Skip to main content

For as long as I can remember the issue has been called "gun control."  However, I think that this framing of the issue is not helpful to achieving our goal of protecting the public from the use of guns.  

The use of the word "control" carries with it the idea that the state is placing limits on citizens in the United States.  Therefore, this frame allows the NRA and other pro gun groups to focus on the rights of the individual.  It allows them to use "gun control" as an example where the state is depriving citizens of certain rights, particularly when they are able to tie these rights to one of the amendments to the constitution.  Using the term "gun control" forces us to argue on the NRA's turf, which is not where we should be.

Instead, I think that we need a new frame of the issue.  We need to take the focus away from whether the individual gun owner is the one being deprived of his or her rights.  Instead, we need to keep the focus on the individual citizen who is being deprived of his or her right to safety when faced with someone with a gun.  The person with the gun has the power to deprive another citizen of the most fundamental of all rights--the right to live, and for this reason, it is certainly reasonable for us as a society to place limits on who can own guns and where they can be carried.

The recent case of Trayvon Martin is a good illustration for my point.  Trayvon Martin was deprived of his life when he was confronted by a wanna be cop with a gun.    Trayvon Martin (and others) certainly should have the right to walk down a public street after patronizing a local store without fear of death or bodily harm.

George Zimmerman (and others like him) are a danger to society when they are allowed to walk down public streets carrying guns.  We should therefore protect the public from the George Zimmermans of the world by putting into effect laws that say that no one but a police officer should be allowed to carry a gun on a public street.

I am certain that if we did have such a law in effect, Trayvon Martin would be alive today.    Does anyone really think that George Zimmerman would have confronted Trayvon Martin if he was not carrying a gun for his claimed "personal protection".  If Zimmerman really did believe that Trayvon Martin was a threat, he certainly wouldn't have placed himself at risk by confronting Martin if he had no means to defend himself.  Instead, Zimmerman would have waited for the police to arrive.  Once there, a trained police officer would have been able to ascertain that Trayvon Martin was not a threat or engaging in illegal activity and Trayvon would have continued along his way.  

Originally posted to night cat on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 08:06 PM PDT.

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

  •  It seems that the NRA and the pro gun folks don't (7+ / 0-)

    see this issue as one of balancing of rights.  Why should the gun owners rights count more than the rights of the general public to safety?  

    •  That's the part I don't get (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      night cat, LilithGardener

      I got into a discussion about open carry, because I would prefer that so the rest of us at least have a chance to get out of the line of fire.

      I was told that their "privacy" trumps my right to be able to protect myself by knowing where any guns are pointed.

      In other words, their privacy trumps my ability to not get injured or die. What an attitude. I didn't even want to take away the guns, I just want to be able to see them if they are out in public with them.

      Women create the entire labor force. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sympathy is the strongest instinct in human nature. - Charles Darwin

      by splashy on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 12:27:06 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  People who own guns don't care nt (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      night cat, Miggles, LilithGardener

      nosotros no somos estúpidos

      by a2nite on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 04:54:58 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  This is asinine. They don't. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Mildly Unsuccessful Lurker

      Do you also believe that "phone owners rights count more than the rights of the general public" when it comes to warrantless wiretaps?

      You aren't seeking to 'balance rights', you are insisting that others give up their liberties for your perceived saftey.

      Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

      by FrankRose on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 05:45:14 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Yeah, the gun didn't make zimmerman "brave". (0+ / 0-)

    Yeah, I think zimmerman would have followed mr martin even when not armed.

    I have that opinion because of how zimmerman acted. Not the "He got out of the car" action, but the "He followed on the sidewalk" action.

    See, zimmerman apparently had at least some minimal gun education. Part of basic self defense education is the Tueller Drill. Basically, a cop named Tueller figured out through experimentation that a person standing 21 feet away could run up to a cop and stab him in the chest before the cop could get his gun from his holster and point it at the attacker and fire.

    If zimmerman had thoughts of his gun and self defense rolling around his head, he would have been aware of that radius of distance.

    Whatever actually happened, whether it was zimm getting close to trayvon or trayvon coming out of bushes, part of either of those is zimmerman completely ignoring that 21 foot circle of distance. Just completely being mindless about what's inside that 21 feet....

    I think...  This is just my opinion... but I think that someone being so mindless about such a basic element of firearm self defense must not have been thinking hardly anything about the gun in the holster at his side.

    It's just such a signal of indifference to me that he was on the sidewalk rather than walking along out in the street.

    If you have thoughts of self defense with a gun in your mind... in a situation where you are eyes-on with someone you suspect of being complicit in a crime... then somewhere in your head you have some concern for the relative safety of your skin... and you should be looking at parked cars as possible barriers between you and the person that you are concerned about, and that puts you in the street.

    But zimmerman was so thoughtlessly empty-headed about these things that he just used the sidewalk. Because of that, I just don't think he was doing much thinking at all about anything, let alone his gun.

    Now get yourself a song to sing, and sing it till you're done.

    by JayFromPA on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 08:31:03 PM PDT

    •  If you think someone as ... (6+ / 0-)

      ... paranoid as George Zimmerman, who had two flashlights on him, a cellphone, a loaded gun, had just called the police about the incident and had taken lessons on how to shoot the gun and fight Mixed-Martial Arts, ...

      (a) got "snuck up on" in a very wide walkway with no bushes except right next to the townhomes; and/or

      (b) didn't think about his gun (or even have it out or at least his hand on it) ...

      ... then I don't know how much attention you paid to the case. Zimmerman was a bully because he had a gun.  

      I would tip you, but the man took away my tips.

      by Tortmaster on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 11:05:26 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Exactly, Zimmerman had no courage, he had no (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        a2nite, LilithGardener

        nuts to ever confront the objects and subjects of his hatred and prejudice until he bought 3 lbs worth from a gun store, At that point he became a superhero, super cop in his own twisted asss mind. Realistically I personally believe this is the case for most gunz toters, their gunz embolden them to make situations into incidents, confront, and say shit that they never would have prior to strapping on their holster full of bravery. Happens every damn damn with seriously disastrous results they they almost invariably simply walk away from.
           

        Dunn fled the scene with his girlfriend, telling deputies he feared for his safety. He was arrested the following day. Dunn, who has no previous criminal history, told deputies he had asked the teens to turn down their music, prompting a verbal fracas.
        He’s due back in court next Tuesday, at which time Strolla said he’ll petition the judge to reconsider bond for his
        client.
         http://www.ajc.com/...
        That's the Jordan Davis, case, shot over loud music,
           Do you really believe for even a split second, that a 45 year old pasty white man who is in a strange area 200+ miles from home EVER in his entire life had the courage, the nuts to go up to ANY teenage and confront them about their music? Let alone an entire car full of teens? and god forbid- black teens? I think not.
            He did so simply because he had his store bought nutz  holstered and hidden upon his person, face it. THe gunz gave him the testicular fortitude that he was born lacking
        and now, once again, a kid is dead as a result.
            Shooting into a car full of kids with 8 rounds, but to hear him tell it, he "got the right one". I think it'd have been "the right one" if his dumbass hit everyone in the car, to hear him tell it...
            He also claims SYG, after leaving the scene, not reporting it, and hauling ass home- 200+ miles away.
            He is one of the many gunz nutz from very nearby me and very representative of way too many of them and their attitude about gunz.
             I think it's time for a all out boycott on all things Florida. The only thing they give a damn about here is their precious terrorism, oops, tourism. Stop vacationing here. Quit taking your cruises out of our ports. Quit buying Disney crap and attending their movies. Florida sucks anyway, highly over rated, spend your vacation and money in a blue state...

        Be the kind of person your dog thinks you are.

        by teabaggerssuckbalz on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 05:01:04 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  One thing I've seen often (0+ / 0-)

          is that when talking about the details of one event it usually starts getting mixed up when the details of another event are brought into it.

          It just happens, people don't slow down and take the time to keep the events separate.

          You clearly have made dunn and zimm the same in your head. One claimed syg, the other did not. One was out on patrol, the other was not. One called the cops, the other did not. One was looking for trouble when he got out of his car, the other was not. That both ended up shooting does not nullify all the other things.

          My point is this - Zimm is zimm and dunn is dunn.

          Now get yourself a song to sing, and sing it till you're done.

          by JayFromPA on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 06:15:58 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  I think Dunn fled because he was under the (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          teabaggerssuckbalz

          influence of alcohol, may be even drunk.

          They had been at his son's wedding - so they were coming away from an afternoon wedding reception, and stopped at the store to buy booze, which they took back to their hotel/motel.

          I also think that Dunn has a temper, and as the case proceeds we will find out about some incidents where he lost his temper, and/or where he has a problem with alcohol.

          "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

          by LilithGardener on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 11:19:39 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  That was my thought as well, he was drunk. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            LilithGardener

            As far as SYG, semantics if you ask me, to claim self defense in this state the legalities are pretty much one and the same.
               No, they are hardly one and the same in my head, They both live extremely close to me as do a thousand more just like them. I definitely make my best attempt to remember who the crazy gunz nutz around me are.

            Be the kind of person your dog thinks you are.

            by teabaggerssuckbalz on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 01:20:43 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I feel for you (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              teabaggerssuckbalz

              I was looking at the SYG database at the Tampa Bay Times web site and see where it's going.

              Was told that SYG was born from the problem of injured criminals suing and winning injury damages from homeowners and crime victims who defended themselves and their property.

              One case jumped out at me. Drug dealer A shoots someone (punk A) outside a club late at night and gets off on SYG defensive use of his gun. Some time later someone (punk B) comes at him, and Drug Dealer A tells punk B, "Go ahead and just shoot me." Punk B shoots hitting Drug Dealer A in the arm. Drug Dealer A shoots back, killing Bunk B. Again Drug Dealer A gets away with killing relying on a SYG defense. Another year later, Drug Dealer A is outside the same club, there is a shootout resulting in 2 dead and 11 injured. No one has been charged with the killings.

              So where this is going is "permission" for the police to just look the other way when black people are killing each other, because it's expensive to investigate and then not be able to bring a case because of SYG.

              The smart bad guys with guns will develop an array of provocations where they can surprise/scare/anger someone just enough goad someone carrying a gun for self defensive into shooting first. Then the bad guy will be able to kill you and get away with it, even if they are not legally carrying a firearm.

              "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

              by LilithGardener on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 01:57:09 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  This mornings news: Seminole Co. shootout; (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                LilithGardener
                Deputies said people in at least three cars started shooting at each other along State Road 434 close to Wekiva Springs Road near Longwood.
                The violence then spilled over into four other areas of the county, leaving bullet casing behind. No random bullets hit drivers.
                http://www.wftv.com/...
                Wild wild west is what it's turned into around here, all it took was a new flood of gunz to get the party started.                
                    People can say whatever they want to about the proliferation of gunz making this a 'polite' society, or making things safer for all because 'good guys with gunz' outnumber the bad guys but the reality is this shit was not happening with the voracity to which it now is 5 years ago, 10 years ago, or 15 years ago. what changed?
                    The number of gunz. Our local phenomena is directly parallel to the staggering number of gunz that have been tossed into the pipeline in the past 5-6 years.
                    Simply another what came first, the chicken or the egg...
                   

                Be the kind of person your dog thinks you are.

                by teabaggerssuckbalz on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 05:03:44 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I read some of the cases at the Tampe Bay Times (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  teabaggerssuckbalz

                  database, http://www.tampabay.com/... and understand now why O'Mara said that GZ would not have been charged if he had been black.

                  There are a lot of acquitals among those who were charged. It seems to me that SYG has helped some victims, but also has helped immunize a lot of aggressive behavior.

                  I wonder if it gives the police an excuse to not really investigate, and to sort of look the other way unless there are really strong witnesses.

                  "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

                  by LilithGardener on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 06:32:52 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

        •  Nice summary, tbsb, but ... (0+ / 0-)

          ... I would note that anyone with a gun has bought him or herself courage they didn't already have, and almost certainly didn't need, as well as the risk to himself and his family or friends. It is a Public Safety Issue.

          I would tip you, but the man took away my tips.

          by Tortmaster on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 09:05:14 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  There were no bushes. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Miggles, a2nite, LilithGardener

      There were 3 streets in the neighborhood in which Zimmerman lived, was captain of the neighborhood watch. Zimmerman had no need to get out of his truck.

      Zimmerman tried a lame marshal arts move on Martin. Zimmerman fell getting a minor scratch on the back of his head. (his head was not slammed repeatedly into the sidewalk) Zimmerman got his legs tangled up with Martin as in a slide tackle. Martin landed on top of Zimmerman. Martin scrambled to get off Zimmerman. Zimmerman caught a face full of Martin's tennis shoe. (he was not punched 25 times) Martin scrambled on to the grass. They both stood up. Zimmerman shot Martin.

      Zimmerman was never not wearing his gun. He was scared to go to the grocery store (which is why he was out that night) without it.

      give the NRA the Royal Flush join Stop The NRA

      by 88kathy on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 12:29:41 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  You can see the bushes for yourself. Here's how. (0+ / 0-)

        Hard to tell from what I can see on google earth.
        Nearest I can determine, final location of zimm's idiocy is...
        lattitude   28.792916°
        longitude -81.329639°

        Stick those in google earth. Spin the compass so north is at the bottom, and the layout will match that given by the new york times in this link http://www.nytimes.com/...

        From the google earth image, you can see half a dozen different small trees and bushes.

        Bring up street view and inch along South Oregon street, looking sideways off the road. You can see the sides of the houses and you can see the bushes.

        There is the long line of bushes on the building right in front of you on street view, then there is the road, and you can see the lines of green bushes against the buildings across that road.

        It's a demonstrable fact that there are bushes there. We can see them.

        Now get yourself a song to sing, and sing it till you're done.

        by JayFromPA on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 11:26:33 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Here's a link that goes some where. (0+ / 0-)

          You can see spindly little trees that had no leaves in February.

          here

          give the NRA the Royal Flush join Stop The NRA

          by 88kathy on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 11:47:24 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  WOW YOU GOT THE BUSHES ON VIDEO! (0+ / 0-)

            BWAHAHAHAHAHA!

            Click on YOUR LINK.

            Click on number 7

            Play the video "Zimmerman re-enacts Trayvon Martin Shooting"

            Right there at the 6:00 mark, the six minute mark...

            THERE ARE THE BUSHES!

            THERE ARE THE BUSHES YOU SAY DO NOT EXIST!

            Now get yourself a song to sing, and sing it till you're done.

            by JayFromPA on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 11:57:51 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  And my links go somewhere. Those bushes (0+ / 0-)

              couldn't hide a rogue cat.

              Martin, who was 5’11” and 158 pounds when he died

              Read more here:

              give the NRA the Royal Flush join Stop The NRA

              by 88kathy on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 12:14:07 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  They could hide me at night in the rain (0+ / 0-)

                After all, the report states it was night and raining that night.

                And I've got at least 20 pounds on mr martin.
                I don't bend as easily as a 17 year old anymore due to more age.
                As well as a leg implant that means I would have to take up more space because it would be unbent.

                I could hide in those bushes, because of the night and the rain.

                But at least you have admitted that you have been wrong, that there ARE bushes.

                Nice try attempting to deflect attention from your lack of a grasp of the barest facts of the location.

                Now get yourself a song to sing, and sing it till you're done.

                by JayFromPA on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 06:10:22 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

      •  Even using historical images (0+ / 0-)

        Google earth lets you flip back to older aerial images. Flip back to a pic of the area taken during the day of 1/3/2012, and you can see green lines (bushes) on the sun-ward side of the other buildings.

        There were bushes. Plenty of bushes. Egads, so many bushes you can bet that I would not be in the mood to have to deal with them and keep them trimmed.

        Now get yourself a song to sing, and sing it till you're done.

        by JayFromPA on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 11:32:36 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Another link that goes somewhere. (0+ / 0-)

          here

          Zimmerman made 2 previous calls about houses on the street before the clubhouse. He knew the 3 streets in his neighborhood.

          Zimmerman started out his journey talking on the cell phone then doesn't have it. And can't find it.

          give the NRA the Royal Flush join Stop The NRA

          by 88kathy on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 12:03:49 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  The bushes look to be half the height of a 5' (0+ / 0-)

            fence.

            give the NRA the Royal Flush join Stop The NRA

            by 88kathy on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 12:13:45 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Yep, I can hide behind that. (0+ / 0-)

              Crouched down next to the refrigerator, placed a magnet at the level of height of my head, and measured it with the tape measure.

              28 inches. That's less than two and a half feet.

              So, I can manage to be completely lower than those bushes in just an instant crouch. If I dropped to a half-sitting position I could lower down another three inches or maybe four.

              Add to that the fact of darkness, and I easily hide in behind those bushes. I might not need to be so low because of shadows.

              AND add to that the fact of it being a rainy night, the noise of the dripping hiding any small rustling noises of me turning my head to see someone walking past.

              Yep, those bushes that you originally didn't believe even existed are definitely plenty capable of hiding me.

              Now get yourself a song to sing, and sing it till you're done.

              by JayFromPA on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 07:30:48 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Sunset was at 6:30 pm Trayvon Martin was (0+ / 0-)

                pronounced dead at 7:30 pm.  I am sure that neighborhood has lights that come on at dusk. This is a gated community we have here.

                give the NRA the Royal Flush join Stop The NRA

                by 88kathy on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 08:44:11 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Not floodlights right outside people's windows. (0+ / 0-)

                  You aren't going to demand the existence of shadow-destroying floodlights right outside people's bedroom windows the same way you 'stood your ground' against the existence of bushes, are you?

                  Wait, who am I kidding? I'm talking to the person who didn't think through her proposal for 'keeping' guns with a person 24/7. OF COURSE you are going to demand the existence of aggravating floodlights right outside people's bedroom windows!

                  Cuz that's just the way you are.

                  Now get yourself a song to sing, and sing it till you're done.

                  by JayFromPA on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 03:47:31 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Go hide behind your fig leaf. (0+ / 0-)

                    give the NRA the Royal Flush join Stop The NRA

                    by 88kathy on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 11:22:39 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Don't go away mad. Just go away. eom. (0+ / 0-)

                      Now get yourself a song to sing, and sing it till you're done.

                      by JayFromPA on Fri Jul 19, 2013 at 07:55:49 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  aren't you so play ground. (0+ / 0-)

                        give the NRA the Royal Flush join Stop The NRA

                        by 88kathy on Sat Jul 20, 2013 at 11:12:38 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  This site has become playground. It used (0+ / 0-)

                          It used to be able to have an honest conversation.

                          People used to be able to separate out different elements of the issue at hand and address each separately. Take the marissa debacle for example - people used to be able to tell the difference between a conviction and a sentence. Furthermore, people on this site used to be able to tell the difference between "convicted of A" that was being hyped in a diary title and "convicted of Z" that was what is actually listed on the court records.

                          Nowadays it doesn't matter if the court records say "convicted of Z", because "convicted of A" is what will feed peoples' addiction to outrage and "convicted of A" is what will be enforced through peer moderation.

                          Community moderation has its bad points.
                          Lots of republicans still believe that saddam hussein had a part in 9/11 even though he did not, and community moderation will effectively prevent that truth from being more widely known.
                          Lots of democrats believe Marissa alexander is innocent because her bullet didn't hit her slime husband even though the actual reason for her guilt was because her bullet went through the wall and across the living room where her other two children were at - guilty because of recklessly endangering her other children, but "community moderation" seems to be effectively protecting the people of this site from that harsh truth.

                          This site has become as unsophisticated as a playground.

                          Now get yourself a song to sing, and sing it till you're done.

                          by JayFromPA on Sat Jul 20, 2013 at 09:26:07 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

  •  Public health . (6+ / 0-)

    http://books.google.com/...

    One of the best times I've had on DKos was when the very people who told me up one side and down the other that public health was a rotten terrible idea , linked to a public health system that focused on preventing gun crimes and praised it . They failed to understand that the system they liked so much was a public health system .

    The standard you walk past is the standard you accept. David Morrison

    by indycam on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 08:35:41 PM PDT

  •  This sentence needs to go. (4+ / 0-)
    Instead, we need to keep the focus on the individual citizen who is being deprived of his or her right to safety when faced with someone with a gun.
    There's no 'Right To Safety'. There is punishment if you endanger others, which isn't the same.

    Sorta like there's no right to air, but there is punishment for the criminal act of preventing someone from breathing. It can be a strange way to think for someone who doesn't think about it all that much, but it really is the way that the law actually functions.

    Basically, I would explain it like "You do what you want, and if what you do fucks with other people then you'll be punished."

    Yeah, the law actually works like that. If something isn't prohibited, then it is legal to do it. Default: Legal.

    It works this way because if it were the other way around the law would be a huge list of things that you are allowed to do. Like "It is lawful to drive a car. It is lawful to walk on the sidewalk. It is lawful to put an air conditioner in your window. It is lawful to take taco bell to-go and eat it at home".

    Now get yourself a song to sing, and sing it till you're done.

    by JayFromPA on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 08:42:08 PM PDT

  •  some people are using "gun safety" now (5+ / 0-)

    Politics is like driving. To go backward put it in R. To go forward put it in D.
    Drop by The Grieving Room on Monday nights for support in dealing with grief.

    by TrueBlueMajority on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 08:50:23 PM PDT

    •  Not the dictionary. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Mildly Unsuccessful Lurker

      "Gun Control-noun-Regulation of the selling, owning and use of guns"--Mirriam-Webster

      Gun Control is such a loser even its supporters can't bear using the very term that describes their intent.

      Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

      by FrankRose on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 05:35:51 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Dictionary has zilch to do with it. Gun control (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        XenuLives, LilithGardener

        is a term that invokes paranoia.  Frames, not dictionary definitions, matter when it comes to debating policies.  That is why many gun responsibility and safety related proposals are so popular when they are explained on their own merits rather than smeared as gun control.

      •  dictionary? LOL (0+ / 0-)

        let me introduce you to something called fast moving culture.

        words gain new meanings in common usage, sometimes for years before they make it into the dictionary.

        gun control and gun safety are not exactly the same thing, and I still use the term gun control when it applies, because it is not a loser everywhere.  believe it or not, there is a lot of support for gun control in some places.

        but gun responsibility measures like background checks, trigger locks, reducing straw purchases, denying guns to people with domestic violence convictions, etc. ARE public safety issues.

        Politics is like driving. To go backward put it in R. To go forward put it in D.
        Drop by The Grieving Room on Monday nights for support in dealing with grief.

        by TrueBlueMajority on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 08:15:28 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yes. Dictionary. I realize it doesn't carry the (0+ / 0-)

          credibility of a comment by 'TrueBlueMajority', but I do find them useful nonetheless.

          "Fast moving culture"
          Good thing dictionaries are updated at least once a year.

          "Gun control and gun safety are not exactly the same thing"
          They aren't at all the same thing.
          "Gun Control-regulation of the selling, owning and use of guns"--Mirriam-Webster

          "Gun safety" on the other hand typically refers to the handling of firearms.
          Other than the LOLtastic attempts of some DailyKos posters attempting to change the meanings of words through sheer will alone, I have never heard someone try to use the phrase "gun safety" when referring to the regulation of firearms.

          Word have meanings. They do not change at your whim.

          Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

          by FrankRose on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 09:41:57 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  they don't change at my whim (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Glen The Plumber, night cat

            but the meanings of words do change over time and culture is what changes them

            and as I said in a post upthread, do you challenge the Republicons on their never ending attempt to change the meanings of words?

            Newt started it.  The Blue Team is finally beginning to figure out how to play

            Politics is like driving. To go backward put it in R. To go forward put it in D.
            Drop by The Grieving Room on Monday nights for support in dealing with grief.

            by TrueBlueMajority on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 09:46:57 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  "Newt started it" Oh for God's sake. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              andalusi

              Your answer to not using the correct definition of words is "the Republicans do it"?

              I prefer not emulating either Newt nor the GOP.
              Clearly, you disagree.
              However, I do find it appropriate that those seeking to take liberties from innocent Americans as a result of the crimes of a murderer would do so.
              I will stand aside and let you and Newt rage against the language.

              Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

              by FrankRose on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 09:56:05 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  i am saying that, politics, like any other subset (0+ / 0-)

                of human life, develops its own language/jargon/insider lingo.

                art, music, teenagers, areas of business, anywhere that human beings find common purpose will develop its own communication modes

                people who are more rigid/limited in their use of language often have a hard time keeping up and complain that things are changing too fast for them.

                tough.

                Newt Gingrich and Frank Luntz gave the Republicons a kick start into the 21st century on this, but it is and always has been a political reality.  deny it if you like.  be a language Luddite if you like.   by all means keep telling those damn kids to get off your lawn.  meanwhile the inexorable force of semantic drift will march ahead whether you like it or not.

                by definition (pun intended) words acquire new uses before those new definitions appear in dictionaries!  dictionaries have no choice but to lag behind the reality of language evolution.  that's why those dead tree dictionaries have to be revised so frequently!

                but if you want to insist on keeping language static, please do, by all means, stand aside.  you go do what you think more appropriate, and leave the rest of us to continue developing memes and frames that help us do the inclusive justice work we have been given to do.

                Politics is like driving. To go backward put it in R. To go forward put it in D.
                Drop by The Grieving Room on Monday nights for support in dealing with grief.

                by TrueBlueMajority on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 05:39:53 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  There is already a 'political word' (0+ / 0-)

                  (and popular word, and common word, and English word) that describes the regulating of firearms. Namely 'gun control'.

                  The phrase 'gun control' is widely understood, widely used & is used in lieu of your incorrect phrase 'gun safety' by every credible source & essentially everyone except a few dozen on Daily Kos & the Huffington post.

                  "develops its own lingo.....words acquire definitions before those definitions are in the dictionary"
                  Then let us see what the phrase 'gun safety' means to the 'common purpose of communication' outside of the dictionary.

                  You overestimate your impact on the language.
                  But don't let that stop you. Please proceed with your assault on the English language. I'm certain it will end well.

                  Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                  by FrankRose on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 06:16:19 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  new definitions always start small (0+ / 0-)

                    "death tax" started with one person

                    Politics is like driving. To go backward put it in R. To go forward put it in D.
                    Drop by The Grieving Room on Monday nights for support in dealing with grief.

                    by TrueBlueMajority on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 07:20:12 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  And you approve of the word "death tax"? (0+ / 0-)

                      Suit yourself, however 'death tax' had the distinct advantage of not already having a dissimilar meaning as 'gun safety' does.

                      Gun Control is such a loser you can't even bring yourself to use the correct definition.

                      Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                      by FrankRose on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 07:32:39 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  no I dont approve of death tax (0+ / 0-)

                        and "death tax" has the distinct disadvantage of being a lie.  there is no tax for dying.

                        i live in an area where Gun Control is a positive phrase, and I still use it.  your "gun control is such a loser" idea only applies to certain parts of the country.  gun control is a majority view right now.  a January 2013 poll showed 53% of Americans say they support stricter gun laws with 40% opposed.

                        the "correct" definition of words changes over time.  and it will keep on happening whether you agree with it or not.

                        i notice you did not answer my previous point about how words take on new meanings before they get into the dictionary.

                        dictionaries just codify word meaning changes the culture has already made.  literally, by definition, changes in popular use in the culture is what actually determines the word definitions in dictionaries, not the other way around

                        Politics is like driving. To go backward put it in R. To go forward put it in D.
                        Drop by The Grieving Room on Monday nights for support in dealing with grief.

                        by TrueBlueMajority on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 08:44:59 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  You may want to ask Colbert-Busch about PPP (0+ / 0-)

                          They had her leading by 9 points two weeks before she lost the election by 9 points.

                          Here is a more recent poll asking about gun control, showing that 50% want gun control to stay the same or lessened & only 47% wanting more gun control.

                          The twenty year trend is even more telling.

                          Gun control only plays well on the coasts, areas that are already solidly blue, it is a loser everywhere else; which is why Colorado is having their first 2 recalls in their 137 year history.

                          "I notice you didn't answer my previous point"
                          Not only did I answer. I also linked you to an example of the popular usage of the phrase "gun safety".
                          The number of people whom, demonstratively are using the incorrect phrase, number in the mere dozens. Conversely, the popular & correct definitions are used by everyone else, for both phrases.
                          Your assault on the English language seems to have run into a snag called 'reality'.
                          Don't worry, I'm certain that you will bend the language through sheer will alone.

                           

                          Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                          by FrankRose on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 09:56:24 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  a lot can happen in politics in two weeks (0+ / 0-)

                            the poll could have been accurate.  PPP has a decent track record otherwise.

                            as for the mere dozens thing, i say again that death tax started with one person.

                            i personally am not bending the language, although I was one of the early adopters of forced birth to replace "pro-life" and after several years that is beginning to spread.  it's not sheer will, it's repetition, and the R party sadly is the best proof that it works.

                            Enjoy being a language Luddite.   I have no idea why this means so much to you, but if you are even against the evolution of language it is a sure sign that you are too conservative to be comfortable here (or anywhere?)

                            Politics is like driving. To go backward put it in R. To go forward put it in D.
                            Drop by The Grieving Room on Monday nights for support in dealing with grief.

                            by TrueBlueMajority on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 03:33:54 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Oh my, please do forgive me.... (0+ / 0-)

                            I had no idea that I was speaking to someone that can single-handedly change the meanings of words.

                            Let alone someone whose power is so formidable, that the entire liberal/conservative spectrum is decided by those that recognize your superiority over the dictionary's and those whom do not.
                            Quite the way to decide whom should vote D!
                            Clearly, you see the way for the party to win!!

                            Please forgive me, oh great one.
                            I had no clue about your powers over the actual definitions of words.

                            Not a hilariously inept argument at all.
                            Be sure to repeat it often!

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 10:30:22 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  where do you keep getting singlehandedly from? (0+ / 0-)

                            this is a group effort happening across the entire political spectrum.

                            your sarcasm isn't even very sharp.

                            i pity your small mindedness.

                            Politics is like driving. To go backward put it in R. To go forward put it in D.
                            Drop by The Grieving Room on Monday nights for support in dealing with grief.

                            by TrueBlueMajority on Fri Jul 19, 2013 at 01:30:11 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Do tell me again how you are emulating Newt & (0+ / 0-)

                            the GOP, but my insistence on using actual word meanings makes me a conservative.

                            How I do enjoy irony!

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Fri Jul 19, 2013 at 01:44:38 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  ok i'll tell you again (0+ / 0-)

                            since I just thought of another way to say it.

                            you are waiting until the dictionary gives its stamp of approval to the definition of a word before you will accept it as an "actual" definition.

                            that is an authoritarian mindset--you have to wait for something you recognize as an authority to give approval to what words you will use before you give yourself permission to use them.  you won't use certain words in new ways until it's been approved for you by somebody's dictionary.

                            that's your choice.  i think of it as a small minded choice, and definitely a conservative choice.

                            but the dictionary can only get its ideas about what will go in the next dictionary from the people who are playing with language and coming up with new stuff in between dictionary editions.

                            a community like Daily Kos, or any other subcommunity that depends on written/spoken language for communication, is always going to have its own insider jargon.  sometimes a bit of insider language moves out into the world at large.  Happens all the time with teen language fads, for example.

                            Newt/Luntz et al. didn't start it but they did adapt it for politics in a way that became very powerful very fast.  but language evolution has gone on since the beginning of language, even before there were any written dictionaries!  So we are not, strictly speaking, emulating Newt/Luntz, except with respect to figuring out how they get new phrases repeated for the public ear to see if the public accepts them.

                            Conservatives bend language to maintain the status quo.  Liberals bend language to advance inclusive justice.  Both sides look to see whether you adopt their language as a measure of what side you re on.  Anyone who says "Democrat Party" is either a kid who never heard it said any other way, or an older person trying to show affiliation with the red team.

                            This has been an interesting discussion.  I have nothing to lose or gain by whether you wait until words/phrases get into the dictionary before you use them.  No skin off my nose.

                            Politics is like driving. To go backward put it in R. To go forward put it in D.
                            Drop by The Grieving Room on Monday nights for support in dealing with grief.

                            by TrueBlueMajority on Fri Jul 19, 2013 at 02:26:58 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

          •  Hi FrankRose - don't get your LOLtastic reference (0+ / 0-)

            but as a gun owner myself, I personally am intrigued by the concept of replacing the phrase "gun control" with "gun safety" in the national discourse on these matters.

            Seems appropriate.

            Why the knee-jerk reaction?

            Good grief, what have you got against safety?

            what the heck do you mean with your nonsensical"LOLtastic" phrasie thingie?

            just wondering

            •  Of what relevance is your ownership? (0+ / 0-)

              Words have meanings.
              "Gun Control-regulation of the selling, owning and use of guns"--Mirriam-Webster

              "Gun Safety", on the other hand,  is used to describe the handling of guns. Hence, 'gun safety course'

              "what do you mean by LOLtastic"
              A portmanteau of the common Internet abbreviation LOL & the word 'fantastic', i.e. 'fantastic hilarity'
              I figured if we were simply going to be inventing nonsence words, I would join in.

              Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

              by FrankRose on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 06:58:46 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

    •  the use of Orwellian language is usually (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      FrankRose

      a bad sign.  

  •  I think you are absolutely right (8+ / 0-)

    about the framing.  I have heard some alternative framing such as "gun safety laws," or "preventing gun violence," etc.
    The very term "gun control," implies unwelcome intervention.

    When we adopt the chosen frames of our opponents, then we have lost the first battle.  Just think of how badly we have been served by the frame "pro-life."  

    It's the Supreme Court, stupid!

    by Radiowalla on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 08:50:37 PM PDT

  •  And this is problematic as well. (2+ / 0-)
    Trayvon Martin (and others) certainly should have the right to walk down a public street after patronizing a local store without fear of death or bodily harm.
    There's no way to make someone not afraid. It's just not possible to erase fear.

    Someone out there right now is afraid to walk down a public street, because of a fear of meteors. Another person is afraid of public streets because of dogs. Yet another person is afraid of cars coming up on sidewalks.

    I personally knew someone who got jumpy when there is a person on a bicycle riding down the sidewalk. He

    My sister and another friend both get gripped with fear when getting into manhattan-style traffic.

    It's just not possible to erase fear.

    Should dogs be prohibited from public streets because some folks feel they are being stripped of a right to walk down a public street without fear of death or bodily harm?

    See, this is what has to be considered when thinking about a "right to be free of fear". There are LOTS of things people can fear, and we should not be legislating well-behaved dogs off of the sidewalks just because a piece of the population is afraid of ALL dogs.

    In the same manner, we should not be legislating well-behaved gun owners off the sidewalks just because a piece of the population is afraid of ALL guns.

    It's as simple as that - we don't restrict the nice dogs for the actions of bad dogs, we don't restrict the nice people for the actions of bad ones. We punish the violators, whether dogs or people, we punish the ones that bite.

    Now get yourself a song to sing, and sing it till you're done.

    by JayFromPA on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 08:55:23 PM PDT

  •  I'm with ya! (6+ / 0-)

    It is a public health and safety issue. Hell, it's a Child Safety Issue:

    zimmerman1

    I would tip you, but the man took away my tips.

    by Tortmaster on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 10:57:12 PM PDT

  •  The idea that I am going to control someone (4+ / 0-)

    else's gun is ludicrous. I can't. It's their gun and they must be the ones to control the gun. I can't tell them how to store it or how to handle it. They are the gun owner that is their realm. But when it gets lose or discharges accidentally. I get real serious.

    1. Felony failure to secure a deadly weapon regardless of outcome, loss of privilege to own a gun for a period of years.

    2. Felony 'accidental' discharge of a deadly weapon regardless of outcome, loss of privilege to own a gun for a period of years.

    These felonies are in original English common law sense and involve no jail time only imprisonment of guns. The gun owner could conceivably visit his gun through a glass window from time to time during the years his rights of gun ownership were gone.
    •  No, 88. A felony IS a lifetime ban on ownership (0+ / 0-)

      of gunz once convicted, it is automatic. That applies no matter what the felony was for- not paying child support, habitual traffic offender, property theft- all is treated equally, no gunz for the rest of your life.
          And that is exactly how it should be for ANYONE who shows themselves to be careless, reckless, ignorant, stupid, irresponsible, unsafe, negligent with a gunz, no matter whether it leads to a discharge or not. The pieces of shit who display their gunz, flash, or point them for intimidation or even shoot them into the air are supposedly in violation of law- the problem is getting the law to do anything about it. When it involved someone who has a legal gunz and is permitted to carry that gunz the police tend to back way up and treat the incident entirely different than they would had the person not had the gunz legally and not been permitted to carry. Seen it a thousand times, be a dick and get a heroes reception- as long as you're legal...
          Because of the overabundance of gunz nutz around where I'm at who have no goddamn sense about gunz ownership and responsibility, I had to break down and arm myself, it is that bad. It's not the "criminalz" they crow about the need to have gunz for- it is them, gunz owners, that drove me to that decision.
         My fear or paranoia has come from actual incidents, unlike the perceived possibility of an incident happening which they claim their need to carry is based upon. Twice in less than a year I've had some legal carrying fuckstick flash or point their goddamn gunz in my face or at me.
         No more no how no way by no one ever again.
         I haven't installed it yet but because of the number of armed road ragers on the news around here I bought a set of cameras for my vehicle, I wish I didn't feel the need for such drastic measures but the reality is gunz are everywhere and  they are in the wrong hands and out of freaking control.
         

      Be the kind of person your dog thinks you are.

      by teabaggerssuckbalz on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 04:25:41 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Well then think of something better. (0+ / 0-)

        Actually you can write a law anyway you want.

        give the NRA the Royal Flush join Stop The NRA

        by 88kathy on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 11:12:02 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I'm just trying to explain that a felony is the (0+ / 0-)

          one lifetime disqualifying factor, once a party to a gun fail is charged and convicted, as they should very well be, they are no longer eligible to own a gun.
             I think anyone who has proven themselves to be irresponsible should be banned for life as a matter of public safety. The type of "oops, I fucked up, sorry" that doesn't end up in charges or death and injury should be treated in the same way as those that do.
             I agree with you wholeheartedly, 88, they have to lose the gun and the possibility of ever being trusted with one again after such an incident- because they have proven that they cannot be and those moments of stupidity and irresponsibility should be treated harshly and with permanence.

          Be the kind of person your dog thinks you are.

          by teabaggerssuckbalz on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 01:30:14 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  We already did that (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      FrankRose

      88kathy:

      I can't tell them how to store it or how to handle it.
      88kathy's example of how she is not telling anyone how to store a gun:
      No matter how the gun safe is constructed, if the gun owner brags all over town about his gun, it is not good enough. Leave it up to the owners how to comply. But take their gun ownership priviledge for the 'oopsie'. Of course a gun lost from a gun safe would result in fewer years of gun loss than a gun lost from a coffee table. But both cases would result in years of gun loss. Say on a scale of 5 to 20.
      Welcome to the new version of "don't ask, don't tell". It's okay to own a gun, as long as you never tell anyone you own one.
  •  The problem with the premise (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    FrankRose

    Is that anything which by accident or intent causes the deaths of several hundred people out of a nation of 330 million is an equal or greater "public safety" problem than is posed by something like "assault rifles".

    Gun control advocates cannot seem to abide the thought of the restrictions they wish to place on other people for something like assault rifles, being placed on them for other items. After all, just think of how many highway fatalities we might stop if we had a criminal background check and 7 day waiting period for buying a six-pack?

    Therefore, the issue must remain only about guns, because "guns are different". The clear proof of this is that people killed by guns are obviously more dead than those who die by other preventable or regulatable means.

    Making sure it stays an isolated and different "gun" issue and not a generalized "public safety" issue allows them to avoid being called out as shameless hypocites, and lets them express umbrage and poutrage at anyone who dares to point out their inconsistent and authoritarian attitude.

  •  Thanks for the diary. It is amazing that the (0+ / 0-)

    Gun cult finds a simple conversation about how the NRA demonizes any firearms regulation as "control" so threatening that they start foaming at the mouth about their civil rights being violated. It is shameful that these people keep comparing their "oppression" to that of African Americans.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site