Skip to main content

who owns guns, and what kind

Graphic from Mother Jones

In a new poll released by the Hartford Courant Thursday, there's more evidence that 12/14 has changed opinion:

A majority of state residents support a broad array of gun control measures and say the Newtown shootings have swayed their opinions, according to a new University of Connecticut/Hartford Courant poll.

The rest of Connecticut residents are more likely to call for gun restrictions than those polled nationwide among men and women, as well as all age groups, political affiliations, and education levels, the poll showed.

By wide margins, state residents favored banning military-style assault weapons and ammunition magazines with more than 10 bullets, preventing people with mental illness from buying guns, and creating a federal database to track gun sales, among other measures.

Connecticut feels our pain:
57 percent said the shooting deaths of 20 children and six educators Dec. 14 at Sandy Hook Elementary School made them more likely to support gun control, while 35 percent said it made no difference. Nationally, 44 percent said the shooting made them more likely to support gun control.
There's a significant gender gap in that stricter gun control is supported by:

• 73 percent of women
• 55 percent of men

Keep that in mind when you hear Wayne LaPierre contend that we need high capacity magazine so moms can protect their kids.

More data below the fold ...

From the Courant:

Although 80 percent of working-class women in Connecticut — defined as those without a college degree — support stricter gun control, only 47 percent of working-class men support it. In addition, 35 percent of working-class men say the gun laws should be kept as they are and 14 percent say the laws should be made less strict, according to the poll.
Oh, and as to that, Mother Jones provides us with some great points of interest in this post:
10 Pro-Gun Myths, Shot Down
Fact checking some of the gun lobby's favorite arguments shows they're full of holes.
Here are a few of my favorites:
Myth #5: Keeping a gun at home makes you safer.
Fact-check: Owning a gun has been linked to higher risk of homicide, suicide, and accidental death by gun.

• For every time a gun is used in self-defense in the home, there are 7 assaults or murders, 11 suicide attempts, and 4 accidents involving guns in or around a home.
• 43% of homes with guns and kids have at least one unlocked firearm.
• In one experiment, one third of 8-to-12-year-old boys who found a handgun pulled the trigger.

Myth #7: Guns make women safer.
Fact-check: In 2010, nearly 6 times more women were shot by husbands, boyfriends, and ex-partners than murdered by male strangers.

• A woman's chances of being killed by her abuser increase more than 7 times if he has access to a gun.
• One study found that women in states with higher gun ownership rates were 4.9 times more likely to be murdered by a gun that women in states with lower gun ownership rates.

It may come as no surprise, but LaPierre is wrong in highlighting women, and Connecticut women (see poll) aren't buying it.

I love that my state sees through the smoke and mirrors the NRA is setting up. Let's see how the rest of the country follows our lead.

Originally posted to Greg Dworkin on Thu Jan 31, 2013 at 07:55 AM PST.

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

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

  •  It is really striking that, apart from (16+ / 0-)

    mass shooters, most of us are overwhelmingly safe, so long as danger from strangers is concerned. (We are very frighteningly unsafe when it comes to our friends and family.)

    “liberals are the people who think that cruelty is the worst thing that we do” --Richard Rorty Also, I moved from NYC, so my username is inaccurate.

    by jeff in nyc on Thu Jan 31, 2013 at 08:15:15 AM PST

    •  When I became a prosecutor (21+ / 0-)

      I quickly learned that about 20% of all murders involve people who did not know each other.  

      If you are murdered you almost certainly know the person already, and if there is a suicide in your house it is more likely to happen if there is a gun in your home.

      And that doesn't count ACCIDENTAL deaths.

      The bitter truth of deep inequality has been disguised by an era of cheap imported goods and the anyone-can-make-it celebrity myth - Polly Toynbee

      by fladem on Thu Jan 31, 2013 at 08:27:06 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  a ton of those accidents might not be (5+ / 0-)

        accidents.

        "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 Thu Jan 31, 2013 at 08:30:28 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Claudine Longet and Spider Sabich come to mind. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          rbird
          •  never understood that one (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Boris49, rbird

            ah, well...

            "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 Thu Jan 31, 2013 at 09:05:53 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Aspen. The town where Ted Bundy escaped from jail (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              rbird
              •  well, Andy still loved her.... n/t (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Boris49

                "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 Thu Jan 31, 2013 at 09:09:27 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  So if we were really serious about gun violence (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Greg Dworkin

                  We would confiscate and/or buy back all guns.

                  I was thinking if we were to magically eliminate all repeating guns except, perhaps, double barrel shot guns to allow for skeet shooting, it would probably eliminate mass shootings, while still allowing hunting and sport shooting with single shot pistols, rifles and shot guns.  Does a sportsman really need multiple rounds when hunting?  Even duck hunters? Do we really need tactical shooting ranges where shooters pretend to be soldiers or tact squad members?

                  But even this drastic measure only applies to mass shootings which represent a small fraction of all gun deaths.  There have been 1,400 gun deaths since Sandy Hook.

                  Except for restricting the buying of ammo, California already has the restrictions Obama is calling for.  I read today that in California 8.8 per 1,000 people die by gun, versus 10+ nationally.  Of course, this is somewhat meaningless without historical data, but the point is, the rate is not half the national rate or anywhere close.

                  So a national ban on assault weapons, as difficult as it will be to do, will probably have a modest effect on gun deaths -- especially since no one is talking about doing anything about the million or so assault rifles already out there.  

                  I'm left with the conclusion that the only way to eliminate the problem would be to ban gun ownership outright.

                  All that being said, given the country is not ready to ban all gun ownership, let's go ahead with the "assault rifle" ban and universal background checks even though they will have little or no effect on the majority of deaths by gun.  

                  However, I hope we do not lose another proposal in the upcoming negotiations which I feel is equally important:  Studying whether there are links between the widespread use of antidepressants and violent outbursts.

                  I say this as an owner of multiple guns which I use for sport.  

                  Even Democrats can be asses. Look at Rahm Emanuel.

                  by Helpless on Thu Jan 31, 2013 at 11:15:49 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

        •  Every Prosecutor (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Greg Dworkin

          knows the story of a Catholic who officially died as an "accident" but whose death may not have been so accidental but was labeled to spare the family additional grief.

          The bitter truth of deep inequality has been disguised by an era of cheap imported goods and the anyone-can-make-it celebrity myth - Polly Toynbee

          by fladem on Thu Jan 31, 2013 at 09:27:42 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  That graphic puts the lie to the NRA's new motto: (19+ / 0-)
    Guns don't kill people, the lack of guns kills people.

    "Well, yeah, the Constitution is worth it if you succeed." - Nancy Pelosi // Question: "succeed" at what?

    by nailbender on Thu Jan 31, 2013 at 08:15:22 AM PST

    •  I wish... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Powered Grace, nailbender, Bailey2001

      It broke down "rifles" somewhat more.  I would guess many/most of those rifles are standard hunting rifles, but the graphic uses the silhouette of an assault rifle.  

      •  there is always that (4+ / 0-)

        trying to be simple and clear always fudges details.

        Very important for legislation, unimportant for what the graphic is intended.

        "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 Thu Jan 31, 2013 at 08:25:35 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Well, it verges on chartjunk. (0+ / 0-)

          But only if the breakdown between hunting guns and semiauto antipersonnel rifles is available in the underlying stats.

          Thump! Bang. Whack-boing. It's dub!

          by dadadata on Thu Jan 31, 2013 at 08:29:32 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Most hunting rifles are also semi-auto (0+ / 0-)

            The overwhelming majority of all privately owned firearms are semi-auto.

            •  I used the term "semiauto antipersonnel" (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              MPociask

              deliberately.

              Thump! Bang. Whack-boing. It's dub!

              by dadadata on Thu Jan 31, 2013 at 10:34:47 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  Majority of firearms or rifles? (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              MPociask
              Most hunting rifles are also semi-auto

              The overwhelming majority of all privately owned firearms are semi-auto.

              Sort of mixed measures there.  Which is it rifles or firearms?
              When I was deer hunting as a kid, we hunted in parties of up to a dozen hunters.  None of us used a semi-auto rifle.  Most were old bolt action with some lever actions.  Has hunting changed that much?

              On the other hand.  All revolvers and the vast majority of pistols would be classified as semi-auto.  The chart shows only slightly more pistols than rifles.

              I think knowing the percentage of rifles in private hands that are semi-auto would be nice to know.  Do you?

              Even Democrats can be asses. Look at Rahm Emanuel.

              by Helpless on Thu Jan 31, 2013 at 11:27:53 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  With respect, how old are you? (0+ / 0-)

                In this man's world, semi-auto is preferred. I've seen it both in Upstate NY and down here in WV.

                If a rifle is used at all, that is. Shotguns still seem to be king with regards to hunting. But referring to rifles, yes. Most of them are semi-auto these days.

                •  Old enough to know (0+ / 0-)

                  AmericanHunter.org  Gives 3 "top 10 hunting rifles" lists.  In the first list, the AR-15 comes in at number 6.  It's the only self-loader in the bunch.  The rest are bolt or lever action -- except for a single single-shot.

                  The second list gives the Browning BAR number 6 spot -- also the only self-loader in the list.  And the 3rd has no self-loader in the list.

                  1.) Remington 700
                  I think it’s a law that every gun writer must pick the Winchester Model 70 as the No. 1 rifle in history. But then, I have never been much of a crowd-follower. At the risk of being blackballed out of the gunwriting guild, I am going with the Remington Model 700. It is the best-selling bolt-action rifle of our times. It’s the foundation for the majority of custom rifles I see these days, and in my lifetime the Model 70 has never come close to matching it for consistent, out-of-the-box accuracy.

                  2.) Winchester 1894 
                  The 1894 introduced smokeless powder cartridges to the masses and it became the gun of choice for them. The Model 94 is probably the most popular rifle ever made for hunting the most popular big game God ever created, the whitetail deer.

                  3.) Winchester Model 70 
                  I had to put it in here someplace; after all, it is the “Rifleman’s Rifle.” The Model 70 is a great rifle and one of significant importance. You didn’t really think I would ignore it, did you?

                  4.) Mauser 98 
                  This is the bolt-action that even today, well over a century later, is the baseline of comparison for all other rifles. It’s the basic design still used in most modern bolt-actions. Peter Paul Mauser got it right.

                  5.) Remington 760/7600 
                  I believe each of us should include a surprise. This Remington pump-action is the unsung hero of hunting rifles. Infinitely popular in the Northeast where whitetail hunting has its deepest roots, the Remington pump is fast, accurate and points like a shotgun.

                  6.) Colt AR-15 
                  Ten years ago I would not have included this rifle, but the day of the black gun has arrived. In many ways, the AR platform is the perfect rifle. It’s tough as nails, accurate enough for long-range target shooting, fast enough for close-range defense and versatile enough to be called the “ultimate kit gun.”

                  7.) Ruger No. 1 
                  Without this gun, single-shots would be dead and buried. Bill Ruger defied the naysayers and built a gun they said would never sell. Today, 42 years later, it’s still making a profit for the shareholders.

                  8.) Savage 99 
                  While the Model 94 was the deer rifle of the masses, the Model 99 was the “thinking man’s” deer rifle. In the formative years of modern whitetail hunting, gun guys picked this lever-action.

                  9.) Winchester Model 1873 
                  Hey, it’s “The Gun that Won the West.” It was the first practical, high-capacity, repeating rifle using a reloadable cartridge.

                  10.) Ruger 10/22 
                  I’ll bet you have one. Everybody does. It makes the list by volume alone. It has to be great, because no shoddy rifle could fool that many people.

                  Even Democrats can be asses. Look at Rahm Emanuel.

                  by Helpless on Fri Feb 01, 2013 at 07:01:22 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

      •  around 3 or 4 % of all homicide is committed with (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        FrankRose

        any sort of long gun. Long gun includes black plastic, hunting rifles, and shotguns.

        How big is your personal carbon footprint?

        by ban nock on Thu Jan 31, 2013 at 08:44:30 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  The assault rifles (5+ / 0-)

        are a gold-mine for both gun sellers and gun makers.  (So now of course they're pushing the meme that an assault rifle ban will kill jobs.)

        Hard to imagine, really, that they're not making enough money off of wars, and the Rambo fantasies of gun-nuts everywhere in America.  

        I also just read that FL, AZ, AR, KY, ME, NY, NH & OK have been subsidizing gun-manufacturers in their states. So much for rugged individualism and getting moochers off the gov't teat.

        •  A bunch a' tittie babies--all of em'! (0+ / 0-)

          I also just read that FL, AZ, AR, KY, ME, NY, NH & OK have been subsidizing gun-manufacturers in their states. So much for rugged individualism and getting moochers off the gov't teat.

          “One look, and your life was absolutely changed,” said Michael McGowan, one of the first police officers to arrive at Sandy Hook Elementary School on Dec. 14, as a gunman, in the space of minutes, killed 20 first graders and 6 adults.

          by lyvwyr101 on Thu Jan 31, 2013 at 09:13:02 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  More stupid shit from the NRA? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      S F Hippie

      Guns don't kill people, the lack of guns kills people.

      “One look, and your life was absolutely changed,” said Michael McGowan, one of the first police officers to arrive at Sandy Hook Elementary School on Dec. 14, as a gunman, in the space of minutes, killed 20 first graders and 6 adults.

      by lyvwyr101 on Thu Jan 31, 2013 at 09:10:22 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  That's my interpretation of their insistence (5+ / 0-)

        that if only every school was heavily armed this king of thing (12/14) wouldn't happen.  Their formulation is:

        "The only thing that will stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun."
        The motto I posted is just another way of saying that, and it also highlights the hypocrisy of the NRA's "guns don't kill people, people kill people" gimmick: they think that the proliferation of guns aren't the issue, yet they are explicit in saying that you can't stop the mayhem without more guns.

        "Well, yeah, the Constitution is worth it if you succeed." - Nancy Pelosi // Question: "succeed" at what?

        by nailbender on Thu Jan 31, 2013 at 09:28:34 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yes--that mentality is just incredible- (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Beetwasher, Laconic Lib, S F Hippie, Faito
          "The only thing that will stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun."
          Right up there with:

          Guns don't kill people----people kill people.

          Someone should ask:

          "Then why is that so many people succumb to multiple gunshots?"

          “One look, and your life was absolutely changed,” said Michael McGowan, one of the first police officers to arrive at Sandy Hook Elementary School on Dec. 14, as a gunman, in the space of minutes, killed 20 first graders and 6 adults.

          by lyvwyr101 on Thu Jan 31, 2013 at 09:39:39 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  A statement targeted directly at the kids! (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          lyvwyr101

          I watched LaPierre make that statement at that ridiculous press conference and I was just so struck by how he phrased that particular line. It's as if he's trying to sell the kids directly the idea of having armed people to "protect" them -- like they would be the "good" guys. Adults only talk like that if they are talking to children. Young children.

          It is just sickening to take advantage of people -- children, nonetheless -- at their most, most fragile and vulnerable -- to push this crazy agenda on them. I would not want my child attending school at some place with an "armed" volunteer, or armed guard. Those kids are already traumatized by what happened. We all are. But then again, would we expect the NRA to suggest anything other than what they did?

          I'm just glad he got heckled publicly twice during that sham of a press conference.

          •  He deserves to be heckled. (0+ / 0-)

            He deserves to be out of business.

            “One look, and your life was absolutely changed,” said Michael McGowan, one of the first police officers to arrive at Sandy Hook Elementary School on Dec. 14, as a gunman, in the space of minutes, killed 20 first graders and 6 adults.

            by lyvwyr101 on Thu Jan 31, 2013 at 12:26:12 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  I want that graphic on a t-shirt (0+ / 0-)

      Pictures do speak a thousand words. I used to have a t-shirt with a venn diagram showing spending on education (small dot) compared to defense (large circle). It also cited the source for the statistics on the shirt, so I had to do was point to it.

      We need more of those t-shirts on important issues like this one.

  •  say it again, 1st amendment trumps 2nd. (17+ / 0-)

    parent of newtown:  (paraphrased) "your 2nd amendment right to own an assault weapon is superseded by my son's right to live."

    "A dollah makes me hollah"-- Stephen Colbert, pretending to be S. Palin

    by stagemom on Thu Jan 31, 2013 at 08:17:48 AM PST

    •  RKBC: Right to Keep and Bear Children! (6+ / 0-)

      You bet it trumps the 2nd amendment.

      “One look, and your life was absolutely changed,” said Michael McGowan, one of the first police officers to arrive at Sandy Hook Elementary School on Dec. 14, as a gunman, in the space of minutes, killed 20 first graders and 6 adults.

      by lyvwyr101 on Thu Jan 31, 2013 at 09:14:29 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  i have to say, that try as i might, (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      stagemom

      i don't get how 'the right for anyone at anytime to own a gun, any gun, with out any oversight or regulation or restriction' derives from the simple statement that "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

      this isn't switzerland!

      HAPPY SECOND TERM EVERYBODY !!! WHAT'S YOUR PLAN FOR THE NEXT FOUR YEARS? THE NEXT FOUR YEARS OF WORK ARE WHAT THE LAST SIX YEARS OF WORK WERE ALL ABOUT! (-9.75 / -9.05)

      by doesnotworkorplaywellwithothers on Thu Jan 31, 2013 at 11:55:00 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  When guns become "uncool" (19+ / 0-)

    in the way cigarettes have become "uncool," then I think we will be on our way to real social change.  

    Let us do everything we can to de-normalize guns and make gun ownership unglamorous and unpopular.   It's a PR battle as well as a legislative and law enforcement battle.  

    It's the Supreme Court, stupid!

    by Radiowalla on Thu Jan 31, 2013 at 08:19:28 AM PST

    •  hey, Radiowalla (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JML9999, a2nite, lyvwyr101, Radiowalla

      our posts haven't intersected for a while.

      Good to see you.

      "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 Thu Jan 31, 2013 at 08:21:40 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Remeber those dead actor ads (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      lyvwyr101, Radiowalla, Laconic Lib

      I want 1 less Tiny Coffin, Why Don't You? Support The President's Gun Violence Plan.

      by JML9999 on Thu Jan 31, 2013 at 08:23:35 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  in that regard what do you think? (5+ / 0-)
        Sandy Hook Pictures Would Change Debate

        "The mutilated face of the victim was left untouched by morticians at the mother's request. She said she wanted 'all the world' to witness the atrocity."

        Jet Magazine, Sept. 15, 1955, on the open-casket funeral of 14-year-old Emmett Till.

        The wounds were "very devastating," said Connecticut's chief medical examiner, H. Wayne Carver II at the press conference following the Sandy Hook shootings in December.

        "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 Thu Jan 31, 2013 at 08:28:48 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Hell yes it would change the dynamic against (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          lyvwyr101, Radiowalla

          the extremists in the NRA and GOA....

          It was the parent's request we see what was done to their child....

          I want 1 less Tiny Coffin, Why Don't You? Support The President's Gun Violence Plan.

          by JML9999 on Thu Jan 31, 2013 at 08:34:27 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I'm thinking more along the lines (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            JML9999, Laconic Lib, RadGal70, Faito

            of social opprobrium rather than emphasizing the bloody effects of gun violence.  I don't think that has worked very well to change attitudes, at least not until now.  Maybe Sandy Hook will be different.

            I'm thinking about generating an "EWWWW" factor when gun
            ownership is mentioned.  Guns have been idolized and worshipped for too long.  Now let's make them and their owners  socially unacceptable, much in the same way that smokers have become.  

            How about some ads with women saying they won't date men who own guns?  Or men who won't date gun-loving women?
            How about not socializing with gun lovers?  How about not letting your children go into homes with guns?  How about using the tools of mockery and ridicule to take some of the romance out of gun ownership?  

            These are some of the thoughts that have been trotting around my head.  

            It's the Supreme Court, stupid!

            by Radiowalla on Thu Jan 31, 2013 at 09:06:36 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Gun Oil Ruins Bed Sheets? nt (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Faito

              I want 1 less Tiny Coffin, Why Don't You? Support The President's Gun Violence Plan.

              by JML9999 on Thu Jan 31, 2013 at 09:09:48 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  So when the 4-H Youth Champions for the year (0+ / 0-)

              are announced or the National Junior Olympic Program prepares for Olympics or the Open Youth Skeet Shooting Championships are held....do we make them feel like social outcasts too?

              •  No. (4+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Beetwasher, Laconic Lib, RadGal70, Faito

                It isn't about stigmatizing hunting.  It's about marginalizing those who think they need military grade weapons to make themselves potent and brave.  

                It's the Supreme Court, stupid!

                by Radiowalla on Thu Jan 31, 2013 at 09:41:03 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Well it was said above that even owning a gun (0+ / 0-)

                  should make people want to make that gun owner feel like a social misfit in some way...like this was a goal of some kind.

                  •  it is not and should not be a goal (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Bailey2001

                    2nd amendment is there, it's honored, it's a different issue to talk about regulation of things that people have a right to have.

                    "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 Thu Jan 31, 2013 at 10:04:40 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I agree. I own guns because I have the legal (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Greg Dworkin

                      constitutional right to do so and I shouldn't be made to feel like a monster anymore than if I were protesting or expressing my religion or any other of my rights granted under the same Bill of Rights.

                      I have no blood on my hands, I am not a baby killer, I am not a gun nut or a freak...and these memes should stop because all it does is create a bunch of division and thus "discussions" turn into "debates" and then into "arguments" and then it all shuts down.

                      If we want to fix the problem, we have to understand that a lot of people own guns and that right in important to them....just as much as holding a protest sign or wearing a cross or feeling like we should have the right to a jury if we were ever accused of a crime.  

                      •  I respect your right to own guns. (0+ / 0-)

                        What I don't like is the manner in which guns have been glorified in our culture.   We have too many guns in the hands of irresponsible owners and criminals and it's time to say STOP.

                        Rights are not without limitation and they never have been.

                        It's the Supreme Court, stupid!

                        by Radiowalla on Thu Jan 31, 2013 at 10:35:09 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                •  You failed to make that distinction. (0+ / 0-)

                  So after the owners of Scary Black Rifles are ridiculed, I suppose you'll want to try and emasculate pistol owners next?

            •  I always told my kids (2+ / 0-)

              that if they went to someone's house and there was a gun in sight, they were to call me immediately and I would come get them.

              When it was a parent I didn't know I would ask about guns.  Once a parent told me 'no' but when Ben went there an older brother was moving out and had his stuff piled up in the den, including a long gun of some kind.  Ben called me and I picked him up.  The other kid's parents were very unhappy with me, but then I was unhappy with them for lying to me.  Never let him go to that house again.

            •  how about arnold schwarzenegger (0+ / 0-)

              and others actors like him doing a public mea culpa, apologizing for their part in glamourising violence  and making money off of it?

              HAPPY SECOND TERM EVERYBODY !!! WHAT'S YOUR PLAN FOR THE NEXT FOUR YEARS? THE NEXT FOUR YEARS OF WORK ARE WHAT THE LAST SIX YEARS OF WORK WERE ALL ABOUT! (-9.75 / -9.05)

              by doesnotworkorplaywellwithothers on Thu Jan 31, 2013 at 11:59:17 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

        •  The article on 12-14-12 responders mentioned (8+ / 0-)

          the Christmas decorations made by the children.  These decoration were waiting to be taken home, the decorations were on the window sill.  What if reproductions of these decorations were made?  What if each child's name was on the decoration?  What if we all hung these decorations on our Christmas tree every year?

          I don't know how this could be translated to people who don't make Christmas decorations.  I think it could if we set our minds to it.

          That way we would have a yearly ceremony for each of these children in homes across America.

          My gun control petition was shot down.

          by 88kathy on Thu Jan 31, 2013 at 08:40:32 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  I think (0+ / 0-)

          The next time there is a mass shooting, all senators and their spouses, all Reps and their spouses, all of the people who run the NRA and the NSSF and their spouses should have to walk through the place where the carnage is wrought while bodies and guts and blood are everywhere.  Then they should have to spend a day in the shoes of a family whose life is spent caring for somebody 99% disabled by a gun massacre.

          And we all know there will be another mass shooting by year's end.  Innocents will die and the gun-nuts will have all the same answer:  more guns will make us safe!

    •  The reason military-style rifles (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Laconic Lib

      Are "cool" is that they look cool. Sort of.  If you're insecure and  scared of the UN and Obama's black helis.  Look up the XM-8, the AK-47, the G-36c, the FN-2000, the M4 carbine, etc.  Guys love to look like Rambo when they carry these things around JC Penney in suburban Utah.  

      Have you guys ever read the NRA magazine?  Article after article in which people describe their particular guns in exquisite, loving, creepy detail.

      •  We have to make them look (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Faito, RadGal70

        not-cool.

        Cigarettes used to be the emblem of fashion and sophistication.  No member of the intelligensia and no aspiring socialite would be seen without a cigarette.  Now cigarettes are associated with low education and bad breath.   That's quite a turn-around.

        I think we have room to do a lot to change the image of gun ownership.

        It's the Supreme Court, stupid!

        by Radiowalla on Thu Jan 31, 2013 at 09:44:18 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  14% are heading south with conviction . (6+ / 0-)
    14 percent say the laws should be made less strict

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

    by indycam on Thu Jan 31, 2013 at 08:20:37 AM PST

  •  This gun'debate' is so nuts I can't really handle (6+ / 0-)

    it. And so they win. Thanks for fact-checking the hell out
    of them.

  •  Gun Freaks Are On The Wrong Side Of History Here (10+ / 0-)

    Change is coming, they better get used to it.

    This post is dedicated to myself, without whom, I'd be somebody else. Though I'd still be an asshole. My Music: [http://www.myspace.com/beetwasher]

    by Beetwasher on Thu Jan 31, 2013 at 08:21:17 AM PST

    •  now, be nice (6+ / 0-)

      many gun owners are reasonable people who like to hunt.

      "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 Thu Jan 31, 2013 at 08:23:04 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Then I Wasn't Talking About Them, Was I? (11+ / 0-)

        n/t

        This post is dedicated to myself, without whom, I'd be somebody else. Though I'd still be an asshole. My Music: [http://www.myspace.com/beetwasher]

        by Beetwasher on Thu Jan 31, 2013 at 08:23:51 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  And these reasonable people (7+ / 0-)

        should be fighting for serious gun reform as hard as they fight for their gun rights or face the blame when another child dies.

      •  You mean (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Beetwasher, Faito

        when we see a politician or public figure who's bought and paid for by the NRA---peddling their bullshit--on the Floor---and in front of a microphone---we can't yell, "Hey Dickhead---where's my gun control?"


        A-w-w-w--you're no fun.

        “One look, and your life was absolutely changed,” said Michael McGowan, one of the first police officers to arrive at Sandy Hook Elementary School on Dec. 14, as a gunman, in the space of minutes, killed 20 first graders and 6 adults.

        by lyvwyr101 on Thu Jan 31, 2013 at 08:46:10 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  The other day (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Beetwasher, Laconic Lib, lyvwyr101

        When BHO mentioned hunters specifically, the "Right to Insurrection" crowd went nuts, caterwauling that the 2nd Amendment is not about hunting, it's about overthrowing a tyrannical government.  

        They base this on misquoting or quoting out of context from the Founders writing and misreading the 2nd Amendment and skipping over inconvenient parts of the Constitution.

        •  "'Right to Insurrection' crowd" (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          lyvwyr101

          i.e. Sen. Grassley.

          "And now we know that government by organized money is just as dangerous as government by organized mob." -- FDR

          by Mogolori on Thu Jan 31, 2013 at 10:02:59 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Regardless of what you might feel about the 2A, (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          lyvwyr101

          You must concede that it has jack all to do with hunting.

          No informed individual on either side of this debate thinks it does.

          •  My friend (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Helpless, lyvwyr101

            William McClung talked about this recently.  Even if one believed that the government deserved to be violently overthrown, it is patent nonsense to think that the government itself authorizes the overthrow. No government, whether democratic or totalitarian, does that. Such a reading of the Second Amendment supposes that the Founders were denying the legitimacy and authority of the very governing document they created, and making the Constitution a self-destructing artifact.

            •  That's the theory, yes. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              lyvwyr101

              Not hard to imagine, given that they were a bunch of violent revolutionaries ;)

              •  I think many now believe (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Faito, lyvwyr101

                Our founding fathers put that in to placate the South which had militias to ensure any slave rebellion could be easily put down.

                Consider gun advocate Larry Ward's comment that if slaves had guns, things would have been different.  Certainly.  That's why they never did.

                Equally incredible is the notion that our founding fathers put a "poison pill" in the Constitution so that if things didn't turn out as planned, the government could be overturned.

                But the most incredible idea to me is that anyone thinks an armed US citizenry would ever be able to overthrow the US Armed Forces.  The tragedy at Waco was not due to a concerted assault by Federal forces.  It was a case of too much capability put under stress -- an accident.  Only gun nuts think they could take on the US of A Armed forces.  

                Even Democrats can be asses. Look at Rahm Emanuel.

                by Helpless on Thu Jan 31, 2013 at 11:55:44 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Freedom fighters! (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  lyvwyr101, Helpless

                  The NRA has some kind of marketing genius working for them.  Now, a swath of American society thinks owning a gun equals being free.  They ignore the reality that free societies all over the globe have quite strict gun control and somehow un-oppressed populations who enjoy universal health care and decent education systems and free presses and governments that don't start wars of choice in foreign lands on a regular basis.  These folks link gun ownership with the idea that buy buying an assault rifle, they are battling the tyranny (of a democratically elected president and Congress) and therefore following in the footsteps of the blessed founding fathers.

                •  A lot of issue to take here... (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Charles Hall
                  Our founding fathers put that in to placate the South which had militias to ensure any slave rebellion could be easily put down.
                  Based upon what? I find it much more feasible, that it was to ensure that citizens could be quickly formed into heavily armed ad hoc defense forces. For all purposes.
                  Equally incredible is the notion that our founding fathers put a "poison pill" in the Constitution so that if things didn't turn out as planned, the government could be overturned.
                  Why is that hard to believe? Keep in mind that such a system of representative democracy had not been attempted in over 2000 years, and it had never been attempted on such a scale. It was very reasonable for them to have considered eventualities that included outright failure.
                  But the most incredible idea to me is that anyone thinks an armed US citizenry would ever be able to overthrow the US Armed Forces.  The tragedy at Waco was not due to a concerted assault by Federal forces.  It was a case of too much capability put under stress -- an accident.  Only gun nuts think they could take on the US of A Armed forces.  
                  That... totally depends. On a lot.

                  First of all: Why is the fighting happening in the first place? Did a President refuse to relinquish power at the end of his term? Or is it a bunch of racist jackasses in the woods deciding to take over Richmond for the Old Dominion? The latter would obviously be a very one-sided affair.

                  The former would have a lot, a LOT of people reaching for their AR's, and it would fracture the military to such a degree that it would be a shadow of it's full strength. A lot of people forget that the outset of the last Civil War, the uniformed military responded in anything but a uniformed manner.

                  And even if it didn't fracture the military, or say it was a military coup even, the past ten years have taught us that a bunch of backwards, demented religious pricks with cow shit and small arms can really, really fuck with the US military. I say that as a recently discharged vet.

                  •   f___ing with the US military (0+ / 0-)

                    Yes, just what we want for here -- Another Afghanistan complete with IEDs, suicide bombers and snipers.  In the end, could they be successful?  Have they been in Iraq or Afghanistan?  

                    We lost in Vietnam because we were fighting forces backed by the Chinese and we didn't dare expand the war to include them.  Who would come to our ("freedom fighter's") aid?  It wouldn't be Canada or Great Briton.  Do you want the Chinese, Russia or the Arab world supporting the overthrow of the US?

                    Even Democrats can be asses. Look at Rahm Emanuel.

                    by Helpless on Fri Feb 01, 2013 at 06:22:34 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

    •  Yes--change is coming- (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Faito, Beetwasher, RadGal70

      whether they like it or not.

      “One look, and your life was absolutely changed,” said Michael McGowan, one of the first police officers to arrive at Sandy Hook Elementary School on Dec. 14, as a gunman, in the space of minutes, killed 20 first graders and 6 adults.

      by lyvwyr101 on Thu Jan 31, 2013 at 09:18:52 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Democrats need to lead on this issue in a smart... (9+ / 0-)

    way.

    First: an Assault Weapons ban is a non-starter.  It will go nowhere, paint Dems as "gun-grabbers" and even if passed, would accomplish nothing.

    That cow has left the barn and there is no point closing the door now.  Assault weapons are in too many hands now to effectively ban them.

    Second: Propose an omnibus bill with provisions that the majority, including NRA members support.  Tracking gun sales, universal background checks, enforcement of existing gun regulations, safe storage and handling regulations, policing gun dealers and stopping unlicensed resales.

    Third: Launch a national gun education program on what is and is not permited with regards to gun ownership and use.  Public education alone resulted in smoke free buildings, cut drunk driving and has made the majority environmentally aware.  Such a campaign could end the habit of certain yahoos from walking around in public with AK-47's on their backs.

    The vast majority of gun owners and gun control advocates would heartily support these common-sense measures and would not cost the Democrats a cent in political capital.  If proposed, I believe such a bill could even pass the House.

    Tax and Spend I can understand. I can even understand Borrow and Spend. But Borrow and give Billionaires tax cuts? That I have a problem with.

    by LiberalCanuck on Thu Jan 31, 2013 at 08:21:43 AM PST

    •  it might indeed (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      tb mare, kharma

      there's been a theory floating around that an AWB might be traded for everything else. We'll see.

      "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 Thu Jan 31, 2013 at 08:24:07 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  If that's the case, then it is worthwhile, but.... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Bon Temps, kharma

        if an AWB hasn't a snowball's chance in a very hot spot of passing, then there is little value in using it as a negotiating device.  All Dems will get is all of the pain and none of the payoff.

        An omnibus bill with provisions for trigger locks, transportation, background checks and just about everyother provision that enjoys 50% or more support from gun advocates will stand a much better chance of getting through.

        Tax and Spend I can understand. I can even understand Borrow and Spend. But Borrow and give Billionaires tax cuts? That I have a problem with.

        by LiberalCanuck on Thu Jan 31, 2013 at 08:31:56 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Isn't the point of a ban (5+ / 0-)

      to prevent future sales?

    •  So much wrong with this (7+ / 0-)

      First of all public smoking and drunk driving changes came about as a result of legislation. There may have been a PR component, but in every instance major cities led the way by writing laws and smaller municipalities followed suit.

      The AWB is far from a non-starter. Sen. Feinstein is assuredly not going to withdraw her bill. Public polling looks more promising than it has in years. I'm realistic about the chances, but this society simply cannot afford to have more Jared Loughners picking up their ammo at the nearby Wal-Mart without so much as a by your leave. There have GOT to be legally enforced restrictions on access to the weapons and technology these spree shooters prefer. AWB was allowed to expire under Bush. It remains to be seen how hard the WH will push. I'm pessimistic about it's chances, but not about the eventual need to restore the AWB and greatly strengthen it. It may take more tragedies, but the cost of doing nothing is too great. What's amazing is to hear 2nd Amend. supporters criticize the AWB for lack of effectiveness, and then turn around and conclude therefore reduced regulation is the answer. Naturally the very same people who lobbied and fought to water down the original AWB to guarantee it would be toothless are the ones jeering about how little impact it had. Funny how all outcomes end up benefitting the gun manufacturers isn't it?

    •  I couldn't agree more (0+ / 0-)

      I think it will be disaster for Dems to overreach on this, especially trying to get a ban that has already been declared DOA in Congress.

      Go for universal background checks and especially enforcing laws already on the books.

      I would also be in favor of minimum mandatory sentencing for gun crimes.  But, I'm not sure if a federal law like that is Constitutional.

      •  Minimum mandatory sentencing (0+ / 0-)

        Keep Congress out of sentencing!
        Look what has happened with child porn mandatory sentences.  What Congressman can say no to stiffer penalties?  So time after time they've been ratcheted up and up.

        On the other hand, studies have shown that where the possession of child porn has been made legal, the incidents of physical abuse have gone down significantly.  It seems there is a segment that is completely satisfied by viewing this stuff and are not led to actually acting out.

        In the US, there is no relationship between Federal sentencing guidelines for possessing child porn and any sense of justice.

        Even Democrats can be asses. Look at Rahm Emanuel.

        by Helpless on Thu Jan 31, 2013 at 12:08:09 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  You're probably right (0+ / 0-)

          and it's probably best keeping it at the state level.  But local prosecutors routinely bargain away gun charges just for a quick lesser conviction.

          Those that use guns criminally should be made to pay a higher price.

    •  Smart (0+ / 0-)

      I agree with most of what you have said here. I think the AWB is a loser all around and could hamper the real stuff that needs to happen to make our society a little safer.

      What I wish was being talked about more was amending the constitution in order to remove the ambiguity around the 2nd Amendment, redefine it for modern times. Maintain the core thrust that private ownership of firearms is an essential right of American citizens, but that right is not indiscriminate, nor should the government be barred from regulating gun ownership in order to ensure the peace and safety of non-gun owners who are also American citizens every bit as much as gun owners.  

    •  We need (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Laconic Lib, schnecke21, lyvwyr101

      Comprehensive gun legislation at the federal level.  The patchwork of state's laws regarding guns DOES NOT WORK.
      When states try to tighten up gun laws, the people just go to states with lax gun laws to buy their guns and ammo.  33 states have not closed the infamous "gun show loophole" which enables people to buy guns with no background checks and no wait periods.  Some 40% of gun sales are through private sales, which sidestep the background checks.  We can see how well that's working for everybody.

      The gun advocates will of course scream and cry that this is a power grab and some Bubba sheriffs will say they won't enforce the law but that is what is needed to restore sanity to the debate.

      I also don't agree that banning assault rifles and high capacity mags is a non-starter, if it is done properly, with NO grandfathering, and no NRA input on how to create loopholes to crazies and closet anarchists can keep their AK47s.

  •  To me, the mental illness issue is a red herring. (6+ / 0-)

    The issue is the ready availability of guns. Other countries have people with mental illness, violent video games, and violent movies. They don't have our problem because they don't have ready access to guns of all sorts (not just assault weapons with big clips). And, contrary to the fantasies borne of right-wing paranoia, there aren't that many tyrannies among them.

    The GOP can't win on ideas. They can only win by lying, cheating, and stealing. So they do.

    by psnyder on Thu Jan 31, 2013 at 08:22:33 AM PST

    •  of course we need better mental illness (6+ / 0-)

      treatment. We can have more than one problem in this country at once, and we can address more than one problem in this country at once.

      the suicide issue is closely tied to gun ownership; gun owning men are more likely to kill themselves than non-gun owners. that doesn't mean people won't kill themselves other ways, but those methods are less effective and less "convenient" for an impulse decision. If we can address the massive availability of guns and blunt the siren song of gun culture, AND address mental illness, imagine the progress we could make on that issue alone.

      •  310 million guns already owned (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        FrankRose, psnyder, Bailey2001

        how do you propose to:

        address the massive availability of guns
        when there are already 310 million guns on the street?
        •  Many things we can do about that (6+ / 0-)

          by drying up supply (restricting legal purchases, which create the supply for the black market), imposing choke points on the flow of weapons, funding buybacks, nationwide tracking to identify traffickers, etc.

          Those of us who care about this problem are in this for the long haul. It'll take decades, but the tide has turned, and we're tired of indulging gun fetishists.

          And if we don't do anything, there will be 410 million guns.

          And here's the cool part: fewer Americans own guns now than at any time in the last 50 years. That's right, the high number you quote is due to gun hoarding, not a wider use and ownership of guns.

          That makes the cleanup actually much easier - with only about a third of americans owning guns, and a majority that is tired of their reckless behavior.

          It's a typical pro-gun tactic to throw up ones hands and say, "we fucked up this country so much nobody should bother fixing it" but the rest of us aren't buying it, sorry.

          •  Your gun ownership stat isn't true (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            ban nock

            Gun ownership is higher than it has been in 17 years, and it is on the rise.

            And it is sharply on the rise by women and Democrats.

            http://www.gallup.com/...

            Forty-seven percent of American adults currently report that they have a gun in their home or elsewhere on their property. This is up from 41% a year ago and is the highest Gallup has recorded since 1993, albeit marginally above the 44% and 45% highs seen during that period.
            47%.. not a third.. nearly one-half.

            I'm not pro-gun.  I'm pro 2nd Amendment.  But that is beside the point.

            No one is proposing a "cleanup".  Guns will continue to be sold, except for perhaps assault style weapons.  And the number of guns will continue to grow.

          •  One half of American homes have at least one gun (0+ / 0-)

            and even though several polls suggest that anywhere from 37 to 42% say they are "gun owners" themselves...if they live in a home with a gun, although they might not be the personal owner....generally would suggest they approve of it being there.  

            However, these are poll numbers...in other words, people who don't mind telling a stranger that they have a gun.  These are not registration numbers or other types of undeniable data.

            If I were called my a polling firm and asked if I had a gun, my reply would be "None ya" or "No".....even though I do own them.....same with the Census or a doctor or whomever.

            So polls and stats probably don't include those who will not tell anyone they own a gun nor do they include those who know they are not supposed to have one, such as criminals. I think that most likely the numbers are far greater than we know.

            •  it's interesting that the NRA members (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              psnyder

              and NRA households always poll differently, generally men (members) vs women (households). Often a gender gap for these issues.

              "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 Thu Jan 31, 2013 at 10:01:42 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  I am a female gun owner. (0+ / 0-)

                My husband and I both are in support of gun rights.

                 However, he is a more conservative Democrat than myself.  For me, this is the lone, single issue that I deviate from the far, far left and so I am willing to have discussions, and try to see other points of view.

                 He, on the other hand, will rant for hours if it is even brought up.  This whole discussion has made him livid in all ways.  We don't talk about it much anymore, because it gives me a migraine.

      •  I'm not opposed to improving health (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        lyvwyr101, RadGal70

        care, mental included. I positively support it. My point is that conflating it with the gun issue is usually a BS diversionary tactic of people and organizations who don't want to accept that the ready availability of guns of all sorts is the primary problem when it comes to gun violence in America.

        The GOP can't win on ideas. They can only win by lying, cheating, and stealing. So they do.

        by psnyder on Thu Jan 31, 2013 at 09:05:19 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Regulating the "mentally ill" is a greater tyranny (5+ / 0-)

      than regulating ownerships firearms. Anyone old enough to remember the Cold War can recall how the Soviets condemned political dissidents as "mentally ill" to discredit them and lock them away.

      The First Amendment came first.

      Have you noticed?
      Politicians who promise LESS government
      only deliver BAD government.

      by jjohnjj on Thu Jan 31, 2013 at 08:47:53 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Great article (4+ / 0-)

      here at Huff-Po--tears the "We  need to deal with mental illness first crowd" a new one---a few times over.

      One of the best articles I've read yet regarding this red herring.

      “One look, and your life was absolutely changed,” said Michael McGowan, one of the first police officers to arrive at Sandy Hook Elementary School on Dec. 14, as a gunman, in the space of minutes, killed 20 first graders and 6 adults.

      by lyvwyr101 on Thu Jan 31, 2013 at 08:48:56 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Thanks for the tip. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        lyvwyr101, Over the Edge

        Would you mind supplying the link?

        The GOP can't win on ideas. They can only win by lying, cheating, and stealing. So they do.

        by psnyder on Thu Jan 31, 2013 at 09:00:08 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  My perspective on the mental illness (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        psnyder, lyvwyr101

        issue is that we need to better support families who are struggling with mentally ill family members - hopefully in that process we would find that people would be counseled that spending time teaching an anti-social kid how to use and fire weapons might not be a great activity to get them focused on.

        I worry a lot about stigmatizing people who have mental illness problems along the way, but there is a class of folks in that group who need more aggressive care and their families need the support and systems to help them properly address the issues.

        •  The Cephalus problem. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          inclusiveheart, Over the Edge

          In Plato's Republic,

          Cephalus, a rich, well-respected elder of the city, and host to the group, is the first to offer a definition of justice. Cephalus acts as spokesman for the Greek tradition. His definition of justice is an attempt to articulate the basic Hesiodic conception: that justice means living up to your legal obligations and being honest. Socrates defeats this formulation with a counterexample: returning a weapon to a madman. You owe the madman his weapon in some sense if it belongs to him legally, and yet this would be an unjust act, since it would jeopardize the lives of others. So it cannot be the case that justice is nothing more than honoring legal obligations and being honest.
          There is a legitimate concern, as Socrates points out, but I agree that stigmatizing the mentally ill is not the answer here. Nor does it specifically address the problem of violence by gun. In fact, it evades the problem.

          The GOP can't win on ideas. They can only win by lying, cheating, and stealing. So they do.

          by psnyder on Thu Jan 31, 2013 at 09:12:32 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Given how extreme LaPierre et al (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Over the Edge, lyvwyr101, psnyder

            are, I'd be quoting Hobbes, but yes Plato's Republic is also a great way to understand how complicated this problem is.

            Addressing mental illness in this country will require big money and could end up being a big train wreck especially now with so many people who would turn it into an ineffectual money-making scheme rather than what it needs to be which is something helpful to society and the families suffering with the affliction.

            All I can tell you is that Lindsey Graham put Americans on notice that because of our fiscal problems there will be fewer police and so we all need to start arming ourselves.  He said that, really - I'm not kidding.  The response from this extremist wing of the gun lobby is really scary and effectively proposing that civil society in their view will be maintained by a vigilante movement - which as you and I know is an oxymoron.  

            •  I often think of Hobbes (0+ / 0-)

              in the context of this discussion. Also of Max Weber's discussion of the State in "Politics as a Vocation."

              And then there's the 2nd Amendment itself. I find it just stunning that so many people blithely intone that its purpose is to permit people to defend themselves against the State rather than to defend the State itself.

              The GOP can't win on ideas. They can only win by lying, cheating, and stealing. So they do.

              by psnyder on Thu Jan 31, 2013 at 05:45:53 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

  •  The last few murders in my suburb (8+ / 0-)

    have involved a man shooting his wife or girlfriend, so it doesn't surprise me that women are more interested in gun control than men. We are more likely to be on the other end of the barrel of the gun.

    •  The number of women and girls shot by men (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      lyvwyr101

      exceeds the number of men and boys shot by women by at least an order of magnitude.

      Gun and ammo control is a core equal rights issue.

      "And now we know that government by organized money is just as dangerous as government by organized mob." -- FDR

      by Mogolori on Thu Jan 31, 2013 at 10:06:10 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  a casual glance (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    lyvwyr101

    at the image, shows 110 million 'assault rifles'
    How many of those will be banned (for resell etc) by DiFis current bill ?

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

    by OMwordTHRUdaFOG on Thu Jan 31, 2013 at 08:26:07 AM PST

    •  That's for all rifled long guns--including (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      OMwordTHRUdaFOG, ban nock, MPociask

      a ton of cheap .22s and all  the deer guns. They shouldn't have used the AK image.

      “liberals are the people who think that cruelty is the worst thing that we do” --Richard Rorty Also, I moved from NYC, so my username is inaccurate.

      by jeff in nyc on Thu Jan 31, 2013 at 08:27:34 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  misdirection is a fine art (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        lyvwyr101

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

        by OMwordTHRUdaFOG on Thu Jan 31, 2013 at 08:47:05 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Why misdirection? They had an icon for (0+ / 0-)

          shotguns and found a rifle icon that was distinguishable from the shotgun. I still think they could have done better, but I see no reason to call them liars.

          “liberals are the people who think that cruelty is the worst thing that we do” --Richard Rorty Also, I moved from NYC, so my username is inaccurate.

          by jeff in nyc on Thu Jan 31, 2013 at 09:10:52 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  There may be deliberate misdirection, but (0+ / 0-)

          people like me who think any gun is scary don't really know the difference between "a cheap .22" and an AK-47 other than what we know about outcomes like those we saw at Aurora, Gifford's appearance and in Newtown.  And the thing is that no matter how much you might think that drilling down into the details of all of the different kinds of firearms, I'm still afraid of guns regardless.  

          If you care, the things that would make me feel safer really are centered around knowing that the weapons that are out there now and that will be sold in the future are being used within a set of guidelines that would help reduce the death toll.  I accept that guns are a part of our culture and this country - what I don't accept is the notion that the weapons can't be better managed so as to reduce carnage.  I think there has to be a partnership between gun owners and society because right now the onus is entirely on the people who own guns and the rest of us have to trust that each and every person who has guns is being responsible, but we know that that is not the case based on the statistical data.  I don't think that prohibitions work that well, so the assault weapons ban seems like a non starter to me.  But I don't think that it is unreasonable to out limitations on magazine sizes - or to require added requisites for procuring high capacity magazines.  I also don't think it is unreasonable for people to expect gun owners to follow procedures that would establish a chain of command for the weapons they own now and those that they might sell to someone else.  Nor do I think it is unreasonable to prevent someone with a clean record from buying weapons for a person with a criminal background.

          I mean would it really be so bad for people who sell guns to think about who they might be selling a gun to?  To consider whether or not they are dealing with someone who seems whacked out and maybe if it feels wrong find another customer?  It doesn't seem like that goes on very often.

          •  I would also like to have no guns (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            lyvwyr101

            in public places.  Concealed carry for anyone other than law enforcement is insane.  Who needs to stroll the mall with a hand gun under his/her belt?  And please, no one mention the 22 year old kid (why are they always 22?) at Clackamas Town Center who thinks he scared the shooter into running away.  That happened in his head; what stopped the guy was that the sheriff department is 60 seconds away and was was there almost immediately.

    •  It is a misleading graphic in the sense that all (0+ / 0-)

      rifles are shown as "assault" rifles.  My reading would suggest that the number is closer to 3 million "assault" rifles.

      But, Mother Jones is selling advertising.

      Who is it, actually, that's making a profit out of Newtown?  It seems to me that it's the media.

      •  heh there's that (0+ / 0-)

        but more, it's the arms industry. How do we know? The lobbying efforts.

        "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 Thu Jan 31, 2013 at 09:10:32 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  As far as those hearings with Wayne LaPierre: (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Diana in NoVa, lyvwyr101, RadGal70

    an anagram for National Rifle Assoc is

    A Fanatic Riles Loons

    Thump! Bang. Whack-boing. It's dub!

    by dadadata on Thu Jan 31, 2013 at 08:28:07 AM PST

  •  I'd like to see a similar chart with high-cap'y (0+ / 0-)

    magazines. For pistols and rifles.

    Thump! Bang. Whack-boing. It's dub!

    by dadadata on Thu Jan 31, 2013 at 08:31:01 AM PST

  •  We shouldn't stop trying to control guns and ammo. (5+ / 0-)

    At the same time we must admit that we cannot control guns that are owned. Only gun owners can control their guns.  Society can't.  Society can only pick up the pieces in the aftermath of owners not controlling their guns.

    We need to legislate stiff penalties for not controlling guns.  For letting guns get into the wrong hands no matter what the excuse.

    As the population ages, dementia sets in.  These former gun owners build up a paranoia in their minds.  Hey, my dad slept with his rifle the last years of his life. He was angry and scared in his last years.  Not at all himself.  How do we disarm the aged?

    We need to take the oopsie out of gun ownership.  And the weasel defense of it's like a car.  No it's a gun.

    My gun control petition was shot down.

    by 88kathy on Thu Jan 31, 2013 at 08:33:57 AM PST

    •  How do we disarm the aged with infirmities? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      88kathy

      Simple.  When my dad showed the first signs of dementia, we took his old revolver and his .410 shotgun out of his house and told him that my brother would keep them for him.

      If you have a family member with dementia and you continue to allow them to have access to weapons, no matter how mellow they were in prior times, you are making a grievous mistake.

      •  agree (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Boris49

        in that sense it really is like taking the car keys.

        which we have done.

        "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 Thu Jan 31, 2013 at 10:42:32 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Yes and stiff penalties for not doing it. The GA (0+ / 0-)

        man who shot and killed a 22 year old trying to get out of his driveway.  His heirs should say good bye to any inheritance.  They should have removed the gun, the gun removed their inheritance.

        My gun control petition was shot down.

        by 88kathy on Thu Jan 31, 2013 at 01:32:00 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  We have interventions to take away (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      88kathy

      driving privileges for those of us who are too old to drive safely - and increased testing for the elderly in some states.  Why not do the same with guns.

  •  As much as I don't like Bloomberg (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Greg Dworkin, lyvwyr101, tytalus

    and think he sticks his money in things where it doesn't belong, he might be on the right track on guns. He is fighting back with advertising that demonstrates the NRA "A" rated politician's extreme views and forcing them to backtrack on their recent comments. As Rachel Maddow said last night, pressure from the other side can work too.
    Bloomberg strategy/ad at about 5:30 mark.
    http://video.msnbc.msn.com/...

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

    by hulibow on Thu Jan 31, 2013 at 08:35:16 AM PST

  •  I'm usually doubtful of polls or reports made for (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    FrankRose

    advocacy groups or sources very obviously on one side or another.

    I guess my favorite source is Pew as they seem to have a goal of coaxing understanding out of the data rather than proving a point.

    I've always tossed reports for Fox or other propaganda sources, but lately after becoming interested in wildlife issues I've noticed similar methods from the extreme left. Now I take any number or source with lots of salt.

    How big is your personal carbon footprint?

    by ban nock on Thu Jan 31, 2013 at 08:37:29 AM PST

  •  Myth #7 - interesting, but meaningless data (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    FrankRose, Bailey2001

    in regards to the gun control debate.

    Unless, as I suspect, the ultimate aim is to confiscate every one of those 310 millions guns, the current set of proposed regulations will do nothing to change this statistic.

  •  That is a completely unfair (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    FrankRose

    graphic. 100% of law enforcement owns firearms, but not that percent of the population does. I get that the point is to reduce the number of firearms, but if we're going to propagate unscientific propaganda, we may as well endorse intelligent design as well.

  •  Would love to read your diary, (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    hulibow, lyvwyr101

    but the "skin ads" make dkos unusable for me......back tomorrow after Kamau's show is over.

    David Koch is Longshanks, and Occupy is the real Braveheart.

    by PsychoSavannah on Thu Jan 31, 2013 at 08:44:46 AM PST

    •  I know what you mean (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Greg Dworkin, PsychoSavannah

      it's slow, distracting & hard on the eyes -some sites I don't even go to for that reason.
      I'm in a shit crap mood, feeling stressed out, overworked, under-appreciated - so completely self-absorbed I'm even annoying me. Time to snap out of it & do something for someone else - check your mail & have a nice year.

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

      by hulibow on Thu Jan 31, 2013 at 09:32:12 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I HOPE 12/14 will be a turning point in our (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    lyvwyr101

    national insanity.

    But did it have to require the sacrifice of innocents?

    The NRA is Baal-Moloch, and I'm outraged.

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

    by Diana in NoVa on Thu Jan 31, 2013 at 08:44:46 AM PST

  •  More evidence CT gets it (8+ / 0-)

    Teachers in CT are opposed to allowing teachers to carry guns in schools by 85% to 3% with 12% not responding.

    EIGHTY FIVE PERCENT TO THREE PERCENT!!!!!

    Of those teachers surveyed 1 in 5 are themselves gun owners and 77% of them are opposed to it.  

    Let me repeat that.  85% to 3%.

    Also, 98% favor extending criminal and mental health background checks for all gun purchases.  I'd like to meet the 2% who don't or have no opinion.

    88% support banning the sale or possession of assault weapons to the general public.

    EIGHTY EIGHT PERCENT!!!!

    That means that there are quite a few who themselves own guns who support banning the sale OR POSSESSION of assault weapons.

    This is your world These are your people You can live for yourself today Or help build tomorrow for everyone -8.75, -8.00

    by DisNoir36 on Thu Jan 31, 2013 at 08:48:21 AM PST

  •  One quibble with "gender gap".......... (0+ / 0-)

    The framing is a bit off. Personally, i'd expect the 75% female response, every woman in my 60 years of life has been most protective of any child's life and life in general. It's the 55% of males that is the welcomed change in perspective.

    My own thinking is a bit troubled right now. One of our Local Union members has really gone off the reservation. He used to be one my most reliable foot soldiers when i was organizing door-to-door drives, or needed help with the logistics of Dem. campaign rallies and functions. Now he's making deep cuts in the family budget just to get yet another gun or more ammo.

    So this 55% number is somewhat more reassuring that there is more sanity out there than gun sales spikes might indicate.

    •  good point, but the gender gap is still there (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      geez53

      and I highlight it in the context of LaPierre's remarks yesterday at the Senate hearing, along with the lawyer for the independent women's forum claiming women need these 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 Thu Jan 31, 2013 at 09:08:12 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  MoJo's count seems wrong (0+ / 0-)

    Every 4 years the Bureau of Justice Statistics performs a census of State/Local law enforcement and Federal law enforcement agencies. In 2008, there was an estimated 809,308 sworn law enforcement officers (LEOs) and an estimated 116,857 Federal LEOs.  I couldn't find 2008 information for military strength, but I found an end strength report from July 2010 that stated there were 2,265,914 military members (active and reserve/guard excluding civilians). That would be a total armed gov't agent count of 3,192,079.  

    I served in the Army, and I know that we had more than 1 gun per soldier.  I ran estimates both of 2:gov't agent and 3:gov't agent. If you compare those numbers to the estimated civilian gun total of 310,000,000 you get ratios ranging from 49 civilian guns for each one government gun to 32 civilian guns for each government gun.  Still grossly outgunned,  but far different than the MoJo est. of 78:1.

    "I try to keep an open mind, but not so open my brains fall out." ~ Judge Harry Stone

    by chris m on Thu Jan 31, 2013 at 09:20:11 AM PST

  •  People need to (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    geez53, lyvwyr101

    Write their senators, their Representatives, the White House.  Push for what you want in terms of gun legislation.

    Congress doesn't do anything unless it is pushed or paid to do it.

  •  I am not a lawyer (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    RadGal70, lyvwyr101

    But there's something I don't get about the 2nd Amendment.

    One of the tests the Supreme Court uses when they are assessing free speech is "clear and present danger".  

    As in:  "Is there, from someone's speech, a clear and present danger that there could be violence or tragedy?" If there is, then that speech can be restricted.

    This is the you cannot yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater deal.  Or so called "fighting words".  Some freedom of speech limitations are about public safety.  The public interest, like national security or personal safety, can override freedom of speech.

    Seems to me that the public interest (personal safety) is being trampled by nuts with easy access to WMDs.  Crazies with high powered weapons present a clear and present danger to unarmed civilians.   The clear and present danger in America has become the gun lobby (not to mention some unhinged "Right to Insurrection" types, whose numbers are growing) which is pushing its product and its agenda, regardless of what the consequences are for the nation as a whole.  

  •  GUNS GUNS GUNS GUNS GUNS GUNS GUNS GUNS (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    lyvwyr101

    Lovely guns, wonderful guns!

    (Lousy Vikings).

    Buy Aldus Shrugged : The Antidote to Ayn Rand, and tear Ayn and the GOP new orifices. ALL ROYALTIES BETWEEN NOW AND MARCH 1, DONATED TO THIS SITE, DAILYKOS!! @floydbluealdus1

    by Floyd Blue on Thu Jan 31, 2013 at 09:48:39 AM PST

  •  Years ago when my then boyfriend (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Greg Dworkin, lyvwyr101

    worked as a prosecutor in a courthouse in a dicey area of town, he came home and said that he was thinking of getting a gun.  My response, "Not if you want to live with me."  I had read too many temporary restraining order applications that included "And then he put the gun to my head and threatened to blow my f-ing head off."

    He didn't purchase the gun and we later married.  Twice since then, once while he was a prosecutor and again, since he became a judge, he received death threats.  He didn't think about getting a gun.

    Our home is still gun free and will remain that way.

    If I am not for myself, then who will be for me? When I am only for myself, then what am "I"? And if not now, when?

    by betorah on Thu Jan 31, 2013 at 11:47:28 AM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site