Skip to main content

NYT

...Chicago, a city with no civilian gun ranges and bans on both assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, finds itself laboring to stem a flood of gun violence that contributed to more than 500 homicides last year and at least 40 killings already in 2013, including a fatal shooting of a 15-year-old girl on Tuesday.

To gun rights advocates, the city provides stark evidence that even some of the toughest restrictions fail to make places safer. “The gun laws in Chicago only restrict the law-abiding citizens and they’ve essentially made the citizens prey,” said Richard A. Pearson, executive director of the Illinois State Rifle Association. To gun control proponents, the struggles here underscore the opposite — a need for strict, uniform national gun laws to eliminate the current patchwork of state and local rules that allow guns to flow into this city from outside.

The essence of the whole gun control discussion here: If you see bans as bad and promoting more crime - there's plenty of evidence.

if you want to say the laws aren't nearly as far-reaching because some people elsewhere have guns, then you have evidence.

It's basically one's perspective mixed with vitriol, paranoia, unrealistic expectations and a good deal of bullshit on both sides of the discourse extremes.

My main concern is neither banning guns nor encouraging people to arm everybody with at least 1 functioning finger.

Lately, the police say they are discovering far more guns on the streets of Chicago than in the nation’s two more populous cities, Los Angeles and New York. They seized 7,400 guns here in crimes or unpermitted uses last year (compared with 3,285 in New York City), and have confiscated 574 guns just since Jan. 1 — 124 of them last week alone.

More than a quarter of the firearms seized on the streets here by the Chicago Police Department over the past five years were bought just outside city limits in Cook County suburbs, according to an analysis by the University of Chicago Crime Lab. Others came from stores around Illinois and from other states, like Indiana, less than an hour’s drive away. Since 2008, more than 1,300 of the confiscated guns, the analysis showed, were bought from just one store, Chuck’s Gun Shop in Riverdale, Ill., within a few miles of Chicago’s city limits.

This excerpt holds 3 issues that I believe bolster my concerns in all this: that the stricter a ban on guns is, the more illegal activity you will find; that illegal activity will be more and more illicit gun trafficking; and that we have well-known serious problem manufacturers and retailers that are unmolested while police elsewhere are raiding medical marijuana clinics and sentencing medical growers to huge obscene sentences and they hurt nobody.

Why is that gun store still open? Why does it still have a firearms dealer license?

Why is it far far far more important to focus on hurting and ruining marijuana smokers - particularly sick people with legal recommendations but a gunstore so deeply linked to violent crime is still open?

What the fuck?

As people set about to shore up this country's unarguably ineffective gun regulations they will need to talk about realistic action and they will have to make an effort to be aware of Unintended Consequences, such as the development of black market trafficking.

Some who are fervently anti-gun want to wholly ignore the black market dynamics, as if they are simply beside the point.

The information from the Chicago police clearly show that they are having more illicit gun traffic than other similar cities and the increased strictness of gun laws is the main variant.

it is just totally and exactly like 'drugs'. Marijuana has been banned in America for 80 years. No science supports it. You are not one whit safer with 850000 people needlessly arrested and legally ruined each year. Your kids are more exposed to illegal marijuana than they would be in a properly controlled situation.

Has the $20 billion a year spent on suppressing marijuana for the last 40 years made marijuana less available? um......err.......umm........ no.

Look at the violence in Mexico which is directly related to the MONEY to be made from TRAFFICKING (smuggling). Want that here?

As we try to stem the tide of violence we absolutely have to have eyes open and our heads out of the clouds (and elsewhere) if we will accomplish anything effective.

I will argue the last thing we'd want to do is implement a bunch of feel-good laws not connected to reality and find nothing changed, or the situation exacerbated.

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

  •  Guns and Marijuana are natural comparisons (10+ / 0-)

    especially in America where you can have all the guns and ammo you want but cops will shoot you for marijuana, or maybe just stop with legally ruining your life while accomplishing absolutely nothing other than supporting profits for trafficking cartels.

    It is my hardcore belief that you will create the same situation with a blanket gun ban (which I know a lot of liberals dream of for whatever reason) and the stats about guns from Chicago clearly highlight this.

    marijuana is widely available despite the draconian consequences provided for it and the heinous abuses by cops. Marijuana is still the most popular 'drug' in the world

    Ban guns and brace yourselves for a trafficking situation that will be based here in the US, not Mexico, with a delusional minority of people who are committed to being terrorists when the ban comes down.

    They are preparing to "defend" America from America with arsenals of weapons and stockpiles of ammunition. Their "enemy" is everyone in America not like them.

    They think the world is ending and/or that the government is out to get them. That doesn’t mean it will happen. But expect violence and assassinations. Their ideology is made up of equal parts racism, evangelical Christian fascination with the “end times,” hatred of President Obama, resentment of the “Old “South” variety and a Fox News/Glenn Beck/Rush Limbaugh version of world history.

    I know gun banners HATE the fact, but when responsible law-abiding people are infringed upon, it is not just the case that "only outlaws will have guns"; it is the case that you will spawn and support an even worse problem.

    You are entitled to wholly ignore that, but I am unsure why a rational individual committed to saving lives would want to ignore a factual and dangerous piece of reality

    We want to do what works, right?

    The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men.

    by xxdr zombiexx on Thu Jan 31, 2013 at 06:03:09 AM PST

    •  That's because most sensible people (5+ / 0-)
      marijuana is widely available despite the draconian consequences provided for it and the heinous abuses by cops
      don't feel that marijuana threatens their lives, and don't bother to inform police when they see other people using, carrying, or growing.

      If guns were banned, you can sure as heck bet a lot more people would be 'narc'ing out gun carriers far more often.

    •  By supporting profits for "trafficking cartels..." (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      kharma, xxdr zombiexx, Joieau

      you're not limiting it to organized crime right? Our "corporate trusts" are just as bad.

      Guns and Marijuana are natural comparisons (2+ / 0-)

      especially in America where you can have all the guns and ammo you want but cops will shoot you for marijuana, or maybe just stop with legally ruining your life while accomplishing absolutely nothing other than supporting profits for trafficking cartels.

      The gun industry just happens to facilitate all sides of the equation -- the prison complex, law enforcement, and the illegal drug trade.

      Thanks for the diary.

      "That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons of history." ~ Aldous Huxley

      by markthshark on Thu Jan 31, 2013 at 06:41:17 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  No, not really. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      xxdr zombiexx, KenBee
      We want to do what works, right?
      We want to do what feels good.

      That's why we demonize people who don't look like us, or enjoy different sacraments, or smooch what we feel are inappropriate adults.

      Because it feels good.

      Right now people want to do something dramatic, because it'll feel good. Good policy, bad policy, doesn't much matter- What matters is that people feel that they've done something.

      Like locking up the Japanese-American after Pearl Harbor- It felt like we were doing something.

    •  I am stunned: No HR's of the tip jar (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      KenBee

      Kinda thought that would happen given the emotional basis of much of Daily Kos's 'discourse' on guns.

      I am, of course, told I am a member of the NRA and I am helping Wayne kill children because I don't just mindlessly endorse a door-to-door gun hunt in which every last gun is confiscated, melted down and sent to Jupiter.

      I put people in harms way with a focus on trying to focus on what may actually work and I commit a great offense by not simply assuming a total ban on guns will work.

      Even though I have no gun, I am somehow a hypocrite because I believe I should have a gun or two for basic home defense. However, the fact is I am just not that pressed about guns and have been too lazy (for years) to do anything about gun ownership. it just isn't important to me (even though I am a secret NRA member with a stockpile of machine guns under my home).

      What fun.

      We;ll see how long it is before this place can have a proper, unemotional, productive discussion of what will work.

      I gather there will be pie in the sky for awhile.

      If we disagree, make a note: We disagree.

      The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men.

      by xxdr zombiexx on Thu Jan 31, 2013 at 11:44:07 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Hence the phrase "smoking gun". (0+ / 0-)
      Guns and Marijuana are natural comparisons
  •  Australia shows that bans work (14+ / 0-)

    Local restrictions are insufficient for the reasons you cite above. We need to shut down production. Once we stop pumping 6 million+ guns into our society their numbers will start to recede.

    We need to:

    1) Repeal the 2nd amendment
    2) Ban the sale or transfer of hand guns, assault weapons, and related accessories
    3) Eliminate concealed carry permits

    You can't grow guns, shut down production and their will be millions fewer weapons on our streets just over the next year then if we don't.

    We were not ahead of our time, we led the way to our time.

    by i understand on Thu Jan 31, 2013 at 06:10:19 AM PST

    •  Good luck with that. (7+ / 0-)

      We aren't Australia.

      Nor Canada.

      Nor the UK.

      Nor Germany.

      Nor Japan

      Nor New Zealand.

      We're just not.

      Last I looked.

      Cheers.

      The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men.

      by xxdr zombiexx on Thu Jan 31, 2013 at 06:16:56 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  We're all individuals (8+ / 0-)

        Does that mean we can't learn from others? We are not our ancestors either, does that mean history has no lessons for us? Do we all have to re-discover math for ourselves? 6 million less per year is less then 6 million per year.

        I have no idea why you posted such a ridiculous and pointless reply.

        We were not ahead of our time, we led the way to our time.

        by i understand on Thu Jan 31, 2013 at 06:26:46 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Is that Antonin Scalia? (7+ / 0-)

        That xenophobe who oft proclaims that US laws can't ever consider what works anywhere else in the world?

        Some of us believe that, humans being humans, we might just be able to adopt slightly modified versions of laws that work really well elsewhere here in the US to address a wide variety of problems.

        •  Those with the magic idea of banning all guns (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Norm in Chicago, noway2, KenBee

          won;t like much of what I have to say.

          Those who want to arm every last soul on earth won't like much of what I have to say.

          Cheers.

          The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men.

          by xxdr zombiexx on Thu Jan 31, 2013 at 06:39:07 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Pretending the only positions are extreme is lazy (8+ / 0-)

            It makes any position, even one that is only slightly less extreme then "arming every last soul on earth with a finger" seem more reasonable.

            We were not ahead of our time, we led the way to our time.

            by i understand on Thu Jan 31, 2013 at 06:51:16 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  I'm fine with most of your ideas on mj. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Kevskos, Joieau

            Nor am I in favor of 'banning all guns', for the very simple reason that it's a fantasy.  I'm fine with guns as tools designed to serve the very specific legal purposes for which they exist.  Rifles that are capable of performing the duties of hunting, pistols that work at firing ranges or in personal homes.

            As Joe Scarborough, he who resembles the famous stopped clock says (paraphrased) when showing the testimony of LaPierre yesterday, 'Once you start defending high capacity clips' you sound like a nut'.  (He was mostly actually saying it about the woman who said you need assault rifles with high capacity clips to defend your children in an apartment, but I can't remember her name.)

            •  Heh. I read yesterday (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Dr Erich Bloodaxe RN

              a statistic that police average 15 shots to bring down one 'threat', thereby explaining why it is that police shoot so many innocent bystanders in their overactive quest for bad guys.

              If police are "well trained" and spend a lot of time working on their aim at ranges, what could we expect of a frightened mother shooting at an unwelcome guest in her apartment? Let's say 29 bullets wasted (and astray) to hit the 'threat' once. How many of those astray bullets go through the paper thin walls to injure or kill her own children and her neighbors?

              I say if you need 30 rounds to hit your target once, you should probably arm yourself with something effective but less deadly - like wasp and hornet or Death Pepper spray. Then when they're down, hit 'em over the head with a frying pan so they'll still be down when the police are finally finished target practicing at the gun range and decide to arrive.

            •  I keep seeing statements like, "in personal homes" (0+ / 0-)

              Guess what.  As a nation, we are well beyond that.  It may be your dream, but it is really nothing more than an obscene fantasy.  It is time for you to wake up.

              Currently this is a state's rights issue, save the 7th circuit ruling which appear to be causing IL to go 'shall issue' with permits.  Still, there is a chance that SCOTUS could rule on this issue but only if it is challenged and SCOTUS agrees to hear the case and in order to to that, there has to be a basis on which to appeal beyond "I just don't like the ruling" and even then the courts tend to weigh heavily on each others decisions.

        •  It's not in the interest of corporations to... (0+ / 0-)

          consider what works in the human interest.

          Is that Antonin Scalia? (1+ / 0-)

          That xenophobe who oft proclaims that US laws can't ever consider what works anywhere else in the world?

          And we all know what side Scalia comes down on.

          "That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons of history." ~ Aldous Huxley

          by markthshark on Thu Jan 31, 2013 at 06:56:55 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  No, we're not. We put guns above lives (5+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        peterfallow, Debby, blueness, UFOH1, BlueDragon

        All those nations value their citizen's lives more than guns. We do not.

        We must have guns, even if it means our children are shot dead every day.

        We must have guns, even with "responsible, law abiding gun owners" accidentally shooting their 7 year-old dead or kids picking guns up in the street, or any of the other stories we see every day.

        We must have guns, even if our murder rates are higher.

        We must have guns, if we try to do anything about it, we'll lose votes.

        We must have guns, even if our gun culture has inculcated the idea that guns are the solution to arguments, insults, revenge, to right a wrong, to become a hero (Bernie Goetz, etc.) to solve problems.  

        Even to the point that mentally unstable people choose gun violence as a means to inflict their pain on others, and then take away their own pain by suicide.

        I mean, really, what effect has the gun culture had on our society when a woman files for divorce and her husband thinks the best solution is to get a gun, shoot the wife and kids, and then blow his own head off?

        I see your signature line, from Pulp Fiction.  What kind of society are we that gun violence is now so common that people in a movie theater laugh when the kid comes out of the bathroom shooting, misses, and then the 2 gangsters look at the wall, then turn and empty their clips into the kid? When people laugh when they are driving in the car and Jackson accidentally shoots the other kid's head off. HA HA, look, they hit a bump and he blew the kid's head off, there's brains everywhere, isn't that just too funny?

        What effect has the gun culture had when the police routinely shoot and kill unarmed people, even in the back, and the general reaction of society is "oh well, it was the guy's own fault, he knew the police had guns". After all, guns are for shooting people.

        Yes, guns are cool - I've even read RKBA diaries in which the diarist says this. Guns give people a feeling of power - and hey, what do people with power do - they use it.

        As scripture says, he who lives by the sword, dies by the sword. And so it is with guns: we in the US live by the gun, and we die by the gun. And forever more shall it be.

        Liberalism is trust of the people tempered by prudence. Conservatism is distrust of the people tempered by fear. ~William E. Gladstone, 1866

        by absdoggy on Thu Jan 31, 2013 at 06:57:45 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I don't have a gun. Now what? (0+ / 0-)

          The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men.

          by xxdr zombiexx on Thu Jan 31, 2013 at 07:41:04 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Does this sound familiar? (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            blueness
            I need to get a dog - hoping to accomplish this in March - and a couple small shotguns.

            We were not ahead of our time, we led the way to our time.

            by i understand on Thu Jan 31, 2013 at 07:56:35 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Not sure what you mean? (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            UFOH1, Kevskos

            Ok, you don't have a gun. My point was that the gun culture in America places guns above people's lives, and even people who don't own guns are impacted by the gun culture.

            I'm no better - I laughed at Pulp Fiction. I sometimes have a gut reaction wish that someone would shoot the twig and berries off a child molester, or other heinous criminal (gun as a solution to the problem).

            In the military, I fired a rifle, a .50 cal gun, I know what a feeling of power it gives, although for me it also engendered a feeling of terrible and awesome responsibility.

            The gun culture is very pervasive and has led us to place the gun above human life.

            Liberalism is trust of the people tempered by prudence. Conservatism is distrust of the people tempered by fear. ~William E. Gladstone, 1866

            by absdoggy on Thu Jan 31, 2013 at 08:29:27 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  Your argument is deeply flawed (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Jon Says

          Travolta accidentally shot Marvin's head off, not Jackson.

          "You're miserable, edgy, and tired. You're in the perfect mood for journalism."

          by Spider Jerusalem on Thu Jan 31, 2013 at 08:02:49 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  actually, we are. (5+ / 0-)

        we're just a country full of human beings, just like them. Just because you want to declare "don't look over there!" doesn't mean sensible people can't ignore you and do exactly that.

        The primary goal should be to stem the overall flow of guns in this country, and to do that we have to choke off supply. There are many ways we can start to make that happen. Making it difficult to legally buy guns - with strict background checks, and fewer retailers - will reduce the overall supply. As I just posted elsewhere, every "legitimate" gun buyer is just a straw buyer - witting or not - that is bringing a gun into a system that flows inexorably toward illegal or destructive activity.

        Choke 'em off. Track 'em all to hell, implementing new methods as they become available, so we know exactly which "legit" buyers are buying what. Pay professors to analyze the data. Then identify more choke points where the  flow can be slowed down.

      •  Not to mention the fact (0+ / 0-)

        that American arms manufacturers supply both legal and illegal weaponry to arms merchants internationally (and militaries/paramilitaries) as right up there at the top of the list of arms dealers in the world. With very few international controls on small arms (and accessories), quite a lucrative living can be made dealing to oorganized crime, paramilitary outfits, various rebels and/or "freedom fighters," etc. Thereby ensuring the government's Big Export Market to national governments and despotic regimes for their militaries and police forces. While also not really "justifying" our coveted spot at the top of the list of largest international arms exporters government-to-government. The better to keep dirty little and big wars going at all times, also not quite "justifying" the fact that we spend more on our military every year than the whole rest of the world combined.

    •  This (0+ / 0-)

      Until the racist guns are banned completely, we will live in fear from the gun nut teabaggers.

      •  If you had read the article well (0+ / 0-)

        you'd have info that you won't be safe even after the guns are banned.

        The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men.

        by xxdr zombiexx on Thu Jan 31, 2013 at 06:33:02 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  actually, the article suggests that the problems (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          goObama, gramofsam1, blueness, Kevskos

          in Chicago are largely to blame on

          - lax laws in adjacent jurisdictions,

          - layered statutes among overlapping jurisdictions and

          - insufficient penalties w/in the city's own jurisdiction

          From your same article:

          “Our gun strategy is only as strong as it is comprehensive, and it is constantly being undermined by events and occurrences happening outside the city — gun shows in surrounding counties, weak gun laws in neighboring states like Indiana and the inability to track purchasing,” Mr. Emanuel said. “This must change.”

          State lawmakers, too, are soon expected to weigh new state provisions like an assault weapons ban, as Chicago already has. But the fate of the proposals is uncertain in a state with wide-open farming and hunting territory downstate.

          It seems that overarching federal regulation with penalties that are severe enough to ensure "the incentive to comply" would not only be the answer to a good deal of the CPD's frustrations, it would be the actual, underlying purpose for this NYT story.

          Again, your article:

          Many here say that even the strictest, most punitive gun laws would not alone be an answer to this city’s violence. “Poverty, race, guns and drugs — you’ve got to deal with all these issues, but you’ve got to start somewhere” said the Rev. Jesse L. Jackson, who was arrested in 2007 while protesting outside Chuck’s Gun Shop, the suburban store long known as a supplier of weapons that make their way to Chicago.

          It seems curiosity has killed the cat that had my tongue.

          by Murphoney on Thu Jan 31, 2013 at 07:28:37 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  just like when they banned recreational drug use, (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        noway2

        and that problem went away?

         or when we banned abortion and that went away?

        and when gambling was banned  and that problem went away?

        Granny Storm Crow's MMJ Reference List-686 pages of hyperlinks in PDF format Yesterday's history, tomorrow's a mystery. Today is a gift and that's why it's called "The Present".

        by elkhunter on Thu Jan 31, 2013 at 08:38:33 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  There's hard, and there's fantasy (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Norm in Chicago, Kickemout, noway2

      The 2nd won't be repealed. Not. gonna. happen. Given that, your second proposal is unconstitutional. Your third might happen in limited jurisdictions, but not nationwide.

      How do you propose to shut down production? You're going to close factories and put people out of work by mandate? What about the 70-odd other countries that manufacture firearms? This goes directly to the diarist's discussion of black markets.

      I'd much rather concentrate on reducing violence in reality.

    •  No, Australia doesn't. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Norm in Chicago, johnel

      The evidence is decidedly mixed.

      You can't grow guns but they're not all that hard to make.  Assuming you shut down production (guess local, state and federal uniforms won't be needing any new stock), what's stopping those all those gunsmiths from turning to a non-compliant cottage industry?

      •  Killing themselves? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Smoh

        Making IEDs isn't that hard either, but people who do tend to blow themselves up off and on.

        •  Killing themselves how? (0+ / 0-)

          Do you expect IIF to jump with the dispersal of gunsmiths into private practice?  Exactly how large and funneled industry is?

          •  Sorry, I don't know the jargon, what's IIF? (0+ / 0-)

            I think that if you suddenly create a large number of would be gunsmiths, there are going to be a lot of crappy quality guns created, and the number of misfires and similar problems will jump dramatically.  We have regulations about quality control on things we manufacture for a reason.

            •  Injury, illness and fatality. (0+ / 0-)

              Essentially, occupational hazards.

              Yes, we do have public regulation on how we manufacture a number of things, and gun manufacturers do come under a number of state, local and federal codes regarding how their shop is put together and run.  But there are actually no guidelines to QC in firearms manufacture itself.  Companies contracting with public agencies, law enforcement and military may be subject to certain quality controls, but to my understanding there's no agency--certainly not BATF--that regulates QC for the private market.

        •  Bullets are very simple to make (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          xxdr zombiexx

          I know people who make their own bullets and shotgun shells.  Those are not high explosives.  He's never had an accident.

          An underground operation the size of a suburban pot grow house could turn out all the ammunition a gang needs.

          •  No.. see if we did a total ban (0+ / 0-)

            those people would adhere to the law.

            People are inherently good and trustworthy.

            The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men.

            by xxdr zombiexx on Thu Jan 31, 2013 at 08:04:48 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  How on earth (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              gramofsam1

              are individual ammunition makers going to make up for the billions of small-arms rounds mass produced by the ammo manufacturers?

              Heck, even with this immense mass production, there are still shortages, especially since Newton.

              •  Oh..... I don't know (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Norm in Chicago

                Where do we get all the drugs that we supposedly banned?

                A couple mom and pop operations?

                The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men.

                by xxdr zombiexx on Thu Jan 31, 2013 at 08:55:06 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  You've already fallen into a major fallacy (0+ / 0-)

                Illegal ammo makers won't need to turn out billions of rounds for law abiding gun owners, because there won't be any of those anymore.  They won't be selling boxes of bullets to go into an ammo safe and just sit there.

                The illegal bullets that will be made will only be for those who want to use guns illegally.  It doesn't take billions of bullets to keep gangs aremed.  They only have to replace what they use.

          •  I had a conversation about this with the owner (0+ / 0-)

            of a local gun store.  He said that even if it were banned to where nobody manufactured it at all that he still has the capability of and tools for making (even) armor piercing ammunition in his back room.

      •  The evidence is not mixed. (5+ / 0-)

        Guns are neither growable, nor consumable. There is no chance a "non-compliant cottage industry" would pump 6 million+ guns into the country every year. In all likelyhood the number of home made, and largely ineffective, weapons produced would be much lower then even the current black market that siphons off from the legal production we have today. And they would all be illegal meaning anyone found with one would face a large penalty.

        Law abiding citizens like Adam Lanza's mother, would be alive today. As would the other victims of the Newtown massacre.

        We were not ahead of our time, we led the way to our time.

        by i understand on Thu Jan 31, 2013 at 06:48:23 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  The evidence is mixed. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          xxdr zombiexx

          And I've provided a source to back me up.  You're just asserting things.

          Why couldn't a cottage industry pop up?  And why do you think home made weapons would be ineffective?  This is a device that's terribly simple to manufacture, and your current arms are the result of innovations from well over a century ago, using tooling my great grandfather would have known and understood.

          How are you going to enforce a penalty if you're disarming law enforcement?

          •  I'm not going to indulge in your fantasy (4+ / 0-)

            If you want to believe there will be some "cottage industry" making illegal firearms by the millions for Adam Lanza's mother, so be it.

            We were not ahead of our time, we led the way to our time.

            by i understand on Thu Jan 31, 2013 at 06:56:14 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  You have to realize some are so devoted to their (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            124NewYork, KenBee

            beliefs they won't hear you.

            ID them and let 'em go.

            This is just like marijuana relegalization. Some will support, some will not, we win on election day when we have the best-written law.

            We don't need unanimity on the issue to make effective progress..

            The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men.

            by xxdr zombiexx on Thu Jan 31, 2013 at 08:08:18 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Good advice. Thank you. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              xxdr zombiexx
            •  This is very good advice (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Sharon Wraight

              I agree that some people, like you, are so wedded to their faith based beliefs that they'll ignore the truth and just end up throwing insults (as you did) at anyone who dares to challenge those beliefs.

              And just as we've made rapid progress in marriage equality, I hope and expect we will make rapid progress in gun safety as people realize the fringe does not hold the sway they project and find most people agree with sensible gun control steps (such as the steps I've outlined).

              We were not ahead of our time, we led the way to our time.

              by i understand on Thu Jan 31, 2013 at 09:19:27 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  O Erroneous One. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                KenBee

                I agree that some people, like you, are so wedded to their faith based beliefs that they'll ignore the truth  whine and howl and cry that your ideas aren't being greeted by trumpets and children with baskets of rose petals.

                And just as we've made rapid progress in marriage equality and marijuana reform, against all manner of entrenched stupidity, I hope and expect we will make rapid progress in gun safety as people realize the fringe does not hold the sway they project and find most people agree with sensible gun control steps that I believe will work.

                See you in the middle ground of reality-based discourse.

                The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men.

                by xxdr zombiexx on Thu Jan 31, 2013 at 09:26:55 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

    •  Have you ever heard of a 3D printer? (0+ / 0-)
      You can't grow guns, shut down production and their will be millions fewer weapons on our streets just over the next year then if we don't.
      Guns are not mechanically or technically complicated.  The parts are not hard to make, and modern manufacturing equipment like automated 3 axis milling machines and 3D printers can turn out all the parts on a very small scale.  Hell, I know people making guns and ammo at home with very basic equipment.

      Look at the war on drugs, and the impossibility of shutting down all the suburban grow houses, and the massive amount of drugs available despite the drug bans.  If we went the route you propose, full repeal of the 2nd and the shutdown of all legal gun trade, and it goes full underground to the black market.

      Imagine suburban basement workshops turning out fully automatic weapons for gangs and criminals.  Why full auto?  Why not?  The guns are already illegal.
      Gang members won't even have to drive to a gun shop and deal with background checks.  There will be no controls of any kind, and the gangs will have a massive cash inflow to fuel expansion and turf wars.

      I am sorry, but I will never accept the creation of another massive black market.  Your war on guns will be just as massive a failure as the war on drugs.

      •  You do realize that even regular printers all have (0+ / 0-)

        hidden codes placed on everything they print so that law enforcement can identify the exact printer used to create a document, right?  That was in the news a few years back, and there's no reason to believe that capability has been removed.

        3D printers capable of creating weapons would certainly have such codes as well, and people caught creating guns that way would probably draw heavy jail time.

        •  That is so technically false (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Jon Says, KenBee

          First, anything can be hacked.  Second, there is a massive technical difference between printing a micro-code on paper and etching a micro-code into hard steel.  That takes a different tool, tools that are changed out by hand.  It would be extremely trivial to prevent a 3D printer from including a hidden code.  The finished part could also be given a hand grinding surface treatment to erase any evidence.

          Third, a 3D printer simply makes the process faster and easier.  Guns were being made 300 years ago by illiterate blacksmiths.  Regular machine tools are good enough.

          Fourth, those who produce and traffic illegal drugs already face heavy jail time, and that hasn't made the War on Drugs a sucess.  The potential profit is simply far too large, and there are a lot of desperate poor people out there.

          The point is, I don't want to give the gangs another high profit product to sell.  And neither should you, because then the gun trade will be fully out of control.

          •  I have no problem with the guns being made (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            blueness, KenBee

            300 years ago. You want to sit in your basement making that shit, go right ahead.

            You build a factory sophisticated enough to produce AR15s on a mass scale without the notice of the government? Good luck.

            I grew up in Humboldt County, California. I know what a grow house looks like. They are crude, messy affairs and do not require the technical skill involved in mass producing powerful, modern weapons.

            Guns and drugs are radically different objects. False analogy.

            •  And those houses were spawned and nurtured (0+ / 0-)

              by law enforcement's jihad against the plant they grew illegally.

              Now when we legalize it, the illegal shit will wane.

              When we illegalize it, the illegal shit increases.

              Rather predictably.

              The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men.

              by xxdr zombiexx on Thu Jan 31, 2013 at 08:15:54 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  The AR-15 is about 5% of homicides (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Jon Says, KenBee

              A gun like the AR-15 is not radically more lethal than a handgun, and an AR-15 is not easily concealed.  It won't be sophisticated and overly complicated combat weapons that are produced underground.  It will be very simple handguns and ammo.  And no, it doesn't take a massive factory to keep a gang armed.

              Plus, we have not been able to dent the drug shipments from overseas.  The weapons will just come in the same way.

              More money, more gangs, more crime, more illegal guns.  That's the path prohibition sends us down.

              •  Your conclusion does not follow your premise (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Sharon Wraight

                We have all the problems you outline. Stopping the influx of millions or more guns per year does not lead to "More money, more gangs, more crime, more illegal guns". It leads  to the opposite.

                We were not ahead of our time, we led the way to our time.

                by i understand on Thu Jan 31, 2013 at 10:31:58 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

            •  ww2 british Sten guns were stamped products (0+ / 0-)
              The Sten used simple stamped metal components and minor welding, which required a minimum of machining and manufacturing. Much of the production could be performed by small workshops, with the firearms assembled at the Enfield site. Over the period of manufacture the Sten design was further simplified: the most basic model, the Mark III, could be produced from five man-hours work. Some of the cheapest versions were made from only 47 different parts.
              from the wiki...that's a fully automatic weapon.

              Cranked out, 4 million, during wartime under attack.

              There are villages in Italy that specialize in the parts to accordians, a very complicated instrument, moreso than a Sten gun. You can go to Pakistan and watch a gun being made in a roadside stall.
                  Not quite mass production, but none the less lethal.

              And you are right about grow houses, I am living in one, Humco former grow house and still finding 'product'. And wiring, and whatever it iskinda stuff.

              This machine kills Fascists.

              by KenBee on Fri Feb 01, 2013 at 01:31:42 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  I wasn't talking 'etching a microcode' (0+ / 0-)

            And I'm guessing that most of your wannabe gun makers are technically ignorant, not hackers.

            The vast majority of Americans are barely able to operate their computers, much less 'hack' things.

          •  wasn't basically everyone illiterate 300 yrs ago? (0+ / 0-)

            didn't make them stupid, untrained nor untalented.

            It seems curiosity has killed the cat that had my tongue.

            by Murphoney on Thu Jan 31, 2013 at 08:03:44 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  And the threat of jail time (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          KenBee

          prevents virtually all criminal activity.

          The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men.

          by xxdr zombiexx on Thu Jan 31, 2013 at 07:45:40 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Threat? I'm not talking 'threat' (0+ / 0-)

            Or 'deterrent'.  I'm talking a) tracking down the makers after a crime is committed, and b) keeping them out of society longer.

            But whatever.  this will be my last comment in the diary, I simply don't agree with your beliefs in this case, nor in any chance that either of us will 'convert' the other.

            •  No we are not going to agree (0+ / 0-)

              but......it would be nice if we could shut the barn door BEFORE the horse escape though... wouldn't it?

              I'm talking a) tracking down the makers after a crime is committed, and b) keeping them out of society longer.

              The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men.

              by xxdr zombiexx on Thu Jan 31, 2013 at 11:33:20 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  dude, they are letting violent felons out early! (0+ / 0-)

              cause of, you know, no money....really fucking crazy ones with tattoos all over their heads and faces, no sense of decency, and it is not long before they start the same old shit.

              People beliefs in the Magic Justice System™ sounds like a late night commercial with a fast talking British pitchman.

              The system has been fucked, purposefully I think, so we can all run around in circles while they steal even more pension plans and prevent any real climate crisis changes for one.

              This machine kills Fascists.

              by KenBee on Fri Feb 01, 2013 at 01:36:59 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

      •  LOL (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        peterfallow, blueness

        the fantasy crowd here is hilarious.

        If this is in fact true, why isn't it happening in all the strict gun control countries already? Hmmmmm?

    •  iu - good luck (0+ / 0-)

      At the moment a new AWB can't even pass the Senate.

      "let's talk about that"

      by VClib on Thu Jan 31, 2013 at 08:38:27 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Seriously, now, what you propose (0+ / 0-)

      is not going to happen and you know it.

      Repeal the 2nd.  Please.  Seriously.  Please.  That would require the approval of 3/4 of the states and that isn't going to happen.

      Ban the sale of guns and accessories.   Well, you would need to repeal the 2nd first.  Then you would also need to get each state that has an equivalent statement in their respective constitutions to do the same.  Then lets assume you implement a ban.  Guess what, you will STILL have manufacturing and sale of guns because people will be making them in private shops.

      Eliminate carry permits.  Carry permits are a state issue.  You would need to go state by state and get all states to agree.  Some states have declared constitutional carry.  What about those.  In fact, I used to be a supporter of national carry.  Seeing how gun grabbers like you talk and apparently think, I have changed my mind and now join the Conservatives on this issue that it needs to remain a state issue.

      So after all of the above, you will still have people carrying and using guns illegally.  Some would still do so illegally for their own protection claiming that it's better to be tried by twelve than carried by six.  The others, will be criminals who will now be more empowered than ever because their job descriptions just got a lot easier.

      •  "gun grabbers" (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Sharon Wraight

        Nice NRA talking point, your republican colleagues would be proud.

        Exactly what did I say that consituted "gun grabbing"? My answer would be nothing.

        It's odd that you take the position that it's a state issue, but the fact is the only way to make it a State issue is to repeal the 2nd amendment. That was just demonstrated in DC, and Illinois who have been prevented from implementing their own sensible gun control laws. So I guess you're really on board with repealing the 2nd. That's great.

        We were not ahead of our time, we led the way to our time.

        by i understand on Thu Jan 31, 2013 at 07:27:19 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Which one of the proposed laws (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kharma, blueness

    would you describe as

    feel-good laws not connected to reality

    Maya Angelou: "Without courage, we cannot practice any other virtue with consistency. We can't be kind, true, merciful, generous, or honest."

    by JoanMar on Thu Jan 31, 2013 at 06:23:15 AM PST

    •  Blanket gun ban, for starters. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      124NewYork, Norm in Chicago

      That should have been crystal clear from the post, if you read it and didn't just skim it to find things to be offended by.

      I am limiting my interactions to discussions of what I feel are realistic nuts and bolts actions.

      I can't - and won't -  participate in discussions that I feel are not rooted in a real connection with the world around me.

      The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men.

      by xxdr zombiexx on Thu Jan 31, 2013 at 06:26:36 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  AWB and magazine limits (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      kharma

      Also the call for a universal background checks,, but that's actually something I think--if done right--would make gun owners feel really good.

      •  AWB and magazine limits (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        bear83, gramofsam1

        are not universal bans, and would not in any way prevent US citizens from using their 2nd amendment rights.

        •  I don't disagree. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Cedwyn

          The AWB would be trivial to circumvent, and the risk of not complying with a magazine ban is extremely low for anyone whose not a joker prowling the streets at night with an AR-15 trying to make a point.

          However, the question was what laws were simply feel good measures not connected with reality.  AWB and magazine limits will accomplish nothing in the effort to stamp out gun violence.  They'll inconvenience a great number of people for a time, they'll breed more contempt for the law, but they won't accomplish much of anything.  Universal background checks won't make much of a dent in the illegal aftermarket, but I support it because a properly designed system could see some unintended benefits (protection from civil and criminal liability for people who follow the law, easier prosecutions for genuine violators).

          •  I will certainly agree they won't do much, (0+ / 0-)

            but why bother to fight them, if they do even anything?

            And even if they do nothing but add extra jail time to people who have gone out and killed people, what's wrong with that?

            Fight laws that actively hurt regular people, not laws you feel don't do anything.

            •  I won't fight universal background checks. (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Cedwyn, KenBee

              I'll ask for and get some modifications to head off the compilation of a national registry, but a system for validating both parties to a transfer is extremely useful for everyone involved (regardless of its impact on gun violence).

              I'm not concerned with the murderer who gets an extra charge slapped on his case.  I'm concerned with the rare bird at risk of a felony case because she defended her home from an intruder but didn't comply with the magazine limit.

              These proposals actually hurt people without doing anything they were supposedly designed to do.

              •  I don't see how (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                KenBee

                a magazine limit would necessarily make criminals of people whose weapons never leave home. I mean, there are oodles and scads of 15-30 round magazines out there already in the hands of people who have guns - legally. I remember back when I owned an M1 carbine we could buy 30-round magazines for about two bucks apiece at the Army-Navy Surplus down the street.

                Those with CC permits or who openly carry in public would have to stick with the 10-round magazines their handguns came with when they were purchased, or replace larger ones with 10-rounders. I expect all or the vast majority to obey the limits of the law because getting caught in public with a gun using an illegal magazine would lose them their gun, their license, and probably quite a bit of money in fines.

                What I do not expect is for home defense weapons with higher round magazines to be rendered automatically felonious. I neither expect the government to go door-to-door searching out high capacity magazines, nor homeowners going to prison because the gun they used to protect their family had a 15-rounder plugged into it.

            •  OK. Lets make useless laws. (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              noway2, KenBee

              Sounds like a fine idea.

              The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men.

              by xxdr zombiexx on Thu Jan 31, 2013 at 08:18:27 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

        •  I'm just having a dandy time with posting today. (0+ / 0-)
  •  If 'feel good laws' don't actually do anything (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bear83, decembersue, FutureNow, gramofsam1

    then why should anyone bother to fight against them?

    But the takeaway here is that individual cities can't protect themselves from other cities because they don't have border guards.  That's why you need federal laws, so that every LEO can confiscate such weapons and arrest offenders anywhere, and so people who want to get those illegal weapons actually have to travel hundreds of miles and cross borders to do so, not just drive 'a few miles' and then bring back those weapons.

    •  Not fighting "against' anything (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Cedwyn

      other than ineffective laws. ie: laws that are expected to do 'something' but don't or create an even worse situation as with drug laws.

      What good is a law that does no good?

      Why bother with them?

      Why do anything other then what is actually going to work?

      The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men.

      by xxdr zombiexx on Thu Jan 31, 2013 at 06:38:02 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  We've got plenty of feel good laws (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Smoh, gramofsam1

        And plenty of useful laws that aren't ever enforced.  They don't hurt anyone, so why waste time and money fighting them?  If they do nothing, why should we care whether they exist at all?  And, btw, once you actually try them, you might actually collect data that shows they weren't just 'feel good', but actually did produce results.  Something you can't know until you try them.

        •  You are right. If we're allowed to collect data. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          annetteboardman, gramofsam1

          Research is a key here.  Everyone blithely spouting their opinions proves nothing.

          Cats are better than therapy, and I'm a therapist.

          by Smoh on Thu Jan 31, 2013 at 07:00:03 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  We should be collecting stats. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            KenBee

            Again, marijuana and guns...and republicans.

            Ronald Reagan forbade any research on marijuana that might show how good it is for us.

            Republicans also shut down any stat-collecting on gun crimes.

            This is evil and wrong.

            Typically republican.

            Info good.

            The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men.

            by xxdr zombiexx on Thu Jan 31, 2013 at 07:48:18 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  people fight against them (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          gramofsam1

          because they actually would do some good, and they know it.

          Banning a category of guns, for example, will inevitably choke off supply. Yes, some would still get through, but it makes it more difficult; fewer guns will be sold, because the primary way that guns enter the illegal market for the first time is through legitimate buyers.

          My preferred initial step is very strict background checks, to act as another drag on the flow of weapons.

          Slow them down. choke off supply. Change the culture. a three pronged-approach.

          •  Background checks on all sales (0+ / 0-)

            Also stating the type and number of weapons in the transaction.

            The data is stored, and would flag up people who are buying excessive quantities of guns.

            In the case of a person buying and selling over a prescribed number of weapons in a given year, say 12 / year, they will be classified as de facto firearms dealers and be subject to FFL regulations and income taxes.

            In the case of a person buying, but apparently not selling, they would be subject to a control by the ATF, and if they cannot produce the weapons will be deemed de facto gun runners.

    •  Exactly - we don't have border guards (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      peterfallow, Jon Says

      for going state-to-state or to enter cities, making local gun laws ineffective.

      This needs to be done from a national level in order to be effective.

      Filibuster reform now. No more Gentleman's agreements.

      by bear83 on Thu Jan 31, 2013 at 06:57:22 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  You don't need to "ban" guns; a ban would not.... (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bear83, Smoh, CatM, annetteboardman

    be legal in the U.S. anyway without revoking the 2nd Amendment.

    Those critics who argue from the "ban" perspective are either deliberately engaging in a straw man argument or do not fully understand the issue under discussion.

    The issue is control and regulation.  

    Are all firearms required to have a trigger lock?
    Are all firearms required to be stored in a locked and inaccessible way?
    Are 100% of all sales and exchanges of firearms tracked by the ATF?
    Are gun dealers policed and is there oversight on what they are selling and to whom?
    Is there a Universal Background check on ALL prospective gun owners?
    Are there catagories of firearms with higher levels of training, education and more stringent requirements for military style or automatic weapons?
    Is there any legislation that permits the arrest, trial, fine or conviction of persons found breaking gun safety regulations or for misusing firearms?

    There are dozens of controls, regulations and prohibitions that can make gun ownership safe and greatly reduce the risk to the general public.  More importantly, these regulations can keep guns from ending up in the hands of people who should not have them.

    If just these regulations had been in place and followed, Sandy Hook would not have happened.

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

    by LiberalCanuck on Thu Jan 31, 2013 at 06:35:15 AM PST

    •  Didn't Canada register guns? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Norm in Chicago

      Are all firearms required to have a trigger lock?

      Sure. But people unlock them to use them.

      Are all firearms required to be stored in a locked and inaccessible way?

      Great Idea. But people will unlock them to use them

      Are 100% of all sales and exchanges of firearms tracked by the ATF?

      Nope. Go for it

      Are gun dealers policed and is there oversight on what they are selling and to whom?
      Nope. Cops too busy chasing marijuana to be worried about firearms dealers, even though I highlighted one of the problems in the article.  Chucks Guns is known to be a huge offender, but still open. Shut em down.

      Is there a Universal Background check on ALL prospective gun owners?

      I don't know about "universal" but it should be. That's reasonable

      Most of the stuff in your post is reasonable.

      However, registrations lead to confiscations and that will be contentious. Most everything else should have been done ages ago.

      This is the sound of a reasonable discourse.

      The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men.

      by xxdr zombiexx on Thu Jan 31, 2013 at 06:45:49 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  No matter how many 'buts' you throw in (5+ / 0-)

        they still have a lot fewer acts of gun violence per capita.

        No laws, no bans, no actions we can ever take will ever stop all instances, but that's a poor argument for not trying to minimize such.

        •  Go all out on your gun ban idea. (0+ / 0-)

          Please do not let me interfere with that.

          Please......go for it.

          Loudly, since you believe you're correct.

          The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men.

          by xxdr zombiexx on Thu Jan 31, 2013 at 07:49:38 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  This is just paranoia (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Smoh
        However, registrations lead to confiscations and that will be contentious.
        that gets in the way of honest discussion of reasonable controls that would work. How many sheriffs or police chiefs are going to go along with 'confiscations'? It's just simply not going to happen.

        Filibuster reform now. No more Gentleman's agreements.

        by bear83 on Thu Jan 31, 2013 at 07:01:32 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Plase share your link to research (0+ / 0-)

          showing registration doesn't lead to confiscation.

          thanks so much.

          The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men.

          by xxdr zombiexx on Thu Jan 31, 2013 at 08:10:58 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Did you (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            gramofsam1, blueness, bear83

            seriously ask someone to prove a negative regarding a claim that you made?

            Wow, talk about shifting the burden.

            •  Bear made an assertion. (0+ / 0-)

              I asked for a link.

              This is standard procedure here: Make a claim? supply a link.

              Claims require evidence; extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

              A baseline expectation at this here site.

              A simple question leads to such intense emotion.... Why dat is?

              The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men.

              by xxdr zombiexx on Thu Jan 31, 2013 at 08:53:44 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Find a sheriff or police chief anywhere in the USA (0+ / 0-)

                who says they would be willing to go into people's homes to confiscate guns. Find just 1.

                You can't - nobody is advocating that. No one.

                Filibuster reform, 2013 - woulda, coulda, shoulda.

                by bear83 on Thu Jan 31, 2013 at 12:03:59 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  LOTS of people here are dreaming pastel (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  KenBee

                  warm and fuzzy wonderful dreams about just that very thing.

                  Do not kid yourself.

                  The Holy Motherfucking Grail

                  Probably half of those who deny it are lying. If not to you, to themselves.

                  Before 12/14 I'd mention that people want a ban and I'd get chided: now it's 'the only thing that will work' according to 'some'.

                  Plenty of them.

                  The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men.

                  by xxdr zombiexx on Thu Jan 31, 2013 at 12:20:33 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

      •  Yes, Canada still registers guns. To reply: (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        annetteboardman

        Q: Are all firearms required to have a trigger lock?

        A: Sure. But people unlock them to use them.

        Reply: Are all firearms in the U.S. required to have trigger locks?  I don’t think they do.

        Q: Are all firearms required to be stored in a locked and inaccessible way?

        A: Great Idea. But people will unlock them to use them

        Reply: Yes, and when they are finished, they would need to relock them again.

        Q: Are 100% of all sales and exchanges of firearms tracked by the ATF?

        A: Nope. Go for it

        Reply: Well, there’s your problem right there. Do you support 100% of all sales and exchanges being tracked by the ATF?  Is that a reasonable expectation of gun ownership in America?

        Q: Are gun dealers policed and is there oversight on what they are selling and to whom?

        A: Nope. Cops too busy chasing marijuana to be worried about firearms dealers, even though I highlighted one of the problems in the article.  Chucks Guns is known to be a huge offender, but still open. Shut em down.

        Reply: So second level problem now identified.  From your tone, you support the policing of all gun dealers and their prosecution if they violate the regulations.  Make your voice heard from a pro-2nd amendment position to counter the NRA.

        Q: Is there a Universal Background check on ALL prospective gun owners?

        A: I don't know about "universal" but it should be. That's reasonable

        Reply: Another position of agreement.  Effective control is close.

        Pushback:  "Registrations lead to confiscations and that will be contentious."

        Reply: Registration does not lead to confiscation.

        Canada is a case in point.  Until recently all long guns had to be registered.  None were confiscated.  Even today, all handguns and restricted weapons (automatic & military-style) have to be registered.  No confiscations.

        Again, the 2nd Amendment protects gun rights in the U.S.  To confiscate guns, that amendment would have to be revoked.  If confiscation can not occur in Canada, it definitely cannot occur in the U.S.

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

        by LiberalCanuck on Thu Jan 31, 2013 at 07:05:58 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  The 2nd amendment does not (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          FutureNow, blueness

          protect the right of an individual to own a gun. Read it more carefully.

          this interpretation is actually very recent, and is only occurring due to a stacking of the courts with hard-right judges. As demographic shifts make it unlikely another right-wing judge will be appointed to the supreme court within the next couple of decades, that interpretation will likely shift back (especially as more Sandy Hooks inevitably occur). American culture is moving against gun fetishism, quickly. The lack of control and regulation has allowed a free-for-all that is roughly equivalent to handing out hand granades in a mental asylum. Absolutely any troubled individual who wants to hoard guns and wreak havoc can do so with little intervention. The majority of Americans do not own guns, and are getting mighty sick of indulging those who do.

          In any case, I favor choking off supply in the short term until the courts shift back; background checks are part of that, but there are many places were we can slow down purchasing by the "legit" buyers who introduce guns into the wider, illegitimate marketplace.

        •  Your post highlights why I don't have real guns. (0+ / 0-)

          You can't use them.

          You can buy them and the ammo.

          Then you keep it all locked up all the time.

          WTF good is that?

          I have to drive someplace, pay fees, buy expensive ammo, put up with other people just to have a little fun shooting paper or cans.

          I have zero use for that.

          To me, guns are already quite well-regulated - we can tighten it up more, but they are nigh-on useless to me.

          I have guns I can actually shoot when I want to.

          Not nearly as manly, but who cares?

          I can shoot whenever I want.

          The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men.

          by xxdr zombiexx on Thu Jan 31, 2013 at 07:59:24 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  There is no requirement (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            xxdr zombiexx

            in my state/locality to have a trigger lock or gun safe, and I don't have either one. I keep the shotgun on a high shelf in my bedroom, unloaded, with ammo on the shelf behind the front door so they're handy if I need them. #1 use over the years for this weapon has been rabid animals and livestock/pet protection from coyotes and wild dogs.

            The weapons that we need to secure when the younger grandkids (etc.) are around are #1 grandson's sword/knife/sai collection and pistol action crossbow. Have long and compound bows and arrows so the youngsters can take target practice up against the mountainside under supervision, an ample supply of wooden swords sheathed in foam and duct tape for mock battles.

            We don't keep any of our axes, mauls, machetes, hoes, shovels or other instruments of pit viper [double duty!] destruction secured, because when we need one quickly it needs to be where one of us can quickly get to it. Some at the garden gate, some under the boxwood between garden and shed, some just inside the shed door. Pit vipers tend to disappear if you take your eyes off them, so it's a 'rule' that the spotter stays on the snake while somebody else runs for the nearest beheading device.

            Oh, and by the way, a gun of any variety is about the WORST weapon you could choose for dealing with copperheads or timber rattlers. Just so you know... §;o)

            •  Taurus Judge with .410 pdx? (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Joieau

              Actually, I have a very nice SpecPlus 8 machetethat would do a sweet number on any snake.

              I am an outdoors dude and have been uncomfortably close to poisonous snakes once or twice.

              The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men.

              by xxdr zombiexx on Thu Jan 31, 2013 at 03:58:03 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Timber rattlers maybe with the .410 (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                KenBee

                but why bother? Don't usually carry it with, and it's not usually loaded. Timber's are actually quite smart, as well as big enough to eat rabbits and young groundhogs. That means they stay near the warrens in the high field or bottomland, we've seen exactly one in the kept yard/garden (outside the forest) in 20 years. It had about half swallowed a squirrel. Have forest grown medicinals I manage, but leave the forest-dwellers alone. Always walk with a staff, if there's a defensive viper on the trail just flip it off on the down-side of the mountain. If you make some noise (or bring the dogs) they disappear into the underbrush before you'll ever see 'em.

                Copperheads, on the other hand, believe they own the place. They prefer the kept yard, as close to the house and/or outbuildings as possible - even inside if you happen to leave a door open. They're aggressively territorial too, will actually come after pets and humans, fangs bared. We average two or three a year, could easily find more if we really wanted to.

                One of my grandsons and one of my nephews have been copper-bit while here during summers when younger, grandson spent his 13th birthday in the hospital with a morphine drip. You can preach and bitch all day and night to the city kids to watch out for snakes - give 'em the whole seminar on what to look out for and how to deal with any they come across - but they just aren't accustomed to any countryside that isn't a nice city park. Other grandson we've raised here since he was two has never even come close to being bitten. More like my brother (R.I.P.), who could stare down a snake and grab it behind the head mid-strike. He usually then milked it on a stick and tossed it off the trail. Only so much venom in a viper lifetime, bites from youngsters are the worst (older vipers know they aren't going to eat you, won't waste their stash).

                The favored beheading device is machete, followed closely by an ancient, heavy and thoroughly bad-looking bank scythe. That I'm sure Diane Feinstein would make illegal if she ever saw it... §;o)

  •  This is the wrong question (4+ / 0-)

    The real question ought to be: what number of fatalities would we be having in Chicago if we didn't have the laws in place?

    No single regulation is going to completely solve our problem. The approach we should be doing is to try a number of different regulations, study them carefully to see which ones best achieve the goal of reducing gun violence, and use those studies to figure out what approaches to do more of.

    Consider drunk driving: we have stiffened penalties, increased enforcement, run public awareness campaigns, added penalties for bars that enable drunk driving... there's still too many people who drink and drive, yet the efforts to reduce it have dropped the number of drunk driving incidents by two thirds.

    If we observed the NRA eagerly funding studies of gun-violence research, wouldn't we take that as evidence that more guns probably results in less violence?  

    So since our actual evidence is that the NRA has lobbied to block studies of gun-violence research, shouldn't we consider that evidence that more guns probably means more violence?

    •  exactly (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      gramofsam1, blueness

      and on your last point, it's amazing how strongly the NRA believes that these studies would harm their cause, isn't it.

    •  We should have a blanket ban on alcohol. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Jon Says

      The rights of the many to consume alcohol responsibly are totally trumped by the people who are killed by drunk drivers.

      Sure, we banned alcohol once and it was a total disaster.

      America has learned from it's long war on drugs how to tolerate the vast amount of violence that drug prohibition creates, Americans have been conditioned to accept the deaths as necessary and law enforcement has done awesome work using drug war propaganda to bolster budgets, water-down annoying aspects of the constitution, and deprive people of rights that just get in the way of ideological enforcement.

      Americans are ready for an increase in violence as we ban alcohol and support an expanded black market in our quest to save lives.

      A blanket ban NOW!!

      The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men.

      by xxdr zombiexx on Thu Jan 31, 2013 at 08:03:01 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  My rights as a drinker are not unlimited (0+ / 0-)

        Going from "reasonable restrictions that reduce drunk driving" to "blanket ban on alcohol" is a complete strawman argument, and only serves to shut down reasonable discussion. It is right out of the NRA playbook.

        But even if we take your position at face value, you are correct.  The rights of the many to consume alcohol responsibly without any legal restrictions whatsoever ARE trumped by the rights of people not to be killed by drunk drivers.  

        My right to buy alcohol before I turned 21? Trumped.

        My right to have an open container of alcohol in my car? Trumped.

        My right to have the bartender pour me another round even though I am clearly inebriated? Trumped.

        My right to get in my car while intoxicated? Trumped.

        Now are all of these methods effective in accomplishing their goal?  Debatable.  I personally believe the European style of normalization of alcohol consumption, starting with kids having wine with meals at home with their parents, is more effective at teaching people how to drink responsibly, than having this forbidden fruit that you magically get to have all at once when you hit a certain date.

        Your rights to buy any weapon you want, to buy it from whoever you want, to buy it without any background check or registration, to load it with whatever large-capacity clip of hollow-point ammunition you want, and to carry it wherever you want, are ALL trumped by the fact that such guns enable mass killings.

        •  I didnt say they were 'unlimited'. (0+ / 0-)

          I said they are protected. There's a difference.

          Of course there are laws to try and minimize the damage but we still have tens of thousands of deaths from drunk drivers.

          Those laws don't do enough, do they?

          Why haven't we re-banned alcohol to save lives?

          many here want to ban guns to save lives. If there were no guns we'd all be happy and safe. Why doesn't that apply to alcohol?

          And if you truly want to look knowledgeable, stop thinking I am an NRA supporter.

          You are egregiously wrong.

          And I know you want to be correct.

          And not look ......wrong.

          The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men.

          by xxdr zombiexx on Thu Jan 31, 2013 at 09:21:35 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  And again (0+ / 0-)
            And if you truly want to look knowledgeable, stop thinking I am an NRA supporter.

            You are egregiously wrong.

            And I know you want to be correct.

            I didn't say you were a NRA supporter, I said you were using the same argument the NRA uses, for the same purpose the NRA deploys it.

            And again you reiterate your strawman without addressing my point, so the NRA's tactic that you are using is again demonstrated to be effective at quashing debate.

  •  Let's get rid of stop signs (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    HamdenRice, blueness

    People just run them anyway. You basically are offering the same crazy rationale LaPierre gave for doung nothing but in a more roundabout fashion and putting a spun on it that you hope will appeal to progressive: "Not passing any gun laws is about preventing violence." this and several other recent diaries on this issue keep trying that same approach, avoiding any mention of it being a second amendment issue because that just wasn't working with progressives.

    So y'all are taking a different tack, trying to fabricate a silver progressive lining out of doing nothing except what the NRA wants. One argument yesterday tried to say it just wasn't good politically for progressives to do anything about gun laws. Another argued we should trust people, like we do about reproductive choices and shouldn't do anything. Now you say gun laws create more gun violence (a rather cockamamie theory), so we shouldn't do anything.

     Look, everyone knows that the problem is multifactorial. Changing gun laws and doing nothing else will not fix the problem. But focusing on mental health or gangs and not changing gun laws also won't fix the problem. We all know that no matter what we do, people will still be shot and we will still have crazed gunman. The point of banning assault rifles and high capacity clips is to make the cost of a crazed gunman be much less, and I am all for that. Doing nothing beyond enforcing the laws we have is not a good option for progressives or anyone.

    We Won't Let Republicans Replace Medicare with GOP Vouchercare!

    by CatM on Thu Jan 31, 2013 at 07:19:56 AM PST

    •  Apologies for typos. Stupid iPhone.*nt* (0+ / 0-)

      We Won't Let Republicans Replace Medicare with GOP Vouchercare!

      by CatM on Thu Jan 31, 2013 at 07:22:32 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I am happy you read my psot in great detail (0+ / 0-)

      Saying things like I am regurgitating NRA talking points tells me how closely you read.

      thanks

      The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men.

      by xxdr zombiexx on Thu Jan 31, 2013 at 08:14:01 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Actually I didn't say you were regurgitating (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        blueness

        You are not repeating LaPierre word for word.  That would be too obvious. But you are spinning the NRA claim that more gun laws just mean more bad guys have guns and that doing nothing is better than really doing something because doing something won't work. I did read your post, all of it. It seemed rude to come out and say I found your argument silly, absurd, and fearmongering.

        We Won't Let Republicans Replace Medicare with GOP Vouchercare!

        by CatM on Thu Jan 31, 2013 at 08:21:23 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  heh. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          KenBee

          Facts are not owned by the NRA, you or me.

          Facts is facts.

          I am right.

          I don't support the NRA, I just like being correct.

          Love your post:

          You are not repeating LaPierre word for word.  That would be too obvious. But you are spinning the NRA claim that more gun laws just mean more bad guys have guns and that doing nothing is better than really doing something because doing something won't work.
          I am still accused of helping theNRA because I stick to a fact that all th whinery in the world can't unfactualize.

          Fuck Wayne. I don't give a shit about him. He takes this fact and blows it into the be all and end all rationalization for whatever and that isn't what I am doing.

          Facts is facts and they often interfere with a good ideology.

          The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men.

          by xxdr zombiexx on Thu Jan 31, 2013 at 08:51:14 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  Just because there is a corrupt law (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    annetteboardman

    ...enforcement system in Chicago and Illinois does not invalidate the usefulness of national legislation that would apply to all jurisdictions.

    And "can't stem all fatal shots" is not the same as "can't steam a signficant number of fatal shots".

    And your assertion that we can't do what Australia did doesn't come close to examining why that might be.  We certainly do have some significant cultural issues in this country that affect the propensity to gun violence.

    But the idenfication of one readily available legal source of weapons used in crimes says that something is amiss that could be easily solved.  If you required universal background checks and that store still stuck out like a sore thumb, one of two things were possible.  The purchaser was had a clean background and was doing private sales or the store was failing to check backgrounds and deny those with sketchy backgrounds.  The second one of those is enforceable with fines or pulling a license.

    But if you are going to be contrarian about laws, there is a big issue you are missing.  The coming 3-D printing revolution will alllow folks to print and  assemble guns at home without going to a store.  Fireable and not detectable with metal detectors.

    Mutually assured destruction is not a deterrent.  The US has tested that for the past 30 years.

    So instead of saying what doesn't work, how about some creating non-cant thinking about how to actually deal with the issue.  Or maybe the controversy is just for the lulz anyway?

    50 states, 210 media market, 435 Congressional Districts, 3080 counties, 192,480 precincts

    by TarheelDem on Thu Jan 31, 2013 at 07:26:28 AM PST

  •  Over the past 20 years there has been a big (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    blueness

    Drop in violent crimes and that has happened in the largest metro areas which tend to have strict gun laws.  DOJ has the stats.  Gun control works.  The issue in Chicago is that it seems that it is too easy to get guns just across city limits.  It would appear that the state as a whole needs to toughen its gun laws.  The other challenge for Chicago is that it is pretty close to Indiana and Wisconsin, 2 big gun owning states where it will be difficult to get tough restrictions to mirror Chicago.  In contrast, NY's neighbors all tend to have stricter gun laws than Illinois.  CA has very strict gun laws and LA is too far away from its gunny neighbors for gun imports to come through easily.

    Alternative rock with something to say: http://www.myspace.com/globalshakedown

    by khyber900 on Thu Jan 31, 2013 at 07:48:00 AM PST

  •  This entry from the diary (0+ / 0-)

    (snipped for brevity)

    a quarter of the firearms seized were bought just outside city limits.  Others came from stores around Illinois and from other states, like Indiana, less than an hour’s drive away.
    Would seem to invalidate the notion that their problem is caused by lax regulations in the rest of the nation.  At worst, IN could be considered a contributor, but only if it were where almost all of the guns were coming from and I highly doubt that it is.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site