do what it needed to. But not studying the issue is flat out stupid (Congress tried to ban THAT).

              That alone won't do it, but in concert might. or not. Discuss.

              The background checks are the most important.

              But change has occurred in the public. No going back.

              "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

              by Greg Dworkin on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 07:56:52 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Greg, let's look at background checks (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                PavePusher, noway2, FrankRose

                If we ignore the NRA "demonizing the mentally ill" then what use is a background check if HIPPA regulations (or successors) can serve to validate non-reporting of a troubled individual to the Courts.

                I say Courts, as "adjudicated mentally defective" is the law for permanent debarment.  There should also be a "hold for evaluation" temporary status, applied to pending divorces, restraining orders, accusations of stalking, and "I think my son is troubled" situations.

                "I think my son is troubled" is met currently with "Nothing we can do M'am, as he's committed no crime."

                Cho. Loughner. Lanza. Holmes.

                So IF I accept my long-standing rhetorical foe Wayward Wind's requirement for a "comprehensive background check" there has to be legal standards set first:

                a) who's paying for this?
                The recent DKos answer is high permit fees, high excise taxes on guns and ammunition, high local tax assessment fees based on number or value of firearms owned, fees per inspection, high dollar liability insurance - and a prohibition on a policy written specifically for firearms. Thus precluding the NRA, or Gun Owners of America from underwriting the per-policy costs.
                If The Hartford won't insure you without a $50,000 per year premium for Lloyds of London co-insurance?
                FUCKING EXCELLENT - turn 'em in bitches!
                After you pay $2000 for a non-refundable application/investigation fee.

                Redlining.

                b) standard for disclosure.  The right to privacy and medical privacy ends with your desire for a gun permit.

                Damn good precedent to set if we ever want single-payer health care.  We should know now who's addicted, who's in need of high cost mental health treatment, who's got genetic pre-cursors for high cost diseases - and marginalize them in some fashion.
                A newly created Drain on Society Penal Colony?
                I suggest Delaware/Maryland eastern shore, as it's predominantly bordered by water.

                Now if my "edgy" son is living at home, aged 22 - and he wants a gun permit?  I disclose on my parental interview that I'm concerned with his mental condition? The matter becomes one for the Housing Authority Police:

                "He leaves, or all y'all leaves, as we can't have someone who's a likely threat in Public Housing."
                There's incentive for me to keep silent if I can' afford or apply-for other housing.  "My boy?  He's a good son, he tries so hard."

                c) standards for denial and standards for issuance.
                So... my comprehensive investigation reveals that you're of even temperament, a solid provider, a family person with good ties within your family, respected and respectful of your neighbors.  While not/religious you accept the beliefs of others, you're politically active, but never one to take physical actions against your opponents, and generally what we'd like to see in an applicant.

                DENIED.  Insufficient need.
                You are neither a threat to, nor threatened-by anyone.
                You are also not sufficiently rich to be targeted by persons engaged in criminal enterprise, nor are you a celebrity who may have obsessive stalkers intent on physical contact and/or harm.

                There's also that matter of being black and Muslim this concludes our interview.  I must remind you that your permit filing and investigation fees are non-refundable.

                Note to Self:  seek a warrant for illegal firearms @ applicant's residence - calendar alarm [on], send [email], [30] [days] from [today's date].

          •  Not nobody.. there were a few (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            blueness

            Interested in the issue for a few years. It had no traction until Newtown, however.

            Figures don't lie, but liars do figure-Mark Twain

            by OregonOak on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 09:23:01 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  guns have been on my radar for years..... (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            glorificus, WakeUpNeo, nominalize

            and the RKBA diaries were mainly intended to assure us that gun control was political suicide so stop talking about them.  Those who pointed out the harm done by firearms were called ghouls.  Newtown has changed the conversation because there were no survivors in those classrooms of death.  That man shot and killed all the children he saw.  No wounded.  Every child had 3-11 wounds.  They were blown to bits.  It took something more horrible than even Virginia Tech to appall us.  I am sad it took this much and I won't let go this time.

            You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you mad. Aldous Huxley

            by murrayewv on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 07:46:23 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  This Issue Has Been on MY Radar (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            nominalize

            since Loughner committed his rampage killing in Tucson last year:

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

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

            I agree with you-- it's about us, it's about complacency, it's about the near total lack of empathy in our nation.

            The organization M.A.D.D. (Mothers Against Drunk Drivers) was started by-- yes, a mother who lost a daughter to an accident caused by a drunk driver. Americans tend not to act-- until someone in their immediate family has their life taken from them, due to stupidity, gun violence, etc.

            Note how it took several hideous rampage killings after the Loughner meltdown in Tucson (which nearly killed a member of congress) for Obama to finally act.

            ???

            "A civilization which does not provide young people with a way to earn a living is pretty poor". Eleanor Roosevelt

            by Superpole on Mon Jan 21, 2013 at 06:51:34 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  That's just the thing (0+ / 0-)

              "Note how it took several hideous rampage killings after the Loughner meltdown in Tucson (which nearly killed a member of congress) for Obama to finally act"

              Obama knows that politicians should be out leading the charge on change, but they should not be too far out in front, or it will be all for naught.   That is, he won't act until we make him.  Until he knows we've got his back. That's why it's up to us.

               We can't just sit around and vote every 4 years and wait around for the President to do things while we go on with our lives.  Democracy is a 24/7 gig, and that's hard for us to manage as ordinary citizens with lives outside politics.

              That's why the Newtown gun massacre was so epochal.  It stirred US.  

              Conservatives need to realize that their Silent Moral Majority is neither silent, nor moral, nor a majority.

              by nominalize on Tue Jan 22, 2013 at 01:13:44 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Democracy is a 24/7 gig (0+ / 0-)

                Not for congress-- for them it's more like three days per week-- for part of the year.

                "A civilization which does not provide young people with a way to earn a living is pretty poor". Eleanor Roosevelt

                by Superpole on Wed Jan 23, 2013 at 05:31:47 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

    •  ugh (14+ / 0-)

      It's been just one month. That's no time at all.

      And yet look at those numbers. Read those stories.

      Please keep your expectations to something approaching this actual planet, not some other one.

      "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

      by Greg Dworkin on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 06:22:47 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Uhhhh (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        lyvwyr101, Laconic Lib

        Weak.

        You think my expectations are wayyyy demanding? Please. what do you think the expectations are of the Newtown parents who lost their children to brutal murder?

        Safe to assume they want congress to act promptly-- which is just one aspect of the problem.

        Also safe to assume if congress manages to pass new gun legislation, it won't be retroactive. Thus the problem will not be fully resolved.

        "A civilization which does not provide young people with a way to earn a living is pretty poor". Eleanor Roosevelt

        by Superpole on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 06:45:44 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  I read it as a caution (11+ / 0-)

        Has Newtown changed everything? Not yet. The folks who oppose (1) stricter gun control and/or (2) allowing Obama legislative victories will try to dig in their heels, run the clock, wait until some folks have lost interest or hope and the balance of intensity swings back in their favor -- rather like health care in 1993-94.

        You knew all that already, of course. This diary is a call to action, not a happy dance in the open field.

        By the way, nitpick: Gallup didn't "actually" look at Obama's proposals. It asked what people thought of Obama's proposals based on what they had heard -- which, as you know, makes the responses a schmear of people's opinions about gun control and about Obama. It's valid information, just (like most survey results) tricky to interpret in isolation. As you point out, a bunch of Obama's specific proposals seem to have substantially more support.

        Election protection: there's an app for that! -- and a toll-free hotline: 866-OUR-VOTE
        Better Know Your Voting System with the Verifier!

        by HudsonValleyMark on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 07:00:25 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  accept the nitpick (9+ / 0-)

          but you're wrong about the change.

          Go find me a sustained discussion and this much polling for a month in a comparable time frame in the last 4-6 years. Even Aurora didn't do it. I don't know that Columbine did, thouygh I only looked over a decade and Columbine was '99.

          Ponder this:

          Americans were angrier about last month’s school shooting in Connecticut than they were about the Sept. 11 terrorist attack, according to a new Associated Press-GfK poll.

          And more favor stricter gun laws now than did shortly after the shooting deaths of 32 people on the campus of Virginia Tech in April 2007.

          Three-quarters of Americans said they reacted to the Connecticut massacre with deep anger, higher than the 65 percent who said they felt that way in a poll from the University of Chicago after the 9/11 attack. A majority, 54 percent, said they felt deeply ashamed that an event like Newtown could happen in the U.S., well above the 40 percent who said they felt that way in the wake of the disaster that followed Hurricane Katrina and the 35 percent who felt that way after the Virginia Tech shootings.

          Data supports my contention that this is different.  That Gallup spike posted also does.

          Want to argue, sure but it's short term? Obama's gun proposals make that different in a different way. we'll be talking about this for a long time.

          "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

          by Greg Dworkin on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 07:07:50 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  well, look at that Gallup graph (5+ / 0-)

            Read literally, it says that now we're almost back to where we were in 2001.

            The last thing I want to do is to sit back in my armchair and speculate about whether this change in opinion is short-term. The prediction I made was about opponents' strategy -- and it could be wrong, but it has some history behind it.

            I'll try to think straight, but this isn't an intellectual exercise for me. Almost eight years ago I got the panicked call from our older daughter that she heard shots and she ran out of the mall, but she didn't know where Mommy and her sister were. I'm still pretty pissed about that. I'm especially pissed for the guy who got shot and badly hurt trying to protect my daughters and their friends, while I was sitting at home.

            Election protection: there's an app for that! -- and a toll-free hotline: 866-OUR-VOTE
            Better Know Your Voting System with the Verifier!

            by HudsonValleyMark on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 07:17:54 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I get that (7+ / 0-)

              but i think this is now a national conversation in ways that it hasn't been for a decade (that's my reference, not 'ever').

              I agree with the poster above who says that after the dam breaks, you can't bottle it up again.

              That's not to say that legislation passes (we don't know that) but 23 executive orders that didn't exist now exist.

              Gun experts and law enforcement say (easily verified, too lazy to get the link, recent WaPo story) the background checks matter most, and that has the most political and voter support. if that alone passes, it'll matter and you can make a case it was because of Newtown.

              But here in CT, home of Colt, law enforcement is getting behind an AWB. That's remarkable. NY has passed something, MD and CO will, and I suspect so will CT, even if not an AWB. Malloy was shaken by this (rightfully so).

              "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

              by Greg Dworkin on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 07:30:05 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  I agree that it's a national conversation (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Greg Dworkin, elfling

                I'm not sure what, if anything, we're arguing about. I guess I accidentally started a knockdown fight about the meaning of "everything." ;) I'll bear it in mind next time I find myself partly agreeing with Superpole.

                Around DKos, I've seen various cartoon versions of the national reaction to the Sandy Hook tragedy, but I would never pin any of them on you. You don't think in cartoons. Most of us don't, although the dynamics of comment threads tend to accentuate the caricatures.

                Election protection: there's an app for that! -- and a toll-free hotline: 866-OUR-VOTE
                Better Know Your Voting System with the Verifier!

                by HudsonValleyMark on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 08:31:22 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  Greg, Connecticut LEOs have always (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                a2nite, Otteray Scribe

                been for more gun control.  GCA of '68 was authored by the first Senator Dodd, in-response to the conditions of Stamford, Bridgeport, New Haven, Waterbury, and Hartford.

                They wanted a means of legally disarming their predominantly black, partially Puerto Rican, low-income communities, and the GCA '68 was constructed in a useful fashion.  I was in Norwalk from '68 to '75 and frequented downtown Stamford in the years prior to bulldozing the low-income/slum sections.

                In doing so, Stamford sought to export their low-income and crime-ridden populations to other towns, and it met with success, and later legal challenges.

                •  this go around it's interesting that the (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  43north

                  small town LEOs are reluctant, the larger town/city LEOs are all in.

                  Stamford is a very interesting story, particularly with the  former mayor as Governor..

                  "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

                  by Greg Dworkin on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 05:08:54 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Greg, the era I referred to was the '60s and '70s (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Greg Dworkin

                    I doubt the Mayor from that era is still alive!

                    •  I get that (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      43north

                      but institutional history lives on. When you're a Mayor, you carry the city's history. Any mayor of Waterbury or Bridgeport knows that.

                      You know, like Newtown, CT, where I live. Towns and cities have histories.

                      "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

                      by Greg Dworkin on Mon Jan 21, 2013 at 05:09:50 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  I wrote for Taunton Press at one time. (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Greg Dworkin

                        Frequently went to the movies in Town Hall.

                        I've friends in Cheshire, CT as well, another small tight-knit town.  One of those friends a colleague of Dr. Petit.

                        •  yes, so you know the lay of the land (0+ / 0-)

                          (Dr Petit was the infamous home invasion victim.)

                          http://en.wikipedia.org/...

                          The issue for CT here is capital punishment.

                          Connecticut is poised to become the 17th state to ban the death penalty, but in a new poll Wednesday voters expressed support for capital punishment by a nearly two-to-one margin.

                          The Connecticut legislature voted to repeal death penalty earlier this month, and Gov. Dannel Malloy, a Democrat, has said he intends to sign the bill into law. The ban, if enacted, would not apply to the 11 inmates currently on death row.

                          Connecticut voters support the death penalty in general by a 62% to 30% margin, according to the Quinnipiac University poll. But respondents were split on the appropriate punishment for murder: 46% of voters said they want the death penalty for convicted murderers, while 46% said they want life in prison with no chance of parole.

                          The state has only executed one person since 1960: serial killer Michael Ross, who died in 2005. But the recent push to end capital punishment in Connecticut have been overshadowed by the 2007 home invasion murder of three members of the suburban Petit family. The two men convicted in that case would still face execution under the repeal.

                          http://blogs.wsj.com/...

                          Guns do not enter the discussion.

                          "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

                          by Greg Dworkin on Mon Jan 21, 2013 at 06:27:51 AM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                        •  BTW movies are still shown in town hall (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          43north

                          and there's still a flagpole in the middle of the street.

                          some things don't change.

                          "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

                          by Greg Dworkin on Mon Jan 21, 2013 at 06:29:02 AM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                •  but of course east is different than (0+ / 0-)

                  west.

                  "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

                  by Greg Dworkin on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 05:09:37 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

    •  I understand impatience (5+ / 0-)

      but this is a bit beyond understanding.

      Why is it that, as a culture, we are more comfortable seeing two men holding guns than holding hands?

      by jsfox on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 06:35:29 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  And a question on violent video games (14+ / 0-)

    If violent video games cause people to take their guns and shoot other people -

    These video games are sold all over the world.  Why is it only in America that people who play these games respond this way?

    "We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals, now we know that it is bad economics." Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Jan. 20, 1937

    by Navy Vet Terp on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 06:18:23 AM PST

  •  The NRA does promote tranquility (3+ / 0-)

    They promote that "Peace in America" can only be caused if everybody has a "Piece in America."

    There is no hell on earth appropriate enough for those who would promote the killing of another person, in the name of a god.

    by HarryParatestis on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 06:26:19 AM PST

  •  Excellent post, thank you DemfromCT. Newtown has (6+ / 0-)

    certainly changed things and I hope for the best.  The battle to get sensible national firearm regulations will be long and hard, for the obvious reasons, but this time I am hopeful that it will not be swept under the carpet (as it has been so many times after so many tragedies).  When over 100,000 people get shot every year (more than 11 every single hour!) it is clear that we have - as teacherken has put it - a "public health crisis."  [Don't worry, as "only" 30k + die from the GSWs, or 3.5 per hour.]

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

    by DefendOurConstitution on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 06:27:10 AM PST

  •  Arm both sides of the conflict... (9+ / 0-)

    and its a win win situation for arms dealers and manufacturers. They've been doing it since war was invented. War profiteering is not new. Why do you think we are constantly at war? At war with the other. All weapons manufacturers need to do is convince the people that they need arms because they have an armed enemy that may or may not exist. Then when those people are armed they go to the other and say you need arms because those people are armed. It's a closed loop and all of the gun nuts are being used and duped by the military industrial establishment.  

  •  But, but, but.... (8+ / 0-)

    Post-ABC polled "clips" not "magazines" so it's invalid because freedom.

    ....no longer in SF.... -9.00, -7.38

    by TFinSF on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 06:31:35 AM PST

  •  It's good that the tide has turned (6+ / 0-)

    terrible WHY it's turning.
    Greg, there is a mini NRA in your town, Newtown CT. Would you talk about them in a future diary?

    If I ran this circus, things would be DIFFERENT!

    by CwV on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 06:34:44 AM PST

  •  New NRA Members (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    lyvwyr101, a2nite

    George Will was just on This Week touting the oft mentioned increase of “250,000 new NRA members”. Does anyone know if this is a net number; are the more sane NRA members who are giving up their membership subtracted? Of course, 250,000 is an inconsequential number in any case (even if George Will seems to believe that it counters the outpouring of sentiment for gun control measures. With over 16 million hunters in the US, the 4 million NRA members only represent a minority of them.

    Meanwhile, how many have joined or donated to gun control groups over this period? Anyone have any figures? I’d bet the figure vastly exceeds the cited 250,000 NRA number.

  •  I support more restrictions, but (8+ / 0-)

    we are not the only country with guns.  25% of Canadian citizens are armed.  They aren't killing each other so why are we?    Banning couldn't stop booze, drugs, prostitution or money laundering by the too big to fail banks, and banning guns isn't enough to stop the slaughter that is taking place in cities, schools and streets.

    What we need is a Democrat in the White House.

    by dkmich on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 06:52:06 AM PST

    •  true (7+ / 0-)

      they don't kill each other like we do. we, of course, have more and better guns (we're #1!!), but that can't be the only part, nor are proposals only about guns (or only about Newtown).

      Then again, if it were easy, we'd have already done it.

      "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

      by Greg Dworkin on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 06:56:10 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  It's not just the guns. (9+ / 0-)

      Gun advocates use Switzerland as an example, but in Switzerland, guns are highly regulated. Not many gun advocates would favor Switzerland's gun regulations being brought here.

      The real difference here is that we have a public that is being deliberately whipped into a frenzy. The more gun laws are loosened, the more people complain about how restrictive gun laws are becoming. About 25 years ago, most states either didn't allow concealed weapons, or had you demonstrate you had a need for a concealed weapon before granting a permit. Now most states are must-issue states. Even the most mild gun restrictions bring out cries of "They're coming to take away our guns!"

      The false idea that there is a right to overthrow the government has become mainstream. We have politicians talking about "Second Amendment Remedies", the idea that you can use your gun if you fail to get what you wanted at the ballot box. We have "shoot first" laws that let you shoot when you "feel scared".

      The recent shootings at gun shows should demonstrate that arming teacher probably isn't a great idea.

      The people who believe that the UN has black helicopters and rule America used to be a fringe. The right has welcomed them with open arms. Unstable people get whipped into a frenzy, and some of them are going to act on it.

      It's this delusional frenzy that needs to be reined in.

      The wolfpack eats venison. The lone wolf eats mice.

      by A Citizen on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 07:38:15 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  As I said, we're just crazier. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        orlbucfan, ancblu

        This whole country, its politicians and political process - everything has moved so far right that our two political parties are  conservatives and fascists.  

        While we celebrate the election of the lesser of the evils - again, the middle class continues to disappear, our kids continue to get killed in our schools and corporate wars -  or sold as indentured servants to the banks who hold their student loans and launder drug money with impunity.  

        It's pretty hard to argue against "corrupt government coming to get you" when government is fucking corrupt and it has been coming to get the middle class for the last 40 years.

        What we need is a Democrat in the White House.

        by dkmich on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 07:49:48 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Agreed. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Laconic Lib

        It seems that a nation of homeschoolers, holed up in bunkers, keeping each other "polite" by each threatening the other with being shot to death over every little squabble is exactly what the gun-makers' lobby/eliminate the Dept of Education/public school is evil/'Christian dominionist movement wants.  They are very vocal and they are all talking anarchy.  It's amazing, in a sad way.

    •  Our neighbors to the north have strict firearm (4+ / 0-)

      regulations and have 1/3 as many guns us as our Country, plus many are long guns instead of hand guns.

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

      by DefendOurConstitution on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 07:52:53 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Beat'em at their own game.. (4+ / 0-)

    with a media blitz about how only criminals own guns and imagery of lying Republicans doing what they do daily. These images could include Boehner and McConnell along with their racist, anti-middle-class cohorts.

    After the election commercials I listened to here in the Midwest USA, all bets are off as far as decency and rules of combat. If the GOP wants to play the game that way I say we kick their ass at it.

    /rant off

    :)

  •  One more thing Newtown changed... (17+ / 0-)

    The NRA has been raising funds by telling people "Obama and the Democrats are coming to take your guns!!!" Many folks, including me, thought this would never happen.

    Now, we are.

    I bet they'll raise even more funds, and really enegrize their base, with their upcoming "We told you so!" campaign.

    To quote Bill Clinton, because he might just know something about this subject:

    “Do not be self-congratulatory about how brave you for being for this” gun control push, he said. “The only brave people are the people who are going to lose their jobs if they vote with you.”

    Things are more like they are now than they've ever been before...

    by Tom Seaview on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 06:52:50 AM PST

    •  their base are conservative republicans (11+ / 0-)

      and don't need motivating. What's striking is that the NRA these days is 70% conservative and mostly Republican. Don't think they care for Obama much.

      Gun rights need to be respected, Bill Clinton is right about that, but he's wrong about what happens next. And you're wrong about coming for your guns.

      "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

      by Greg Dworkin on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 06:58:58 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  No, I'm not. (14+ / 0-)

        Andrew Cuomo just signed a magazine ban that outlaws my two Glocks, since there is no such thing as a 7-round magazine for either one. I'm pretty sure it also bans our eight-shot revolver.

        If we nominate Andrew Cuomo to run for President, claims that he came for their guns will be entirely true.

        Things are more like they are now than they've ever been before...

        by Tom Seaview on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 07:04:22 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I dislike Cuomo for other reasons (11+ / 0-)

          remarkably ambitious pol, but I don't think this is his ticket to the wH.

          "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

          by Greg Dworkin on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 07:15:19 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Surely the manufacturer will (7+ / 0-)

          offer a magazine for your Glocks that is within the new law. Or the new law will have to grandfather the original standard magazines you already own. Or the state can offer to buy back your now-illegal guns for replacement price so you can get guns that do fit within the law.

          Would you be amenable to any of these possible solutions?

          •  "possible" solutions ? (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            PavePusher, happy camper, Tom Seaview

            Surely the Govt will be reasonable about transitioning...
            I'll believe it when i see it.

            Difference b/t legal & illegal magazine?
            How would this type of law PREVENT a crime?
            It will just make it easier to charge someone WITH an (imaginary) crime

            Who is mighty ? One who turns an enemy into a friend !

            by OMwordTHRUdaFOG on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 09:16:14 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Any gun law that makes (0+ / 0-)

              any gun 'illegal' by virtue of its manufactured capacity would, it seems to me, necessitate an honest buy-back. If there is to be no door-to-door confiscation, and that will NEVER fly in this country. Realistic.

              At the same time, any gun manufacturer who hopes to sell guns to civilians in this country will have to manufacture guns that fall within the law - and if they really cared about their bottom line (and they do), produce magazines for their weapons that fall within the law so prior weapons will still be legal.

              Or the law will have to have a grandfather clause.

              Not that all that many gun owners care all that much about the guns in their racks being strictly 'legal' per something like magazine restrictions. Especially if the gun was purchased as a 10-rounder and the state later decided only 7 will do. Most gun owners don't carry their guns off their property anyway, and if there's no door-to-door storm trooping, the government won't be able to enforce the 7 round restriction on anybody who hasn't committed a crime in which they are armed with an 'illegal' magazine in a 'legal' gun. We've plenty of toothless laws in this country already. Nobody pays any attention to them because they're toothless. Except for those for whom the law was passed, so they'll feel better believing nobody's got 10, 15 or 30 round magazines anymore. Kind of a sick joke.

          •  I don't think the manufacturers will rush to do (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Joieau, PavePusher, FrankRose, Tom Seaview

            anything of the sort.  Why spend a bunch of money to tool up to make new parts when the law is undoubtedly going to be challenged in court.  While I haven't seen any official word, this also seems to be the consensus in the gun forums.

            •  I expect you're right (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Boris49

              about this 7-round restriction, because most clip-fed guns come standard for a 10-round magazine. I suspect any serious and enforceable restriction on rounds will have to be 10. Revolvers come with their own load restrictions, so those don't count.

              I mean, who's going to eject your clip from the magazine and empty it of bullets so they can be counted before you are allowed into the store/office/government building (CC permit holders)? Gun owners who wish to keep their weapons fully legal would only load 7 instead of 10, but criminals don't give a shit. I don't think this type of law makes anybody safer.

        •  I'm sure you'll have a 'grandfather' clause (0+ / 0-)

          in the new law where you can keep your Glocks.

          Inner and Outer Space: the Final Frontiers.

          by orlbucfan on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 09:22:38 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  i (5+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Karl Rover, JoanMar, poco, vcmvo2, kharma

          have a television set that no longer works since the switch to digital. Unless I get a converter. Evolution marches on. Your Glocks are over. Just like my television. I didn't come to Daily Kos to weep and moan and rend my garments when evolution passed my TV by. You could display similar maturity.

        •  It does not outlaw your two glocks . (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          reflectionsv37, kharma

          You need to modify your magazine so that they are incapable of holding more that 7 , any gunsmith should be able to do that for you if you are not up to it .

          Install a permanent plug in the revolver so that its only got 7 .

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

          by indycam on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 10:28:27 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  What is more likely if NY is the only state with (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            FrankRose, Tom Seaview

            this restriction is that many manufacturers will voluntarily blacklist NY.  The blacklist would include all police and government sales to the state as well.

            This tactic was used by STI in California with a great degree of success.

            Gun manufacturers in New York are already looking at alternate sites in the Southeast and Southwest.

        •  Way to go, Mr. Cuomo! Yay!! (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          kharma

          Maya Angelou: "Without courage, we cannot practice any other virtue with consistency. We can't be kind, true, merciful, generous, or honest."

          by JoanMar on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 11:22:05 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  This is incorrect... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          DefendOurConstitution

          you can keep and use the magazines, they just can't have more than 7 shells in them at a time.

          Surely you know this?

          If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed. Albert Einstein

          by kharma on Mon Jan 21, 2013 at 05:52:23 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Precisely why Harry Reid will slow walk (6+ / 0-)

      legislation and wait for the House.

      "The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason." - Thomas Paine

      by shrike on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 06:59:25 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  PS my bet is that AWB doesn't pass (12+ / 0-)

      but other stuff does.

      "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

      by Greg Dworkin on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 06:59:56 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Gawd, I hope you're right... (12+ / 0-)

        For informational purposes, I frequent blogs about concealed carry. Here's the response of a hard-right commenter to Obama's 23 actions last week:

        All of his Executive Orders were all things that I believe 99% of people have no problem with.  The major politically charged items though - he will leave up to congress....So when it doesn't pass there, he can come out saying 'Well guys - I did all I could to protect your children...Clearly the Republican controlled congress thinks otherwise'.

        That is - let us all pray that it doesn't pass.......

        Things are more like they are now than they've ever been before...

        by Tom Seaview on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 07:07:21 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  excellent point (6+ / 0-)

          I'm hoping to trade AWB for magazine restrictions (10, NOT 7!)

          "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

          by Greg Dworkin on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 07:20:58 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I would trade almost all (5+ / 0-)

            for a truly effective and functioning background investigation process.

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

            by Wayward Wind on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 07:29:53 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  see comment (3+ / 0-)

              "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

              by Greg Dworkin on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 07:35:41 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  This is what is the sort of thing that is needed (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              PavePusher, Tom Seaview

              A solid, functioning background check process that is actively used and engaged.  For example, one of the things I heard mentioned in one of Obama's speeches was that RI has contributed ZERO names to the federal database.  This is a strong indication that it is not being used.  Combine this with actually cracking down on crime, straw purchases, adequate health care including support for mental issues that doesn't stigmatize the individual needing help, and deal with the social and economic problems that cause crime and things will improve.  Keep focusing on taking away symbols and tools and you will just drive them underground where they are a lot harder to deal with.  

              •  RI also has like 2 homicides per year (3+ / 0-)

                an extremely low crime rate. You have to knowingly take a wrong turn on the way to Boston to even get to the place.

                But yes, if they sell guns, they should fully participate.

                How big is your personal carbon footprint?

                by ban nock on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 08:25:07 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  On a trip to NH once (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  PavePusher

                  This was before cell phone cameras. I was driving along some highway during a bit of accident backup and got a good look at the road identified by a "Rhode Island" sign.

                  It was dirt road, about 1.5 lanes wide, curving off beneath a canopy of trees.

                  I'd always known the place was small and hardly ever mentioned in any news, but still....

                  It's safe to trust a sane person with the keys to nuclear weapons, but it's not safe to trust an insane person with the cleaners under the kitchen sink. The answer is not gun control, it's people care.

                  by JayFromPA on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 08:49:42 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Please allow me to postulate (0+ / 0-)

                    Who wants assault weapons? Who feels they need them to protect themselves from the government? Overwhelmingly it is a certain group of people. We all know who they are. What is it that these people have in common? What is the one thing that is shared most amongst them? Think about that. You may agree or disagree with me on this, but give it some thought. Why is it that the U.S. has so many more of these horrible  occurrences than other countries? People in other nations watch the same movies, play the same video games, and many live under similar gun laws. Why does it happen here so much more? Who wants the WMDs here? Why do they want them? It is all about fear. We allow fear mongers to spread their lies and a large contingency of us buy into it. It is fear. We have a huge number of cowards among us that can only feel safe it they have machines that will allow them to obliterate what they fear most. It is all about fear. Among them are the largest number of conspiracy theory believers. It is all about fear. They are scared to death of a black man in the white house. It is all about fear. Fear is contagious. Fear is picked up and learned by our youth. Fear is the mother of violence. We are a nation of emotional pussies.

                    There is nothing more exciting than the truth. - Richard P. Feynman

                    by pastol on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 10:01:50 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                •  There are a lot more things than homicide that (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  PavePusher

                  will get you put on the no gun for you list such as any felony or any violent misdemeanor.  Certainly RI has their fair share of these.

                •  Providence was a pretty bad town (0+ / 0-)

                  At least in the 90a when I was stationed in Groton

                  "It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees." -- Emiliano Zapata Salazar
                  "Dissent is patriotic. Blind obedience is treason." --me

                  by Leftie Gunner on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 10:01:53 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                •  Please Cut the Crap: Guns - Suicide or Homicide? (0+ / 0-)

                  First: twenty or thirty homicides is not only "2," is it?

                  2011 Crime in Rhode

                  2010 Crime in Rhode Island

                  Furthermore, please consider this message from the State of Rhode Island:

                  Make Your Home Suicide-Proof: HEALTH Launches Campaign to Educate Parents About Youth Suicide

                  09-28-2011

                  Most parents appreciate the importance of childproofing or fireproofing their homes. However, many parents of teens may not realize the simple steps that they can take to insure that their homes are suicide-proof.

                  The Rhode Island Department of Health (HEALTH), in conjunction with The Center to Prevent Youth Violence (CPYV) is launching a campaign to help educate parents about the dangers of firearms or prescription medications being in the home may pose and the potential that teens may use them to attempt suicide.

                  ...

                  “CPYV is very pleased to be partnering with HEALTH on this vitally important initiative,” said CPYV Executive Director and Co-Founder Dan Gross. “We need to educate parents about the very real things we can all do to help prevent more tragic suicides. In four out of five youth suicides involving firearms, the weapon was owned by a family member. Parents need to know that just by removing or locking a firearm they can greatly reduce the risk of a suicide in their home. It is very gratifying to know that this initiative will help make homes safer and, ultimately, will help save lives.”

                  (Some emphasis added)

                  Make Your Home Suicide-Proof: HEALTH Launches Campaign to Educate Parents About Youth Suicide

                  You are interested in saving lives, aren't you?

      •  I don't expect (11+ / 0-)

        anyone to come for my guns either, but perception is everything. Staunch Democrats I know are in an uproar about the possibility--just the possibility--that wholesale restrictions on entire classes of firearms may be coming. I've spent time explaining to people that no, the president can't make new law with an EO, that no Democrats in Congress are proposing confiscation, and that bans are not likely to pass.

        Make no mistake, there will be a price paid in 2014 if this is not handled correctly.

        "A lie is not the other side of a story; it's just a lie."

        by happy camper on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 07:17:38 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  I think AWB wil pass in a watered down version (0+ / 0-)

        that does nothing at all (except make some in Congress feel better about themselves that they passed it) and even that will probably be written by the NRA.

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

        by DefendOurConstitution on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 07:25:33 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  What would be the definition of a watered (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          PavePusher

          down AWB?  

          There still seems to be a lot of public misconception about the differences between semi and fully automatic and what the current regulations are.  There also seems to be a lot of misunderstanding about the relative power of the different cartridges and what is available to civilians and what is not.  I can't help but wonder if a sizable portion of those calling for restrictions are doing so under a false premise of restricting that which already is.

          •  Maybe we are talking about the type of AW (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            WakeUpNeo

            used at Sandy Hook and aren't confused one damn bit.  

            Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a Republican. But I repeat myself. Harry Truman

            by ratcityreprobate on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 08:47:47 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  It still remains to be seen if such a ban would (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              PavePusher, FrankRose

              even hold up legally speaking.  Part of the challenge is the old saying that a law is a law until it is not.  What this means is that if congress or any other legislative body generates a law it is assumed legal, valid, and constitutional.  The two ways to invalidate a law are to either repeal it or negate it in the courts, neither of which can happen until someone challenges the law.  In order to challenge the law they have to be able to demonstrate that they have been harmed by the law.

              Consider also the SCOTUS rulings, all of which occurred after the last ban expired that state that items that are in common use as well as items that have a purpose of being for self or common defense are protected.  The rulings have also outlawed the ability to ban whole classes of weapons.   Of course, there is still room for interpretation and any court case still becomes a roll of the dice, but there is a lot of historical precedent against the bans.  I also imagine that we will soon be seeing the bans imposed by NY challenged and the feds, both congress and the courts, will likely wait till that settles before taking any action.

              So, is a ban an uphill battle or is it a pickett's charge?

    •  There are indeed a number of people who... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      snowwoman

      ...are going to lose their jobs if they vote with us on this.

      There are also an even larger number of people who will lose their jobs if we are fortunate enough to act like a mature society and impose the frankly modest proposals on the table.

      The politicians will be taken care of: there will be golden parachutes available for the overwhelming number of them. The workers at Remington, Smith and Wesson, etc. who will lose their jobs due to production cuts because "certain product lines" will be scaled back should also be on our radar. The same cast of characters who are maintaining opposition to weapons regulation will be against unemployment compensation for those workers and any government initiative to create for them comparably compensating incomes.

      Nearly all of our issues are opposed by pretty much the same enemy "army".

      When you are right you cannot be too radical; when you are wrong, you cannot be too conservative. --Martin Luther King Jr.

      by Egalitare on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 07:52:12 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  The disconnect of it all (13+ / 0-)

    was demonstrated yesterday in my state capitol building - the Don't take my Gun rally had people holding "keep our kids safe" signs and AK47's on their backs. I for one don't feel that I can have any sort of reasonable discussion about guns and violence with people who believe this argument is valid or this macho display of firepower is normal behavior. I'm disgusted and angry that this is what it's come to - more depth of emotion for a gun than the victims of gun crime, most especially the ability to disregard the children in Newtown.

    I'm pretty tired of being told what I care about.

    by hulibow on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 06:53:33 AM PST

    •  I'm tired of it---too. (8+ / 0-)

      I'm tired of TRYING to hold a dialogue with people like that.

      My feeling is---there  will not be any middle ground--here.

      I'd rather just go around them with more restrictive gun laws---whether they like it or not.

      And in both the long run----and the end---that is what may have to be done.

      Enough is enough!

      The Onion says----scholars have discovered---the Mayan word for "Apocalypse" in fact---translates more accurately as: "Time of pale obese gun monsters."

      by lyvwyr101 on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 07:25:46 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  And going around them is going to cause them (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        lyvwyr101, PavePusher

        to do go around you too.  In the end, it will come down to a bunch of money spent, a bunch of energy wasted, and nothing to show for it except a further divided nation and more dysfunctional nation.

        There is an old saying that goes, "when you find yourself in a hole the first thing to do is put down the shovel."  This applies to parties on both sides of the argument.

        •  I would venture (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          snowwoman, Faito, WakeUpNeo

          to say that for quite some time now it has been abundantly clear that money and profit matters more to our legislators and to our business community---than a human life does---with of course---the exception of a precious few.

          As the number of gun-related deaths continues to rise  (what was it---about a thousand more---since Sandy Hook?-Dear God) and there are those insistent on continuing to be deaf---and continuing to ignore our unified voice for more restrictive gun legislation--I would venture to say the protests may surpass the 1960's---when an angry nation took to its feet---and moved a mountain.

          I believe in miracles---and like so many others--I refuse to back down---I refuse to back off.

          As a nation---as a people---we need to accomplish this.

          This NEEDS to be done.

          The Onion says----scholars have discovered---the Mayan word for "Apocalypse" in fact---translates more accurately as: "Time of pale obese gun monsters."

          by lyvwyr101 on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 09:09:29 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  You should listen to yourself, really. n/t (0+ / 0-)
    •  Clinging to guns is one and the same as (3+ / 0-)

      having a fetish for them.

    •  And on the otherside it is impossible to hold a (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      PavePusher, FrankRose, Boris49

      rational dialog with someone who is just screaming shit like "emotionally stunted narcissistic depressives"  (taken from the top of the comment section) at anyone who doesn't fully agree with them or believes in gun rights.

  •  Thank you, Greg (7+ / 0-)

    Appreciate how hard this was for you to write, living as you do in the very town where this outrageous massacre happened.

    I feel sick every time I think of these children, these innocent, trusting little children, being slaughtered.

    If we don't ban assault weapons now, when will we?  

    There's an interesting article in the WaPo this morning about gun laws in Germany.  Germans don't mind their guns being registered--"If you have to register your car, you can register your gun"--they seem to believe.  

    That tweet from KagroX about five people being "freedomed" at gun shows this weekend is very telling!  More of this, please.

    "Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon

    by Diana in NoVa on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 07:04:20 AM PST

  •  The numbers don't lie (11+ / 0-)

    In countries with much tighter gun control laws, there are far fewer murders per capita than in the US. The idiots on the right can keep prattling on about how people, not guns, kill people, but it's simply undeniable that people with guns kill far more people than people without guns.

    No one needs to own high-capacity, rapid-fire firearms for personal use. They serve absolutely no real, practical purpose such as hunting or self-protection. Some people might find them "cool", but that isn't a good enough reason to let people own them, given the kind of human damage they can and all too often do in the wrong hands. And don't insult me with nonsense about "freedom", or give me reason to believe that you should be institutionalized by claiming that they're what protect you from big guvmint. These people are NUTS.

    Personally, I'd like these laws to be retroactive, because there are simply too many out there already (with compensation for seized firearms). At the very least, we should require retroactive licensing of all currently owned firearms. But the fact that we're contemplating any gun control is a good sign.

    Guns don't kill people, but people with guns kill a lot more people.

    "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

    by kovie on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 07:08:02 AM PST

    •  An important distinction to make (5+ / 0-)

      is between gun control, which places restrictions on use, carry, and future purchase, and gun removal, which involves actually removing firearms from circulation.  You seem to be advocating both.

      A lot of pro-gun advocates conflate the two, either as a rhetorical trick, or because they've let their fears overcome them, or because they don't know any better than what they hear on the radio.

      But they aren't the same thing. Not by a long shot.

      Conservatives need to realize that their Silent Moral Majority is neither silent, nor moral, nor a majority.

      by nominalize on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 07:23:08 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Damn straight! You try to hold me responsible for (7+ / 0-)

        my gun today and tomorrow you will be knocking at my door to take them away!  Because FREEDUM & Hitler!

        /snark yet we hear it repeated even here at Daily KOS.

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

        by DefendOurConstitution on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 07:29:21 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I am still waitig to see what happens in NY (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Boris49

          where they said that they are going to compile a list from doctors and then use that as grounds to take peoples property by force.  No chance for abuse there.

          •  United States of America, Dept of HHS OCR says: (0+ / 0-)
            January 16, 2013

            Subject:  HHS issues letter to providers on disclosures to avert threats to health or safety

            HHS has issued a letter to health care providers to ensure that they are aware of their ability under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) Privacy Rule to take action, consistent with their ethical standards or other legal obligations, to disclose necessary information about a patient to law enforcement, family members of the patient, or other persons, when they believe the patient presents a serious danger to himself or other people.  For more information, see: http://www.hhs.gov/...

            ____________________________________ This email is being sent to you from the OCR-Privacy-List listserv, operated by the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) in the US Department of Health and Human Services. This is an announce-only list, a resource to distribute information about the HIPAA Privacy and Security Rules. For additional information on a wide range of topics about the Privacy and Security Rules, please visit the OCR Privacy website at http://www.hhs.gov/.... You can also call the OCR Privacy toll-free phone line at (866) 627-7748. Information about OCR's civil rights authorities and responsibilities can be found on the OCR home page at http://www.hhs.gov/.... If you believe that a person or organization covered by the Privacy and Security Rules (a "covered entity") violated your health information privacy rights or otherwise violated the Privacy or Security Rules, you may file a complaint with OCR. For additional information about how to file a complaint, visit OCR's web page on filing complaints at http://www.hhs.gov/.... To subscribe to or unsubscribe from the list serv, go to https://list.nih.gov/....

            America: Love it or leave it?
      •  If you insist on such a distinction (4+ / 0-)

        then I would say that we need both. I doubt that it's politically or practically possible right now, but I'd personally like to see the actual removal of certain kinds of guns from most of their current and future owners. NO ONE needs to or should own rapid-fire, high capacity firearms. There is absolutely no reason for an individual to own one, or even use one, except perhaps target practice under certain very restricted conditions, on a gun range, which would own and securely store such guns for use ONLY on such ranges under such conditions.

        I honestly could care less about all these abstract arguments being made for absolute gun rights, which do no exist, make no sense, and should not be taken seriously. Gun rights, like all others, are not absolute and unlimited, and when there are questions of public safety involved, are secondary IMO. And I don't want to hear any slippery slope arguments because they make my head hurt in their stupidity and offensiveness.

        "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

        by kovie on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 08:23:09 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  By your description of (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          PavePusher
          rapid-fire, high capacity firearms.
          it sounds like you are describing fully automatic, also know as automatic weapons.  These are already very highly regulated.  I find it peculiar how these terms are being used, I would even say misapplied, in order to persuade people on an emotional level.
        •  Yes (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          kovie, poco, nominalize, WakeUpNeo

          I'm so with you on that.  It seems like everyday I see new term that is used to bolster outrage and foster fear among gun owners.   And yes, public safety must come first.  To me that means everyone being as safe as possible from all kinds of violence, including, but not limited to gun violence.  Murder, suicide, accidental shootings, I don't care.  I don't want any of it.  

          •  I can't believe how many here (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            poco

            essentially defend the legitimate right to own a firearm whose ONLY purpose is to kill lots of people, as opposed to be used for hunting and self-protection.

            "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

            by kovie on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 10:58:29 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  Ultimately kovie, your ability to have someone (1+ / 1-)
          Recommended by:
          FrankRose
          Hidden by:
          WakeUpNeo

          do what you desire them to do depends on your rhetoric or your fists.

          Frankly, your rhetoric sucks.  And I don't think you've got the physical attributes necessary to enforce your will.

          Scale that up to national size, the argument still holds.

          •  You're actually resorting (0+ / 0-)

            to attacking my physical attributes, about which you know nothing? Seriously, we're descending into implied "I can beat you up" arguments?

            Your "arguments", as it were, self-refute.

            Also, the one about how we need to be mellow and "nice" with the other side and be sensitive to their feelings, so they can be "reasonable" in return. Yeah, that's worked so well for us in the past.

            We're not looking over to win over the extremists. We're looking to change some laws. By your reasoning we should try to reason with the tea party over entitlement cuts instead of just ignoring them and doing what's right and works. And yes, I equate RKBA types with teahadists.

            "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

            by kovie on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 12:20:01 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  No I'm not. But it's obvious you have only two (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              FrankRose

              options:  words or fists.

              You keep saying "We" like it's "We, the democratic party".

              That is fucking ridiculous.  Your "we" is a subset of American citizenry and based on your radicalism, I'd estimate it is a very small subset.

              So, as I said, you have two options.  You will fail at both.

              •  Actually, you are (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                poco

                But even if you were to take it metaphorically, as the federal government against RKBA fanatics were a retroactive gun back enacted (which I agree is not likely right now), I have zero doubt who'd win.

                No, guns were never intended to protect citizens against a "tyrannical" federal government. Not legally, not practically. That's a fantasy of the RKBA crowd.

                And by we, I reject to people who support prudent gun control, i.e. the overwhelming majority not only of the party, but country now.

                You want to argue with numbers, be my guest.

                "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

                by kovie on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 01:37:43 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  You've bought into the tyranny meme? Good for (0+ / 0-)

                  you.  Let's take you 5th sigma folks from each end of the political spectrum and put you all in the same hot tub.  I have no use for either set.

                  The issue is bad guys.  Reduce the break ins and the rapes and the kooky goth nihilists and the bangers and the taggers and maybe people will feel safe enough not to think they need a firearm to protect themselves in their homes.

                  As it is, the papers don't report how safe everyone is.  They report the crimes.

                  Some kid in New Mexico just killed a family.  15 years old.  I don't know the circumstances.  But I'm pretty watchful of teenagers at this point.

                  •  Yeah, like Zimmerman in FL? (0+ / 0-)

                    You're making all the classic NRA arguments. I'm surprised you didn't throw video games and bad parenting into the mix.

                    Trust me, putting the "rights" of gun owners who want minimal restrictions on guns above public safety is not going to be a winning position from 2013 on forward. We have a problem with guns in the US. Only the in-denial diehards don't admit that. Between the fascination that some have with these weapons and the belief in absolute gun rights by others (often the same people), I'm convinced that I'm on the right side of this issue, both morally and practically.

                    "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

                    by kovie on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 01:57:37 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Goodbye kovie. I wish I could say it was (0+ / 0-)

                      an interesting discussion.

                      It wasn't.

                      •  You said you were eyeing teenagers suspiciously (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        snowwoman

                        Apropos of that I think the comment was quite suitable. That we live in a violent country is a given. That the solution to it is for people to carry guns for self-protection is the bizarre part. There is no evidence that that works.

                        "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

                        by kovie on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 02:22:19 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Tell that to my wife. She stopped a home invasion (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          kovie

                          with a gun.

                          •  Where she didn't have to conceal (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            snowwoman

                            and had a legitimate right to carry, one that I've been supporting here since Newtown, along with the right to hunt, target shoot and collect guns, etc.

                            I just want the crazy stuff out of civilians' hands, and the ease with which carry, concealed and open, is possible in the US, to end, at least in public (while out in the woods or boonies is a different matter, and quite legitimate IMO to protect against wild animals and actually crazy people with guns). The last thing we need is for some self-styled untrained vigilante trying to bust up a holdup in public with a gun. Most likely he'll get himself and others killed.

                            We disagree on this. Let's leave it at that.

                            "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

                            by kovie on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 02:58:23 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

    •  Huh? (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      noway2, Boris49, FrankRose
      No one needs to own high-capacity, rapid-fire firearms for personal use.  They serve absolutely no real, practical purpose such as hunting or self-protection.
      Sez you.

      I refer you to the recent diary on "ignorance".

      •  Name a SINGLE legitimate need for such (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        poco, snowwoman

        Not WANT, but NEED. When we're talking about dangerous things like guns, only a genuine NEED or right can trump the needs and rights of the public to be protected from them. Which is why cars, kitchen knives and hunting rifles are legal but some guns should not be. People need the former. No one needs the latter. NO ONE.

        "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

        by kovie on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 10:57:17 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Target shooting/competition, defense and hunting. (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Boris49, noway2, FrankRose

          But Constitutional Rights are not about some contrived qualification of "need" as you suggest.

          AR-pattern rifles are getting quite common in hunting.  But that is not what the Second Amendment is about.

          •  I allowed for target shooting (0+ / 0-)

            under controlled conditions elsewhere. And btw, if by "AR-pattern rifles" you mean single-shot long-range rifles with low-capacity magazines, how is that different from a bolt-action rifle, effectively? I'm talking about guns that can fire lots of rounds quickly, which if I understand you correctly, these can't.

            "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

            by kovie on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 12:24:20 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Semi-auto rifles have been used in hunting... (0+ / 0-)

              for over 100 years.

              That is what I am talking about.

              •  They have not been used to mow down lots (0+ / 0-)

                of people in non-military situations until fairly recently.

                That's what I am talking about.

                Something's got to change.

                "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

                by kovie on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 05:08:44 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

            •  To expand on that: (0+ / 0-)

              By "AR-pattern", I mean a rifle that is based on, derived from or laid out in a similar fashion to the original AR-15 or AR-10.

              They come in many configurations and calibers.  Usually semi-automatic, but there are some bolt-action varients, usually in large-caliber, long-range target/hunting versions.

              There are magazines available for almost any round capacity you want, from single-shot to several hundred.

          •  Btw, what IS the 2nd amendment about? (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            poco

            I really want to know, as you see it, when it's been explained here that it was about protecting the ability of slaveowners to kills rebellious slaves.

            "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

            by kovie on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 12:25:28 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

  •  Clearly the battle is joined; and is much more (5+ / 0-)

    intense.  The question is: Who will win?

    1,000 showing up in Hartford yesterday to defend their "rights" to gun ownership, is a sign of how diffult the battle will be.

    Those of us on the control side need to be as engaged!!!

    •  we agree (7+ / 0-)

      you can own guns. Constitution says so.

      Doesn't mean they can't be regulated.

      "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

      by Greg Dworkin on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 07:41:12 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Define regulated (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        PavePusher, FrankRose

        I have a concealed carry permit.  In order to obtain it:
        1 - I had to take a training class
        2 - I had to demonstrate proficiency
        3 - I had to apply a the sheriff's office
        4 - I had to get fingerprinted
        5 - I had to have a record free of any of the following:
          dui, domestic violence, assault, drug use, mental health, any felony.

        My guns are kept under my control to the extent that is physically possible.  

        I've continued to study the laws and train to improve my safe handling ability.  

        I support background checks, licensing to purchase, training standards and most of the initiatives proposed by Obama.  

        My guns and I are not the problem and yet I and those like me are targeted as the enemy.  

        •  Super, and YOU are not the problem The problem is (6+ / 0-)

          lack of regulations in various states that do NOT require such rules.  This is why we need a FEDERAL law.

          •  To which I would agree with you. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Phil S 33

            One of the things I strongly advocate is a tiered system of training and certification that allows people who care enough to go through it, are willing and able to demonstrate proper responsibility licenses with fewer restrictions.  I believe such a system would be workable, would address the valid safety and other concerns, and solves the problem of blanket bans and restrictions.  I believe it would keep higher power, more dangerous guns out of the hands of those who are incapable of handling them properly while not imposing unnecessary restrictions on those who can.

        •  not by me (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Miggles, Sychotic1, snowwoman

          I can't be responsible for what everyone writes, but i try to be responsible about it when I write.

          I agree the above is regulation. Wouldn't mind seeing some or most of it (1 thru 5) extended to non-concealed weapons. Wouldn't mind the non-numbered stuff be de rigeur for everyone.

          Awful lot of common ground there. The rest is negotiable.

          "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

          by Greg Dworkin on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 08:47:56 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Most people that I know who have gone through (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Greg Dworkin, orlbucfan

            the process to get a concealed carry permit don't think that requiring such as process for gun ownership in general is a bad idea.  I also think that it would address at least most of the concerns and objections being voiced by the non gun community.

            It might even be possible to get such a thing through congress.  

  •  Screw the blood drenched NRA (5+ / 0-)

    Its time for some meaningful action.  Pass the agenda that Biden's commission proposed.

    "The real wealth of a nation consists of the contributions of its people and nature." -- Rianne Eisler

    by noofsh on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 07:43:40 AM PST

  •  5 accidentally shot at gun shows yesterday (6+ / 0-)

    including three hit by pellets from a single shotgun

    http://usnews.nbcnews.com/...

    Gun shows making sure that people don't bring loaded firearms inside . . .

    "Your victory has demonstrated that no person anywhere in the world should not dare to dream of wanting to change the world for a better place." -- Mandela

    by agoldnyc on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 07:44:51 AM PST

    •  You can't fix stupid (6+ / 0-)

      In the pro gun realm this is referred to as NEGLIGENT discharge, not accidental.  Had this dumb ass followed proper safety precautions this wouldn't have happened.  This is also why I don't have a problem with what I see as reasonable control, including requiring training and certification to get a permit.  While it won't prevent everything it would at least ensure that everyone has had some degree of training, can demonstrate competency, and is reviewed periodically.

  •  Yesterday on my way to volunteer at a (8+ / 0-)

    National Day of Service event I drove by one of the places that held a huge gun show in honor, I guess, of National Gun Appreciation Day.  At this "show" one person shot himself while loading his purchase in the parking lot I read today.

    I can tell you that the lines were very very long.  It looked like it was exclusively white males and everyone seemed dressed in the kind of outerwear you would where on the job if you were doing light construction or road work outside.  No hunting attire, no farm work attire, no uniforms, wool coats, or any kind of ski jackets.  The individuals all seemed burly in their garb, hunched over and determined looking and it wasn't that cold.  

    On the way back from the event a few hours later I saw people crossing the street, I guess to get to their cars carrying what looked like high powered rifles of various kinds.

    All I could think was I was glad I was volunteering among the men and women that came to the service event instead of anywhere near these people.  The people I was proud to spend the day with were "winners" in my book, and well the people in line at the other location were something else entirely.

  •  My Facebook feed is still humming with (5+ / 0-)

    discussion of Sandy Hook.  I'm seeing a lot from friends that are middle-of-the-road types and not politically vocal.  But Sandy Hook has really changed things.  People are pissed off and screaming for radical changes in our gun regulations.  Occasionally some idiot will try and spout some pathetic NRA strawman, which gets instantly torn to pieces.  There has definitely been a shift in the zeitgeist with respect to guns from what I see.

    "Give to every other human being every right that you claim for yourself." - Robert G. Ingersoll

    by Apost8 on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 07:51:32 AM PST

  •  I think there is an opportunity to change the (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    noway2, Miggles, a2nite, FrankRose

    law in certain ways.  There is almost universal support among voters to strengthen the background check process.  Now, whether that is only at gun shows or a broader measure to apply to transfers of any kind might be debated; but, I think that most of us would welcome background checks for all sales, trades and gifts.

    I doubt that a 10-round magazine limit will be accepted by most voters.  Perhaps in rifles, but certainly not in handguns.  Grandfathering is the only possible method of gaining broader support for a 10-round rule.

    Drum magazines should be banned completely and be subject of a buyback program.

  •  Two Thoughts (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DefendOurConstitution

    First, if reasonable regulation is not achieved, this becomes a double tragedy.  If you go to Google News and search for "gun shop," there are a boatload of stories about gun shops nationwide selling out of many guns and bullets, especially assault rifles.  So as it turns out, there will be some large number of assault rifles and other guns out in the public's hands because of Newtown, which is kind of a twisted result.  There's no way of knowing, but one can surmise that some of these newly sold guns may be used in other tragedies in the coming years.

    Second, as I've read the positions of people against reasonable regulation, the main objection is not to the proposed regulations.  The main objection is the slippery slope argument - that these regulations are just one step toward a full ban on all private gun ownership.  If people in favor of reasonable regulation are smart, they'll emphasize that they don't want a complete ban - perhaps even reaffirm the right to private firearm ownership within the new regulations themselves.  The latest polls (after Newtown) also show that a solid majority of the public is opposed to a complete ban.  

    I'm in favor of the individual right to own firearms for self defense, and to carry them concealed with proper training.  I'm also in favor of President Obama's proposals for reasonable regulation.  I don't own a gun myself.  I think my views probably represent a significant part of the public.

  •  So are licensing, registration and full background (0+ / 0-)

    checks an infringement on the Second Amendment or and inconvenience to those wishing to exercise whatever rights they believe the Second Amendment gives them?

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

    by DefendOurConstitution on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 07:58:23 AM PST

  •  Excellent piece, Greg. (4+ / 0-)

    You're doing a terrific job writing and researching this topic.

  •  I am appalled by the calls for armed guards in (8+ / 0-)

    schools.

    Aside from the fact that I think they would be ineffective against a determined shooter, and aside from the fact that I think they create their own danger, and aside from the fact that I think they have a chilling effect on place that should feel safe and welcoming...

    Before I spent money on a dedicated adult with a gun, I'd rather spend it on people who would make a positive difference in the school every day: a librarian, a counselor, a school nurse. Or an additional instructional aide. Or, for that matter, air conditioning.

    Fry, don't be a hero! It's not covered by our health plan!

    by elfling on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 08:38:42 AM PST

    •  The NRA's staement on this subject was poor (0+ / 0-)

      At the same time, there is truth to the fact that "Gun Free Zones" don't work.  While they may help reduce the amount of accidents and stupid, they are worthless against the truly evil or malicious.

      I happen to work in a GFZ and in the two years since I've been there I have seen an atrocious amount of rape, armed robbery, race based violence, shootings, home invasions, and murder.  And this is also one of the most affluent and to many people desirable communities in the state to live in.  

      In an earlier post in this diary, I suggested a tiered permit process that allows people who are willing to get certified to carry in places that are currently restricted, such as schools.  The idea is that just by having the possibility of meeting forceful resistance that a would be attacker will choose a different target.  This is much the same psychology as the use of air marshals on planes.  There may or may not be one and this acts a deterrent.

      Please note that this is a long way from arming the teachers.  If implemented, I suspect that there would be many a parent who would be willing to volunteer for the protective role.

      •  There are some schools where armed guards (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        poco

        may, sadly, be the best choice for that neighborhood. These schools are also usually surrounded with razor wire... and I am sad any child has to go to school in such a location.

        I would not block people from choosing that if they feel it is the best use of their resources for that school. I do think that adding armed guards to schools specifically as a reaction to Sandy Hook is idiotic. Most schools probably have many more subtle changes queued that would provide more value - for example, their PA & phone system clearly saved many lives. Many schools are working with phone systems that are 30 or 40 years old. Upgrading phone systems makes the everyday environment better as well as adding value in an emergency.

        As far as having people who are working with the kids every day carrying a weapon... I don't know if you've ever worked in a school, but I cannot imagine trying to work with little kids all the time with a loaded weapon on my person.

        I don't think more guns makes a place safer. I don't want the cashiers at the supermarket to be carrying guns or the ushers at the movie theater to be carrying guns. If that happens, I will stop going to those places.

        Fry, don't be a hero! It's not covered by our health plan!

        by elfling on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 01:48:02 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  In response to this paragraph (0+ / 0-)
          As far as having people who are working with the kids every day carrying a weapon... I don't know if you've ever worked in a school, but I cannot imagine trying to work with little kids all the time with a loaded weapon on my person
          I currently do work at a school, a college campus.  The GFZ policy has been a dismal failure and all the signs prohibiting guns have done nothing to stop the criminal element and gangs that live and operate nearby from coming on to campus to hunt.  What is has done, is deny me and my coworkers, most of whom have concealed carry permits, the ability to possess.  In this state it goes even further in that were not allowed to keep it locked in our cars which extends the GFZ influence all the way to our homes.  I don't work around children.  I am in the control center for one of the campus district utility plants.  I can also say that it isn't law and restrictions that keeps me from committing mass murder, but rather something much more fundamental.
          •  A college is a very different environment (0+ / 0-)

            from an elementary school, where you're around small children who are unreasonable, demanding, grabby, and able to make impulsive decisions in the blink of an eye. :-)

            At home, you probably wouldn't want your wife or your babysitter to be carrying a loaded weapon while changing diapers or playing legos.

            I have no opinion on what's right for your college: obviously, I've never been there. Whatever decisions have been made there were made at the local or state level. I am concerned that people who have never been to my local schools are going to decide that we must have armed guards, overriding the concerns and preferences of our local community.

            Fry, don't be a hero! It's not covered by our health plan!

            by elfling on Mon Jan 21, 2013 at 07:29:13 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  And in here lies the rub (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              elfling

              This is the problem with sweeping, broad legislation in general and applying it unilaterally across a lot of conditions.  Bad and unintentional side effects.  Look at what happened in NY.  They passed 11th hour legislation and inadvertent all but disarmed the police.  Now they have to tell the law enforcement to violate the law and revise their legislation, both of which have only stirred tension up a few notches higher.  It would have been much better to think before acting.

              This is something that I hope everyone keeps in mind while they are demanding that something be done and quickly.  

    •  So, we should remove the guards.... (0+ / 0-)

      (both civilian and Secret Service) from the school President Obama's daughters attend, because

      would be ineffective against a determined shooter, and aside from the fact that I think they create their own danger, and aside from the fact that I think they have a chilling effect on place that should feel safe and welcoming...
      Right?
       
      •  I don't usually get in the middle of stupid (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        elfling, poco

        but any moron who brings up the president's daughters is a troll.

        Completely and totally off limits.

        They are protected to prevent the CinC from being in a hostage situation.

        You and the NRA need to be spanked and sent to your rooms.

        "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

        by Greg Dworkin on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 12:06:17 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  But we keep being told that armed guards... (0+ / 0-)

          are ineffective.  I even quoted that part.

          So which is it: Are they effective or not?

          This seems to be one time the NRA actually hit on a valid point of contention, but as usual they handled it so incompetently as to appear to be idiots.

          •  that they did (0+ / 0-)

            and it's still an off limits discussion.

            "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

            by Greg Dworkin on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 04:49:50 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  btw, no it's not a valid point of contention (0+ / 0-)

            it's simply offensive.

            Why isn't it valid? Some schlub who leaves his gun in the bathroom at a school  (yes, it happened this week) does not equal the Secret Service. But it's likely that guy takes money from teachers.

            "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

            by Greg Dworkin on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 04:56:24 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  You are an idiot (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        poco

        if you actually believe that's a valid comparison.

        In your typical school, they have the money for one guard. One guard who will be in a position to need to do something with that gun maybe once every few years. The rest of the time there would be no threat and they would not be constantly scanning for threats... as the Secret Service does.

        Someone who comes in with body armor, a knowledge of the school layout, and the advantage of surprise is going to take out the guy with the gun before the guard even knows there's a threat.

        Do you have dedicated armed guards stationed on your roof 24x7 as they might at the White House? Whyever not?

        Fry, don't be a hero! It's not covered by our health plan!

        by elfling on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 01:35:38 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  So are guards effective or not? (0+ / 0-)

          You haven't addressed that point.

          Your hypothetical scenario has been proven incorrect many times.  That may be upsetting to your bias.  Truth usually is when it doesn't match our desired world-view.

          I am my own guard, as is true for 99.99% of humanity.

          •  Oh, sorry, you did address it... partially. (0+ / 0-)

            Guards are effective for important people, but not, apparently, for the commoners.

            I don't know how I missed that.

            •  Guards can be effective when there are lots of 'em (0+ / 0-)

              and it's their sole job. That's not going to be the case for a school.

              Even so... as it happens, many people have in fact been assassinated surrounded by armed guards. The element of surprise is powerful, especially if your shooter doesn't plan to survive.

              I think we need to get back to ... why would someone want to shoot up a school anyway? Because if your plan is to just shift your shooter to a softer target... that's not really better.

              Fry, don't be a hero! It's not covered by our health plan!

              by elfling on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 09:02:59 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  Those girls have more Secret Service around them (0+ / 0-)

              than teachers.

              I think the concept of protecting every child in America 24x7 with a detail of armed adults not their parents and not their teachers doesn't scale well. The fire marshall will complain that they won't all fit in the classrooms.

              The reason the Secret Service is effective is that that is their only job - they are not trying to parent, or teach, or do anything other than protect their immediate charges.

              Fry, don't be a hero! It's not covered by our health plan!

              by elfling on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 09:14:47 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Argueably, the threats against them... (0+ / 0-)

                are almost certainly more severe than a single gun-man, thus the higher manpower.

                But it only takes one determined person to stop a single shooter.  This has been proven empirically many times.  

                I think we owe all our children that effort.  And it doesn't even require hiring additional people.

                As has been said many times: "We can walk and chew gum at the same time."

  •  Good work by Adam Zyglis nt (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Greg Dworkin
    •  very good cartoonist (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Deep Harm

      when I search for relevant cartoons form my Sunday pieces, i often find his to fit best.

      "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

      by Greg Dworkin on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 12:07:33 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Gun rights supporters are going to lose this one. (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    orlbucfan, Miggles, snowwoman, blueness, a2nite

    Big. There is a huge wave that is going to come rolling in, and if they try to just stand up against it, they are going to get knocked silly.

    All of their major arguments are wrong.

    They say gun control doesn't work.  When countries similar to ours, Australia and the Britain, faced similar atrocities, they cracked down on firearms, and stopped them from happening. It sure as hell does work.

    They say we are different. We have the second amendment. But why should this right be essentially unfettered, unique among rights laid out in the Bill of Rights? Freedom of speech, or of the press, or of religion, all central and vital to maintaining our democracy, are not unfettered. The right for our children to remain safe demands that there be limits put on this one as well, as the Heller decision made clear that there could be.  

    They say that that the AR-15 semiautomatics and related weapons that would be banned by an effective "assault weapons" ban, since they fire .22 caliber rounds, are different only cosmetically from a 22 rifle that you might give to your 12 year old. Do they think we are complete morons?

    They list reason after reason that people need clips exceeding 10 bullets. What they can't do is name any instances where it made a difference in home defense.

    I am completely fed up with the bleatings of people like Sen. Ted Cruz on Meet the Press this morning, who said that the President "exploited" the deaths of children to try to pass left wing gun laws intended to politically benefit Democrats. That type of outrageous statement is contemptible, as is anybody who would utter it.  It was not exploitation when Australia and Britain reacted to mass killings and, treating them as the public safety issues that they are, put an end to those caused by guns.

    Look, if any of these members of the Guns Over People Party God forbid lost one of their sons as Veronique Pozner did, senselessly and viciously, they would change their opinion instantly.

    The foremost responsibility of any government is to protect its citizens, and we expect ours to get moving smartly.

    "The only thing we have to fear - is fear itself." - Franklin Delano Roosevelt

    by orrg1 on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 09:36:48 AM PST

  •  The NRA the cause of the gun problem (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    a2nite, Sychotic1

    by it insane insistence that guns solve all problems.   Political problems,  they say,  will be solved by "good guys with guns", social problems will be solved by "good guys with guns" and even personal problems will be solved with guns which left people sleep well throughout the night.  They crazily believe that the whole of the Constitution revolves around guns.  The NRA and its sympathizers are the scum that is murdering America.   They are the bad guys with guns who will kill you if you do not do what they command.

    •  With statements like (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Boris49, FrankRose
      The NRA and its sympathizers are the scum that is murdering America.   They are the bad guys with guns who will kill you if you do not do what they command
      Is it any wonder why it is damn near impossible to actually achieve any meaningful progress?
      •  So you suggest, we say (0+ / 0-)

        "Nice, doggie,"  to the gun nuts and toss them kibble in the form of even looser gun laws?  Too much of that's been going on and all we got for it are twenty dead children in Newtown.

        •  Jack: The NRA used to accomplish many worthy (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          FrankRose

          goals in the areas of training and safety.

          Guess what?  They still do.  However, the people who sit on the board on not people I want to associate with, so I am not a member of the NRA.  The rank and file are pretty much my neighbors and have a fairly wide variety of opinions on politics, religion and sports.

          To call them scum serves only to lower my opinion of you.  Not them.

  •  Someone posted on my Facebook today (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Sychotic1

    a newsfeed (chuck todd) where the shooter supposedly left the bushmaster rifle in his car, and only handguns were found inside.

    and I'm like, wtf?

    Then I check at the timeline, and it's from Dec. 15th.

    But, of course, everyone is jumping on this to defend owning assault rifles...and bashing Obama.

    idiots.

    I have decided to stick with love. Hate is too great a burden to bear. Martin Luther King, Jr.

    by cyeko on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 10:05:54 AM PST

  •  Low information voters (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    orrg1, Agathena, Faito, poco
    And I think, I'll tell you this, I have people all over the country calling me saying, "Wayne, I went to bed safer last night because I have a firearm. Don't let the media try to make this a gun issue."
    Statistically, having a firearm in the house makes you and everyone else in your house less safe.

    On Wednesday, the President said, “We don’t benefit from ignorance.” But some people do benefit from ignorance. The gun makers and sellers and NRA benefit from ignorance about the costs and dangers of gun violence.

  •  Thanks LL for putting to rest the fiction that gun (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    poco

    control loses elections. It has been repeated here hundreds of times and it is proudly pronounced on the RKBA Group's "boilerplate."
    Maybe they should update it.

    Moderate or extreme or somewhere in between, we hold one common belief: more gun control equals lost elections.  We don't want a repeat of 1994. We are an inclusive group: if you see the Second Amendment as safeguarding our right to keep and bear arms individually, then come join us in our conversation. If you are against the right to keep and bear arms, come join our conversation. We look forward to seeing you, as long as you engage in a civil discussion.  

    ❧To thine ownself be true

    by Agathena on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 01:15:21 PM PST

  •  I get so sick (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    poco, snowwoman, glorificus

    Of the pro-assault-weapon people caterwauling about how gun control legislation penalizes the law abiding citizens.  Give me a break.

    Adam Lanza was a law abiding citizen, until he wasn't.
    Eric Harris and Dylan Kiebold were law abiding citizens, until they weren't.
    Wade Michael Page was a law abiding citizen, until he wasn't.
    James Holmes was a law abiding citizen, until he wasn't.
    Scott Evans Dekraai was a law abiding citizen, until he wasn't.
    Jared Loughner was a law abiding citizen, until he wasn't.
    Omar S. Thornton was a law abiding citizen, until he wasn't.
    Robert Hawkins was a law abiding citizen, until he wasn't.
    Charles Carl Roberts was a law abiding citizen, until he wasn't.

    •  And this is exactly why we need to incarcerate (0+ / 0-)

      everyone.

      Helluva solution. 'Guilty until.......guilty'

      Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

      by FrankRose on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 03:02:55 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site