Skip to main content

Click to enlarge.

Get a signed print of this cartoon. Follow @JenSorensen on Twitter.

Originally posted to Comics on Tue Dec 17, 2013 at 06:50 AM PST.

Also republished by Shut Down the NRA, Firearms Law and Policy, and Daily Kos.

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

  •  I recall a Fritz Leiber story about a gangster (10+ / 0-)

    whose gun did talk to him - it was akin to a wizard's familiar.

    I'm on a mission! http://www.dailykos.com/comments/1233352/51142428#c520 Testing the new site rules.

    by blue aardvark on Tue Dec 17, 2013 at 07:12:04 AM PST

  •  Jen is amazing (15+ / 0-)

    I found out about this comic years ago when I was somehow directed there by Ted Rall.  

    The guns are really in charge, aren't they?

    Streichholzschächtelchen

    by otto on Tue Dec 17, 2013 at 07:12:59 AM PST

    •  Except for the lack of fact checking (0+ / 0-)

      One can legally possess a shoulder fired rocket launcher, it's a National Firearms Act destructive weapon.
      Expensive as the dickens, no clue why someone would want one, but they are legal to own under NFA conditions.
      A Single Scope Background Investigation with interviews with friends, neighbors and coworkers, a $200 tax stamp and a wheelbarrow full of money.
      One can also legally own a howitzer. The only use I've heard of them that is rather valid is avalanche prevention.
      Well, that and demiled units sitting in front of a VFW...  ;)

      The only NFA firearm I might want would be one to fight the tyranny of the X ring at a tournament.  
      OK, not really. Not worth the additional expense and we only fire in semiautomatic anyway.

  •  Funny, sad at the same time. (19+ / 0-)

    When objects transcend from their objective description and function (e.g. a fork) and are elevated to the status of symbols, with subjective values assigned them (e.g. a firearm) they seem to enter a realm where logic is easily surrendered to emotion, and rationality is occluded by passion. From that point on, the management of such objects becomes less about what they objectively do, and more about how people emotionally relate to them as an idea. Good luck regulating emotions.

  •  What Is Winning? (26+ / 0-)

    I too have heard gun enthusiasts say that they are "winning" with fewer laws regulating guns.

    Well, what are they winning?  A rising number of gunshot injuries, both fatal and non-fatal, a rising number of children shot by guns, and of course 20 six-years olds shot dead in their first-grade classroom.  If needless and preventable deaths are the score, the gun enthusiasts are indeed winning.

    Congratulations on your victory!  That's something to be proud of (I think).

    In truth, gun enthusiasts ARE winning.  And BTW, so are the people who want fewer restrictions on Wall St., so are the people who want to make sure nothing is done to slow increases in greenhouse gases, so are the people who want more spying on Americans in their homes, so are the people who want to stop Americans from voting.

    The "winning" gun enthusiasts are in good company!!  But what exactly is being won?  

    "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

    by Hugh Jim Bissell on Tue Dec 17, 2013 at 07:17:34 AM PST

    •  Would be interesting to overlay states that have (16+ / 0-)

      rejected expanded medicare/caid and/or are fighting the ACA and those that have expanded gun rights - a crisis in the making, is that what they are "winning"?

      Not to mention people wanting to relocate considering whether they want to live a states where legislators want a gun in every hand but no healthcare system to deal with the inevitable consequences.

      •  I have data on guns (10+ / 0-)

        Well, I have data on gun deaths and gun ownership by states (and Washington DC).  So if you can get me data on which states refused medicaid expansion, or enacted voting restrictions, or regularly vote red, we can make some fascinating studies.

        "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

        by Hugh Jim Bissell on Tue Dec 17, 2013 at 07:45:44 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Do you want homicide or suicides or both? (0+ / 0-)

        I have the most recent CDC map state-by-state.

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

        by LilithGardener on Tue Dec 17, 2013 at 12:12:44 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  State-by-State Map of Firearm Deaths - CDC (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        lagibby

        This data is from the Center for Disease COntrol. It the most recent map of fatal gunshots, and includes homicides, suicides, accidents, and law enforcement shootings.

        I'd be happy to send the html code for this map is available to anyone who wants to use the map.



        2004-2010, United States

        Age-adjusted Death Rates per 100,000 Population

        Firearm, Violence Related, All Races, All Ethnicities, Both Sexes, All Ages

        Annualized Age-Adjusted Rate for United States = 9.87

        CDC-WISQARS - 2004-2010, United States Age-adjusted Death Rates per 100,000 Population Firearm, Violence Related, All Races, All Ethnicities, Both Sexes, All Ages Annualized Age-Adjusted Rate for United States = 9.87  Reports for All Ages include those of unknown age Rates based on 20 or fewer deaths may be unstable. States with these rates are cross-hatched in the map (see legend above). Such rates have an asterisk. The Standard Population for age-adjustment represents the year 2000, all races, both sexes.
        CDC-WISQARS - 2004-2010, United States Age-adjusted Death Rates per 100,000 Population Firearm, Violence Related, All Races, All Ethnicities, Both Sexes, All Ages Annualized Age-Adjusted Rate for United States = 9.87
        Reports for All Ages include those of unknown age.
        Rates based on 20 or fewer deaths may be unstable. States with these rates are cross-hatched in the map (see legend above). Such rates have an asterisk.
        The Standard Population for age-adjustment represents the year 2000, all races, both sexes.

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

        by LilithGardener on Tue Dec 17, 2013 at 12:24:07 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Hell---hell on earth---that's what's being won. (15+ / 0-)

      I can easily imagine that being  caught in a shooting rampage  must feel like hell on earth----both---absolutely for the poor victims---and for their surviving loved ones--as well.

      When you think about it objectively---if anyone can really be objective about this---we live in a country where any one of us could die in a shooting rampage---and the weapons maufactureres---owners---and our own elected officials--- want LESS restrictions  for all of this.

      Insane.

      Absolutely insane thinking.

      Zealots are dangerous----regardless of what particular belief they hold-----zealots are dangerous.

      "The people who were trying to make this world worse are not taking the day off. Why should I?”---Bob Marley

      by lyvwyr101 on Tue Dec 17, 2013 at 07:44:05 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Profiting from injury and death (16+ / 0-)

        Every person shot (over 100,000 in America last year) is a gun and bullet sold by the gun industry.  The gun industry is quite literally profiting every time a person gets shot.

        Worse, sales of guns and ammo go way up after every public mass shooting event.  Gun retailers have been saying that since the shootings in Sandy Hook in 212, they cannot keep enough guns and bullets in their stores to keep up with the demand from gun consumers.  The gun industry knows that gun and ammo sales increase after every public mass shooting event, and yes, they adjust their marketing accordingly ("buy now, before the laws change").

        Gives new meaning to the phrase "making a killing".

        "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

        by Hugh Jim Bissell on Tue Dec 17, 2013 at 07:51:44 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Completely unconscionable. (9+ / 0-)

          "The people who were trying to make this world worse are not taking the day off. Why should I?”---Bob Marley

          by lyvwyr101 on Tue Dec 17, 2013 at 07:56:38 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  But all too American (8+ / 0-)

            Our American love of profits knows no boundaries.  We celebrate wealth and profits, even when they come at the expense of human lives.

            For many years, cigarette manufacturers made profits by selling a deadly and addictive product.  Things changed around in the 1990s when the cigarette industry suffered a series of legal setbacks, including a ruling that they must reveal their own internal documents.  These documents showed that the cigarette industry not only knew full well that their products caused cancer, but also that the cigarette manufacturers manipulated nicotine amounts in cigarettes to make their products more addicting.

            The American public was outraged.  The cigarette manufacturers lost multiple civil suits, and new laws were passed regulating sales, and mandating that the cigarette manufacturers pay states to recoup health care expenses.  Cigarette sales fell dramatically as smokers quit.

            The gun manufacturers have obviously been paying attention.  In 2005, the gun industry asked congress to pass a law shielding gun manufacturers and retailers from civil suits.  The gun industry today is largely protected from the kinds of civil suits that were so damaging to the tobacco industry.  And unlike the cigarette manufacturers, the gun industry has never hidden the dangerous nature of their product from the public.  Indeed, the lethality of guns is a major selling point that the gun manufacturers proudly tout to the gun buying public.

            "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

            by Hugh Jim Bissell on Tue Dec 17, 2013 at 08:22:14 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  Out of curiousity (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          KVoimakas, Kasoru, FrankRose
          Every person shot (over 100,000 in America last year) is a gun and bullet sold by the gun industry.  The gun industry is quite literally profiting every time a person gets shot.
          Is there any industry for which that statement cannot be made?
          Every person shot who chokes to death on a Twinkie is because of a gun and bullet pastry sold by the gun industry Hostess.
          Your argument is both simultaneously true and useless, since it can be selectively applied to anything someone disapproves of. I could argue that since obesity kills more people than car accidents and guns combined, the fast food industry is profiting every time someone has a heart attack, and it would be a more valid call to action than yours.
          •  Here's another argument for ya- (0+ / 0-)

            "The people who were trying to make this world worse are not taking the day off. Why should I?”---Bob Marley

            by lyvwyr101 on Tue Dec 17, 2013 at 02:56:42 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  How many choke on Twinkies? (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            We Shall Overcome, lyvwyr101, lagibby

            C'man Shamash - how many people choked on Twinkies last year?  

            Over 100,000 Americans got shot last year.  I'll bet you that ten people got shot last year for every one that choked on a Twinkie

            "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

            by Hugh Jim Bissell on Tue Dec 17, 2013 at 03:26:03 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Missing the point...as usual (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              FrankRose

              The Twinkie reference was pure hyperbole and meant to be read as such. But tobacco, alcohol and cars each cause more deaths each year than guns, so by your logic the manufacturers of these products are reaping a profit off of things they know will result in people dying.

              Now, the makers of all these products (with the possible exception of tobacco) know that the vast, vast majority of their users will in fact, not abuse their product or cause themselves or anyone else harm with it.

              Which is also true for guns.

              So, either you hold a consistent ethical position on guns and everything more harmful than guns, or your argument is demonstrated to be selectively applied according to your biases rather than the facts.

              •  Guns made to kill - Cars + alcohol not (4+ / 0-)

                Glad to see you giving up the "twinkie defense" (grin).

                I point out that of the trio of cars, alcohol and guns, ONLY guns are purpose-built to kill.  In fact, the killing power is a major selling point of too many guns.  

                It is true that many people die in car accidents (alcohol is only a direct cause of few deaths, but many people suffer indirect deaths from alcohol abuse).  It is ALSO TRUE that
                1) where cars and alcohol are concerned, there is a national concerted effort to reduce deaths from cars and alcohol,
                2) cars and alcohol use and sales are highly regulated and tightly controlled
                3) at least for cars anyways, the car manufacturers spend gazillions to design a safer product
                and 4) no one buys alcohol or cars with the purpose of killing or maiming others.

                NONE of these four points are true of guns (please don't tell us that #2 is true of guns - guns laws have been getting more liberal, not stricter, and 40% of alcohol and car sales are not made in circumstances that avoid sales regulations).

                "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

                by Hugh Jim Bissell on Tue Dec 17, 2013 at 04:10:24 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  So, what are we doing wrong? (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  FrankRose, Kasoru
                  I point out that of the trio of cars, alcohol and guns, ONLY guns are purpose-built to kill.
                  Since me and roughly 9,998 or 9,999 out of 10,000 gun owners have never managed to kill anyone with something "purpose-built to kill", do you have any suggestions for us? It might also help if you forwarded a note to the organizers of the next Olympics so that they put the spectators behind the targets rather than behind the shooters.

                  Similarly, since tens of thousands of people are managing to kill themselves with things not purpose-built to kill (alcohol and cars), maybe you can advise them as well.

                  Maybe you can come up with a clever solution that moves all those non-purposeful fatalities over to guns so that your bias would have some actual correlation with the reality you live in.

                  The quality of "being dead" does not materially change because of the circumstances. Someone who is dead because of an auto accident is no less dead than someone killed by a gun. To some degree, both of these deaths are preventable and all of them are tragic.

                  But if you consider a means to be ethical to prevent the less frequent of these deaths, then you should consider those means ethical to prevent the more frequent of these deaths. Unless, as you continue to demonstrate, you are biased in some way.

                  And for the record, I have never bought a firearm for the purpose of killing or maiming another person. While every firearm I own is capable of that, I hope none of them are ever used in that way.

                  And I imagine if you owned a gun you would feel...the exact same way.

                  •  The real problem is that the data and science (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    lyvwyr101, Hugh Jim Bissell

                    is far behind and lacking. The gun lobby has for decades effectively stifled research in the gun violence. Research that could help law enforcement and public health officials.

                    It's tragic the lives that could have been saved if the gun lobby would have simply allowed research into is products and maybe even used that research to design safer products and be sure they get into safer hands.

                    Here is a really good article about how successful the gun lobby has been at stifling such research:

                    Gun Violence Research Shut Down
                    http://www.businessinsider.com/...

                    More than 100 scientists from universities in the United States lobbied Vice President Joe Biden, asking him to allow the Center for Disease Control and Prevention to once again fund research into the public health impacts of guns.
                    The scientists signed a letter to Biden last week, urging him to consider making "direct investments in unbiased, scientific research and data infrastructure" related to firearm safety.

                    The CDC isn't allowed to pursue many kinds of gun research due to the lobbying strength of the National Rifle Association.

                    As a result of the National Rifle Association's lobbying efforts, governmental research into gun mortality has shrunk by 96 percent since the mid-1990s, according to Reuters

                  •  First--I would turn the gun into a planter. (0+ / 0-)

                    I like plants.

                    Second--there's been another shooting--this time in Nevada- and as far as the press has informed us-- no Twinkies--cars or alcohol were used.

                    What was used was a GUN.

                    "The people who were trying to make this world worse are not taking the day off. Why should I?”---Bob Marley

                    by lyvwyr101 on Tue Dec 17, 2013 at 07:22:03 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

          •  Another shooting: Nevada--more dead and wounded. (0+ / 0-)

            "The people who were trying to make this world worse are not taking the day off. Why should I?”---Bob Marley

            by lyvwyr101 on Tue Dec 17, 2013 at 07:17:17 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  You think life in the USA is "hell on earth"?! (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Kasoru

        I strongly disagree.

        "Zealots are dangerous"
        They can be.
        Fortunately, democracy does a pretty good job of minimizing them.

        Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

        by FrankRose on Tue Dec 17, 2013 at 10:43:41 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  -Your- source, por favor? (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      KVoimakas, Kasoru, FrankRose
      A rising number of gunshot injuries, both fatal and non-fatal, a rising number of children shot by guns
      According to the FBI, the per capita firearms homicide rate is declining, and according to the CDC, the per capita for all firearm deaths is declining, the per capita accidental firearm injury rate is declining and the per capita rate for both firearm deaths and injuries among K-12 children is declining, even faster than it is for adults (deaths down 27% from 1999 to 2010).

      Since your later comment says you have data on gun deaths and you make some rather broad and absolute statements, I'm curious at to what your sources are and why you find them more reliable than both the FBI and CDC.

      •  Here are some links for you (0+ / 0-)

        Here are some links for you:

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

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

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

        Happy reading!  Let me know what you think.

        "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

        by Hugh Jim Bissell on Tue Dec 17, 2013 at 03:39:22 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  There's your problem (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          FrankRose

          You're using absolute numbers and failing to take into account that from 1980 to 1990 the population increased by 9.8%, from 1990 to 2000 the population increased by 13.2%, and from 2000 to 2010 the population increased by 9.7%.

          2010: 308,747,508
          2000: 281,421,906
          1990: 248,709,873
          1980: 226,545,805

          So, to take into account the rising population, the 1990 injury/fatality numbers would have to be 9.8% higher to represent an actual per capita increase (and in some measures they are), the 2000 numbers would need to be 13.2% more than the 1990-adjusted amount, and the 2010 numbers would need to be 9.7% more than the 2000-adjusted amount. The net difference in population from 1980 to 2010 means that the absolute numbers would need to increase by about a third in order be an actual increase in the rate of these fatalities and injuries.

          If you rummage around the CDC site, they have data tools that let you generate absolute and per capita rates for any combination of fatal and non-fatal injuries of several types, sortable by date range, gender and age of victim. Kosmail me and I'll find the appropriate links for you.

          •  Well rummage away (0+ / 0-)

            By all means, go to the CDC web-site and rummage to your heart's content.  Post what you find as a diary and I will be happy to read it.

            Here is what I wrote about numbers vs. rates in another comment:

            You are correct that the rate of homicides shows homicides as a proportion of the population, and this allows us to account for population growth.

            It also hides things like gender differences in homicides, age differences in homicides, aging trends within the total population, racial and ethnic differences in homicides, changes in the racial make-up of the population, and a host of other important demographic factors.

            So discussing homicide rates reveals some and also hides much.

            Sadly, getting good data on homicides as a function of all these various demographic factors is very difficult.  I have not found a reliable data source that includes all these different variables.

            I will be looking thru the DOJ data that KV pointed me to.  If you know of other good data sources that might be helpful, let me know.  I want to see them.

            "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

            by Hugh Jim Bissell on Tue Dec 17, 2013 at 04:27:02 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Your lack of interest says a lot (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              FrankRose
              Sadly, getting good data on homicides as a function of all these various demographic factors is very difficult.  I have not found a reliable data source that includes all these different variables.
              And when someone offers to guide you to a source that lets you include these exact factors...

              ...you ignore the offer. The information is there. When you decide you actually care about it...go find it yourself.

              •  Hugh is right, Shamah - the gun lobby has made it (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Hugh Jim Bissell

                next to impossible to get all the info that's needed, for example:

                Under the law, investigators cannot reveal federal firearms tracing information that shows how often a dealer sells guns that end up seized in crimes. The law effectively shields retailers from lawsuits, academic study and public scrutiny. It also keeps the spotlight off the relationship between rogue gun dealers and the black market in firearms.Such information used to be available under a simple Freedom of Information Act request. But seven years ago, under pressure from the gun lobby, Congress blacked out the information by passing the so-called Tiahrt amendment, named for Rep. Todd Tiahrt (R-Kan.). The law removed from the public record a government database that traces guns recovered in crimes back to the dealers.
                http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

                This is just one example - there are many such that show the gun lobby is terrified of the truth about guns getting out. Similar to the tobacco lobby and we know how that turned out.

                It's part and parcel to the anti-science GOP. If the data might get in the way of a sale, defund the research, write policy to eliminate research, etc. Just like tobacco, climate science, etc., gun violence science has been stifled.

                •  You might have missed (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  FrankRose, Kasoru

                  That the Obama administration ordered the CDC to do a study on the causes and prevention of firearms violence. The gun lobby was able to do nothing about this and the full report is available online.

                  Of course, since this Obama-commissioned CDC report said that people who used a firearm in self-defense had better outcomes than those using any other tactic, folks like Hugh tend not to mention it much...

                  The total annual budget of the "gun lobby" is about one day of lobbying budget for the financial industry. So, figure for yourself how much influence banks get for over a billion bucks of lobbying (plus campaign contributions) a year, and then figure what you get by spending less than one percent of that amount. That's the "gun lobby".

                  The "gun lobby" is a bogeyman. In the recent Colorado recall elections, the "gun lobby" was supposedly funding the opposition. The candidates being recalled outspent the people doing the recall by a three-to-one margin.

                  Don't buy into the myth of the big, bad gun lobby. It doesn't exist. The "dental lobby" spends more than the NRA does (and this includes PAC's and campaign contributions).

                  •  Well, sure, now that the gun lobby was forced to (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Hugh Jim Bissell

                    do so:

                    More than 100 scientists from universities in the United States lobbied Vice President Joe Biden, asking him to allow the Center for Disease Control and Prevention to once again fund research into the public health impacts of guns. 

                    The scientists signed a letter to Biden last week, urging him to consider making "direct investments in unbiased, scientific research and data infrastructure" related to firearm safety.
                    The CDC isn't allowed to pursue many kinds of gun research due to the lobbying strength of the National Rifle Association. 

                    http://www.businessinsider.com/...
                    Is gun violence a public health epidemic?
                    The unfortunate truth is this: we simply don't know, because hard statistics either don't exist, aren't current, aren't readily available or can't be researched nationally under the usual rules. Until a few months ago, federal science agencies were essentially barred from even studying gun violence within a public health epidemic framework.
                    http://www.usnews.com/...
                    “The NRA has been extremely effective at guarding their patrons, the firearms industry, from having to provide data by consistently ginning up a fear that the federal government is going to come for your guns,” said Mark D. Jones, a former U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives special agent who is a senior law-enforcement adviser at the University of Chicago Crime Lab. “It slows down investigations in a profound way.”
                    Information Vacuum
                    Gun registries are just one area in which the NRA, the nation’s largest pro-gun lobby, has persuaded federal and state lawmakers to block information that might help prevent crimes, solve them or inform policy making. The Fairfax, Virginia-based NRA helped persuade Congress to make it tougher to study illegal firearm trafficking, stymie scientific research on shooting deaths and create restrictions that force U.S. law enforcement to record gun sales on microfiche.
                    The debate over data is intensifying as President Barack Obama seeks new gun-control laws following the Dec. 14 shooting deaths of 20 children and six adults at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut. The president’s plan calls for using firearms information in new ways, including a proposed law requiring background checks before gun sales and a directive to research causes and prevention of violence.
                    http://www.bloomberg.com/...
              •  What does this demonstrate? n/t (0+ / 0-)

                "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

                by Hugh Jim Bissell on Wed Dec 18, 2013 at 03:41:55 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

    •  Nothing - it's a Pyrrhic victory. (0+ / 0-)

      All the gun nuts are winning is the right to determine who's left over after all the massacres and accidents by "responsible" gun owners have claimed however many lives they will.  And yet they'll still remind blind to this fact.

  •  not the first time (9+ / 0-)

    This isn't the first time that a weapon has been turn into a symbol IMO.

    I look at the Cross the same way, this guy Jesus is killed on one next everyone is got one on their building and around their necks.

    Just saying

    "help police" Catch-22 Joseph Heller 1961

    by rageagnstmach on Tue Dec 17, 2013 at 07:33:52 AM PST

  •  Escalations of weaponry madness after a massacre: (9+ / 0-)

    THAT pretty much captures it.

    "The soil under the grass is dreaming of a young forest, and under the pavement the soil is dreaming of grass."--Wendell Berry

    by Wildthumb on Tue Dec 17, 2013 at 07:34:38 AM PST

    •  Isn't it sickening and frightening? (8+ / 0-)

      "The people who were trying to make this world worse are not taking the day off. Why should I?”---Bob Marley

      by lyvwyr101 on Tue Dec 17, 2013 at 07:45:21 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Escalations of gun purchases happen after (0+ / 0-)

      a proposal to ban guns.

      This is hardly surprising.

      Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

      by FrankRose on Tue Dec 17, 2013 at 06:48:38 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yes, the gun lobby has gotten quite effective of (0+ / 0-)

        passing the hat after each mass shootings - the faithful always offer up more and more money to their god.

        •  It isn't the gun lobby. (0+ / 0-)

          It is the American people.

          Most adults outgrow boogeymen.
          You should try it.

          Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

          by FrankRose on Tue Dec 17, 2013 at 07:11:40 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Is that the latest line for you all - boogeymen? (0+ / 0-)

            Those "boogeymen" were quite effective at passing actual policy that stopped gun violence research. And that's cause countless deaths and injuries, ruined families.

            It's like the tobacco industry lying to Congress about the lethality of its products and publishing fake and doctored studies to cover up that fact, or more recently climate change deniers.

            You should really take another look at what the gun lobby has done and continues to do:

            More than 100 scientists from universities in the United States lobbied Vice President Joe Biden, asking him to allow the Center for Disease Control and Prevention to once again fund research into the public health impacts of guns.
            The scientists signed a letter to Biden last week, urging him to consider making "direct investments in unbiased, scientific research and data infrastructure" related to firearm safety.
            The CDC isn't allowed to pursue many kinds of gun research due to the lobbying strength of the National Rifle Association.
            http://www.businessinsider.com/...
            Is gun violence a public health epidemic?
            The unfortunate truth is this: we simply don't know, because hard statistics either don't exist, aren't current, aren't readily available or can't be researched nationally under the usual rules. Until a few months ago, federal science agencies were essentially barred from even studying gun violence within a public health epidemic framework.
            http://www.usnews.com/...
            Is gun violence a public health epidemic?

            The unfortunate truth is this: we simply don't know, because hard statistics either don't exist, aren't current, aren't readily available or can't be researched nationally under the usual rules. Until a few months ago, federal science agencies were essentially barred from even studying gun violence within a public health epidemic framework.

            http://www.usnews.com/...
            “The NRA has been extremely effective at guarding their patrons, the firearms industry, from having to provide data by consistently ginning up a fear that the federal government is going to come for your guns,” said Mark D. Jones, a former U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives special agent who is a senior law-enforcement adviser at the University of Chicago Crime Lab. “It slows down investigations in a profound way.”
            Information Vacuum
            Gun registries are just one area in which the NRA, the nation’s largest pro-gun lobby, has persuaded federal and state lawmakers to block information that might help prevent crimes, solve them or inform policy making. The Fairfax, Virginia-based NRA helped persuade Congress to make it tougher to study illegal firearm trafficking, stymie scientific research on shooting deaths and create restrictions that force U.S. law enforcement to record gun sales on microfiche.
            The debate over data is intensifying as President Barack Obama seeks new gun-control laws following the Dec. 14 shooting deaths of 20 children and six adults at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut. The president’s plan calls for using firearms information in new ways, including a proposed law requiring background checks before gun sales and a directive to research causes and prevention of violence.
            http://www.bloomberg.com/...
            Under the law, investigators cannot reveal federal firearms tracing information that shows how often a dealer sells guns that end up seized in crimes. The law effectively shields retailers from lawsuits, academic study and public scrutiny. It also keeps the spotlight off the relationship between rogue gun dealers and the black market in firearms.Such information used to be available under a simple Freedom of Information Act request. But seven years ago, under pressure from the gun lobby, Congress blacked out the information by passing the so-called Tiahrt amendment, named for Rep. Todd Tiahrt (R-Kan.). The law removed from the public record a government database that traces guns recovered in crimes back to the dealers.
            http://www.washingtonpost.com/...
            •  In Colorado, your faceless & scary boogeyman (0+ / 0-)

              was outspent 6-1.
              It was the voters that voted out 3 Senators.

              Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

              by FrankRose on Tue Dec 17, 2013 at 07:29:31 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  That's an interesting way to tally the money (0+ / 0-)

                spent by the gun lobby - just two elections in one year in one state? The gun lobby isn't a mom and pop operation, they are in all 50 states and at the Federal, state and local levels with lawyers and election consultants, PR staff.

                Very sophisticated and well funded, spread out across 100s, maybe 1000s of organizations.

                Millions of dollars were spent on the Colorado state Senate recall elections this year. The recall efforts were spawned by gun control laws passed in the wake of the 2012 Aurora and Newtown shooting massacres and they became proxy battles in a national war over gun policy. Money poured in from all over the country.

                Today brings more evidence that it is nearly impossible to tally how much money was spent and by whom and where it all went.

                A year after Sandy Hook, the money-in-politics nonprofit Sunlight Foundation has published a series of stories examining the public policy debates and campaigns that played out in the wake of the tragedy.

                In her piece, “Did guns beat money in Colorado recalls?” Denver-based consultant Nancy Watzman takes a hard look at the recall spending. She uses all the transparency resources and expertise of the Sunlight Foundation and she tapped volunteers on the ground in Colorado to visit local media outlets and review spending on advertisements. The result is a post of considerable depth. Yet Watzman concedes in the end that she has delivered another version of the half-story Coloradans have been reading on recall spending for months.

                “[The recalls] turned into case studies of how outside interests swamp local elections in ways that are difficult, if not impossible, to fully measure.

                      Much of the money spent by outside groups… came in the form of undisclosed dollars. There were no limits on contributions to these races and much of the advertising was classified as issue advertising and did not trigger official state reporting requirements. That meant that groups such as the Koch-funded Americans for Prosperity, on the pro-recall side, and Americans for Responsible Solutions, on the anti-recall slate, were active but did not report their spending to state authorities…

                Some groups worked in Colorado but are not detected either in Colorado state records or the broadcast records. Press reports revealed that Americans for Prosperity, the Koch-backed advocacy group that spent more than $33 million at the federal level on the 2012 elections and is not required to disclose its donors, was working on the races. The group, for example, distributed this door hanger, which criticizes Morse not about his stance on guns but on his support for the Obama health care law.

                      The National Association for Gun Rights produced this anti-Morse ad as well. Danielle Thompson, a spokeswoman for the group, earlier told Sunlight that the group had spent about $100,000 on that ad and another produced by the group’s local affiliate, Rocky Mountain Gun Owners. The group also produced radio ads, sent emails and engaged in other activities in support of the recalls.

                http://www.coloradoindependent.com/...
                •  My "interesting way of tallying" is called "math" (0+ / 0-)

                  Excuses are for losers.
                  Results are for winners.

                  Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                  by FrankRose on Tue Dec 17, 2013 at 08:28:58 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Hmmm, so I'm to choose between your math (0+ / 0-)

                    and the Sunlight Foundations - the Sunlight Foundation is the winner on that one and you're the ... well, you said it.

                    •  Your link doesn't include any information of (0+ / 0-)

                      the money spent in Colorado.

                      And the losers are the ones who lost their jobs....and their politically tone-deaf allies whose viewpoints have been exposed as political poison.

                      It's perfectly fine that you don't realize it, because I can assure you, the party does.

                      Deal with it.

                      Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                      by FrankRose on Tue Dec 17, 2013 at 08:43:26 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Yes, political poison for the Colorado GOP, (0+ / 0-)

                        according to the head of the Colorado GOP:

                        The activists who blistered Democrats for “going too far” with their gun votes have, it appears, failed to learn the same lesson, to understand “when to hold ‘em”, so to speak.
                        “This is the same group of ideologues that currently has our government shut down,” said Colorado Democratic Party Chairman Rick Palacio.
                        “If that’s Ryan’s position, he should try to gain a bit more control over his party activists and convince them that this is not a wise thing to do. But this is just more evidence that the Republican Party remains severely divided.”
                        http://kdvr.com/...

                        And, there are no numbers in the link because the Sunlight Foundation concluded it is impossible to track and know how much was spent thanks to Citizens United and the like. So, your math is 6:1 .... the Sunlight Foundation says, you cannot know the totals.

                        No disrespect, but I tend to think the Sunlight Foundation's got you beat on this one.

                        •  "impossible to track" (0+ / 0-)

                          The Denver Post managed.

                          Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                          by FrankRose on Tue Dec 17, 2013 at 09:04:56 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Yes, the Sunlight Foundation includes that (0+ / 0-)

                            in it's tally but says because there are so many "dark money" groups involved in the recalls:

                            Because the public records are incomplete, it is difficult to draw sweeping conclusions about how much money was spent overall.
                            http://sunlightfoundation.com/...

                            Your sweeping conclusion - 6:1 - is what is publicly known, which isn't the whole enchilada.

                          •  The SunLite Fnd is a treasure trove of info (0+ / 0-)

                            on gun lobby spending - they spend a TON compared to the gun safety supporters, something like 20 or 30 to 1:

                            http://sunlightfoundation.com/...

                          •  Wow, the gun lobby really is a monster, look (0+ / 0-)

                            at how much it outspent the gun safety side:

                            http://sunlightfoundation.com/...

                            Something like 8 to 1.

                            I warned you about taking too small a sample size and drawing sweeping conclusions - you can't use two elections in one year and one state and extrapolate to the larger national, state and local spending.

                          •  Hmmm. (0+ / 0-)

                            Still no info on the actual races being discussed.

                            Strong argument you got there.
                            But why are you making excuses?
                            Didn't you just say the recalls were political poison for the GOP?
                            You should be celebrating your 'big win'!

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Tue Dec 17, 2013 at 09:25:29 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Sorry, you'll have to read for yourself on (0+ / 0-)

                            the Sunlight Foundation's page - I can't do that for you.

                            But rest assured, they have a crack staff (http://sunlightfoundation.com/...) of 30+ people over there combing through all the available data and information on this topic ... or you could just continue to believe you can do a better job of it then they can and refuse to believe their numbers.

                            But with all do respect, I think most people are going to side with the Sunlight Foundation's account of things.

                          •  You mean the Sunlight Foundation that said: (0+ / 0-)
                            "In an unusual political twist, the anti-recall forces appear to have vastly outspent the gun rights advocates. Pro-gun groups active in the recall reported collecting some $606,000"
                            Link

                            Whatever you say, bud.
                            Great argument you're working with here.

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Tue Dec 17, 2013 at 09:39:58 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Again, I can't read for you - the operative word (0+ / 0-)

                            in that block quote is "appear" and we've already discussed why that word is there but I will refresh your memory, the dark money can't be tracked, as the S.F. points out in my block quotes in previous comments upstream.

                            You keep going back to your "sweeping conclusions" that the Sunlight Foundation warned you against doing because the money the Koch Bros and other groups that don't have to report spent on the recalls can't be tracked.

                            Gotta hand it to you, you're an army of 1 against a staff of 50+ at the Sunlight Foundation.

                          •  I quoted the Sunlight Foundation... (0+ / 0-)

                            It's OK. I can do it again.

                            "In an unusual political twist, the anti-recall forces appear to have vastly outspent the gun rights advocates. Pro-gun groups active in the recall reported collecting some $606,000"
                            Don't worry. I got it.
                            1) Despite ALL evidence to the contrary--including your own preferred source--pro-recallers actually had way more money, because "appear"
                            2) 3 Democrats losing their seats because of gun control was a 'big win' for gun control.

                            Great argument, bud.
                            Stick with it.

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Tue Dec 17, 2013 at 10:04:20 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Yes, I know you quoted the SF - selectivly, you (0+ / 0-)

                            have to read a little more to get their real point.

                            I've already showed you where they have made the point that you can't know all the money that was spent and why.  

                            You're like a Faux News viewer who only wants to see certain things - in a bubble.

                          •  Says the person that is claiming... (0+ / 0-)

                            1) the anti-recall side had less money, despite every source (including your own) saying otherwise
                            2) Gun controllers being recalled is good for gun control.

                            It's alright, bud.
                            Just keep giving reality the finger.

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Tue Dec 17, 2013 at 10:14:28 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Can't help you with the whole reading thing, (0+ / 0-)

                            if you refuse to look at it, there's nothing I can do:

                            Because the public records are incomplete, it is difficult to draw sweeping conclusions about how much money was spent overall.
                            http://sunlightfoundation.com/...
                          •  Here you go, AGAIN, the important parts (0+ / 0-)

                            for you to read are the final few paragraphs where it explains that you can't know ho much was spent because not all groups who spent have to report that, kapich?

                            http://sunlightfoundation.com/...

                          •  ... but because I am such a nice guy, here you (0+ / 0-)

                            go:

                            http://sunlightfoundation.com/...

                            But no block quotes this time. Hint, the important part for you is in the final few paragraphs where it says "You can't know how much was spent because some groups don't have to report what they spent."

                          •  Check that, 50+ people over there, or, a 50 to 1 (0+ / 0-)

                            manpower edge on you.

                        •  Apparently, it was 3 Republicans that were (0+ / 0-)

                          recalled.
                          Good catch.

                          What's the matter, bud?
                          Are you "threatened" by reality?

                          Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                          by FrankRose on Tue Dec 17, 2013 at 09:06:35 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  You mean Democrats, it's late, you're getting (0+ / 0-)

                            punchy. Maybe it's time to leave the public square.

                            And the third Dem resigned and was replaced by a Dem. I'll call that one a wash.

                          •  You said the recalls were political poison for the (0+ / 0-)

                            Colorado GOP. I could only assume that it must have been GOPers recalled.

                            "I'd call that a wash"
                            1) A gun controller resigned.....if losing a seat is a 'wash', then you have a lot of 'ties' to look forward to.
                            2) Yes. Nothing shows strength like resigning rather than facing voters.
                            I'm sure that's going to play out well next election.

                            Stick with BS HRs, son.
                            Politics just isn't your thing.

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Tue Dec 17, 2013 at 09:21:07 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  The head of the State GOP said the recalls were (0+ / 0-)

                            political poison for the Colorado GOP. What, now you don't take the word of the head of the Colorado State GOP? Is anyone's word going to satisfy? You're like a birther.

                          •  1) He never said 'political poison' (0+ / 0-)

                            2) He said this before the successful recall of Hudak. He was wrong.
                            3) You mean that the movement to recall Hudak was done without the support of the GOP? It was completely grassroots?
                            Gee. Great point.

                            Way to come up with that 'big win' in Colorado, bud.
                            How many more Democrats have to lose their seats before you are satisfied with your 'winning' ways?

                            Boy, don't I feel stupid.

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Tue Dec 17, 2013 at 09:35:26 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  He also said it before the latest school shooting (0+ / 0-)

                            in Colorado just last week, and boy isn't the GOP going to feel dumb when it has to answer to voters who want something done about gun violence and voters get to choose between a party that's trying to find solutions and party that's lost its mind, threatening secession and recalling legislators who passed policy meant to curb gun violence.

                            Yes - that's political poison for the GOP at the state, local and national level in Colorado and that will lead to political suicide.

                            Don't take my word for it - take the word of the head of the Colorado GOP. And, he meant that it was political poison if the gun enthusiasts DID recall Hudak. So his statement applied to that scenario. He thinks it's bad that they DID did force Hudak to resign. That makes the pro gun safety crowd look extreme. And they are. Just like the extreme ideologues who shut down the government and obstruct, obstruct, obstruct. The gun enthusiasts are cut from the same Tea Party cloth.

                          •  Strange. It was Hudak that didn't seem too keen (0+ / 0-)

                            on answering to the voters.
                            She quit instead of face them.

                            "Don't take my word for it"
                            I'm not.
                            Neither is the party.

                            But great job on your 'big win', bro.
                            You must be very proud.

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Tue Dec 17, 2013 at 09:59:40 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Hudak and the Dems rightfully see the recalls for (0+ / 0-)

                            what they are - abuses of the recall process, by extremists. She resigned to save the seat for Dems who will have the majority again until the election in 2014. Pretty smart move on their part to force the gun enthusiasts to spend money, time and energy for naught - and still hold the seat.

                            And Colorado voters, who have to deal with yet another school shooting, are going to punish the GOP - you can see the fear in the state GOP head's statement.

                            And now that Obamacare is up and running, Dems are going to have a wind at their backs in 2014.

  •  It is changing. (11+ / 0-)

    Maybe the forces of reason haven't gotten the traction to make changes in the laws yet, but they are now awake.  Gun violence is on peoples minds in a way it hasn't been for decades.

    Mandatory Gun Insurance would provide for victims, encourage safety and not be an excessive burden on gun owners. How to do it at Gun Insurance Blog. I also make posts at Huffington as Tom Harvey.

    by guninsuranceblog on Tue Dec 17, 2013 at 07:34:55 AM PST

  •  Happiness Is a Warm Gun (c) n/t (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    lyvwyr101, emyrphe, Glen The Plumber

    "A famous person once said, 'You can fool some of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time.' But as I once said, "If you don't teach them to read, you can fool them whenever you like." – Max Headroom

    by midnight lurker on Tue Dec 17, 2013 at 07:36:53 AM PST

  •  Sad but true (9+ / 0-)

    And the gun manufacturers are "winning." They have people so convinced that Obama will reach through the television and grab people's guns away, that we can't even have sensible laws.

    Most gun owners are considerate--serious ones do lock up their guns. The irresponsible ones, however, spoil the world for everyone else.

    And the NRA is nothing but a terrorist organization. They wave the second amendment around like a flag, but that piece of human waste in Newtown should never have been allowed to get his hands on that type of firearm (or any type, come to think of it).

    My children have the right not to be shot in their classroom. End of story.

    And God said, "Let there be light"; and with a Big Bang, there was light. And God said "Ow! Ow My eyes!" and in a flash God separated light from darkness. "Whew! Now that's better. Now where was I. Oh yea . . ."

    by Pale Jenova on Tue Dec 17, 2013 at 07:38:58 AM PST

    •  Sick of the NRA & their pawns (7+ / 0-)

      First, I am a great grandmother and have a license to carry even though in my state of AZ it's no longer required. I took classes, spent hours on the range, studied the laws, keep my guns locked away from grandchildren etc. I was not bothered by having a background check because that's what RESPONSIBLE gun owners do. I was a member of the NRA until I got sick & tired of their weekly calls for donations because "THEY" want to take away my guns, I finally told them to cancel my membership because of their tactics. No president or politician is going to take away your guns, they get to much money from gun manufacturers & the NRA to ever even consider doing that. However this pandering to the hysterics has got to stop! We are losing to many children  and innocent people to the gun violence in this country. Who the heck needs an assault rifle other then a active member of our military. Certainly can't hunt animals with them. We had a law banning them and at last count nobody came after you other guns now did they? Responsible gun owners need to start stepping up to the plate and join others in demanding more gun control laws, if you're not a felon, or been arrested or charged with spousal abuse you'll have no problem, we also need to find a way to add the mentally disturbed to the list (those taking meds for or having spent time in a facility for that condition) I'm sorry, but I would even give up my gun ownership if it meant keeping even ONE child or INNOCENT from losing their life from a gun.

      •  Yes. You can hunt animals with 'assault rifles' & (0+ / 0-)

        many, many people do.
        It is the preferred coyote hunting rifle in my neck of the woods.
        However, nobody in the military uses a civilian issue AR15 or related rifle. They have never been military-issue.

        "No president or politician is going to take away your guns"
        Perhaps not, but it doesn't stop them from trying: "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them . . . Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in, I would have done it."--Dianne Feinstein.

        " but I would even give up my gun ownership if it meant keeping even ONE child or INNOCENT from losing their life from a gun."
        Would you give up your right to reasonable search & seizure if it meant keeping even ONE child or INNOCENT from losing their life from terrorism?
        Would you give up the right to a fair trial if it meant keeping even ONE child or INNOCENT from losing their life to crime?

        Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

        by FrankRose on Tue Dec 17, 2013 at 06:47:20 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Frank, the question to ask is - what rights are (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Oh Mary Oh

          shielded from being altered and amended? The answer is, none, including the Second Amendment. In fact just last week, the GOP controlled House of Representatives voted to ban plastic guns. And the GOPers in the Senate, also with A & A+ ratings, followed suit.

          I couldn't believe it - the most ardent Second Amendment supporters with A and A+ records with the NRA voted to ban a gun. And to boot, not a peep from the NRA, the GOA - it's as if they are hypocrites.

          In any case, many people who voted for Obama came to realize that they voted and supported efforts to take away people's rights to privacy.

          It's a hard truth to come to realize that rights can be and are amended and changed - the Second Amendment, as we have learned, is no exception.

  •  Wrong framing... (10+ / 0-)

    It's corporations versus the rest of us.

    Corporations cannot be killed by a gun.  But they make a profit by selling them...

    Therefore:

    MOAH GUNZ!!!!

    I don't blame Christians. I blame Stupid. Which sadly is a much more popular religion these days.

    by detroitmechworks on Tue Dec 17, 2013 at 07:59:35 AM PST

  •  Source, please? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    FrankRose, Kasoru

    I've seen these numbers quoted seemingly everywhere, but the few links I have seen only lead to someone else quoting the same numbers.

    Is there a source out there for this survey that defines what is an "eased" restriction and what is a "tightened" one? For instance, does a tightened law in the third most populous state in the country (New York) have the same weighting as an eased law in Wyoming (the least populous state)? Is something like the NY SAFE Act only one tightened law, or a whole series of new restrictions?

    And who generated the definition and/or did this survey of changes in the law?

    I understand that you can only cram so much into a cartoon, but questions like this are relevant to understanding those statistics.

    And while I'm at it, does anyone have the raw numbers and methodology behind the recent Mayors Against Illegal Guns survey on support for various laws? The MAIG website does not seem to show the actual questions asked, and merely gives infographics with broad results.

    •  Here's a good source, you'll have to (0+ / 0-)

      do the research yourself: http://smartgunlaws.org/...

      MAIG and others probably use sources such as this one.

    •  And MAIG, I'm sure is familiar with this (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Oh Mary Oh

      research group: http://www.jhsph.edu/...

      Here's another good source on gun violence: http://theforum.sph.harvard.edu/...

      I hope this helps.

      It's been a struggle to get good data, because as we have learned, the gun lobby has been tenacious in its efforts to stifle gun violence research and that's cost lives and ruined families. It's similar to the tobacco executives getting up in front of Congress and lying about the fact that their products kill people.

      Sad, but true.

    •  I would concede part of your point, (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Oh Mary Oh

      namely that only counting how many laws have been passed on each side does not tell the whole story.  It seems reasonable to me to compare the numbers of people (i.e. state or local population figures) for whom guns are now MORE regulated than before, with those for whom guns are now LESS regulated.  If someone can get those numbers, we can get a better picture.  I imagine the stereotype of sparsely populated western states versus the highly urbanized and liberal northeast and Pacific coast could be cited by pro-gun commenters to say that more of us are living under tighter gun laws than under looser ones.  But how much weight would "stand your ground" in Florida and Georgia, both higher population states, and the urban centers in Texas, for example, add to the less regulated populations?  Or the liberal but less populous Washington, Oregon, Colorado and New Mexico (and not all of California is SF, LA and San Diego)?

  •  Time to switch our approach. (0+ / 0-)

    So obviously attempting to change policy by waiting for another tragedy and then reacting with another crazed ruckus is backfiring.  Time to find another way, like expanded mental public-health measures.  I'm not sure what tighter regulations are going to accomplish.  So you officially entitle a nut-case to own a gun, now what?  You limit clips to 10 rounds.  Need 20 to do the job down at PS11?  Take 2 clips.  And so forth.  A little less heat, a little more light on the subject is needed, it seems to me.

  •  Answer (0+ / 0-)

    The NRA, which is the lobbying arm of the weapons manufacturers is in charge.  Just another part of the military / industrial / congressional complex.

    Nothing to see.  Move along.  Move along.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site