Skip to main content

How bad is the gun violence in America? NPR’s David Schaper covered a story about the impoverished Chicago Englewood neighborhood with a reputation for crime and violence. He was interviewing the co-founder of R.A.G.E (Resident Association of Greater Englewood) Asiaha Butler about community engagement. During the interview gunfire erupted. A bullet struck one man in a vehicle in the head.

Elliot Rodger kills 7 people and terrorizes a neighborhood by indiscriminately shooting as he drives through a neighborhood. At least 80 people were killed by gun violence the week prior to his rampage. The Elliot Rodger massacre made for sensational news and was covered nationally. After all, these were affluent college students. The 80 people killed throughout the nation did not meet that criterion. Shouldn’t killings equivalent to a jumbo jet crashing every two weeks be covered nationally?

While it is true that the vast plurality of Americans support many forms of gun control, politicians don’t oblige. They don’t because Americans are not "all in." Americans are not all in because the media allows the NRA, Republican talking points, and the right wing to cloud the realities.

Please read below the fold for more on this story.

How many know the following facts?

  • American gun owners have the Feds and cops outgunned by 79 to 1.
  • There is a one to one percentage increase in gun violence as gun ownership increases.
  • People with guns do not make a society more polite. Instead it emboldens gun owners to be more aggressive.
  • No mass shootings have ever been stopped by folks carrying guns in the last 30 years. However, there is a one in five chance that an ER shooting occurs from a gun taken from a guard.
  • A gun in the home increases the likelihood of homicide, suicide, or accidental death or injury with a gun. For every act of self-defense there are 22+ of the others.
  • Carrying a gun does not make you safer.
  • There is no correlation between America’s gun violence and violent video games.
  • Percentage of gun owners in America are actually shrinking even as more guns are being sold.

These facts are rarely used as counter arguments when the NRA, right-wing, and Republican politicians are regurgitating their misinformation. The traditional media simply allows itself to be a platform for free disbursement of the misinformation of these groups. As such, traditional media are co-conspirators in the failure of our society to force politicians to put into effect meaningful gun control.

Gun control works. In countries where there are strict gun control laws, gun violence is substantially lower than in America. Australia proves that gun control can make a very big difference. Yet the traditional media seems devoid of the ability to report on fact-based information in any coherent manner.

Over the last few years it has been comedians and satirists that have been delivering this news. That is the state of our traditional media. The three-part series below by John Oliver on The Daily Show is a case in point.



Imagine how different it would be if all news networks covered this story. A country similar to America adopted gun control. Some of its politicians sacrificed themselves for the better good of society by passing substantive gun control laws. After several years the evidence is in. Gun control works. Imagine if we really had a traditional media the nation could actually count on. Our gun control impotency is another failure of the traditional media.

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Sun Jun 01, 2014 at 06:00 PM PDT.

Also republished by Shut Down the NRA.

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

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

?

More Tagging tips:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment Preferences

  •  I hate to say this, but (33+ / 0-)

    If Anderson Cooper or Candy Crowley or Wolf Blitzer had a loved one get shot, or if Luke Russert was wounded in a shooting out of the blue in DC, I bet the Village would be in a very different place that after every major massacre we have seen over the years.

    When it's about them being scared or outraged, when its personal for them... different story.

    "Real journalism is printing what someone else does not want printed. Everything else is public relations." -George Orwell

    by LeftHandedMan on Sun Jun 01, 2014 at 06:16:52 PM PDT

  •  Speaking of regurgitating misinformation (15+ / 0-)

    you forgot the stalwart liberals that will most likely show up to complain about 'gun grabbers' hellbent on stealing their rights and freedoms away. Meanwhile, victims of gun violence and their rights and freedoms, and their lives? Acceptable losses.

    Interesting NPR segment, I missed that one. I expect it'll be dismissed as statistically unlikely, given that a beloved rifle was involved. Anyway, good luck with it. The NRA likes it when we have no more influence over gun violence than death by lightning strike.

    SCHAPER: Butler is cofounder of the Resident Association of Greater Englewood, or R.A.G.E., a group trying to mobilize the neighborhood for positive change. And she routinely holds both formal meetings and impromptu gatherings on her front porch because, despite Englewood's reputation for crime and violence, she says this block is safe. In fact, there are many people out on this warm afternoon and several of us on the porch - including the upstairs tenants' little girl, who has just come home from school. When...

    BUTLER: Yeah.

    (SOUNDBITE OF GUNSHOTS)

    BUTLER: Oh, my Jesus.

    SCHAPER: About 30 or 40 yards away, a man is standing outside of a car, firing a large semi-automatic rifle at a target around the corner we cannot see. Asiaha pushes the little girl indoors, and some people duck down and scurry while some of us just watch in bewilderment while the shooter gets back into his car and drives down the street, right in our direction. Everyone on the block is OK, but parents continue to shout at their kids to get inside. Those who were inside come out, and in semi-disbelief, Butler recounts what just happened.

    The Stand Your Ground defense is like bleach. It works miracles for whites, but it will ruin your colors. -- Jessica Williams on The Daily Show

    by tytalus on Sun Jun 01, 2014 at 06:19:09 PM PDT

    •  Statistics and Rifles (0+ / 0-)

      I expect it'll be dismissed as statistically unlikely, given that a beloved rifle was involved.

      It is statistically unlikely because a rifle was used.  Rifles are involved in about 600 deaths annually -- of about 30,000 -- in the U.S.  Handguns are the whole ballgame when it comes to gun violence.  The focus on assault rifles is counterproductive for gun control advocates.

  •  The Chicago Trib covers these weekend shootings, (12+ / 0-)

    ... but very little about them makes the national news, except in occasional references to high murder rates. Rarely do individual stories make it beyond the city. Even children in the 'hoods become desensitized, as the Tribune points out in Chicago kids living amid violence.

    These shootings typically are street gang violence ... and what's new(s) about that? It's what the NRA writes off as "Criminals have guns."

    A very high percentage of these illegal guns - 60% is what's commonly repeated - come via gunrunning from other states, typically purchases at gun shows, of which there are a large number every week. Gun shows and "private sales" are very lucrative businesses.

    2014 is HERE. Build up the Senate. Win back the House : 17 seats. Plus!

    by TRPChicago on Sun Jun 01, 2014 at 06:19:18 PM PDT

    •  And a tragic amount of shooting is not (4+ / 0-)

      gang related

      Endia Martin

      Leonore Draper

      May you both rest in peace.

      I'm not liberal. I'm actually just anti-evil, OK? - Elon James White

      by Satya1 on Sun Jun 01, 2014 at 06:38:34 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I'm having trouble seeing how regulating sellers.. (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      sethtriggs, on the cusp, dinotrac, hbk

      ....would have any affect in Chicago then.

      From the Trib editorial:

      That's what the mayor's proposal aims to do. The city undertook a study, with the help of the respected University of Chicago Crime Lab, which found that Chicago police recover seven times more guns, per capita, than the New York police and more than twice as many as the Los Angeles police. Nearly 60 percent of the guns were brought in other states. Almost 20 percent came from four gun shops near Chicago — three in the suburbs and one in Gary.

      What this evidence proves is that the practices of gun stores greatly affect whether firearms end up in the hands of people who are not supposed to own them. The ordinance is an effort to eliminate bad practices and thus curb the supply of illegal weapons.

      Among its requirements: Stores would have to do fingerprinting and background checks on all employees, install an alarm system and surveillance cameras to prevent thefts, limit sales to one handgun per month to any one person, and videotape sales to deter buyers who use false identification. After gun stores in New York agreed to similar standards, there was a big reduction in the number of illegal guns traced to those stores.

      http://www.chicagotribune.com/...

      The city ordinance wouldn't affect those out-of-city sellers, would it?

      •  That's why gun control has to be national. nt (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        marykk, TRPChicago, hbk

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

        by FogCityJohn on Sun Jun 01, 2014 at 10:44:29 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  The only way that will ever happen (0+ / 0-)

          Is complete reciprocity for carry permits.
          If federal guidelines are put in place for restrictions, then each state would have to honor every other states' permits.  Since Heller already established self defense rights and McMillan mandates permits to carry (Chicago was finally forced to issue carry permits) this at the very minimum will be a federal baseline.  the pro 2nd amendment folks, myself included, most certainly would agree with fogcityjohns proposal.  Finally, "gun control" we can all get behind!!!!

          •  Reciprocity, AA? Could you describe it, please? (0+ / 0-)

            I've heard descriptions, which come down to abiding by the conditions set by the least restrictive state. I know that's an editorialized summary, but I'm concerned about the applications of carry reciprocity.

            E.g. Texas allows open carry of long guns. You suggesting a Texan can bring an AK-47 into a Cinco de Mayo parade down Michigan Avenue? And Georgia's new law disables police from asking to see a carry permit.

            2014 is HERE. Build up the Senate. Win back the House : 17 seats. Plus!

            by TRPChicago on Mon Jun 02, 2014 at 06:02:15 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  No to open carry/long guns (0+ / 0-)

              I am not a proponent of either, in public.  But neither has anything to do with concealed carry permits/permits to carry (there are differences, btw)

              Any federal restrictions, honored/imposed on every state, will also have to honor a federally accepted permit to carry.  These permits will have to be shall issue (meaning, if you are not a prohibited person, the permit MUST be granted). It rightfully removes "need" and "subjectivity" from the process.  There would have to be standards set, combining a back ground check for the permit, hands on weapons proficiency and knowledge of the new federal laws (since state laws would no longer be enforced). This would be completed during a class course.  Some states now require this training to be anywhere from 8 to 15 hours.  A new federal training class would probably trend to the higher side.

              This would streamline the process for the law abiding citizens but at the same time, remove the gun show loophole. This essentially removes gun running, nationally.  For someone like me, it would allow me to carry my firearm across statelines and into local jurisdictions without having to worry about existing variances.  (My Minnesota permit already allows me to carry in 21 states).

              This would essentially end open carry, in public, nationwide, too, because carrying a firearm would be subject to preemptive federal regulations.

              Both sides gain a lot from this. Also, 1, streamlined system allows for better quality control over that system.

              •  Those standards you mention, they'd be part ... (0+ / 0-)

                ... of the new Federal law you envision?

                What's the likelihood that the NRA and the pro-gun groups who ran to the right of the NRA in the debacle that was Manchin-Toomey would stand for it?

                2014 is HERE. Build up the Senate. Win back the House : 17 seats. Plus!

                by TRPChicago on Mon Jun 02, 2014 at 06:52:40 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  The standards would be integral, must be integral (0+ / 0-)

                  Federal gun laws, based on shall issue permitting with 50 state reciprocity (without registration- that's a deal breaker and will never be approved, nationally), while closing the gun show loophole (every gun transaction in the nation would be subject to back ground checks) has about/approximately 100% chance of passage from pro 2nd amendment advocates.

                  •  In your legislation, would private sales also... (0+ / 0-)

                    ... be covered by registration and a background check of some sort (before or after the transaction)?

                    And again, what do you envision the NRA would do with that proposal?

                    2014 is HERE. Build up the Senate. Win back the House : 17 seats. Plus!

                    by TRPChicago on Mon Jun 02, 2014 at 07:25:11 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  As it stated above (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      TRPChicago

                      You can forget registration.  That's a deal breaker and will NEVER be agreed to.  NEVER.

                      But yes, ALL transactions means private transactions, especially.  The closing of the "gun show" loop hole will essentially close the market for gun running.

                      I am not now, nor have I ever been an NRA member, so I can't speak for them.  But I've been a gun owner/permit holder for 20 years.  I'm active in the shooting sports and on many gun forums.  Sure, there are many in the community that would oppose this.  Just like in any ground (even political ones) there are those outside the mainstream. Best as I can tell, this would easily pass with NRA and the vast amount of gun owners.  Congress would pass it too.

                      I think the problem would come from the other side, actually.  

                      •  Thanks. Good insights. I think I disagree, ... (0+ / 0-)

                        ... but there's food for thought in what you say. And considerable promise!

                        2014 is HERE. Build up the Senate. Win back the House : 17 seats. Plus!

                        by TRPChicago on Mon Jun 02, 2014 at 08:41:56 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  On what do you disagree? (0+ / 0-)
                          •  The basic premise we started from was ... (0+ / 0-)

                            ... Fog City John's comment that "[G]un control has to be national." That was in response to a statement that Chicago's strict ordinance regulating gun dealers wouldn't stanch the flood of guns.

                            You replied: "The only way that will ever happen is complete reciprocity for carry permits.... Finally, 'gun control' we can all get behind!!!!"

                            At that point, there were no specifics on what gun control meant. But I asked you what "complete reciprocity for carry permits" meant.

                            You described a Federal bill with national standards (rather than state-by-state reciprocity) covering background checks, minimum proficiency standards, gun safety issues and a federal training class. Your proposed carry law would trump any conflicting state requirements*.

                            As for gun control, in the course of your responses, you mentioned background checks on all transactions including those at gun shows and private transfers*. You were confident this "essentially removes gun running, nationally..."*

                            I asked about the NRA's reaction because you were so sure of support from pro-gun 2A advocates if registration was not in the bill you proposed. I don't think you answered that.

                            The issues I disagree with are asterisked. To be specific:
                            -  I doubt very much that states will yield. Pressure from back home will undercut Congressional support from those states.
                            -  The gun show loophole and no application to private sales were lobbied into previous law by the NRA and its minions. Why do I not believe the NRA will relent?
                            -  And if it doesn't, will right-thinking gun owners - that 100% of pro 2A advocates - override the NRA's lobbying power and assure passage?

                            In any event, we never did define what "gun control" might mean apart from national right to carry. Registration of guns and gun owners, as others point out, is pretty important. I don't know that universal background checks would be enough - given the carry conditions and the unlikelihood of the Georgia's of the world yielding to Federal standards - to convince the other side to go with this.

                            I could be wrong, which is why I explored carry issues with you without trying to sidetrack us with other issues. For the life of me, aside from paranoia, I cannot understand why owners of guns for sport, target practice, hobby collections and the gun-at-home-for-self-defense folks would object to registration that is no more burdensome than on cars and drivers.

                            2014 is HERE. Build up the Senate. Win back the House : 17 seats. Plus!

                            by TRPChicago on Mon Jun 02, 2014 at 12:11:52 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                      •  Why? (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        belinda ridgewood

                        Why is registration a deal killer? Isn't the argument against registration just a corollary of the various 'the second amendment was intended to allow the people to violently overthrow the government' arguments?

                        In other words, is the argument against registration rooted in anything other than anti-government paranoia?

          •  You'd never agree to what I'd propose. (0+ / 0-)

            I'd certainly never require any state to honor another state's gun permits. All that'd do is nationalize the standards of the state or states with the weakest gun control laws. But then, I'm sure you knew that.

             I'd also require registration, which I know is anathema to lots of gun owners who are afflicted with a bad case of paranoia about "confiscation." And before you try to tell me how justified those fears are, realize that you're talking to an HIV+ gay man whose name and other identifying information are part of state and federal databases that track HIV cases. Unlike you gun owners, national politicians have actually proposed forcing us all into quarantine, and we have none of the numbers, money, and political muscle you folks have. If I can live with the government having my most sensitive personal information in its possession, you can live with registering a material possession. So don't come whining to me about the registration bogeyman. I've got plenty of experience with it already.

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

            by FogCityJohn on Mon Jun 02, 2014 at 09:19:40 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  The alternative is more easily available guns. (0+ / 0-)

        It isn't that the ordinance is a cure for gun trafficking. It's that we needn't remove all the barriers to the proliferation of guns.

        (A court order requires Chicago government to allow a gun store within city limits. Last I heard, DC did not have a functioning gun shop due to very restrictive requirements. And SCOTUS rejected the recent case that would have challenged that.)

        2014 is HERE. Build up the Senate. Win back the House : 17 seats. Plus!

        by TRPChicago on Mon Jun 02, 2014 at 05:55:19 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Those shootings tend to happen 1-3 at a time and (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      AlexDrew

      involve poor black kids.

      Not the kind of thing to make upscale white liberal moms and dads fear for their own little ones.

      LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

      by dinotrac on Sun Jun 01, 2014 at 09:05:13 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I'm afraid that people have become numb to (7+ / 0-)

    the violence here and just have "moved on" to concerns they think is more pressing. We have flare-ups of interest and outrage, but mostly it settles back into a murmur.

    The Wild West and its defenders will have to completely die off before we can get some real momentum to change things, I think.

    That being said, should we plug away at it getting ready for that inevitable time when we can get some real progress? Absolutely. We need to reach out especially to young people, and the opposition already is.

    "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 Sun Jun 01, 2014 at 06:22:33 PM PDT

  •  This inconvenient fact may explain it (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Utahrd, River Rover, ban nock, AlexDrew

    Rate Of U.S. Gun Violence Has Fallen Since 1993, Study Says

    This has occurred as gun regulations have eased nationally.

  •  im in a mall some guys come in with (15+ / 0-)

    assault rifles- do i run for cover, scream and cry for the police, or continue shopping for new dishes?

    seriously, with all the parading around of heavy assault rifles i will be damned if i could tell anymore.

    personally i am still going to run for the nearest exit. why risk a ted bundy or even a nut who thinks its fun to piss off women and small children. both of those options are dangerous.

    this open carry is just a nightmare. and it isnt morning yet

    •  The parading insane with guns is what will get us (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Yonit

      stringent gun control.

      Make no mistake, they are dangerous and they are escalating.  

      Soon they will have a spontaneous domino discharge.  They are very angry and feel very martyred. Each weekend the unexpected loud noise comes closer to an intersection with the parading insane with guns.

      Don't send a teddy bear to the Martinez family, they don't want you to intrude on their grief - send a postcard to a politician Not One More

      by 88kathy on Sun Jun 01, 2014 at 08:22:52 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  What you do is... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Angryallen

      make sure your pistol is close at hand, keep a wary eye on them, and go on with your business. Just like you do when you are walking down the street and a car passes. You know, it could be a drunk driver ready to skip the curb and hit you, or that Rodger freak who aimed his car at 3 people trying to kill them.

      Do you "run for cover, scream and cry for the police, or continue shopping for new dishes?" when you see a car.

      •  i have yet to see a car driving though a mall... (0+ / 0-)

        or if i have my gun shouldnt i shoot first since these guys are a possible threat? jus tlike zimmerman? and god forbid i cant turn my back on them.

        i still dont know if they are terrorists or not.  why risk it i can always ask them later when they are dead what they were up to

  •  Mexico (0+ / 0-)

    Gun control may work in Australia, but it isn't working in Mexico.

    Nevada and Utah have similar gun laws, or lack thereof.  They are next to each other.  They have a similar population density, or lack thereof.  So they should have similar violent crime rates?

    "states like VT and ID are not 'real america'" -icemilkcoffee

    by Utahrd on Sun Jun 01, 2014 at 06:26:17 PM PDT

  •  When some patriot issued from George (12+ / 0-)

    Washington's imaginary loins tells me the old canard that more people die from alcohol every year than from guns, I always tell them that we can compromise--We'll take away your guns and you assholes can shoot each other to death with alcohol!

    I'm never sure if I've forgotten and left the lid up, or if InvisObama™ is using the loo.

    by The Gryffin on Sun Jun 01, 2014 at 06:26:40 PM PDT

  •  Oh, this is so cute (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    OldDragon

    bless your heart - 'the media is failing us' - totes adorbs

    FYI that happened many years ago

    here's a little exercise for you, watch your local news and roughly estimate the ratio of

    weather & sports: actual news stories

    watch any of the three network nightly news 30 mins

    hasn't anyone else but I noticed the fluff and 'feel good' pieces EVERY night - it's pacification of the masses and it's working quite well, thank you very much

    frogs on the stove

    We didn't stand up and it may be too late

    by pnchad on Sun Jun 01, 2014 at 07:05:11 PM PDT

  •  Impotency? No... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    tytalus

    There's been lots of gun control measure passed, locally and at state levels (I rally like the confiscation here in WA for domestic violence abusers), sure

    We Shall Overcome's been great at documenting it in the past several months, I'm far too tired to say reiterate, but please stop parroting the main stream media

  •  By "gun control" (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Yonit

    You mean banning and confiscation if you are referring to England and Australia for model legislation.

    Here's 2 more truths:
    You've said no mass murders have ver been stopped by folks carrying guns- except this last one.  Rogers rampage only ended when confronted by people carrying guns.  In fact, he crashed his car only after being shot in the leg, through his car door.  That is when he took his own life.

    The final truth is- the only way to end gun violence is through the complete banning and total confiscation of firearms. That's a fact.  Everything else is only about REDUCTION.  How many innocent lives are acceptable?  How many children?

  •  Major REDUCTION could be accomplished simply. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Miggles, tytalus

     My boilerplate  --- The vast majority of gun violence would be endede by keeping gun owner's heads in the game with strict KEEP provisions.

    Gun banning is not the answer to quick, effective curbing of gun violence.

                          1. Improper storage of a gun - loss of physical possession of the gun - no matter the outcome - loss of privilege gun ownership for many many years.

                            2. Improper handling of a gun - gun discharged inappropriately - no matter the outcome - loss of privilege gun ownership for many many years.

                            Limiting of gun kill speed
                            Limiting of gun ownership speed.

             Also repeal of all haw haw haw that was close gun laws.

    Also a safety procedure for gun owners promoted by gun owners to handle guns when the owner is having a mental crises.

    That is just the low hanging fruit. Most gun problems can be handled with very little effort. The few remaining with a moderate effort. And this giant success with little or no effort will give us the will to take care of the remaining bit.

    Don't send a teddy bear to the Martinez family, they don't want you to intrude on their grief - send a postcard to a politician Not One More

    by 88kathy on Sun Jun 01, 2014 at 08:16:07 PM PDT

    •  What is (0+ / 0-)

      What is gun kill speed?
      Gun ownership speed?

      •  Rate of fire (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        tytalus

        Rate of fire

        Gun ownership speed. The time it takes to purchase a gun.
        Varies from 3 seconds to 3 days.

        Don't send a teddy bear to the Martinez family, they don't want you to intrude on their grief - send a postcard to a politician Not One More

        by 88kathy on Sun Jun 01, 2014 at 08:56:43 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Rate of fire? (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          ban nock, AlexDrew

          Rate of fire is the same for all firearms sold in the US.  The gun can only be fired as quickly as the shooter can pull the trigger for each bullet.  The same rate of fire exists between 100 year old revolvers and state of the art modern assault rifles.  There are only 2 exceptions - real machine guns and the new bump fire stocks.  No real machine gun (automatic fire -depress the trigger and the gun continues shooting until empty) has been used in a crime in this country since the 1930's. Also, to date, no bump fire stocks have been used in a crime, ever.

          Gun ownership speed?  Well, many states have a 10 day "cooling off period". California, specifically does but did not prevent that tragedy.  Furthermore, the NCIS was only approved in the first place because of the "I" in the name.  Instant.  I'm quite certain you have never seen the form required for a transaction through a dealer.  Essentially, you can't be a prohibited person and be sold a gun (no felonies, on Domestic violence, no mental illness hospitalization, no drug rehab.  Oddly enough, there are many thousands of rejections each and every year.  What does that mean?  That someone filled out the forms, and signed that that they were "clean" under each category.  In HUGE print by the signature, it states that the penalty for perjury in this instance is 10 years in prison (it may be 5, I'm not certain and I like to be accurate). Obama's justice department has decided not to prosecute felons who are caught trying to buy firearms.  There are only a few dozen prosecutions each year out of the many thousands that are caught red handed (there is no legal defense). These are the people we know are prohibited and motivated to buy guns.  These are the low hanging fruit that should be prosecuted.

          •  Gun magazine size would improve the rate of fire (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            tytalus

            as the higher number of bullets are fired. There is no stopping to re-load. Thus Kill Speed is vastly faster.

            Why wouldn't 3 months be the norm to purchase a gun? It is a deadly weapon. What's the hurry?

            Don't send a teddy bear to the Martinez family, they don't want you to intrude on their grief - send a postcard to a politician Not One More

            by 88kathy on Sun Jun 01, 2014 at 09:52:57 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Magazine restrictions (0+ / 0-)

              Magazine restrictions limiting the number of bullets was already passed and in effect in California.  That didn't have any limiting effect on Rogers.  Besides, all CCW holders I know carry extra preloaded magazines with them whenever they carry their firearm.  A relative novice can exchange a magazine in about 1.5 seconds.  Search you tube and see for yourself.  Rogers had already thought about that and wrote about it in his manifesto.  Not only did he carry extra preloaded magazines, but it is the reason why he had the 2 extra guns.  He didn't want to have to reload so he just picked up the next one.  So, you see, the 2 "solutions" that you state will solve most of the gun violence aren't really solutions AT ALL.  In fact, it shows that you really don't have any idea/concept what you're talking about.  The house of cards/foundation you have built your gun control premise upon will not accomplish anything.

              3 months waiting period?  Do you have any idea how ridiculous and arbitrarily malicious that suggestion is?  Apparently you do not.

              Again, as a pro 2nd amendment activist, I will concede that the only way to end gun violence is through banning and confiscating all firearms.  I say it with the understanding that that will be impossible.  

              These incremental "feel good laws" do nothing to stop the real, cultural, systemic violence.  But the laws get passed and yet these tragedies still occur.  My side yells, "see your gun control doesn't work". Your side screams, " we didn't go far enough". The truth isn't somewhere in the middle.  The only way to end gun violence is to ban and confiscate all firearms.  Anything else is MAY only cause some reduction.  With that, there is a concession that many, many gun deaths will still occur.

              •  I must agree that those restrictions (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                88kathy

                …can not and do not work.

                What has worked effectively, in nations throughout the world that wish to reduce gun violence, is a simple law that guns [hand guns] may not be removed from the owners property.

                That one simple rule has cut gun violence an average of 47 percent.

                •  Not necessarily (0+ / 0-)

                  Unlike in a YouTube video, some mass shooters have actually been stopped, or lives were saved due to reloading offering time to run or fight back, fumbled magazines, weapon jams. I suppose the gun lobby at this point simply derides shooters like Jared Loughner as victims of their own bad planning.

                  The Stand Your Ground defense is like bleach. It works miracles for whites, but it will ruin your colors. -- Jessica Williams on The Daily Show

                  by tytalus on Mon Jun 02, 2014 at 07:01:59 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  The idea was to allow gun owners (0+ / 0-)

                    …to collect their murder weapons and accessories with normal regulations, but to limit their existence to the property of the owners. Their rights do not extend into the public square, because that's where everyone else's rights begins.

                    It's a low conflict law because the guns can still be owned. It has worked in several countries. There are many other simple-rule laws that cut gun violence and homicide dramatically. For example, if one must be 30 years old to possess a gun, it is estimated that would slash gun violence by over 50 percent. I haven't read those stats yet, but the research is out there.

              •  3 month waiting period. (0+ / 0-)
                Do you have any idea how ridiculous and arbitrarily malicious that suggestion is?
                Because the 2nd Amendment clearly states
                All guns for everyone immediately.
                Anything less than that is bad and 3 months is malicious and ridiculous. Although I love to mix my metaphors, malicious and ridiculous don't really work as modifiers of the same noun together.
                characterized by malice; intending or intended to do harm.
                "malicious destruction of property"
                synonyms:    spiteful, malevolent, evil-intentioned, vindictive, vengeful, malign, mean, nasty, hurtful, mischievous, wounding, cruel, unkind; More
                ha, ha, ha.

                Don't send a teddy bear to the Martinez family, they don't want you to intrude on their grief - send a postcard to a politician Not One More

                by 88kathy on Mon Jun 02, 2014 at 12:08:11 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  The only gun control you support is something that (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                tytalus

                will never be passed.

                Again, as a pro 2nd amendment activist, I will concede that the only way to end gun violence is through banning and confiscating all firearms.  I say it with the understanding that that will be impossible.  
                It is not the only form of gun control that will work it is the only form of gun control that you support because you are against gun control.

                You then proceed to tear apart any suggestion, it either is useless or ridiculous and malicious. Good grief. You are very transparent.

                Don't send a teddy bear to the Martinez family, they don't want you to intrude on their grief - send a postcard to a politician Not One More

                by 88kathy on Mon Jun 02, 2014 at 12:22:04 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Not true (0+ / 0-)

                  " The only gun control you support is something that
                  will never be passed."

                  There are a few things that I would support, such as,
                  1) Every firearm transaction be subject to an NCIS background check
                  2) mandatory reporting to the NCIS for anyone prescribed medications for mental illness and those treated privately for mental illness (as well as those that have a history of being institutionalized, of course). These people would automatically be "prohibited" from owning firearms.  This process must be implemented with each state having a system where any person deemed unfit, have access to a timely judicial review board (free of charge) where a person may challenge the findings and the case can be adjudicated.  Of course, we don't take constitutional rights without due process.

                  That's it.  From my perspective, I wouldn't want any concessions in return.  Why?  Because I think this would go along way in reducing gun violence.  And that's something everyone can agree on.

                  •  Crazy people with guns (0+ / 0-)

                    NRA Ted Nugent ----- Moolisha ----- Kessler

                    Chipotle

                    Open flinging in Texas

                    Blast from the past James Yeager but he’s a nice guy now.

                    Don't send a teddy bear to the Martinez family, they don't want you to intrude on their grief - send a postcard to a politician Not One More

                    by 88kathy on Mon Jun 02, 2014 at 09:55:59 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  What kind of answer is that? (0+ / 0-)

                      Very few here take you seriously because you refuse to honor the "rules" for having civilized discussion.  There an aspect of maturity that is always missing in your replies.

                      You made an assertion that I only support legislation that will never be passed.   I demonstrated that your statement was false and corrected you by showing you that I was willing to close the gun show loophole and take unprecedented steps in trying to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally I'll.  2 proposals, btw, that would make a VERY REAL IMPACT in reducing gun violence (especially as compared to your proposals of regulating rate of fire (omg) and 3 month waiting periods)

                      •  Then you went on in a long paragraph about mental (0+ / 0-)

                        health.

                        Very few here take you seriously
                        Yes RKBA hates me and I hate them and it is no secret.

                        And that is a stupid insult, nobody likes you. Good grief. But I guess we are far enough to the right margin and deep enough into the comments. Meteor Blades won't notice.

                        Don't send a teddy bear to the Martinez family, they don't want you to intrude on their grief - send a postcard to a politician Not One More

                        by 88kathy on Mon Jun 02, 2014 at 10:31:29 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

            •  You're fishin. (0+ / 0-)

              Don't send a teddy bear to the Martinez family, they don't want you to intrude on their grief - send a postcard to a politician Not One More

              by 88kathy on Sun Jun 01, 2014 at 11:47:15 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

  •  Affluent students? (0+ / 0-)

    Great article, but, there is one error. UCSB is a state school. Tuition is lower in the. UC system than any private school. To say the student body is "affluent" is not accurate. Perhaps the author is not aware this is a state school? Or maybe concluded that since Santa Barbara is an affluent community, that this means the students - who come from all over Califorinia - are also affluent.

    •  Yes, affluent students (0+ / 0-)

      I haven't looked at the demographics for UCSB in particular, but as a whole UC students tend to be from more affluent backgrounds than the population as a whole.  

      It's mostly because of the deeply ingrained injustices within American society as a whole: the sort of students able to qualify for UC admission (especially in this environment of ever decreasing state support for higher ed) are the sort of student who've been priviliged because of their familial background.

      UCSB isn't one of the elite UC campuses, but competition to get into any UC is fairly intense, and Santa Barbara is an expensive place to live - something not reflected with any reality in the size of financial aid awards.

  •  I'll do what a simple citizen very busy,... (0+ / 0-)

    ... but this America can fuck off.  Just completely fuck off.  It's a stupid, stubborn place that is enamored of evil.

  •  It will never be until it happened to one of them (0+ / 0-)

    that anything is done at all. people seem to find it harder to feel sympathy for someone unless they themselves have endured a similar tragedy.

    Literally just wrote a whole diary on all this.

    Thank you for article!

  •  Maybe, the news media, (0+ / 0-)

    purported savants of the English language and coherent analysis, can start by explaining to the NRA crazies what the ENTIRE Second Amendment really means... in historical context.

    This would, of course, bring forth a small wave of dullards who actually believe they belong to official, Constitutionally-authorized 'militias', overlooking minor details like the fucking British left in the 1700s and we have this — uh — Defense Department that does all the bigtime, organized shooting.

  •  So if I shouldn't have guns, should I rely on the (0+ / 0-)

    police to protect me? Dialing 911 does not wrap you in a magical energy field of safety. Plus police response times can be upwards of 10 minutes. You say that carrying a gun doesn't make anyone safer, but that is really up to the individual, not statistics. Every day, millions of gun owners keep their guns locked away from their kids and use them responsibly. But of course you never hear about them, because the media sensationalizes the tiny sliver of gun owners who are irresponsible and demonizes 30-40% of Americans who own guns. So I respect your opinion and I admire your drive to make this country safer. However, I'm going to have to disagree because I'm an American, not a statistic.

    PS: I'm betting that you're a reasonable gun control activist who doesn't want to confiscate the guns of sane, law abiding citizens. Obviously you are under no obligation to do this, but I recommend that you don't mention Australia when touting the benefits of gun control. Australia actually did take peoples' guns away so American gun owners are understandably wary when a gun control activist mentions Australia's gun laws in a positive way.

  •  The problem isn't the media (0+ / 0-)

    I'd suggest that the bigger problem isn't too little media coverage of gun violence, it's too much: it doesn't make national news but look at any local newscast and violent crime is covered all out of proportion to its actually relevance, leaving people with a scewed view of the reality they live in and more willing to approve stupid policies based on that perception.

    The biggest issue is the malapportionment of the U.S. Senate and the gerrymandering of the House.  The House can be solved if gun control advocates and their progressive allies pick up their game on the local level.

    The U.S. Senate has not constitutional fix, but it remains true that Senators representing 12% of the U.S. population can prevent policy favored by the other 88% from becoming law.

    This is a massive problem that strips the U.S. of democratic legitimacy.  It must be changed, by any means necessary.

  •  False (0+ / 0-)

    "There is a one to one percentage increase in gun violence as gun ownership increases."

    If this is true than explain the following.

    "Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. "

    http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/...

    If one percentage increase in gun violence is a result of one percent increase in gun ownership than the decrease in homicides and gun violence must be a result of the decrease in ownership.

    Gallup poll says...
    "Self-Reported Gun Ownership in U.S. Is Highest Since 1993"
    "Forty-seven percent of American adults currently report that they have a gun in their home or elsewhere on their property. This is up from 41% a year ago and is the highest Gallup has recorded since 1993"
    http://www.gallup.com/...
    If this "journalist" is correct about  "a one to one percentage increase in gun violence as gun ownership increases" Then why has a 6% increase in ownership resulted in a 49% decrease in murders and a 75% decrease in all other gun crimes? Even if the gallup poll is incorrect there would have to be over a 50% decrease in gun ownership since 1993 for the author to be correct which we all know has not happened.

    Lies, lies and more lies. If the author lies about this why should we believe anything else they say? If anyone thinks they can prove that there is a one to one ratio feel free to show proof. If you just want to just voice your opinion please don't. If you can not back up what you say than just be silent.

    Australia is proof that gun control works? Really? Pointing to a country that has never in 100 years had a homicide rate that exceeded 2.6 which was on a steady decline after its peak to a level of 1.8 the year gun control was enacted that currently has a level around 1.3 is not evidence of gun control working. Why did you not mention the UK? Is it because in 100 years the homicide level has never passed 1.75 which occurred 14 years after banning shotguns and 5 years after banning handguns? Is it because the homicide rate for 100 years has always been around 1.0 and still is?

    All you have proved is that you do not know anything. Anyone want to tell me I am wrong? First go do some research like I have done. Your opinion...is only your opinion.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site