Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Gun Control & RKBA
In reply to the discussion: House Passes Bill Allowing Mentally Ill Veterans To Own Guns [View all]gejohnston
(17,502 posts)33. just a few things
Foundations are always founded by a couple of rich folks. Everyone knows that. Do you oppose the NRA too? The Brady Campaign uses facts and statistics.
There is a difference. The NRA, and the other gun rights organizations, are made up of millions of dues paying members. They are grassroots. Also, the NRA was started by a couple of Union generals in the 1870s. The Brady Campaign are just a few rich people. They would not exist without the Joyce Foundation. If you go to, say, an NRA convention you will find people of all incomes and walks of life. Go to a Brady Campaign fundraiser, you will find all rich people in black tie. Also, they do not use facts, nor do they use honest statistics. When they say "children" they include gang shootings of up 25-year-olds. They lie often. They drag up the usual logical fallacies, usually ad hoc and appeal to emotion.
I wouldn't be negatively affected by it because I don't want people with mental issues having arms. So you're saying that if we have stricter gun regulations, the country would crumble and people would die? If the laws were slightly stricter, we'd lose all our rights? That's just not true.
Look at free speech and Europe and Canada, or the acts of the extreme left and right here.
If these gun owners are really law-abiding, good people (which of course they mostly are), they should not take issue with going through some extra hoops to prove that they are.
That's not how rights work. the State has to prove they aren't. BTW, you are using a logical fallacy.
Yes, I'm familiar with the GINI Coefficient. You really aren't teaching me anything. And I agree with closing the wealth gap. Heroin and other drugs are different because you can't go on a heroin massacre. It is a different topic and should be treated differently.
Part of the same problem. Part of the drug problem is the gang problem.
What do you propose to decrease gun violence, then?
I gave you my list. It will not only reduce "gun violence", but also reduce all violence. My pet peeve about "gun violence". Whenever I see Brady or Bloomberg use the term it tells me that they don't care about violence, it is really about guns using a term that appeals to emotion. IOW, they are busybodies and authoritarians who don't like guns. To be rather blunt, I don't think they care about dead people unless it serves their purpose. They dishonestly lump gun suicides with gun homicides and call it "gun violence". That tells me that 48 percent of all suicides and 40 percent of all murders are nonissues to them. They don't care because they can't be used for propaganda.
I am familiar with gun laws per state and country. What exactly are you asking? Kind of a broad question. In my (blue) state of Washington, we have pretty lenient gun laws. Most people I know think those laws should be more lenient. It's a big topic of discussion where I live, due to most of my neighbors being big gun fanatics (I don't live in the country, either. I live in a suburb of Seattle).
Yes, you have a poorly written UBC written by Mike Bloomberg's paid lawyers and lobbyists. Everytown or MDA is 100 percent astro turf. Watts is a former PR executive for Monsanto and Wellpoint before she opened her own shop. She is a Bloomberg employee, as were all the collecting signatures.
Again, what do you think would solve the gun issue? Or do you deny that there is one?
We don't have a gun problem, we have a gang problem. Spree murders, which happen everywhere, are very rare. That is why those, and gun accidents, make nation wide news. Peoples' rights should not be restricted based one black swan events. They are unpredictable and unstoppable. Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
36 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
I support RKBA but background checks and restrictions for the mentally ill just make sense.
Blue_Warrior
Mar 2017
#3
'mentally ill' is a moveable feast, and people within that category are more likely to be victims of
AtheistCrusader
Mar 2017
#12
Who are these "gun nuts" you speak of? And what is your definition of "mentally ill"?
friendly_iconoclast
Apr 2017
#14
Like the Trump White House, gun control advocacy relies upon 'faith-promoting rumor'
friendly_iconoclast
Mar 2017
#8