Skip to main content

      I posted a diary the other day looking at gun fails from a different perspective. I learned a few things from it, not in a pleasant way, and figured it was worth sharing the experience.

      The diary got a decent reception; a few recs, a couple of republishings, and some comments. It was inspired by a couple of things Josh Marshall had put up over at Talking Points Memo. One was his near Gun FAIL as a child, the other was an e-mail from a reader about what happened with them with a gun.  I thought it was worth pointing to because while the weekly GunFAIL series here at Kos has grim stories week after week, this was about two stories from the viewpoint of the people who lived them.

      It was the rest of Marshall's commentary I should have paid more attention to:

...But it captured a mentality that does seem pervasive among many more determined gun rights advocates — basically that us non-gun people need to be held down as it were and made to learn that it’s okay being around people carrying loaded weapons.
      That, and the limits of communication by words on a screen. More below the Orange Omnilepticon.

UPDATE: There are two diaries up at Daily Kos that have some perspective on the whole concealed carry issue. The first is from a person who had a really good reason to need to carry a weapon. The second links to an article which describes what carrying a weapon does to the person lugging it around. They are must-reads on this topic.

       What happened unfolded over several days. The diary had been up, gone through the usual spate of activity early on, and then largely faded - except for one thread. I'm going to be quoting from it directly - you can see it all at the link, of course. I'm editing out tag lines and active links to save space, but otherwise leaving it pretty much as it was. I'm going to add comments on the comments in italics.

It started with this comment:

Something most gun folks used to understand (3+ / 0-)
This:

"But do I want to have people carrying firearms out and about where I live my life — at the store, the restaurant, at my kid’s playground?" [From Josh Marshall's comment.]

Keeping a gun in your own home is one thing. Carrying one into public spaces is something else entirely. It's the point where the gun owner's rights clash with other peoples' rights.

I believe I can reasonably make an argument that keeping my guns in a safe in my home, going to the range, or going hunting in an area where such is legal and customary don't affect your rights.

But it's absurd to make the same claim about strapping on a handgun and going to the grocery store. That impacts the rights of other people - and there is no reason that my rights should be considered as trumping yours in that situation.

The whole "carry everywhere" fetish is relatively new - it only got going over the last 20-30 years. It is a big part of the reason why today's gun culture appears so threatening to non-shooters.

by rodentrancher on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 03:38:57 AM PDT

That drew a reply:
How does my carrying a firearm impact your (1+ / 0-)
rights if we're in the same public space?

by KVoimakas on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 09:38:53 AM PDT

This is the point at which I stepped in, (and in it as it played out.)
Short Answer (1+ / 0-)
Do I have to worry someone around me is carrying a gun? Do I have to watch what I say, what I do? Can I relax while being in a place where people assume they have the need and the right to be able to use deadly force at any time? Can I count on them participating in the norms of civil order when they obviously don't trust in it? Do I have to maintain constant awareness of possible lines of fire and where the nearest shelter from gunfire might be? Is it safe to assume they are competent to handle a firearm? How do I tell someone carrying a gun for self defense from someone carrying a gun for criminal purposes - and how would they if something started to go down?

It becomes the difference between a shared public space, and a no man's land...

by xaxnar on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 02:37:22 PM PDT

Mind you, that was the short answer. It's a topic that could demand a lot more exposition, but I thought Josh Marshall had done a pretty good job spelling it out already. It drew the following response.
Thats an awful lot of worrying and fear... (2+ / 0-)
I thought it was supposed to be the RKBA crowd who were the ones scared of their own shadow?

by in the middle but all by myself on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 03:41:05 PM PDT

For those wondering, RKBA is short for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. And that turns out to be a factor in where this thread goes from here on. I replied:
Problem is, they're carriers of the disease (0+ / 0-)
And they're spreading it.

by xaxnar on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 05:03:12 PM PDT

To which came the rejoinder:
No, they're usually sitting/standing/walking there (2+ / 0-)
just like you.  Totally minding their own business.

People who carry concealed typically want to be left alone.  They want to go about their day without getting beat up, robbed, shot just as much as you do.

Maybe the real disease vector is the criminal element of society?

by in the middle but all by myself on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 05:16:44 PM PDT

My response:
If you truly believe that... (0+ / 0-)
You need to carry a concealed weapon to be left alone, to go through the day without getting beat up or robbed, you have bigger problems than a gun can solve.

And carrying a gun is the surest way to increase your chances of getting shot. Your family's too.

by xaxnar on Fri Jul 19, 2013 at 02:21:21 PM PDT

In hindsight, I think this is where things began to go really pear-shaped. in the middle but all by myself goes on (as you'll see below) to accuse me of pretending to know what other people are thinking and other sins. I'm guessing he either reacted to my response by taking it as a personal attack, or was just simply outraged by my attitude although I didn't realize it right away. (Or it may have been something else. He takes great pains farther down to point out I know nothing about him or what he thinks.)

I wasn't intending a personal attack - I assumed that since he had begun by talking about people who carry in general terms, that's how the discussion was going. My "you" was a rhetorical you, prefaced by an if. The bigger problems I was referring to were not personal problems - I meant that feeling the need to carry a gun is a sign that there is something seriously wrong with the society in which that person lives. I could have been clearer about that, in retrospect - but I don't think it ultimately would have made any difference.

As for the observation that carrying a gun or keeping one around carries an inherent risk, well do I really need to justify that? GunFAIL has chapter and verse on that. But never mind.

two quick points: (0+ / 0-)
"You need to carry a concealed weapon to be left alone, to go through the day without getting beat up or robbed, you have bigger problems than a gun can solve."

No, I have a pretty good track record of avoiding confrontation.  That in no way precludes me from carrying anymore then my spotless driving record precludes me from buying vehicles with as many airbags as possible.

We don't always have 100% control of our environments no matter how hard we try or how lucky we've been so far.

"And carrying a gun is the surest way to increase your chances of getting shot. Your family's too."

Sorry, but thats myth busted here and here and here too.

by in the middle but all by myself on Fri Jul 19, 2013 at 05:06:56 PM PDT

I gave it a try:
You miss my points (0+ / 0-)
What you are implying in your comments is that you consider yourself to be living in a society where criminals are to be encountered everywhere, or at least so frequently that you feel the need to carry a gun to be ready at all times to protect yourself when you are out in public. (And doubtless to defend your home as well.)

This is what I mean by the bigger problem - not simply that you feel the need to carry a gun to protect yourself, but that you feel you live in a dysfunctional society. You carrying a gun does nothing to change that society for the better. In fact, it might be ventured that you've tacitly come to accept that society as normal.

As for the second point you took issue with, the studies you link to are hardly unambiguous. (Statistics for gun violence are problematic because of industry and RKBA efforts to keep the issue as confused as possible. As per what happened to N.I.H. and C.D.C. for example.) When I say your odds of you or a family member getting shot are greater, it's an inevitable consequence of being in proximity to a gun as a gun owner and carrier.

If you kept rattlesnakes as pets, your odds of getting snake bit would go up; if you carry dynamite around to blow up stumps, your chances of getting accidentally blown up increase as well.

Accidents happen, people make mistakes and/or do stupid things. If guns are part of your daily routine, your environment, sooner or later the odds will catch up with you.

Did you even read the stories in the links at Josh Marshall's place? Sheesh!

by xaxnar on Fri Jul 19, 2013 at 06:00:28 PM PDT

And in response:
I see... (0+ / 0-)
"What you are implying in your comments is that you consider yourself to be living in a society where criminals are to be encountered everywhere, or at least so frequently that you feel the need to carry a gun to be ready at all times to protect yourself when you are out in public. (And doubtless to defend your home as well.)"

Nope.  False assumption...

"This is what I mean by the bigger problem - not simply that you feel the need to carry a gun to protect yourself, but that you feel you live in a dysfunctional society. You carrying a gun does nothing to change that society for the better. In fact, it might be ventured that you've tacitly come to accept that society as normal."

Leads to false assertion.

Either you're projecting, or you simply don't understand other people.  Or their motives.

"When I say your odds of you or a family member getting shot are greater, it's an inevitable consequence of being in proximity to a gun as a gun owner and carrier."

Because you say so, right?

by in the middle but all by myself on Fri Jul 19, 2013 at 06:21:10 PM PDT

Well, I suppose it's nice to know my assumption is false and therefore everything that follows from it is false as well. I suppose it would have been nice if in the middle but all by myself had bothered to explain what are the actual facts of the matter from his viewpoint, since that might have led to a better understanding on my part. Who knows? He might have actually come up with some credible motivations, instead of leaving me to blunder along in my ignorance and prejudice. (sarcasm)

And "Because you say so, right?" is absolutely devastating as an argument. Note that at no point does he acknowledge that there is any risk from carrying or owning firearms.

Note that at this point, the debate has switched from being in general terms to distinctly personal. And thus the general point I was trying to make has now been invalidated as well. in the middle but all by myself has succeeded in maneuvering me onto terrain where he holds the advantage. My mistake - I was hoping to have an honest discussion and didn't yet realize what I'd gotten into. I've listened to enough Sean Hannity that I should have recognized that tactic.

My response was less than stellar.

 

Bingo (0+ / 0-)

by xaxnar on Fri Jul 19, 2013 at 07:22:50 PM PDT

At this point in the middle but all by myself decides to magnanimously share an insight with me.
so there lies the rub. (1+ / 0-)
Those who are not gun people (because they never had guns in their lives, due to how/where they were raised) can't get their head around the concept of living with guns.

Those who grew up around guns (because they grew up in 'gun' families, lve out in the sticks, whatever) can't get their head around the concept of having an unfamiliarity. uneasyness, or outright fear of an inanimate object.

Naturally the person unfamiliar with guns will want to control the presence of guns their environment, because that's what they're familiar with.  Naturally, they are going to find the people who live with guns working against their goals.

What you may call 'gun safety'  I call prohibition.  What I call gun safety, you might call 'an accident waiting to happen'.

by in the middle but all by myself on Fri Jul 19, 2013 at 07:43:25 PM PDT

I can see where that argument has some attraction - it's framed in such a way as to preclude anything from being done about the issue, since it's just the way things are, now and forever, Amen.

It's also pretty damned simplistic and more than a little patronizing.

Again, I'm just guessing here, but it's possible this was intended as a counter to my remarks that in the middle but all by myself found just as simplistic and patronizing. Or, it might have been a simple statement of his beliefs. Or both. Or something else entirely. My response was to try to explain where I'm coming from on this, and what my concerns are.

Glad you've got that all sorted out (0+ / 0-)
Just one thing.

What makes you think I've never been around guns, or had guns in my life? What makes you think I don't own a gun? What gives you the idea I don't know what it's like to live in the sticks? What makes you think my family has never been involved with guns?

I can understand the idea of a gun as a tool, one that needs to be respected and used competently. I can understand the gun as a piece of sporting equipment. I can understand the idea of a gun as a collectible of fine craftsmanship. And I can understand it as a means of self-defense if it comes to that.

My problem is with people who think of guns like a combination security blanket and lucky rabbits foot. My problem is with people who confuse Main Street with Dodge City. My problem is people who think carrying a gun is a sign of authority or moral clarity. My problem is with people who aren't comfortable dealing with the world unless they're armed and dangerous.

Because that's what carrying a gun makes you, whatever else your reasons, rationalizations and fantasies may be. If you can ignore or deny that inescapable consequence of carrying a gun, concealed or not, then maybe it's no wonder you're in the middle but all by yourself.

by xaxnar on Fri Jul 19, 2013 at 08:43:59 PM PDT

In hindsight, I should have understood why in the middle but all by myself was such an expert on recognizing projection, knowing what other people are thinking, and misunderstanding motivations. And also expert at baiting. As per what follows:
just one thing (0+ / 0-)
What makes you think a firearm is a combination  security blanket / lucky rabbits foot? Especially to people who's background you know nothing about?  What makes you think people who carry legally have a wild west mentality?

Or that carrying a gun is somehow makes them an authority/morality figure?  Or that you are somehow morally superior to somebody who is licensed to carry?

My problem is with people who think they know what another is thinking, or who believe that they can caricature another person's beliefs without knowing them.  My problem is with people who carry themselves as some kind of all-knowing, holier/more-liberal-then-thou because they life a different life then others, yet they have all the answers.

Because thats how you come off, whatever else your reasons, rationalizations, and prejudices may be.

by in the middle but all by myself on Fri Jul 19, 2013 at 08:55:55 PM PDT

At this point I've finally realized that this is going nowhere. This has continued in fits and starts over two days; in the middle but all by myself wants to win this more than I do. (And I'm beginning to think I'm in Room 12 with Mr. Barnard.) I decide to fold.
You know... (0+ / 0-)
You're pretty well reduced to plagiarism here. Go play somewhere else, troll.

by xaxnar on Fri Jul 19, 2013 at 09:51:18 PM PDT

YES! in the middle but all myself can now declare victory, pick up his marbles and depart the field in glory.

I do know.... (0+ / 0-)

It took all of about 20 seconds there to reflect your argument against itself.  Its not hard to assign somebody a position and traits they don't deserve .  And apparently you can't take what you dish out.

You've digressed to petty name calling, I'm done here. It's apparent you've made up your mind and further conversation is more or less moot.

by in the middle but all by myself on Sat Jul 20, 2013 at 05:10:36 AM
PDT

In the face of this masterful example of projection on steroids, the best I can muster is a pathetic whimper a few hours later.
Considering you've nothing new to add, (0+ / 0-)
And no effective counter points, that's just as well.  Good riddance.

by xaxnar on Sat Jul 20, 2013 at 11:11:47 AM PDT

So Why Bother Rehashing This?

   If nothing else, I did get a few things out of this, and I'm trying to make this into a learning experience. The discussion I was trying to have about the larger issues got dragged down to the personal level - and thus the larger points I was trying to make got thrown out. I was trying to explain where I was coming from, and trying to get some honest give-and-take. I try to write in an empathic style, try to imagine how arguments feel from the inside - and the other side. This is the risk that comes with that style - it can get too personal.

I'm willing to change my mind IF someone can come up with convincing arguments and understand where other people are coming from. I need to remember there are those who prefer annihilation to persuasion. I'm not going to back down on this. I have yet to hear a convincing reason for concealed carry that doesn't involve fear of some kind. And I'm not going to take blithe assurances that "I have nothing to fear from someone going about their own business who just wants to be left alone" as anything more than wishful thinking. I know too much about human beings and good intentions.

in the middle but all by myself had a different agenda. He didn't respond to any of the points I was trying to make except to dismiss, deny, and ridicule them. He conceded nothing, and attacked relentlessly once he had gotten me where he wanted me. He knows how he feels about guns, and has no intention of changing his mind on anything, based on what he said.

There are trade-offs here. Want to be left alone? Stay at home. Want to go out in public? Then be prepared to accept that you can't dictate all the terms of that engagement. The personal benefit in the middle but all by myself gets from being able to carry a concealed firearm comes at the cost of the risk of some kind of misadventure to all those around him, and to himself from that same weapon. We have very different evaluations of that cost-benefit ratio, and I'm not convinced by anything he said that it's a price I should pay for his peace of mind.

Interestingly enough, for all his condemnation of my assigning motivations to him and projecting beliefs without having any real understanding of who he is or where he is coming from, he gave away surprisingly little about himself. Never explain, never defend - always attack seemed to be his preferred metier. He put surprisingly little effort into trying to build a positive case for his views.

And yet a little investigation shows he could have brought quite a bit more to this than he did. According to his profile page, he's a member of Kos Right to Keep and Bear Arms group. Skimming through some of the diaries and comments he's posted, I gather he's an Army veteran, an engineer, and a businessman. He is familiar enough with firearms (not surprising given his background and hobbies) that he has no hesitation in considering himself an expert. He didn't choose to share any of that in this thread, beyond his observation that he believes we don't have a gun problem, we have a criminal element problem. (Speaking of criminal elements, it might be useful to take the findings in this article into account in this kind of discussion over the need to be armed.)

What a waste of both our times.

    I mentioned I should have paid more attention to Josh Marshall up top. He got into a similar set-to with a correspondent who took issue with TPM's coverage of this story.

Police say two men openly carried assault rifles in the Portland’s Sellwood area to demonstrate their 2nd amendment rights and “educate the public”.

Steven M. Boyce, of Gresham, and Warren R. Drouin, of Medford, both 22, were spotted by officers about 1:50 p.m. Wednesday near Southeast 7th Avenue and Spokane Street and have concealed handgun licenses, said Sgt. Pete Simpson, a Portland Police Bureau spokesman. They were not arrested because the rifles remained on their backs, he added.

Officers warned the duo that the sight of their rifles would generate 911 calls, but neither man seemed concerned, Simpson said. No shots were fired.

Marshall got quite a bit of blowback from reader "AA" on the TPM take on the story.
Now, even most people who support the idea that basically any law-abiding citizen should be able to get a license to carry around a handgun probably get that this is not a great idea. After all, for other things beside carrying weapons there are disturbing the peace ordinances that give police some ability to intervene if people are doing normally legal things in a way that creates havoc or public disturbances.

But guns, in many cases, seem to have more rights than you or I.

Marshall quotes from some of the exchanges he had with AA at the end of this editorial. From AA:
I can only infer on their motives in this case, and yes there are some idiots who just want attention; but from knowing others who open carry they believe that they must show that there is nothing to fear, to show the community the difference between psychopaths, real or imagined, and normal people who choose to carry. The first time you see something scary, that you may not understand completely, are you less afraid when nothing bad happens? The second time, third time? I believe that is what is meant by ‘educate the public’ and is not meant to be derogatory.
As Marshall finishes (and I'll let him do so here),
I wrote back at more length. But at this point I was already starting to see red. I don’t pretend that AA is representative. But it captured a mentality that does seem pervasive among many more determined gun rights advocates — basically that us non-gun people need to be held down as it were and made to learn that it’s okay being around people carrying loaded weapons.

Well, I don’t want to learn. That doesn’t work where I live — geographically or metaphorically.

So, to the non-crazy gun owners (who I know make up the vast majority of gun owners), I’ve put out my experience and my take. Now I’m ready to talk.

Ditto for those who don't own guns who think you should be heard as well.

UPDATE: I'm including this update down here as well because if you didn't follow the links up above, you really should now after reading your way down here. There are two diaries up at Daily Kos that have some perspective on the whole concealed carry issue. The first is from a person who had a really good reason to need to carry a weapon. The second links to an article which describes what carrying a weapon does to the person lugging it around. They are must-reads on this topic.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (15+ / 0-)

    Here's to reason, mutual understanding, respect, and trust.

    May we some day find out what those things actually are and learn to use them effectively.

    While there's still time.

    "No special skill, no standard attitude, no technology, and no organization - no matter how valuable - can safely replace thought itself."

    by xaxnar on Mon Jul 22, 2013 at 03:42:52 PM PDT

  •  My return question to that first boxquoted (14+ / 0-)

    response question might be -

    How many people shot in public spaces were shot by people not carrying firearms?

    My guess as to the answer? Nearly 0.

    Almost every single person shot in a public space was shot by someone carrying a firearm.  (Barring some bizarre scenarios with people shot by ammo going off in fires, at a guess.)

    Their right not to be shot by someone carrying a firearm was infringed by people carrying firearms.   Was it KVoikmas?  No, apparently not, at least not so far.  But up until the moment they actually did shoot someone else, it wasn't by any of those other people who eventually did shoot someone either.  As Bob Johnson puts it, every gun owner is a 'Responsible Gun Owner' up until the moment they're not, at which point 'No True Scotsman' goes into effect.

    I've been the victim of a road rage assault.  The guy tried to cause me to wreck with his car multiple times, followed me for miles, pounded on my window when I finally had to stop for a light while trying to escape him while screaming obscenities at me.  I'm sure as hell glad he was unarmed.

    •  Let's see how well this works (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      gerrilea, KVoimakas, oldpunk, PavePusher
      Their right not to be shot by someone carrying a firearm was infringed by people carrying firearms.
      Pretty clear grammatical construct without any ambiguity. Let's try applying it to the commenter's personal experiences:
      I've been the victim of a road rage assault.  The guy tried to cause me to wreck with his car multiple times,
      The solution is obvious. Your right to not be in a incident involving a vehicle was infringed upon by someone using a vehicle. So, by your logic, the only way you will ever be free of the fear of vehicle-related incidents is to ban all public use of vehicles.
      •  I also remember this part - (3+ / 0-)

        "How many people shot in public spaces were shot by people not carrying firearms?"

        Pretty tough to get around that one, ain't it? So, just go for the deflection?

        There can be no protection locally if we're content to ignore the fact that there are no controls globally.

        by oldpotsmuggler on Mon Jul 22, 2013 at 09:24:47 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yessss, deflection (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          KVoimakas, PavePusher

          That's why I used the word "public" in my response, to deflect attention away from things done in public.

          Clever, eh?

          Seriously, if a person makes the argument "If it weren't for X we would not have a problem with X" and uses that to imply we need to ban X, they deserve sufficient scorn to make them crawl back under their bridge in shame.

          •  But tautologies are so much easier.... (0+ / 0-)

            than actual debate and logic!!!

            Your hate-mail will be graded.

            by PavePusher on Tue Jul 23, 2013 at 02:40:50 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Sure, except you won't do that. Let's take "logic" (0+ / 0-)

              one step further and move all of the way to truth.

              Ifg there were no guns, there would be no gun deaths.

              Now what?

              There can be no protection locally if we're content to ignore the fact that there are no controls globally.

              by oldpotsmuggler on Tue Jul 23, 2013 at 03:33:46 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  And you think that would be the end of crime? (0+ / 0-)

                Or even a major reduction?

                That is what you clearly are trying to imply.

                Historically inaccurate, however.  And according to the stats, guns are used in only 8% of all violent crime.

                Your hate-mail will be graded.

                by PavePusher on Tue Jul 23, 2013 at 05:01:37 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Good point (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  oldpotsmuggler

                  In fact, let's take it further. If guns are used so rarely in violent crime, that means there is even less justification to go around armed.

                  And stats have even better news. If you follow the link about criminal elements, you'll find that violent crime is on the decline - and a pretty compelling hypothesis why.

                  "No special skill, no standard attitude, no technology, and no organization - no matter how valuable - can safely replace thought itself."

                  by xaxnar on Tue Jul 23, 2013 at 05:17:30 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  You know, these RKBA guys, you use plain (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    xaxnar

                    english with them, and then they want to go right, left, any place but on point. They will, anytime, everytime, seek refuge in some routine NRA talking point.

                    There can be no protection locally if we're content to ignore the fact that there are no controls globally.

                    by oldpotsmuggler on Tue Jul 23, 2013 at 06:50:02 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  "...less justification to go around armed." (0+ / 0-)

                    Ummm, no.

                    A firearm is quite legitimate as a self-defense tool against non-gun crime as well.

                    Not sure why you would suggest otherwise.

                    There are also suggestions that more people lawfully carrying may be a deterrent to crime, and certainly an effective defense.  This subject could surely use more study, although the Administration has already conceded the point...  

                    http://www.slate.com/...

                    Your hate-mail will be graded.

                    by PavePusher on Wed Jul 24, 2013 at 06:59:57 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                •  "If there were no guns, there would be no gun (0+ / 0-)

                  deaths." Exactly what part of that is over your head? Or are you being intentionally obtuse (after flaunting such ostensibly high standards)?

                  There can be no protection locally if we're content to ignore the fact that there are no controls globally.

                  by oldpotsmuggler on Tue Jul 23, 2013 at 06:45:35 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

          •  "It's not about guns. Stop talking about guns." (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            WakeUpNeo

            Actually it's not about anything other than guns.

            There can be no protection locally if we're content to ignore the fact that there are no controls globally.

            by oldpotsmuggler on Tue Jul 23, 2013 at 03:32:08 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  I've got a better idea (9+ / 0-)

        Instead of banning all public use of vehicles, let's make their operators take a test to prove they can drive them safely. Let's make them carry insurance, in case they cause an accident. Let's keep records so we know who is selling vehicles, who is buying them, and make them carry a piece of paper to show it. Let's keep those records in some kind of system to make it easier for police in case those vehicles get stolen or used in a crime. Let's set roads up with traffic signs, pavement markings and signals so that everyone knows what they're supposed to be doing and where, along with laws and special courts to enforce them. Let's restrict drivers to vehicles by things like load, weight, passenger capacity, and the kind of use to which they'll be put. And let's make sure people who won't operate vehicles within these limits are penalized, to the point of having their vehicles and driving privileges taken away, with jail time in case of really serious offenders.

        It sounds crazy, but I bet it could be made to work.

        "No special skill, no standard attitude, no technology, and no organization - no matter how valuable - can safely replace thought itself."

        by xaxnar on Mon Jul 22, 2013 at 09:33:39 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  ROFL (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          WakeUpNeo, xaxnar, YucatanMan

          Touche, xaxnar.

          Irony takes a worse beating from Republicans than Wile E. Coyote does from Acme. --Tara the Antisocial Social Worker

          by Youffraita on Mon Jul 22, 2013 at 10:20:23 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Let's try that (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          oldpunk, KVoimakas, PavePusher

          Let's address it point by point:

          1) Competency testing: As a gun owner I have no problem with that as a requirement for carrying in public spaces. As a fragile little meatbag, I do not want incompetent gun carriers on the street any more than I want incompetent drivers there. Since you brought this up in the context of vehicles, I presume you believe you do not need such testing to merely own one or use it on your own property (just like for vehicles). So I guess we're agreed on that.
          2) Records: Ever post or comment I've ever made on the subject says we need reform of the existing background check laws. So, not like you're criticizing me much on that issue.
          3) Restrictions: Doesn't that go with competency testing? A commercial permit is different than a private permit and a motorcycle permit is different than a car permit. I see no problem with different permits for pistols, shotguns, etc. Fortunately, none of these permits are based on someone else's perception of need. So, I presume that if I meet the competency testing requirements for a class of weapon then you have no objection to a public or concealed carry permit for it? After all, I do not need to demonstrate that I am applying for a job as a bus driver in order to get a large vehicle commercial permit. Sounds good to me.
          4) Signage: Don't we already do that? At least based on the signs I see around schools, municipal buildings and private businesses like shopping malls. Not really an issue.
          5) Insurance: You're not planning to say something silly like "if you do not pay your insurance bill they come and take your cars away" or "if you do not pay your insurance bill you are fined even if you do not drive anywhere", were you? And of course, you can be a legal yet uninsured driver as long as you pay to your state's uninsured driver fund. And for the record, you can get a "concealed carry/self-defense liability" policy with $100,000 coverage for $165 per year, covering every weapon you own. Since the insurers are presumably making money on the deal, that $165 per year can be compared to your auto insurance rates to get an idea of the actual risk involved in concealed carry as measured by someone whose profit margin is on the line. So, I'd be interested to see who the insurers consider a greater risk out in public. You and your car or me and my gun? Bear in mind that neither insurer is going to cover criminal use of what is being insured.

          But since you're bringing up the parallel with vehicles, I'll call and raise. Since my permit to operate a vehicle is good anywhere in the country for any class of vehicle I am licensed for, then a permit to carry a class of gun should also be good anywhere in the country. Right? So, a permit issued by Utah should be good in the public spaces of downtown NYC. And you know, a car is a car.

          Even if it is a sports car that is completely useless in a major city and whose high capacity engine magazine has no discernable need that you can measure.

          Which goes back to point 1). If we had a national standard of competency testing for public carry it would be tougher than states like Vermont (that hotbed of crime), but would relax them in places like Chicago, New York City and Washington DC.

          And since you are a rational gun control advocate who is presumably interested in finding a compromise with "reasonable gun owners", then certainly you would have no problem with a balanced solution like that. That is, assuming you are rational and interested in compromise, rather than the opposite of those two things.

          •  I'd be willing to give it a try (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            mad cat

            Of course, there's places where my analogy and your comments on it break down.

            Nobody does "concealed driving" for one.

            There are places you physically can't go with a vehicle, like shopping malls, restaurants, theaters - unless there's a special 'drive through' lane or something.

            Drivers don't have to worry about their vehicles affecting people at a distance, people who may not be anywhere near a road. (Aside from noise and air pollution that is.)

            There are states where operating a vehicle without insurance gets you in a lot of trouble, especially if you cause an accident.

            There are states where local laws restrict or even ban certain kinds of vehicles and accessories, or place restrictions on where they can be used and how - so having a driver's license doesn't give one carte blanche across the U.S.

            Drivers get pulled over and stopped all the time, have to get their vehicles inspected at certain intervals to ensure they're safe to operate (in my state at least), and have to pay tolls to drive in certain places above and beyond insurance, license, and registration fees.

            You have to have license plates on a vehicle to operate it if you're not on private property with the permission of the owner, so you'd have to wear some kind of visible tag with an identifying number on it if you're carrying a gun in a public place. In some places hunters already have to do that when they're out hunting, so it's not like there isn't already a precedent.

            Vehicles these days (cars, vans, etc.) come with a lot of safety equipment; seat belts, air bags, safety glass, etc. etc. It can be illegal in some places to deliberately deactivate such systems. Firearms have nothing comparable - but perhaps they should to make this analogy work.

            Vehicle manufacturers are required by the government to track safety problems and issue recalls when it becomes clear there's a mechanical or other defect for which the manufacturer is responsible.

            We have a whole infrastructure devoted to making sure vehicles are used safely - dedicated policing efforts (speed traps, inspections, weighing stations, etc.) We put up guard rails, sound barrier walls and berms, grooved pavement and such to provide physical safety elements where appropriate. And we pay taxes to maintain those things.

            Despite all of the above, people still commit crimes with cars, have accidents, even get injured and killed, along with other people who may have just been innocent bystanders. People speed, park in places they shouldn't be, and do other things that are against the law. But you don't hear too many people saying this proves all of the above should be thrown out because it isn't 100% effective, or that responsible drivers should be trusted to regulate themselves.

            That's just a few things off the top of my head. If you really want to treat firearms the way we handle driving and vehicles, then I'd be willing to give it a try to see how it works out.

            "No special skill, no standard attitude, no technology, and no organization - no matter how valuable - can safely replace thought itself."

            by xaxnar on Tue Jul 23, 2013 at 07:32:00 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Take notice (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              KVoimakas, PavePusher

              At the time I typed this, the only two rec's on my comment about agreeing with the notions of competency testing, etc. are from RKBA supporters. Why?

              Probably because any sort of law that would do anything other than increase restrictions everywhere probably will not get any traction among gun control advocates here at Kos.

              Sadly, the only thing many of them consider "compromise" is defined as "ratcheting entirely in their direction".

              Despite all of the above, people still commit crimes with cars, have accidents, even get injured and killed, along with other people who may have just been innocent bystanders. People speed, park in places they shouldn't be, and do other things that are against the law. But you don't hear too many people saying this proves all of the above should be thrown out because it isn't 100% effective, or that responsible drivers should be trusted to regulate themselves.
              Interestingly, neither do we see anyone saying that private automobile use should be banned and that we should rely entirely on government-funded public transport. Unless you wish us to be a nation of profilers and "stop & frisk"-ers then we have to accept that the law is reactive and that we use it to punish those who do misdeeds after the deed is done, and only those who do the misdeeds. And if that misdeed is something like "unlicensed concealed carry", the tools we have to detect that should be legally proportional to the ones we have for "unlicensed driving". We cannot condemn a "papers please" law for one group and then demand it for a different group. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated and all that. What is "reasonable" is becoming increasingly "unreasonable" it seems, and I have no desire to increase the level of unreasonableness.

              Being reactive is the nature of our system. It is imperfect, but carving out special exceptions to pre-judge some people is not an improvement and I disagree with the very concept just because I've seen where it has gone historically and what I would expect conservatives to do if that notion were enshrined in law. For me, the issue is half "RKBA" and half "equal treatment under the law". Which is why I do not have a problem something like competency-based licensing and I do have a problem with people who want a separate treatment under the law because blacks gays muslims hispanics women who want abortions guns are "different".

              For many gun control advocates it is a horrible thing to realize that they, even if they had a 25 year spotless driving record, have to pay more for a certain amount of yearly liability coverage than someone who wants the same coverage for concealed carry. And the reason is that as a class of people, legal concealed carry folks are a lower financial risk than someone with a 25 year spotless driving record.

              When gun control advocates accept that the level of regulation is commensurate to the measureable risk, we'll probably have a very productive discussion.

              Meanwhile, in the "were you really thinking that through?" category:

              so you'd have to wear some kind of visible tag with an identifying number on it if you're carrying a gun in a public place.
              compare to:
              "we're getting to the point where these homofascists are going to force us to wear on our sleeve some kind of identifying marker so people will know who the racists and the homophobes and the bigots are"
              When you start agreeing with the way Bryan Fischer wants to do things, you need to step back and consider exactly where your views are coming from.
              •  I rather expected you'd back off (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                mad cat, Miss Blue

                Once it was spelled out exactly what it really meant.

                As for the Bryan Fisscher comparison? You really need to be more careful with the kind of comparisons you try to make. Not even close. Racists, homophobes, bigots - there's no hard and fast way to sort people like that objectively.

                But carrying a gun? That's something that there's no debate about. You're either carrying a gun, or you aren't. And it doesn't matter whether you're a racist, a homophobe, or a bigot - or none of those things.

                There are enough objective reasons for people to be concerned about guns and whether or not someone is carrying one that the beliefs of the person carrying one is an entirely separate issue.

                "No special skill, no standard attitude, no technology, and no organization - no matter how valuable - can safely replace thought itself."

                by xaxnar on Tue Jul 23, 2013 at 09:08:41 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  At what point did I back off on anything? (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  PavePusher

                  I stand by everything I said. Otherwise I wouldn't have said it. You're the one who won't endorse the logical consequences of your own proposals. It's like you're a Republican who floats a bill and then votes against it when Obama says he supports it.

                  According to the people who have to pay big dollars on policy payouts, you are a bigger threat to public safety as a driver than someone like me would be with a concealed carry permit. And I'm in favor of a competency-based national standard that would probably be tougher than many existing state laws and make that level of risk even less.

                  When you're interested in making policy consistent with that objective reality, be sure and chime in. We'll be waiting for you, with the dictionary bookmarked at the word "compromise".

                  •  I see - you're prepared to stand your ground (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Shamash

                    Sorry - couldn't resist.

                    But seriously, sorry to hear about your car insurance rates. If you want to make a comparison, what do you think would happen to carry permit insurance rates if as many people carried firearms as drove? I suspect the picture would look quite different.

                    And here's another question to ask. If carrying a gun is a real positive factor in personal safety, shouldn't your other insurance rates go down?

                    "No special skill, no standard attitude, no technology, and no organization - no matter how valuable - can safely replace thought itself."

                    by xaxnar on Tue Jul 23, 2013 at 10:04:28 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Not sure what you mean (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      PavePusher
                      you're prepared to stand your ground
                      Completely off-topic, the next time you run into someone supporting Zimmerman, point out that he had a previous restraining order for domestic abuse and an arrest for assaulting police. So, by some folks "stand your ground" standards he should have been shot dead twice already...

                      On topic, insurance rates are generally based on the risk factors for the group being insured. I'm certain there is an averaging function for the quantity of people in that group, but the risk factor for that group is the main thing. That's why 17 year old males have high car insurance rates. It is not because there are so few of them, it is because they're a high risk group.

                      But, you do ask a good question in "what if as many people carried as drove?". I really have no idea. Deciding to carry is almost always optional, while in America driving is almost a necessity. So there are two different sets of motivations there. The only common thing is that neither is usually predicated on a desire to commit criminal activity. A better comparison would be if you could find a currently regulated activity as equally optional and legal and if possible, controversial.

                      As far as the last question goes, let's ask it differently. None of my health, life, homeowner or car insurance policies are higher because I own a gun (at least none of them asked about it when I got the policies). If they are a negative factor, shouldn't my insurance companies have cared and my rates have gone up?

                      Rather, the insurance companies look at the group I fall into for that insurance, the region in which I live and other factors relevant to that insurance. In the case of a car, my personal driving record is important (accident free discount) as is the group of people I fall into (age, gender), the accident rate for that group in this part of the country, and for parts of the insurance, the type of car. For a concealed carry policy, my state requires a full background check, and given my age, a clean bill of health on that is a pretty good indicator that I am a low risk, hence a reasonable insurance rate for liability.

                      I do not know about the far right, but the impression I get here is that Kos RKBA people are as interested in anyone else in safety and they desire that anyone who chooses to own and especially carry a gun does so with a full awareness of the risk and responsibility that entails. And they get nothing but grief for it.

                      We've been talking a lot about a guns/cars analogy and yes it is imperfect. Cars are not used to murder people very often. On the other hand, people killed because of car accidents or negligence such as drunk driving are just as dead. People do not realize the basic physics of cars and the power that they are controlling with their knees while they use both hands on a Big Mac. A car at highway speed has the same kinetic energy and potential for destruction as a shell fired out of a tank's cannon, and that potential for harm is part of the reason we want drivers to be at some measureable level of competence.

                      Speaking for me, I have no problem with that for guns either, and I have no problem with it being standardized at a national level. If we did, the person in the "gun experiment" diary would have had an entirely different experience.

                      •  Touchy Touchy! (0+ / 0-)

                        The stand your ground reference was to you saying you hadn't backed down on anything. You were standing your ground. You are the one who took it as a George Zimmerman reference. Why you did, I'm not even going to speculate about. But since you bring GZ up,

                        Completely off-topic, the next time you run into someone supporting Zimmerman, point out that he had a previous restraining order for domestic abuse and an arrest for assaulting police. So, by some folks "stand your ground" standards he should have been shot dead twice already...
                        Not to mention the question of how he got a permit for a gun in the first place, too.

                        But back to your comments on cars and insurance, I did say the analogy breaks down.

                        I might point out that one reason car insurance is more expensive is because cars are a lot more expensive than guns. They have the potential to do a lot more property damage for one thing (as you note with their kinetic energy). Plus, there are a lot more people having accidents with cars than with guns. Insurance companies have to allow for that (and the high prices of car repairs too.)

                        If you ever have an accident with a gun, it will be interesting to see what your insurance company has to say about it. You said:

                        For a concealed carry policy, my state requires a full background check, and given my age, a clean bill of health on that is a pretty good indicator that I am a low risk, hence a reasonable insurance rate for liability.
                        So, is there anything beyond a background check and health (including mental?) Did you have to pass a test proving knowledge of gun laws, demonstrate you understand basic principles of gun safety? Did you take a 'road test' with an impartial examiner qualified to evaluate your skills? (If so, did you pass the first time?) How soon do you have to go back to renew? Did you take any classes in High School or elsewhere? Did you have any kind of certification? Did you have to have insurance before you could buy a gun?

                        I'm not being facetious here or sarcastic here. As you said:

                        I do not know about the far right, but the impression I get here is that Kos RKBA people are as interested in anyone else in safety and they desire that anyone who chooses to own and especially carry a gun does so with a full awareness of the risk and responsibility that entails. And they get nothing but grief for it.
                        emphasis added
                        So, how does it work for you in your state? And what do you think would be reasonable conditions to be placed on gun ownership and use?

                        "No special skill, no standard attitude, no technology, and no organization - no matter how valuable - can safely replace thought itself."

                        by xaxnar on Tue Jul 23, 2013 at 06:26:55 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Details (0+ / 0-)
                          Why you did, I'm not even going to speculate about.
                          For the foreseeable future, I think any "stand your ground" reference is going to be a George Zimmerman reference. I brought it up as an excuse to pass on a counter to the nonsense talking points too many GZ apologists have.
                          Did you have to pass a test proving knowledge of gun laws, demonstrate you understand basic principles of gun safety? Did you take a 'road test' with an impartial examiner qualified to evaluate your skills?
                          My state requires some but not all of the requirements you list, and in my opinion it could be tightened up a bit.

                          On the other hand, you can look at something like California, which has all of the above, plus non-automatic renewal, requirement of refresher course for renewal, and required renewal every two years. For comparison, Florida has less. They have a training requirement, but your military ID counts as having met it, and the license is good for 7 years and can simply be renewed. Vermont has no requirement at all except that you are legally allowed to own firearms.

                          Of course, Vermont also had the lowest per capita firearms homicide rate in the country in 2010, so "gun safety" clearly has factors outside of mere technical qualifications, something which too few people on either side seem to want to explore.

                          So, which would you prefer: the widely varying state requirements we have now and patchworks of reciprocity, or a single national standard and universal acceptance of any state's license under that standard? (you know, like we want for marriage licenses) If you think the latter, then look into the subject and write up a diary on it (if I did it, it would just be criticized as pro-gun propaganda). It's a topic worth more than a few comments on the side of this diary.

                          To think about: A 2010 MSNBC report says that there are 6 million concealed carry permits in the United States. If half the US population is adults, that would be one permit per 25-30 people. Think how many people you see or casually pass each day, highway, subway, bus, sidewalk, and so on.. Not all of these permit holders are always carrying, but statistically speaking, you already brush by someone legally carrying a concealed gun quite often.

                          •  Thanks - useful info (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Shamash

                            Uniform national standards would be good. Although I see several problems with that.
                            1) getting agreement on what those standards would be, how stringent, and who would enforce them. (ATF is underfunded and  hobbled by Congress.)
                            2) the knee jerk reaction from gun owners and the right wing screaming about the Feds coming to take their guns and Big Government!!!
                            3) getting something that would fit the very different conditions across the 50 states.
                            4) opposition from anti-gun forces that this would be taken as legitimization of guns everywhere all the time.
                            5) efforts by the gun industry to pervert any such effort into increased sales and lots of loopholes.
                            6) the inability of the RKBA sector to agree on a uniform set of standards because A) they aren't going to pinned down on anything, B) they don't have any they such set of standards they all agree on, and C) if they did bring one out there are sure to be elements in it that will generate unyielding opposition from people on both sides of the issue.

                            I'm sure there are more, but that's enough for a start. A couple of further observations. If you take the list of questions I asked, it looks like your experience only covered a few of them. As for statistics, I heard the other day that studies show there are X number of psychopaths per 100 people. (I forget the exact number. ) Just because I can't pick them out on the street doesn't mean I might not have reason to be concerned about them. People who advocate concealed carry seem to have that in mind as one reason to be armed.  ;-)

                            "No special skill, no standard attitude, no technology, and no organization - no matter how valuable - can safely replace thought itself."

                            by xaxnar on Wed Jul 24, 2013 at 06:57:11 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  This is more like it (0+ / 0-)

                            This is the sort of discussion I much prefer, trying to deal with issues, even controversial ones, in a polite, substantive way. You make some good points, but there are problems above, beyond or different than your enumerated ones.

                            There is significant liberal opposition to any uniform standard for permits or concealed carry, regardless of strictness. Republicans have brought up national reciprocity, and Democrats are the ones who have shot it down, rather than the right wing screaming about the feds coming to take their guns away. I believe such measures passed the House in 2009, 2011 and this year, but have always failed in the Senate (once with 58 votes, only 2 votes short of overcoming a Democratic filibuster).

                            There are plenty of reasons for this, but one is the very notion of reciprocity. For instance, New York, California, Illinois and Hawaii do not honor any other state's permits. New York Senator Schumer and California's Feinstein are both influential and anti-gun, so it is certain that they would oppose measures to have their states be forced to honor anyone else's concealed carry permit.

                            This does not keep a national standard from being a good idea, but I would not be surprised to hear liberals and conservatives screaming "states rights" if the federal government tried to set up a uniform standard, depending on what that uniform standard was.

                            If you wish to explore the topic further, I believe:

                            http://www.usacarry.com/...

                            has information on all the various state requirements.

              •  Nicely written commentary at the link, but... (0+ / 0-)

                I've already noted the analogy between cars and guns is not perfect. I've pointed out some of the ways the differences manifest. (When was the last time you took a firearm to the Eisenhower Interstate Shooting Range? Had your gun pulled over for an emissions test or an out of date inspection sticker?)

                There's a huge social and envronmental cost from personal vehicles, and that may force us to rethink how we use them. We may have no choice BUT to start restricting their use eventually. But...

                There's an essential difference between firearms and vehicles. I won't bother to spell it out, but here's a little exercise. Consider the words "stopping power", "capacity", "range" and then picture what those words call to mind in the context of vehicles versus firearms.

                Regulation has to consider context to be effective. Regulating firearms is not about regulating them exactly like cars (or vice versa) as much as it is about regulating them as effectively and appropriately as we do vehicles. The car regulatory analogy is going to keep coming up because so many people have experience with it, understand it and accept it. And they don't understand why gun advocates are so resistant to the idea.

                "No special skill, no standard attitude, no technology, and no organization - no matter how valuable - can safely replace thought itself."

                by xaxnar on Tue Jul 23, 2013 at 06:51:02 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Cars are used in, and enable, a lot of crime. (0+ / 0-)

                  All the licensing, training and regulatory requirements surrounding cars doesn't seem to change that, it merely functions as a revenue source for government.

                  My firearms are owned and used in the context of self-defense and sporting purposes.

                  They seem to be properly regulated for such to me.

                  Your hate-mail will be graded.

                  by PavePusher on Wed Jul 24, 2013 at 06:32:39 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I'm not sure that's sufficient (0+ / 0-)

                    First you make a sweeping generalization about cars, then you make a statement about you as an individual. Many car owners could make the same kind of of argument about themselves as drivers - and make the same generalization back about firearms being used in crimes.

                    The observation about these laws as a revenue source for government? Considering how much the government provides in services, the revenue to pay for it has to come from somewhere. A lot or even most of that comes from all taxes - but there's no reason there shouldn't be funding directly derived from vehicle ownership and operation. (As always, the sticking points are what percentage, and how much.)

                    "No special skill, no standard attitude, no technology, and no organization - no matter how valuable - can safely replace thought itself."

                    by xaxnar on Wed Jul 24, 2013 at 01:52:00 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

    •  How many people in public spaces defended (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      PavePusher

      themselves with a firearm that they weren't carrying?

      “Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year … in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008,” says the report. The three million figure is probably high, “based on an extrapolation from a small number of responses taken from more than 19 national surveys.” But a much lower estimate of 108,000 also seems fishy, “because respondents were not asked specifically about defensive gun use.” Furthermore, “Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was 'used' by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies.”
      Link to the diary which contains a link to the report

      Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

      by KVoimakas on Tue Jul 23, 2013 at 06:47:24 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Shakin' it Boss, Shakin' it..n/t (5+ / 0-)

    I resent that. I demand snark, and overly so -- Markos Moulitsas.

    by commonmass on Mon Jul 22, 2013 at 04:31:14 PM PDT

  •  I have to respond to the myth of those of us who (11+ / 0-)

    against too many guns are unfamiliar with guns and afraid of them or that we do not understand gun families/culture. I grew up in a gun family and shot a gun for the first time at about the age of four. I nearly shot my brother at one point and witnessed my mother threatening to shoot herself more than once. It is exactly my experiences growing up in gun culture that has made me turn against them. I know and understand guns and that is why I hate the idea of any person wandering around near me with a loaded weapon. The responsible gun owners are very few and very far between and yes I do believe that many of those who carry all the time out of fear of crime (or to pretend to be a badass like GZ) are pathological. I have seen and lived the pathology of gun culture.

    That passed by; this can, too. - Deor

    by stevie avebury on Mon Jul 22, 2013 at 04:54:13 PM PDT

    •  So, if I put my seatbelt on every time I get into (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ER Doc, Shamash, oldpunk, PavePusher

      my car, I'm pathological?  I know you said that those whom carry out of fear are....

      I fear dying in a car crash, mind you not ever time I get into the car, but I put the seatbelt on "just in case", every time.  That habit of doing so actually saved my life a little over 10 yrs ago when I hit black ice and rolled my car down a hill, rolling over two and a half times.  I ended upside down at the bottom of a hill, took my seatbelt off and fell to the roof of my Volvo 240 DL, opened the door, crawled out, stood up and started towards the hill I just went down and fell up to my knees into water...THAT's when I realized I was on a freaking pond....;)  Looked back at my car and thought, "Dammit, it's going to go under the water!"  I really loved that car, I always felt safe in it.

      With my side-story complete, is anyone whom may ritualistically seatbelt themselves, "pathological"?

      How many people whom do wear seatbelts do so because of fear or for other reasons, like life experience or because it's the law?

      When is fear a bad thing?  (Besides when used to enrich the American Police State)??????

      Your life experiences gives you a perspective that obviously frightened and formed you...should I stand in judgment of your for it? Or should I respect that you wish not to exercise that right?

      I too had a life-changing experience with a firearm when I was 13 yrs old.  I opened my eyes to my reality that if necessary, I would "pull the trigger" without thought or hesitation or....regrets.  At that moment I was ready, willing and able to kill at least 7 people breaking into our family home...they were informed of such and fled.

      As time went on after the incident during my meditation exercises, I realized that I didn't want to become a killer.  Because of that event, I've never owned a firearm.

      I guess the difference here is that I not only respect those whom chose to exercise that right, I support and defend it.

      That gun saved the lives of my sister, my father, his 3rd wife and ultimately, myself....and not one bullet was fired.  They are a tool, a very powerful tool that should be respected and treated as such.

      -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

      by gerrilea on Mon Jul 22, 2013 at 09:19:21 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I wear a seatbelt every time out of...yes...fear (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        WakeUpNeo, MRA NY, Miss Blue

        Because I don't want to go into a coma and come out of it brain-damaged like my cousin did.

        And I hate guns b/c -- yes! -- I live in a city where life is cheap and guns are rampant.

        MORE GUNS is the problem, NOT the solution.

        Sorry to burst your bubble.

        Irony takes a worse beating from Republicans than Wile E. Coyote does from Acme. --Tara the Antisocial Social Worker

        by Youffraita on Mon Jul 22, 2013 at 10:23:29 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Are you "steve avebury"??? The poster I asked (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          oldpunk, PavePusher

          the questions of?

          Hey, I don't mind you chirping in here, just odd that you believe I have some "bubble" that must be burst...ROFL.

          My family has had their share of violence, much of it self-inflicted and many times not.  I've had a cousin killed in a car accident, I've also had a cousin die from the bullets coming from a hunter's gun while she stood on her back porch trying to get them to stop hunting so close to her newborn twins.

          Life really sucks sometimes.

          Your issues are clearly of your own making...."I hate guns"...

          Life is never cheap, our materialistic drug induced society has degraded it, NOT THE GUN.   It's just a symptom of our retrograde values, mentality and decay.

          Your one-dimensional value system seems to box you into only one perspective...."it's not my fault"...Well, let me burst your bubble...it's all of our faults.  

          We allowed the Republicans to control the levers of our government for well over 35 yrs and yes that includes the alleged "Democratic Presidencies" of Bill Clinton and the current occupant of the White House, President Obama...

          Your "precious" gun control led us to losing control of the House for the first time in 40 yrs.  It led to the "deregulation" of Media Outlets and the consolidation of power and wealth never before seen on this planet. It lead to policies of unfunded resource wars and fictitious wars on poverty and drugs...ALL the while destroying the very fabric of the American Dream.  Where the only good jobs these days come from working for the government or if you decide to go it on your own as a drug dealer.

          The "free trade pacts", supported by our one ruling party, said they would bring jobs, restore our wealth and lead to everlasting prosperity.  

          I don't buy into "bubbles" baby, not anymore.  

          The gun didn't cause these problems, we did...AND here I thought we were a reality based community.

          -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

          by gerrilea on Mon Jul 22, 2013 at 11:37:37 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  And yet your risk of a car accident.... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          gerrilea

          is rather higher than being shot.

          But you worry more about the lower-probability event.

          Why?

          Your hate-mail will be graded.

          by PavePusher on Tue Jul 23, 2013 at 02:47:26 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Maybe Youffraita wants to keep it that way? (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Youffraita

            Someone seeing too many people victimized by guns already is not exactly going to be eager to see more guns brought into the situation. Is that really so hard to understand?

            Maybe there's less fear of a car accident because a seatbelt is something a person can use to be safer in a car? (And please don't say carrying a gun would make her safer from other people with guns. Guns don't make you bulletproof. Guns don't protect you automatically the way seatbelts and airbags do in a crash. Seatbelts are not dangerous to other people.)

            And a ROFL response to personal trauma might explain something that puzzles Shamash:

            ...the impression I get here is that Kos RKBA people are as interested in anyone else in safety and they desire that anyone who chooses to own and especially carry a gun does so with a full awareness of the risk and responsibility that entails. And they get nothing but grief for it.
            I suspect there's no mystery here.

            "No special skill, no standard attitude, no technology, and no organization - no matter how valuable - can safely replace thought itself."

            by xaxnar on Tue Jul 23, 2013 at 07:30:37 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  "more guns brought into the situation"...are you (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              PavePusher

              kidding?  Guns sales have gone through the roof the last 6 yrs out of the fear created by us democrats coming for them.  A meme that has now been established as historical fact.  See NYS' SAFE ACT.

              The mystery I cannot seem to solve is what makes you believe that the 300+ million guns now in circulation in the US that haven't been used in the commission of a crime will somehow miraculously do so???

              Pshaw! Your bigotry is slowing down your abilities to think clearly.

              -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

              by gerrilea on Tue Jul 23, 2013 at 10:43:49 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  On the subject of thinking... (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Youffraita

                If you're going to argue that the 300+ million guns now in circulation (roughly one for each American?) haven't been used in the commission of a crime, you're actually making a case that
                A) there's so little danger from guns, no one really needs one to defend themself and
                B) we already seem to have plenty of guns, so why do we need more?

                "No special skill, no standard attitude, no technology, and no organization - no matter how valuable - can safely replace thought itself."

                by xaxnar on Wed Jul 24, 2013 at 01:55:58 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Nope, false analysis. (0+ / 0-)

                  Less than 3% of all firearms owned in the US are used in the commission of a crime, period.

                  Whether or not we more are need is immaterial, rights are not based on need.

                  And people own firearms for a variety of reasons, defense being number 1 does not negate any other reason(s).

                  You're being too one-dimensional.

                  -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                  by gerrilea on Wed Jul 24, 2013 at 10:57:36 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  What is the percentage of guns (0+ / 0-)

                    in the U.S. that are used for

                    (a) suicides or

                    (b) children killing other children?

                    I don't know. Do you?

                    Irony takes a worse beating from Republicans than Wile E. Coyote does from Acme. --Tara the Antisocial Social Worker

                    by Youffraita on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 02:49:58 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  You're overthinking this and changing the subject (0+ / 0-)

                    I'm just trying to point out your argument about numbers can work both ways. And what I see is you do not respond to that directly but switch to saying numbers are irrelevant when you're (now) talking about rights.

                    Plus your contention that gun sales are going through the roof because of fear of democrats coming for them is more than a little one dimensional too. Don't forget the deliberate demagoguery and racism also fueling that paranoia. Don't forget that started right after election night, before Obama was even sworn in.

                    It's right up there with the fear that democrats will tax the country to death, regulate business into the ground, be soft on terrorism, etc. etc. Nothing we do or do not do will convince people who believe that otherwise. Fear makes people crazy and stupid, regardless of how justified that fear may or may not be.

                    "No special skill, no standard attitude, no technology, and no organization - no matter how valuable - can safely replace thought itself."

                    by xaxnar on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 03:25:39 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Not in the slightest, really. (0+ / 0-)

                      I'm not changing the subject.  My whole point was that with 300+ million guns here, the streets aren't running with blood.  It's not happening, in fact, crimes have gone down over the last 40 yrs, including gun crimes.

                      Your arbitrary argument that since we have so many, we don't need any more is misdirection.  Again, rights aren't based on need. And when we talk about rights, the number of times one exercises them IS immaterial.  Should we put limits on how many times you may go to your place of worship? Or how many papers you can buy or how many pens you have? No.

                      Gun sales started going up when people realized President Obama was going to win, that is true, but to claim it's racism fueling the purchases cannot be proven, study after study, survey after survey shows people are buying them because they think the government, under Democratic control, will ban them.

                      As for the rest, I agree that it matters not what reality is versus their fear.   Sadly, I have firsthand experience with what businesses are doing to defeat the new regulations that have been passed, ie ACA.  The company I work for right now, cut everyone's hours to part time and hired 23 more people, to avoid paying for everyone's health insurance.  Only the handful of full time employees, myself included, get that benefit.  They made every other department into part time positions.

                      The elite corporations got "exempt" from it, how's that help the majority of Americans?  It hurts us all.  Correction it hurts those of us that are now paying 30% more for Health Insurance and no ability to actually get a PCP, as in my case.  I've been working and paying for Aetna Health Insurance, I pay half, my company pays half.  Aetna cannot find me a PCP in my area...it's useless to me.

                      Those "regulations" cost me personally $1600 a year (out of my paycheck) at my $9 an hour job and I have nothing to show for it.  But I digress.

                      Have a good night.

                      -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                      by gerrilea on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 10:55:17 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

            •  Thanks, xaxnar. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              xaxnar

              You nailed it.

              Irony takes a worse beating from Republicans than Wile E. Coyote does from Acme. --Tara the Antisocial Social Worker

              by Youffraita on Wed Jul 24, 2013 at 01:54:05 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Well, at least you brought your own Strawmen.... (0+ / 0-)

              to the debate, even if they appear to be rather well-worn....

              Your hate-mail will be graded.

              by PavePusher on Wed Jul 24, 2013 at 06:40:32 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Didn't need to bring any (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Youffraita

                There's already quite a few that have been dragged in and propped up as serious talking points. It's not my fault if they can be so easily repurposed.

                Then again, sometimes a strawman is all that's needed in the absence of an effective counter.

                "No special skill, no standard attitude, no technology, and no organization - no matter how valuable - can safely replace thought itself."

                by xaxnar on Wed Jul 24, 2013 at 01:58:59 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

      •  There's this about putting on a seatbelt (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        mad cat, Miss Blue

        It only affects you* - not the person next to you, not the person in another car. Not an innocent bystander who might be in the wrong place at the wrong time. And not somebody doing something criminal with another vehicle.

        *although if it keeps you from losing control of the car in an accident if you're driving, then it can be important to other people. Especially if it keeps you from needing expensive healthcare, with the ripple effects on everyone.

        "No special skill, no standard attitude, no technology, and no organization - no matter how valuable - can safely replace thought itself."

        by xaxnar on Tue Jul 23, 2013 at 07:51:36 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Driving is a privlege not a right. (0+ / 0-)

          Your comparisons fail after that moment, maybe you mistook my story of doing something out of reasonable fear and life experience to being equal to the right to keep and bear arms...an unalienable right.

          The whole point being missed is that fear is many times a good survival instinct, not a pathological affliction, nor one that should be attributed to those whom decide to exercise a right you don't agree with.

          -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

          by gerrilea on Tue Jul 23, 2013 at 12:14:58 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Ah yes, the old unalienable right argument (0+ / 0-)

            Written in stone forever, just like the part about only
            men getting to vote, or slaves being counted as just 3/5 of a person. Or that bit banning alcohol.  Not to mention that interpretation of the law based on that constitution which tells us corporations are citizens.

            I can't for the life of me understand why the founding fathers didn't put something about driving in there somewhere.

            Sorry. It's late and I couldn't resist the snark. Get back to me when you can tell me what well regulated militia you belong to, and what kind of muzzle loading flintlock you prefer.

            "No special skill, no standard attitude, no technology, and no organization - no matter how valuable - can safely replace thought itself."

            by xaxnar on Tue Jul 23, 2013 at 07:44:38 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Maybe you should brush up on some history. (0+ / 0-)

              Slavery ended with the Civil War, the Constitution (your stone theory) was amended.

              The false history of corporate personhood is detailed by Thom Hartman, in his book "Unequal Protection", look it up.

              The Articles Of Confederation had the unalienable right to travel included in it.  We can only surmise that in the re-write that resulted in our current constitution the idea of one traveling was so basic, they didn't feel it necessary to be explicitly enumerated.

              It's one of those assumptions that if I'm going to vote, I must also be able to travel to the voting location.  If I'm barred from traveling, then I can't vote, period.

              As for your query, and current US Code:

              http://uscode.house.gov/...

              -HEAD-
                  Sec. 311. Militia: composition and classes

              -STATUTE-
                    (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section
                  313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
                    (b) The classes of the militia are -
                      (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
                      (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

              Since I'm not defined in the statute above, our government has no authority over my right to keep and bear arms.

              There's a false history surrounding the 2nd A as well, that somehow it created the right AND that it was only meant for members of the militia...HOW absolutely hilarious, really.

              That would mean that Americans fought for their freedom, men, women and children included, only to be told by their creation, the rights you thought you had never existed.

              ROFL.

              You see, the right to keep and bear arms pre-exists the Constitution, and is not created nor defined by it, never was.  The limited authorities we granted our creation was to control the arms of the militia, not you or I, as lay people, pretty simple, isn't it???

              -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

              by gerrilea on Tue Jul 23, 2013 at 10:33:37 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Ah yes, alternate history time (0+ / 0-)

                There's also a contention that the reason for the inclusion of militias in the same passage about RKBA is the insistence of certain states that they needed to be able to organize their citizens into militias to control their non-citizens (aka slaves), and they insisted on that right not being infringed so those militias couldn't be commandeered by the federal government and used against them or prevent their use in putting down slave rebellions.

                The ending of slavery would seem to suggest the Second Amendment is due for revision if that is the case. And you've already agreed that the constitution can be changed.

                However, since you maintain that:

                You see, the right to keep and bear arms pre-exists the Constitution, and is not created nor defined by it, never was.  The limited authorities we granted our creation was to control the arms of the militia, not you or I, as lay people, pretty simple, isn't it???
                it appears you are aware of a version of history that is not general knowledge. It would appear to imply that there is no legal basis under our system of laws for any regulation of firearms that are the private and personal property of individuals.

                "No special skill, no standard attitude, no technology, and no organization - no matter how valuable - can safely replace thought itself."

                by xaxnar on Wed Jul 24, 2013 at 02:13:12 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Ah, the "new created version".... (0+ / 0-)
                  they needed to be able to organize their citizens into militias to control their non-citizens (aka slaves)
                  I know it's hard to grasp actual history once you've been poisoned by lies.  The 2nd A was never about slavery or keeping slaves in check.  The Gun Control Advocates of yesteryear passed "Black Codes" to keep them from being armed because the 14th A made it very clear they were citizens like anybody else.  With the unalienable rights we are born with as Americans, including the right to keep and bear arms.

                  Don't take my word for anything, this very old diary of mine has tons of evidence AND links galore for you to read the ACTUAL historical documents yourself.

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

                  Then see this:

                  http://www.youtube.com/...

                  And this:

                  http://www.youtube.com/...

                  See this:

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

                   3. Scott v. Sandford (1856)

                      The Dred Scott majority opinion listed the unacceptable consequences of black citizenship: black citizens would have the right to enter any state, to stay there as long as they pleased, and within that state they could go where they wanted at any hour of the day or night, unless they committed some act for which a white person could be punished. Further, black citizens would have "the right to . . . full liberty of speech in public and private upon all subjects which [a state's] own citizens might meet; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went."

                  Special Note:  The Dred Scott case is changed by the 14th Amendment which gave Blacks citizenship. It does not negate the legal position that keeping and bearing arms is still an individual right.

                  And hon, there is historical Supreme Court rulings that have never been erased away, ever.
                  http://www.dailykos.com/...

                  2. United States v. Cruikshank (1875)

                      6. The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendment means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National Government.

                  THIS decision is still the law of the land, it was reaffirmed by the Heller Decision.  The States are almost free to do whatever they want with regards to "keeping and bearing arms", as long as it's not a defacto ban.

                  If that won't settle this for you maybe this will:

                  State Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms Provisions, by Date

                  -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                  by gerrilea on Wed Jul 24, 2013 at 10:53:44 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I congratulate you (0+ / 0-)

                    On the depth of your scholarship, the legal precedents you cite, and the historical research you cite. The ratification documents you link to are interesting and add a dimension to the debate that usually doesn't come up.

                    That being said, I find Thom Hartmann's work on this to be more convincing.  His interpretation of the historical record appears to me at least to be a more accurate explanation of the motives and actions of the founding fathers and the law.

                    I'm sorry if this distresses you, but I believe the unalienable right you've interpreted as being separate from and predating the constitution, as indeed a thing unto itself is simply not tenable.

                    I do however admire the resolve with which you defend your embrace of RKBA even though you personally have made the decision to go gun free. I hope there are issues on which we will be able to agree, if not this one.

                    "No special skill, no standard attitude, no technology, and no organization - no matter how valuable - can safely replace thought itself."

                    by xaxnar on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 04:15:18 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Thom Hartman is mistaken and intentionally so. (0+ / 0-)

                      The concept or idea that because there were racist founding fathers and the only reason they inserted the 2nd A into the Bill of Rights was all about keeping slaves in check is truly a red herring and an attempt to re-write history.  

                      If history were anything other than what I've shown you, I'd be the first to admit it, honestly.  

                      You have to understand that We The People decided that the re-write was not complete and We The People demanded that the Bill of Rights be added.  It's meaningless what the individual founders thought or believed, really.  We improved upon their draft, as we demanded.

                      New York, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Rhode Island all demanded that these "protections be added in.  When the 1st Congress didn't act quickly enough (after a year of being impaneled) New York, Virginia AND Pennsylvania moved to amend the Constitution themselves.  Something that a majority of State Legislatures can still do to this day.  It was at that moment the new Congress understood that they would lose any and all control over the new government and finally acted and passed 10 out of the 12 "guarantees".

                      I know you find this hard to accept but the Supreme Court made it clear that the 2nd A was not a privilege granted but a pre-exiting right.

                      This isn't debatable, sadly.

                      -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                      by gerrilea on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 10:36:43 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

  •  Nudists.... (11+ / 0-)

    Can't stroll around as they please without a stitch on...they feel this is against their rights. Many people prefer not to be surrounded by naked random strangers. There are times when it's a health thing (sir, your penis is dragging through the salad bar), I know that's just a concern not an event, but.... For the most part, it's because most people aren't comfortable with public nudity. But when nudists try to 'educate people' by going to the movies stark naked, they get arrested for violating public laws. I put 'public gun' enthusiasts in the same category, except when they show up, I leave. In the era of mass shootings, I've decided not to hang around to find out if you're nuts or just an enthusiast who is trying to 'educate the public'. See, hanging around someone rolling into the mall with an open gun is how many people get their names on memorials. Mayby we'd eventually get used to nudity in public, but, probably not, it's still an infringement on the rights of others, same with guns. By the way, I live in the country, I have guns. I was raised around guns, never had an accident (tragic or otherwise). I do not take my guns to town by choice (I don't need them in town, very few coyotes in town). I also avoid RKBA people on the grounds they don't want a rational discussion, they want to pick a fight and they want you to shut up. I tend to ignore them these days, they sound a lot like my tea party neighbors and they listen just about as well.....

    Only in our dreams are we free. The rest of the time we need wages.-Terry Pratchett

    by Shippo1776 on Mon Jul 22, 2013 at 06:09:24 PM PDT

  •  You let them in your diary. Once there they began (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Shippo1776, xaxnar

    to play. They have destroyed your diary as was their goal. They never write diaries of their own and they manipulate the system by keeping and discussion of gun control from happening on this site. That is their goal. And that is what they accomplished here.

    They do it over and over and over and over. It has been witnessed and documented many times.

    Maybe there will be a fix for this gang behavior in the next upgrade. I'm hoping.

    Remember their 2nd Amendment says.

    The right of people to bear arms shall not be inconvenienced. The community will take responsibility for sloppy gun storage and handling.
  •  Well you are absolutely right that the gun Cult (0+ / 0-)

    does not want a civil conversation about reasonable firearm regulations. They will cavort, twist, go in circles and make it very unpleasant until nobody wants to stay and comment in the diary. There is no way anyone can communicate with people that can only defend the status quo (where over 100k people get shot every year) and, occasionally, even defend the NRA. They are not interested in communication and solutions, they just want to shut all of us up.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site