low cost for a 20% reduction in gun crimes.

I'm a gun owner and can find no reason registration would in any way limit my right to own a handgun, as I could legally do so.

Handguns are easy to hide. I fear someone with a handgun that should not have one more than mass shootings, they are really not all that common. On the other hand being stuck up on the street IS very common.

Registration will not stop all criminals, but will make it harder and more dangerous for convicted criminals to own or carry one.

Also it would give us a better handle on where the handguns are and make easier to trace and return stolen and illegal transfers.

It would in no way hinder my owning my 22 pistol that I use for target shooting and hunting small game.

For your response!

I know it's hard to say you're ok with 80% of the total gun violence remaining - and that's not snark! -but I appreciate you saying it and being honest!

I've had no many people say that the only real answer is ZERO, and because ZERO is impossible there's no point in having a discussion about our goals as a society, which I think is wrongheaded.

So thanks

... since 1911. It doesn't seem to have had much of an effect on gun crime stats, which have swung back and forth from truly dire to relatively benign in response to various other stimuli.


It doesn't seem to have posed much of an obstacle to criminals in New York. It is certainly not a deterrent, and doesn't even have much impact after the fact, since the gun charges are often plea-bargained away.


Again, this doesn't seem to be the case in New York, where the police aren't particularly motivated to restore stolen guns to their original owners or aggressively pursue the chain of ownership in cases of illegal possession. "Getting the gun off the street" seems to be sufficient for them.

a ban on all handguns might be the only way.

to meaningly reduce gun violence, yes... and that's a large part of why the left needs to set goals... at this point politicians just say, "try to reduce violence" which could mean absolutely anything... how many lives do Hillary proposals potentially save? Someone needs to ask her specifically.. and all politicians... because some people seem to be supporting proposals that will do almost nothing, while at the same time acting like they're legitimately doing something... It's just grandstanding and it's pretty offensive...

Calling for a complete ban on handguns would be political suicide for the Democratic Party. Surely you must realize that political expediency requires an incremental approach. That is why I have to laugh every time I hear a politician or propagandist call for "reasonable" gun control measures and deny the existence of the slippery slope. It's one of the most transparent lies in contemporary politics.

If a ban could be achieved politically, there would still be a huge logistical problem, and the concomitant massive police action would make Prohibition, the War on Drugs, and the Patriot Act look like picnics in the park.

Effectively ban handguns and you will see a surge in the criminal use of sawed-off shotguns. Human nature abhors a vacuum. Thinking that you can solve the social ills of contemporary American society by disarming the public is both naive and potentially dangerous.

I agree it's suicidal NOW... I actually think that in a few years demographics will shift enough to put liberals in firm control of all three branches of government, making it possible, and NOT suicidal.. now it is... all meaningful reform is...

I actually don't think there is a slippery slope... currently, because nothing is going to happen... and all the suggestions are so meaningless... well... if that's all gun control people want it's pretty laughable...

As for the logistics issues... we manage to bury 30K gun victims a year and deal with hundreds of mass shootings... if we put all that energy into banning hand guns we'd be fine...

As for people switching to shotguns... to some degree yes, but nowhere near the number of handguns that exist currently... 70% of gun murders are committed with handguns... we just won't see 10s of millions of new sawed off shotguns... I wager anything on that...

Personally, I think a law that replaces all guns with single shot then reload long gun... anything else would be illegal... and the same for the cops... if that happened we'd see the murder rate and the suicide rate plummet precipitously...

but of course it never will... gun lovers have nothing to fear... no one is brave enough to actually come for any guns... we just have to live with the flood of dead Americans... that's our tradeoff..

... that you understand what "slippery slope" means?

Any step, no matter how meaningless and ineffectual, is the precursor of the next step, and the next, and the next. The strategy is to decide what can be sold as "reasonable," which then advances the ball that much further down the field and redefines "reasonable" for the next go-round.


There are a lot of shotguns out there. For many rural people, it's what you have if you only have one gun. Now they don't figure predominantly in crime, but take handguns off the table and see what happens.


I think you're wrong there. Spree killings are a drop in the bucket in the overall homicide rate. Shotguns loaded with buckshot are extremely effective one-shot killers. Suicides are 2/3 of gun deaths, and suicide is overwhelmingly a one-shot affair.

Any step taken will be so ineffectual and so contentious that it will probably be reversed and mocked for years as a total failure... that's the most likely outcome until the power to change it is actually taken completely out of the hands of pro-gun people.

As for shotguns, there ARE a lot, but there's between 15-20 million MORE handguns... and they don't dominate crime stats because there's a LOT of crime that requires a concealed gun... shotguns won't replace hang guns in a huge chunk of those crimes...

Suicides are one shot affairs, but they're almost all done with handguns... something like 60%... as for spree killing, there's been 994 mass shooting in America in the last 1,004 days... well that was up to the 2nd of October, so there's been a few more... MAking them less deadly would be great! And realistically, people don't TYPICALLY commit crimes with guns that have to be reloaded after every shot, for all the obvious reasons... it does happen, but not nearly s much as with hand guns...

"Of all firearm-related crime, 86 percent involved handguns."

vs

"Only one in six Americans own handguns."

Some data from 2011:

8,583 were murdered with guns
6,220 were with hand guns
356 were with shotguns
323 with rifles

The idea that suddenly another 5000 people would be murdered with rifles and shotguns seems a bit far fetched to me...

For firearm suicides, it is estimated that handguns are used twice as often (69 percent) as rifles and shotguns.

More info:

http://www.vpc.org/fact_sht/hgbanfs.htm
https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8

There are plenty enough shotguns to fill the gap, and they can be made very concealable, especially if the criminal is willing to "dress around the gun."



Rifles can also be cut down.




Take away the handguns and watch that change. Suicide by shotgun is easily done: Ernest Hemingway and Kurt Cobain come to mind.


The current definition of "mass shooting" is four or more victims. The vast majority of these killings are in the lower ranges, with only the most heinous and high-casualty cases making the national media. It doesn't take "assault weapons" with high-capacity magazines to make that grade. The Washington Navy Yard shooting in 2013 demonstrated what a determined individual armed with a manual-action shotgun can do.

Last edited Thu Oct 22, 2015, 03:25 PM - Edit history (1)

Most of Europe has access to rifles and almost no access to handguns..

Guess what, people aren't getting huge numbers of shotguns and rifles and killing themselves or committing crimes...

You list two examples of murder by shotgun, but the statistics don't back up the idea that people kill themselves as frequently with shotguns as they do with handguns... not even close really...

I would also, again, reiterate, that what I would think is reasonable is a single shot and reload type of gun, for hunting. That's it.

If America had all of it's handguns removed and still managed to gun down 10K citizens a year with single shot rifles, then yes, I would think we'd have to look at restricting those as well...

BECAUSE

The rest of the world manages to live with out an epidemic of gun violence. It's possible. All you have to do is hop on a plane and visit any industrialised nation and check for yourself. Where I live, the police don't even carry guns, and people are NOT cowering in their homes at night afraid of armed intruders. Kids don't have to go through metal detectors at schools or have school shooting drills. You may THINK that the "freedom" you have is worth all the death and fear and misery, and worth raising kids to be aware that they could be mowed down at any moment, but no one I know here thinks it is... and neither do many Americans.

Hand guns are owned by 25% of the population, but are used in 8/10 gun crimes. Take them away and you'll only impact 1 of 4 american's right to carry a specific type of gun, and you'll take the main weapon in violent crime off the street.

I'm not anti-hunting, and not anti-gun per se, but I am completely unconvinced that the Founding Fathers would see 30K dead Americans a year and just shrug it off as the cost of freedom..

If you are suggesting that Europe has drastically reduced suicide and violent crime by banning handguns, then you're whistling in the wind. Show me that correlation independent of any other factors and you might have something to discuss. Europe didn't always ban handguns. You would have to show rate changes that coincide with bans to even begin the discussion.


Please read carefully. First, those were examples of suicide, not murder. Second, my contention is that it is quite possible to kill oneself with a shotgun in the absence of a handgun, not that it is currently done in equivalent numbers. And let me emphasize once more that suicide is almost always a one-shot process; a single-shot long gun is more than adequate for the task and will be used if that is all that is available.


I have traveled to many industrialised nations, and lived in one -- Japan -- for almost a decade. I currently do not live in fear of being "mowed down," and I do enjoy many freedoms that the residents of that fine nation never have and never will enjoy, including the right not to be detained for several days by police without charge or counsel, the right to marry a person of my own gender if I should choose to do so, and yes, the right to keep and bear arms.


Only to be replaced by whatever else is available, which you can then proceed to try to ban. Pointy knives, anyone?


Considering that they lived with homicide rates that equaled or exceeded those of present-day America, I think you are very wrong.

We had an anti-gun president, Richard Nixon. We had a Democratically-controlled Congress, a rather liberal federal judiciary, and a time when MSM cock-strutted the culture and the NRA was essentially a Fudd Organization.

It didn't happen.

Even these banners knew they would never be able to effectively run a prohibition on the most popular self-defense firearm -- by far -- in our country. They moved on to other bans, like the infamous "assault weapons ban," which was like "putting out the fire with gasoline (D. Bowie)," and pushed that family of weapons into the most popular center-fire weapon in the country.

Your assumption that a ban can be effected (legally and in fact) is grossly in error. Again, define the problem, see what has worked, then propose plausible solutions.

BTW, you can ask Hillary all day, but the instrumentality which she will respond to is the remnants of MSM. And MSM is always in for gun-control of ANY sort (another way of saying bans), and it manifestly does NOT WANT Sanders for more reasons than guns.

to remove handguns... there was a failed attempt to try to find a way, but because that failed there was never an attempt to actually do it.

I agree it won't happen.. the rivers of blood will flow unabated...

(Formed in 1974)


It formed a coalition for "no attempt?" Forgive me, but your argument is specious. I would also point out this earlier group morphed into the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence. Seems it wanted to ban so-called "assault weapons," too. (The usual metaphor here is the "streets will run with blood.&quot

Again, you need to be clear on what your ultimate objectives are. Stopping or reducing "violence," or reducing "gun violence," or reducing "mass murders (by gun, of course)," banning of only handguns. (As a theoretical compromise would you oppose banning of "assault weapons," shotguns, and rifles?)

Again, I favor finding out what works to reduce gun violence AND violence in general (this HAS HAPPENED) even as gun laws have been liberalized and the number of guns has increased. If CelebroPunk mass murders concern you more, then there needs to be more attention to hardening sites and increasing security. I then propose in the old-time liberal/progressive manner looking at the societal conditions which contribute to the bulk of murders (which receive short shrift in DU, in favor of that most addictive of social policies, Prohibition).

isn't an attempt...

here's let's you and I form a coalition to make a flying pig...

chances of us having a flying pig anytime soon?

People have blathered about it in public, but no one has ever actually tried to enforce a policy of removing handguns, which you know, and no policy of removing handguns has never passed either the congress or the senate...

Talk about specious arguments...

Oh and btw:

Gun ownership has gone DOWN. And crimes has gone DOWN.

Australia cut gun violence by 2/3rds by taking guns off the streets, and countries with few guns have... you'll never guess.. few gun crimes.

You can't actually commit a gun crime if you don't have a gun. Funny huh?

As for crime, considering that almost all violent crime in America involves a gun, and most of it a handgun, well... there's a nice place to start your investigation.

but that was an attempt, as successor organizations have been attempts.

Keep in mind that most European countries had low crime rates Before their Red Scare bans, England most notable. Australia? They (along with Western nations and the U.S.) have enjoyed a general drop in crime since the early 90s, so it's not surprising that everyone wants to get their favorite "propter hoc" in for the win.

Again, keep your control buddies' memes in order: It is They who have pushed -- and continue to push -- "more guns = more crime." No moving goal posts allowed.

One of the problems with our current patchwork of laws is they can be easily bypassed by going to the next state over.

Yet somehow it still managed to get here.

since they have far fewer gun deaths.

But hey, that's inconvenient. So it's just like banning something you can literally make in a bucket in your garage.

... than you seem to recognize. But hey, whatever makes you feel good, right?

It was BS then, and its BS now, but I bet OK and NE appreciate the support for that talking point.

http://www.factcheck.org/2015/10/gun-laws-deaths-and-crimes/
The 10 states with the lowest homicide rates are: North Dakota, Vermont, Wyoming, New Hampshire, Utah, Idaho, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts and Oregon.

The number of homicides that occurred in the first three states were so low that their death rates were zero. Wyoming is an interesting case, because it has one of the highest firearm death rates but a homicide rate of zero.
What role do gun control laws play in these statistics? It’s difficult to say. One news report that compiled these same CDC numbers on firearm death rates, by 24/7 Wall Street and published by USA Today, listed several reasons besides gun laws that these states might have high rates of gun deaths (suicides included). Many of the states also have higher rates of poverty, lower educational attainment and perhaps more rural areas that make getting to a hospital in time to save someone’s life difficult.
But that report also noted weaker gun laws were common among the states with higher gun death rates: “In fact, none of the states with the most gun violence require permits to purchase rifles, shotguns, or handguns. Gun owners are also not required to register their weapons in any of these states. Meanwhile, many of the states with the least gun violence require a permit or other form of identification to buy a gun,” reporter Thomas C. Frohlich .

statistics can't justify infringing a natural right

I think a LOT of people would dispute it's a natural right... I'm probably one of those people, but I'd rather not go into my personal beliefs in this specific thread... I DO think - one thing I would say - there seems to be a mass delusion on the left about how much the currently discussed gun control measures could do... people want to be optimistic, but I personally think that's just either ignorance or dishonesty...

Thanks again!

...safety and storage, most ideas for new laws would make nearly no difference. (other than wasting money and ensuring Democratic irrelevance.)

I'm not sure if that's true, but I'd meet you half way and say that most laws Americans would consider would make fairly meaningless changes to the violent crime rates...

And as you say, trading a pretty meaningless reduction for losing control of the Presidency or Congress or the Senate is a hard pill to swallow, especially if you do it with executive action which can EASILY be reversed, and which the right will us for decades to "prove" that gun control doesn't work.

I DO believe RADICAL changes to US gun control could and even would work, but that would demand a HUGE sacrifice from millions of Americans - and from politicians - and so won't happen any time soon...

I can't understand why so many Democratic politicians put these bills forward and bring nothing to the table. It’s not just counterproductive, it's generally bad for the party.

is that barter only works if you have a negotiating partner, which the gun control camp dos not have in the pro-gun camp, which are monolithic as far as refusing to compromise is concerned...

Shouldn't a safer country with fewer dead kids be enough?

Not sure why you'd need anything in return... ?

...the overall death rate

Your words: "...barter only works if you have a negotiating partner..."

Right now I see pro-gun saying "we're fine with the law as is"
...and I see pro-control answering "we're not"

Since the proverbial ball is in the pro-control court, they need to bring something to the table.
Should they invest in that kind of dialog, they may come away with something rather than nothing.

I think the notion that pro-gun folks are fine with an extreme murder rate and an epidemic of gun violence is exactly why there's no room for negotiation...

And of course that was the point of this post in a way, trying to see what people are willing to exchange for whatever their idea of success is, in relation to gun violence...

I really appreciate your perspective and civility even though I'm sure we disagree about this issue fundamentally... there's literally no point in arguing when a discuss will help us understand each other, even if we never come to terms with our specific differences of opinion.

I can see the genuine concerns of those who want more control based on comparing the US with maybe France or the UK.

I can also relate to the frustrations of gun owners having to talk about things like "assault weapon bans" when the qualities that differentiate a fudd gun from an "assault weapon" are mostly either cosmetic or irrelevant.

Points that some pro-gun folks might give on: UBCs, more training, improving the NICS...
Items that might sway them on some things: open the registry of NFA weapons, loosen the laws on suppressors, CC reciprocity...

Gun deaths have been declining for 20 years - don't epidemics imply an increase in mortality?

they don't at all...?

Epidemics are basically just widespread...

As for "declining" yes, but they've declined to a point where they're still absurdly high... as is our murder rate.. and our suicide rate is twice that of the UK...

a national antisuicide campaign? It would save more lives than any gun control measure.

That's never gonna fit into the anti-gun culture war.

I could beak it all down for you, but instead you should go read this stuff:

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/means-matter/

In a nutshell though, multiple studies have found this:

'"You can reduce the rate of suicide in the United States substantially, without attending to underlying mental health problems, if fewer people had guns in their homes and fewer people who are at risk for suicide had access to guns in their home,” said Dr. Matthew Miller, a director of Harvard Injury Control Research Center and a professor of health sciences and epidemiology at Northeastern University.'

And:

"About 90 percent of the people who try suicide and live ultimately never die by suicide. If the people who died had not had easy access to lethal means, researchers like Dr. Miller reason, most would still be alive."

And, a study asked this question:

"How much time passed between the time you decided to complete suicide and when you actually attempted suicide?” (Simon 2001)"

And this is what they discovered:

"24% said less than five minutes
Another 47% said an hour or less"

In other words 71% of people try to kill themselves within an hour of deciding. IF they have a gun they have 86% chance of success... If they try and poison themselves - the third most common method - only 2% succeed. And 90% of people that fail don't go on to kill themselves in the future.

A summary of the data:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/10/health/blocking-the-paths-to-suicide.html?_r=0


A real world example:

"In 2006, after years of suicides among young men in the Israel Defense Forces, authorities forbade the troops from bringing their rifles home on weekends. Suicides dropped by 40 percent, according to a 2010 study by psychiatrists with the IDF and the Sheba Medical Center.

Those attempting suicide for the most part act on impulse, often after surprisingly brief periods of deliberation. But the impulse also passes."

http://www.stripes.com/news/experts-restricting-troops-access-to-firearms-is-necessary-to-reduce-rate-of-suicides-1.199216

And that's from Stripes - hardly a liberal anti-gun rag.

That will significantly impact suicide. The demographic of gun suicides is well known - they are the ones most likely to pass any background check.

Perhaps we should track mental health patients - put them in a database and restrict their civil rights based on doctor warnings and government monitoring.

I can't believe that's a serious comment.. so I'll assume it was just a joke.

The reality is that you're right, though; the only way to radically reduce our suicide rate is to confiscate guns. And if we DID do that we WOULD lower our crime rate, our murder rate AND our suicide rate. Sure even if we just took handguns.. which are owned by a small minority of Americans (25%), but are used in the majority of violent crime and almost all of gun crime (80%), we'd make such a huge impact that our heads would spin.

But we both know that Americans won't stand for that... at least not any time soon. Americans have convinced themselves that their very "freedom" is connected to guns, and ergo very few other nations are free... Of course if they went and visited these nations they'd find that not to be the case

My kids - I live in Ireland now - have never even thought about gun crime... they don't see shootings on TV - they rarely happen here and NEVER in schools - and frankly that feeling of safety is a TRUE freedom. They are free from fear and free from suspicion of their fellow citizens. They like the police - who don't have guns and don't endless shoot unarmed civilians - and are proud of their country.

Say what you will about the 2nd Amendment, but every single day I wake up happy my kids don't have to be surrounded by the gun violence i was surround by as a kid.

So perhaps the answer is for you to switch gears and focus on things that will save lives.

Actually it was not a joke - that us what NY did in response to Sandy Hook

Funny how some people can carefully choose to ignore fairly recent history and assume that those type of troubles will never happen again, well, just because.

No children have been blown up this decade so far, so I guess it's OK to lecture others on their national flaws.

That's guaranteed to be the case after decades of gun control by the gun control camp, 82+ years worth in fact, for which essentially nothing was given in return, to the pro-gun camp.

I'm fairly sure that many many pro-gun folks feel like the books are due to be balanced, before any new 'compromise' is made.

unless you're comparing America to some lawless African nations... American guns laws are shockingly lax, and the fact that lax laws have existed a long time doesn't mean you're owed anything for doing the right thing...

In other words, you don't want compromise, you want capitulation.

right now the US has the MOST lax gun regulations of any industrialised nation... there's VERY little the gun folks could have that they don't already have, and frankly those things wouldn't benefit society, just gun owners, which shouldn't be the goal.

I have yet to see a single suggestion by pro-gun people (aside from arm everyone - lol) to reduce violence, and every suggestion from the gun control side is immediately attacked by the monolithic pro-gun side.

So no. The pro-gun side shouldn't need to be bribed to save American lives... and the fact that they think they need to get something in return for saving lives is... well.. I find it distasteful.

Put it another way, what has the pro-gun side done for all the people killed by guns? Hmmm...? Anything? Those people gave their lives and in return they're and their families got what?

I hate to point out the obvious, but the rights of the individual do not exist strictly to "benefit society", nor should they.



First, nobody on the pro-gun side says "arm everyone". That's a straw man, and an old one at that. A fire hazard even, because its so old and dry.

Second, you may see less of the things proposed get attacked by gun rights supporters, once less of the things proposed are retread gun control proposals that the 90s called and wants back.

The gun control crowd may have some luck trying things that aren't 'gun centric' too, but then, that's not good enough is it.

You guys just have to go after the guns, because you can't resist.



In other words, when you said compromise, you really meant capitulation.



NOBODY gave their lives. Those murdered had their lived taken from them by another individual.

The pro-gun side regularly says enforce the law. So enforce it.

Those who committed suicide took their own lives. I support people being able to take their own lives. Since an individuals life belongs to that individual and nobody else, its nobody elses business.

The pro-gun side is not responsible for any of that, except for in the eyes of those who practice the strange logic of holding Miller or Coors responsible for DUIs.

Rights do exist to benefit society, after all the point of the constitution was to make a nation, not create personal freedom that could destroy a nation... the FFs weren't anarchists...

As for no one saying "arm everyone" - after every popular shooting the pro-gun side trots out the same argument, "if there'd been more guns someone would've shot the gunman, but the left is against guns, so more people had to die". You can say that, "arm everyone" is a straw man, but it's just hyperbole to make a point; the only solution put forward by the pro-gun side is more guns. Which is laughable, and which is shown to cause more gun violence, not less.

I would point out that, when given the chance, you also offer no solutions, just attack gun control proponents. And that's typical.

As for coming after guns, yes, that's pretty much the only logical solution, but don't worry Americans are way to brainwashed to ever actually come after any guns... your arsenal is safe. At least until the US actually shifts so far left through demographics that the majority changes it's opinion on what "freedom" means... that's gonna happen, but not for years and years.

When I said compromise I meant working with gun control people to craft a solution that you can both live with. Right now you give up nothing, and the country pays with it's blood. We give up a LOT for you to have guns... 10K people's lives a year for starters, and having to deal with endless extra layers of security, and having our kids live through the bloodbath in the news and on tv...

So pretending the majority that DON'T own guns haven't been compromising for years is a joke.

Now it's your turn to give up something... not your life, like the 3000 kids a year murdered with guns, but a little bit of your freedom to play with your toys...

That's compromise.

The existing laws are NOWHERE near strong enough. And the right has repeatedly gutted any attempt to make them meaningful. REAL gun control would have to be national, and would have to actually do something about the hundreds of millions of guns on the street, and the 10s of millions more headed there.

But like I said, don't worry, the pro-gun side is winning... the bloodbath will continue unabated.. if anything now is the perfect time to invest in Hilenbrand Inc. They are the nations largest coffin manufacturer and business is booming...

but clearly don't understand the meaning of compromise and negotiation.

Our current status quo includes numerous firearm restrictions in the country, on the federal, state, and local levels, including legislation like the NFA, background checks with prohibitions on felons and the dangerous mentally ill, training and registration requirements, permits and licensing, and even assault weapon bans, magazine limits, waiting periods, and other feel good measures in many states that, according to the NIJ, are effectively useless. Whether you believe these law are insufficient is immaterial to fact that these numerous restrictions do indeed exist.

Given current polling and electoral and judicial realities, there will be no more gun control in Congress or most of the states (and in many jurisdictions, there's actual firearm liberalization) unless and until gun control proponents are willing to offer something more to gun rights advocates in order to improve firearm safety.

You admittedly want draconian gun control, but know it's currently an impossibility. Willingness to accept slightly less gun control, without offering anything to your opponents, is not compromise, it's a demand for surrender. You can proclaim how your policies are purportedly an improvement, gun control laws are already too weak, and you only want to save the children, and therefore your opponents should capitulate, but you've still demonstrated no real willingness to actually compromise, i.e., give up something you already have in return for something that might be better.

For instance, many gun rights advocates want national concealed carry reciprocity that would preempt state laws, similar to a driver's licenses. It's quite possible that gun rights proponents would trade universal background checks, national standardized training requirements, improvements in the NICS system, and other matters for this reciprocity.

Are you willing to deal? If not, or if your only idea of "compromise" is some control control now, and just more later, then expect to receive nothing when you offer nothing.

here's why:

What would you want to let gun control advocates put in policies that would reduce gun violence by 80%, making it comparable to many European nations (and still higher than many)?

Tell me what you want for that and we'll see if we can compromise, but offering me something that wouldn't even reduce gun violence by 10%, that's what you're willing to give America?

We as a country don't have enough to give you to get what we need, and in fact the thing you want would most likely increase gun violence, not decrease it. So, we give you more freedom for your guns and you give us more gun violence... hardly seems like a smart path to go down for people interested in ebbing the flow of kids shot dead.

Your idea of compromise is some gun control now, and yet more later. You want gun rights proponents to concede issues, without gun control advocates doing likewise. A belief that firearm laws are already too lenient is totally irrelevant. Compromise requires both sides to offer something. The inability to actually seek compromise is all the more astonishing in light of the fact that, as you clearly acknowledge, gun rights proponents are undoubtedly winning, electorally, legislatively, and judicially, and your side has virtually no leverage.

Forget about national concealed carry reciprocity (although that's one of the few items that the gun rights side has currently been unable to achieve). What are you willing to give up that the other side wants, and what would you reasonably expect in return that might actually improve gun safety (and pass constitutional muster).

"although that's one of the few items that the gun rights side has currently been unable to achieve"

You have pretty much everything you want, and you want more to agree to have a discussion on how to save 10s of thousands of lives...

I'm sure you think you're being rational, but considering you've been unwilling to budge while your group - gun owners - is literally killing 100K americans in a decades, well... it's hard to think you deserve to get what you want - something that would make the problem worse - in exchange for tiny meaningless changes on your end.

Like I said, what would your side suggest to reduce gun violence by 80%?

Gun rights legislation and policy are successful because they have popular, and hence electoral, support, despite the disagreement by you or others.

Simply, many gun control advocates have made the perfect the enemy of the good, and refuse to engage in any comprise. The only result is that they get nothing, all while their opposition succeeds beyond their expectations. (BTW, I've never owned any firearms).

I would suggest you and like-minded individuals choose a straightforward gun safety policy or two, ensure that it passes constitutional muster, demonstrate that it will actually save a significant number of lives and is not directed at the vast majority of law-abiding gun owners, and then prepare to give-up something to get it passed. Attempts at moral blackmail or belief that concessions shouldn't be necessary might be satisfying, but wholly ineffective. Demands for surrender are not compromise, particularly when you have no political or legal leverage.

Moreover, there are many items that could be subject to negotiation besides national concealed carry reciprocity. For instance, there are many areas of the NFA that prevent few, if any, crimes or injuries, yet are meaningful to gun owners, including matters like silencers (which unlike the movies, are not silent) that are actually legal in strong gun control jurisdictions outside the USA because they protect the hearing of shooters and reduce the noise pollution from outdoor gun ranges and hunting. Similarly, national "shall issue" mandates to those to pass background checks, instead of the often racist, classist and politically expedient "may issue" policies in jurisdictions like NYC, would likely be worth significant concession by many gun rights proponents.

there's literally nothing that pro-groups would support that would save a significant number of lives...

so... there's no room for meaningful negotiation.

What will EVENTUALLY happen, do to demographic shift, generational shifts and shrinking gun ownership numbers, against a backdrop of an endless flood of dead innocents and children, is popular and draconian confiscation of guns, probably handguns... and it wil be painful.

But when that happens it will make a huge difference to the crime rate, the murder rate, the gun violence rate and I'd wager the suicide rate.

And that will make it permanent and popular.

And the the gun rights groups will look back and regret not finding a way to make themselves the enemy of the common good. Which is all they are now.

based on stereotypes and groupthink. I know a lot of people in those "demographics" who own guns, unless you are talking about New Yorkers moving to Florida and Texas. And even then, maybe. Of course, I live in a rural area. Hispanics are the largest gun owning demographic, you are also forgetting about gun culture 2.0
I did some work for a Hispanic family awhile back. Given the adults' grasp of English, probably recent immigrants. While repairing kid's computer, I noticed a 1970s era Colt model P in a beautiful handtooled leather holster. Kid got a dual boot Windows and Ubuntu machine and I got a couple of bucks and a card of a guy that still does old school craftsmanship.

Or not.

It isn't about public safety or common good. It is about should the State have a monopoly on violence, ideological dominance, and political power. It is a culture war. That is why people like the former DC public safety director said that it is better to be a victim "to be afraid and injured" than to defend yourself, even though you know he as a gun and his family is surrounded by people with guns. Same with Bloomberg and is sock puppet Shannon Watts. You care about saving lives, Bloomberg does not.

of actually engaging in real negotiation or compromise. You want and expect "draconian confiscation of guns," and believe we'll somehow soon reach a point where it will be politically acceptable (and presumably constitutional, because currently it would be patently illegal). We've heard this refrain from the gun control movement for decades, and by now it's more an article of faith than anything demonstrated by fact.

You are free, of course, to wait as long as you choose, but the trend lines are not in your favor, despite what you may hope. In fact, while support for gun rights increase, many millions of more firearms enter circulation, and laws become less restrictive, our violent crime rates, including gun crime, have been cut nearly in half in just a few decades. Your "endless flood" is rapidly receding...





http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2015/oct/02/mass-shootings-have-no-impact-on-support-for-gun-rights-in-the-us

http://www.gallup.com/poll/179213/six-americans-say-guns-homes-safer.aspx

http://www.gallup.com/poll/179045/less-half-americans-support-stricter-gun-laws.aspx

http://www.people-press.org/2014/12/10/growing-public-support-for-gun-rights/

That for years the actual push to do something about guns has only REALLY come from one side - the pro-gun side... that will change... politicians, pushed by demographic and generation changes will be emboldened to push back...

...and when that happens, and it will, because no nation can lose as many people as we do and not eventually change, pro-gun people will wish they had compromised instead of losing it all for a temporary gain.

the push from your side is only because of a certain authoritarian, narcissistic, and racist billionaire. If Bloomberg were to go broke tomorrow, your movement will cease to exist unless another billionaire shows up.

Respectfully, I want some of what you're smoking!

Unless you have very selective amnesia, have you forgotten all the gun control advocacy that resulted in the National Firearms Act (1934), Gun Control Act of 1968, Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (1993), Federal Assault Weapons Ban (1994), etc., to say nothing of the innumerable state and local firearm restrictions passed during the last century.

Gun rights advocates have only really just begun to start pushing back against the gun control mania that started in the early-mid 20th Century. The dreaded NRA didn't even begin to seriously enter the political arena until the 1970's. It is your side that finally pushed too far, and the equilibrium has not even begun to equalize.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_States

As my earlier citations amply demonstrated, those "demographic and generation changes" you reference are actually supporting the rights of gun ownership, including ever increasing numbers of women and minorities.

Your claims are based on little more than faith, not facts. You are free to believe and advocate as you wish, but unless your side begins to seriously compromise and respect the wishes and culture of many millions law-abiding Americans, be prepared to for even more firearm liberalization in the country, all while crime rates generally continue to decline.

something from 1934, something from 1968, the Brady handgun violence act - passed by Democrats and opposed by the NRA - which was pathetically weak, and the ASB, passed by Clinton - which wasn't renewed and was incredibly weak.

That's what you've got?

And yet you want more, if you're going to be willing to do something about the epidemic of gun violence?

This is why no one thinks gun owners are living in reality or serious about ending gun violence... trying to hold America hostage unless they get what they want...

It's just sad.

As for changes in the nature of America, all you have to do is look around you:

national gay marriage, national support for reforming the CJS, national support for legalising marijuana... these are all things brought on by the collapse of the rich white male stranglehold on America.

The same will happen with gun control... and the intransigence of pro-gun activists will force the population to choose between all or nothing. And in another 10 years, when yet another 100,000 Americans are killed with guns, the choice will be made for the pro-gun folks, and they'll regret their monolithic approach when they end up with nothing.

Speaking of nothing - nothing stays the same forever, guns will go away in America; it's not if, but when. Normal folks - non-gun-activists - have NO SAY in this situation as it stands - we're at the mercy of gun activists, but that can't stay the same forever, and won't.

me/post#10: politics is about barter
I can't understand why so many Democratic politicians put these bills forward and bring nothing to the table. It’s not just counterproductive, it's generally bad for the party.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172178571

EB/post#11: the problem there
is that barter only works if you have a negotiating partner, which the gun control camp dos not have in the pro-gun camp, which are monolithic as far as refusing to compromise is concerned...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172178571#post11

me/post#12: and what is it that pro-control is bringing to the table? n/t
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172178571#post12

EB/post#14: welll...
Shouldn't a safer country with fewer dead kids be enough?

Not sure why you'd need anything in return... ?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172178571#post14


Welcome to the party.

Actually, some of them were pretty close to being anarchists in principle. But that's neither here nor there.

If you want to argue that protected individual rights exist to benefit society through the betterment and empowerment of the individual, make your case.



I never claimed to actually know what the solution is. I do however, know what the solution isn't :

Taking guns away from/over regulating the guns of - the people that aren't committing gun violence.

I attack gun control proponents ideas when those idea they focus on the people who aren't committing gun violence, and the guns they own. I see such things as a tell, that those making such proposals care little to nothing about gun violence, and care only about getting rid of guns.



Ahh, another with preconceived notions, superiority and arrogance. You just know that its Americans at large that are brainwashed, rather than yourself, don't you.

Oh, and about one of those preconceived notions you have rolling around in that head of yours:

I haven't bought a gun in over ten years, haven't touched a gun in months, and don't own any so called "military style/military grade" weapons. In fact I don't own enough guns to have them be considered an arsenal, at least by people with a sense of reason.



Of course that's what you meant. The country pays in blood due entirely to the actions of of people that misuse firearms resulting in gun violence.

Theres your area of focus, assuming its the gun violence rather than the guns, which bother you. I am however, unconvinced that that is the case.



No, "we" give up nothing for me to own the guns I do.



Pretending I was referring to those people when I wasn't, is an even bigger joke.



Thank you for letting me know I can safely ignore anything you might ever again say about the subject, since you're either a brady sycophant, or may as well be one. There are no 3000 kids murdered every year with guns in America by any reasonable definition, in fact, last time I saw the number, it was 56.

And "our turn" a little bit of your freedom?

Listen buddy, We've been "giving up little bits of our freedom" since 1934. We've given up more than our fair share of freedom on this issue, so quit insulting us by pretending that isn't the case .



No. That's pissing down our backs and telling us its raining. You've already made clear that compromise as you define it, is capitulation. You (the gun control side) get more gun control, and we (the pro-rights side) give up a little bit more freedom, while you assure us all with smiles and talk of compromise stating how important and necessary it is... and everyone on both sides knowing full well you and your gun hating buddies will be back next session asking to 'compromise' again.

The days of that being standard operating procedure, are over, and I would suggest you become aware of it.



ROFL. Look, you already gave yourself away the '3000 kids' talking point. I guess when you used the "hundreds of millions of guns on the street" talking point it was sort of an exclamation point? Everyone knows there are not "hundreds of millions of guns on the street" in America, and that you're referring to the guns in peoples homes, which is consistent with anti-gun dogma.



If you're only interested in gun centric solutions, that's on YOU, not on the pro-rights folks. It reflects accordingly on you and not the pro-rights folks.




I see you:

"School shootings unnerve Americans, but the number of children injured or killed in those tragic events is just a fraction of the young people harmed by firearms each year in the United States, a new study finds.

Injuries from firearms send over 7,000 kids to the hospital annually, an average of 20 per day. Among those admitted to the hospital, 6 percent die from their injuries, according to the study published in Pediatrics Monday.

“That’s more than 7,000 children injured badly enough to be hospitalized,” said Dr. John Leventhal, the study’s lead author and pediatrics professor at the Yale School of Medicine. “All are unnecessary hospitalizations because preventing gun violence is something that can actually be done.”

In addition to children hospitalized for gun injuries, another 3,000 die before they can make it to the emergency room, meaning guns hurt or kill about 10,000 American children each year, Leventhal said."

http://www.nbcnews.com/health/kids-health/guns-hurt-or-kill-10-000-kids-us-each-year-n16896

Oh and:

"Most of the injuries, 4,559, resulted from assaults"

Your guess was 56.

Why bother talking to you when you seem to not be living in reality?

This, 10,000 shot a year, is a huge problem that doesn't exist in any other country. And the best response gun guys have is to pretend it's not real... 56... really... that says it all.

From your own link:






Which is closer to 453, 56 or 3000? If you have any troubles, theres a calculuz teacher around here somewhere you can ask, they're supposedly capable of basic math.

Tell me again how I'm the one who seems to not be living in reality.

Other coincidental (I'm sure ) omissions:



I guess you thought nobody was going to see the bold part. Now that its been highlighted, maybe you can change your talking points to 3000 babies instead of children, as others have attempted to in the past.

Do that, and your journey to the brady side will be complete.

In addition to children hospitalized for gun injuries, another 3,000 die before they can make it to the emergency room, meaning guns hurt or kill about 10,000 American children each year, Leventhal said.


another 3,000 die before they can make it to the emergency room

3,000 die

Wanna try that again? What's closer to the truth?

3000, when the number was actually 3,453, or ... what was your guess again? 56?

And then to try and play it off like 453 was the number, a number that was 9x higher than your guess btw. LOL...

Completely dishonest.

they are gang members. Not that their lives are less valuable, just putting it in context. Gangs, like armies, get the young and dumb to do the dirty work while they are still, well, young and dumb.

Don't presume to lecture me about honesty, while you quote cites that count 18 and 19 year old adults as children...a tactic the brady bunch is known for using.

Or didn't you think anybody noticed?

lol

you selectively quote one paragraph, though that paragraph didn't delineate by age, and then - when busted - push the age thing HARD... because it's NOW - apparently - your belief that 98% of those kids killed are between the age of 18-20... and if they're 18-20 then fuck 'em, yes?

lol.. extremely transparent nonsense.

10,000 people between the ages of 0-20 are shot, 3500 of which die, every year, and you think only 56 of the 3000 are below 18.

And as such they don't deserve to be cared about by gun owners.

Noted.

Last edited Sat Oct 24, 2015, 10:17 PM - Edit history (1)

I think the point was, you have no leg to stand on where questioning my honesty is concerned, when you cite links about children that count adults as children. What was it you said? Oh yes:

Completely dishonest.

Saying they do not count as children is not saying they don't count. Its saying they aren't children and shouldn't be counted as such, but you knew that and chose to make the filthy insinuation that you did, anyway.

Completely dishonest.



I think the great majority are not what anyone would reasonably conclude to be 'children'. I'll go find that screengrab...

Yup, exactly as I remembered. This isn't the first time this debate has been had hereabouts, you aren't the first one to try the moral blackmail with the 'children' argument, and your 'children' argument doesn't hold water:



Oh look, 84 percent are in the 15 through 19 range. Its not your '98 percent' but its not far off, is it. These are, the vast majority of them, individuals who can drive, run heavy equipment, have sex, be tried as adults in a court of law, be drafted in many many cases, and do a whole lot of other 'adult' things.

Hardly 'children', as your chosen connotation would otherwise denote.

Completely dishonest.




Careful of open flame near that strawman. Saying that adults and even adolescents should not be counted as children isn't saying that the deaths adults and adolescents don't count. Its saying that they shouldn't be counted as 'child gun deaths', since they really aren't 'children'.

We really don't have that many right to begin with. I never owned a gun and never will but it is still a right. So is free speech and abortion and I don't want those bartered with either.

Woman arraigned in Home Depot shooting
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027285503

2 transported to hospital after shooting at Griner’s Supermarket
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027285482

Gun Falls out of Purse, Results in Accidental Shooting in Beaumont
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=7285471

They are ideals promulgated in the Declaration of Independence

other countries HAVE done this... they HAVE successfully removed guns off the streets... and your meme fails because it assumes that people are addicted to guns... which is of course false....

Laws largely work, believe it or not, except when they're not fit for purpose... trying to treat a medical illness like addiction with the criminal justice system doesn't work, and you can look at places that take a different approach and see there are indeed way to lower drug addiction figures that don't involve jails...

IF it had never been done successfully, or if countries with no guns had as much gun violence as countries with excessive numbers of guns, you might have a point, but as neither of those things are true, and no one is addicted to guns... #memefail

England's murder rate was actually lower when there was no gun control laws. Countries passed their laws because of the Red Scare, because their murder rates were actually lower than they are now. Partly because many of their 17-25 year old men were dead because of the first world war. IOW, they "solved" a problem they never had. Japan is, quite frankly, a police state. They had two decades of when their murder rates approached ours, but gun laws were the same. That probably had to do with social upheaval like the Tokyo stock market crash in 1924 and crop failures, and after being bombed back to the stone age.
Guns are not that hard to make, even without CNC or 3D printing. The one shot zip gun is the easiest home made gun to make, the second easiest is an open bolt machine gun. Resistance groups in occupied Europe and biker gangs in Australia do just that. All you need are the tools found in a 1940s bicycle repair shop.
My meme is very correct. This one is even more spot on.

more memes?

How about facts?

'Over time, however, gun violence in virtually all its guises has significantly come down with the aid of stricter enforcement and waves of police anti-weapons operations. The most current statistics available show that firearms were used to kill 59 people in all of England and Wales in 2011, compared with 77 such homicides that same year in Washington, D.C., alone.

“What we have in the U.K. now are significantly lower levels of gun crime, levels that continue to fall today,” said Andy Marsh, firearms director at Britain’s Association of Chief Police Officers. “People say you can’t unwind hundreds of years of gun history and culture [in America], but here in the U.K., we’ve learned from our tragedies and taken steps to reduce the likelihood of them ever happening again.”

But starting in 2005 — and following years of anti-gun sweeps by police forces in British cities that made illegal guns far less accessible — gun violence began to ebb. In 2011, England and Wales recorded 7,024 offenses involving firearms, down 37 percent from their peak in 2005. Given that British crime statistics also count fake guns as “firearms,” criminologists say the number of violent crimes involving real guns is likely significantly lower."'

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/after-shooting-tragedies-britain-went-after-guns/2013/01/31/b94d20c0-6a15-11e2-9a0b-db931670f35d_story.html

As for the murder rate:

Murder at lowest level in 30 years


"'In the last ten years alone, the number of homicides in London has been cut in half, from around 200 in 2003 to less than 100 in 2013, for example - making it one of the safest cities in the world.'

In England and Wales, the murder rate has dropped by eight per cent to 1.04 per 100,000 population since 1995.

In Scotland, the rate has dropped by 19 per cent to 1.8 per 100,000 population and in Northern Ireland it has fallen by 61 per cent to 1.4, according to the data."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/9411113/Murder-at-lowest-level-in-30-years.html

What about Australia?

Australia's homicide rate fell sharply over past decade, new research shows

http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/may/06/australias-homicide-rate-fell-sharply-over-past-decade-new-research-shows

So yeah #memefail

I more than agree with this post. I see others disregard it.

Just astounded.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=178913

It's a statistical sleight-of-hand we see frequently.

If a nation suffers, say, 20 homicides per 100,000 that is 20 homicides, regardless of the method used to take the life. If that same nation suffered 15 of those 20 homicides from gun violence and the remaining 5 were murder by other means then imposing a gun law that reduces the homicide by gun rate to 5 but another 15 (or more) are murdered by other means may be a victory for gun control but it isn't a victory for murder victims.

In your other articles about murder rates declining -- well, so have US murder rates by comparable measures. And we did so without house-to-house searches that would violate amendments besides the second.

Only registration of handguns and background checks on all sales.

However, registration is a non-starter. The authorities abuse the information and no one can be prosecuted for using an unregistered gun in a crime so that would mean the only people being prosecuted would be those who lawfully use guns that happen to be unregistered.

One made fun of the absurd idea that guns can disappear if you ban it, like heroin. The other simply pointed out the logical fallacy you were using, circular logic. If fact, you used it again along with appeal to authority. Do you know what a logical fallacy is? It is something people skilled in critical thinking avoid. Certainly should be avoided when it comes to public policy. The problem with gun control activists, or any kind of prohibitionists, they can't make argument without them. Of course there are the standard propaganda techniques. The most common logical fallacies activists use are
appeal to emotion
ad hoc
bandwagon
ad hominem
genetic fallacy

The most common propaganda techniques are demonetization and card stacking.
I noticed at no time did you address the points I made. Instead you ignore use as facts articles that may or may not be relevant and, quite frankly, meaningless. Some police official blows his own horn about a lower lower murder rate. Is there any actual evidence that he wasn't just bullshitting? BTW, is the article using statistics from the Home Office? If so, they are pretty meaningless. It could simply be that the number of murders are the same, but fewer convictions for the crime. If ten people were murdered and the crime went unsolved or nobody is convicted for the crime, those homicides are simply not counted by the Home Office. That has been their policy since 1967. An apples to apples comparison, meaning if they counted their murders the same way the FBI does, the numbers would be two to three times what the HO reports.

It also said that a crack down on criminal gangs who had illegal guns, meaning they didn't just take the guns, they took the gangbangers too. Not proof, just more circular logic.
Since the UK has had gun licensing systems before our lifetimes, criminals didn't buy them in guns stores.
Your argument fails.

Australia's murder fell the past ten years. And? Every Australian state had some type of licencing system and some had registration. The National Firearms Agreement was in 1996. What the article forgets to mention that gun ownership and the number of privately owned guns in Australia have increased during that ten year period, now passing pre NFA levels. A fact that has gun prohibition activists clutching their pearls and screaming for even stricter laws. Meanwhile in the US, guns and gun ownership increase over the past 20 years, while murder and violent crime is half of what it was then. Oh, and heroin deaths have doubled in the US over the past ten years. There is no evidence that NFA had anything to do with the drop. There could be an infinite reasons for the drop including
biker gangs stopped killing each other
improved policing
aging population
improvements in the social safety net
finally getting rid of leaded gasoline
In case you were wondering
http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2013/01/lead-crime-link-gasoline

Holding up the UK Parliament as some kind of paragon of wisdom ignores the problem of knee jerk laws they pass from the pointless handgun ban which only affected the few licensed target shooters to the despicable and, biologically at least, racist mass killing of harmless dogs based on stupidity and ignorance.

infringe on a natural right? It wouldn't for me.

...only for a gun to be carried in public.

long time

Though I favor universal BG checks, training for concealed-carry, an overhaul of the decrepit NICS, I am considered by some of the controllers as pro-NRA, a gun lobbyist (on $724 net SS/mo!!), suffering from inadequate penis length AND a gun-humper. So bear with me. Thanks.

Take your time... thanks for responding

Proliferation of CCPs fosters a 'wild west' mentality that I think is unhealthy for society.

Here in Oregon, they are pretty easy to get. I see flyers for CCW permit classes stapled to telephone poles.

I have six acquaintances with permits: one is my son-in-law, who needs it for his job (nightclub security), one is a friend who only has it so he can transport his weapon in his glove box, and four are assholes who have demonstrated a distinct lack of judgement with how they carry their weapons - for example, one had his loaded .45 fall out of his jacket while drunk.

2/6 is not good odds, although I understand my evidence in anecdotal.

I myself own a .38 Special, a semi-automatic .22 rifle and a bolt action 30-30, but see no need to carry a concealed weapon.