It's been about not believing that banning guns will be more effective at actually getting rid of them than banning drugs is or banning alcohol was.

Not one?

OK, maybe one. Two? Ten? A hundred?

Again: how many deaths are acceptable to you?

Prohibiting alcohol and drugs have been fiascos that cost more lives than they intended to save. I sincerely believe prohibiting guns would be the same. You're going to have to increase ATF manpower to significantly larger than the DEA currently is. You're going to have one more reason now to arrest and imprison minorities (this law, like every other law, will be abusively applied in a discriminatory manner). You're going to suddenly empower gunrunners (currently a fairly small and specifically targeted group) and make them the equivalent of the people running pot and cocaine. That means more turf wars on the streets at the retail level. As the price of illegal handguns will skyrocket, these gunrunners will become very rich. It would be the 1990s all over again, but with guns instead of cocaine.

So, no, I don't think it will save lives; I think it will kill a lot of people.

Unless you actually sweat and twitch when without a firearm, the comparison isn't valid.

How do the gunrunners fare in countries where guns are heavily regulated?

Now it's my turn to

No, gun-obsessed Delicate Flower. Deaths due to GUNS - your Precious - in other countries.

Don't be scared of the facts, Flower!

It can be easy for people to misread you

I'm not a Delicate Flower. I don't need a gun to walk around in public. I'm not a coward when facing everyday life.



And, my point stands, and your crazy post about "we don't know how banning guns would affect deaths" which I responded to, falls.

NRA Talking Points don't work, you know?

Australia bought back semi-automatic rifles (though the actual gun ownership rate in Australia today is slightly higher than it was in 1995). The US didn't. We both saw gun deaths fall by about 60%.

You were saying?

(Also, I don't own a gun, so I'm not sure why you're calling me "Delicate Flower", if that's what you mean by it.)

Calling people "gun nuts," "Delicate Flowers" etc. doesn't make your argument any better, it just pisses off the people you're insulting and creates instant defensiveness.

Bake

an NRA supporter or right-winger or gun nut or delicate flower....




People like this fail to see that they are large part of the problem of why we cannot have rational conversations about this subject.

a little message from our friends "down under"

http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp

You're welcome!

They've managed to do drug interdiction with a level of sense and maturity we have yet to show on anything.

If you magically replaced US law enforcement with Australian, I'd be all ears. As it is, we're stuck with the law enforcement that exists in the US.

We defeated the Soviet Empire. We put the first human on the moon.

Some of us need to stop whining that we "can't do anything."

I'm not saying "we can't do anything". I'm saying "we can't do that".

from Chris Hayes show Sunday: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/12/23/1173478/-Rebecca-Peters-Talks-Australia-s-Gun-Control-Path-on-UP-w-Chris-Hayes?showAll=yes

And Australia's gun ownership rate is higher today than it was in 1995.

Not everything is as easy as we wish it were.

The gun ownership rate in AU is higher today than in 1995.

The drop in gun violence in the US was larger than the drop in AU

But banning guns won't make them all disappear.

I'm afraid that recursion makes a valid case in comparing prohibition and the war on drugs with what we could expect to happen with attempts to make guns disappear.

The first thing to happen as such attempts are made will be a run on gun and ammo purchases.

And, sadly, that's already happening in advance of any legislative action.

...

Banning cars and trucks would save a bunch more lives and they are not protected in the bill of rights. And yes like it or not the courts have already made that decision.
Back to automobiles they kill many, many, more people each year in this country than guns do.

Because the vaccine cannot take hold and dies off quicker if enough people have it, 100% is not needed to stop it.

So a little prick is a good thing to endure for the good of mankind

same thing with a gun.

Stopping even one person from getting one, can stop 20 kids from dying needlessly

It is not a 1 to 1 proposition

you must agree the NRA soundbytes from their million dollar suits gets so freakin' boring and transparent

why do people support the #1 lobby group in the world, yet then say they hate unions?

Me giving up all of my weapons wouldn't increase public safety one iota.

...because "everyone" includes violent people who don't obey laws.

Have a great Christmas, BTW!

... meet prybar.

Inconsistent message you've got there.

that the absence of semi-autos won't increase public safety at all?

Please, hand me that suitcase nuke. What?, suitcase nuke's are unavailable?

Increased public safety.

I've spoken to an officer who will take them into evidence the day after Christmas; they will be destroyed if I do not reclaim them.

I do not intend to reclaim them.

Do you have a number of deaths that is acceptable?

Just destroy them with a hammer and ban saw posting a video .

You said you have some high end expensive 1911's correct?

That's almost funny.

Another one of you lot made a great noise here about getting rid of a relative's guns
Turns out, he sold them to a licensed dealer.

He has yet to explain how this prevented their future misuse...

I doubt whatever cop he gives them to will have them destroyed. They'll probanbly go homw with him.

to expand my comment thusly, then. Face it, we live in a violent society. Just some forms of violence are far more acceptable than others. In folks' favor, at least the line gets drawn somewhere I guess.

And, I am borrowing it.

You're going to go with the "meh, what can you do?" defense?

absurd.

n/t

is how shallow too many folks think these days.

Last edited Wed Dec 26, 2012, 03:10 AM - Edit history (1)

forks and automatic weapons.

unrelated comment.

I see?

You really want to stake the claim that it is as immoral to eat a chicken as it is to take a human life?

Seriously?

to state what's moral? Sort of at a self advantage, don't you think to stake the claim you'd like to, eh? And not put this all on me, just making a point.

But then, some animals are more equal than others. I read that somewhere.

But hey, death is more on your hands than mine today. Even with my guns.

Merry Christmas.

Animals consuming animals, animals consuming plants, plants consuming animals, fungus consuming both, bacteria consuming all of the above... it's the circle of life that I am joyfully a part of. And so are you.

You may not feel that the wheat you eat or the fruit you pluck from the tree before it is allowed to procreate or reach its natural end is the same as a chicken or a pig, but in the grand scheme, its life is equal I am pretty sure.

Ironic that you accuse others of willy nilly picking one life over another when you are a vegetable killer and rationalize it. I suppose if it is ALL about your survival, it is understandable though.

But when we talk about guns and killing of other humans, fivegan, we really are in another universe of morality -and your inappropriate use of this issue to push your vegetarian agenda is somewhat sillier than it is offensive so I will not get too overheated about it.

Funny that.

I don't equate one with another, I make a point. You justify one over another. "Vegetable killer" and then all about my survival. But then it's my agenda. Reality can get fucked.

A "circle of life" that you are "joyfully a part of"...violence apologist. Nothing more, nothing less. Hope that chicken was tasty. My circle of life is far less violent than yours, even as a gun owner. What?

But then as I recall, whaling was cool with you.

"...of other humans" is where you lose. Yes, we are in another universe of morality. Join me there, sometime. It's mind expanding to stop thinking about just one's self. No veg agenda to push, a non-violence agenda to push. Non-violence, fucking imagine that?

And I do not think that killing a chicken is "violence" in the same sense that killing a human, gorilla or even a whale is.

You think fishing is violence, killing a chicken is violence.

And speaking of violence and whaling, you advocate violence ALL THE FUCKING TIME. So who is non-violent? Surely not you so don't EVEN try that song and dance with me.

Is killing a bug violence? What about a mosquito? Getting tougher and tougher, isn't it? But as you drill down, you begin to see that your justifications are just that. As mine are.

You say you are non-violence but are defending gun ownership? That is fucking nuts, man. What are you gonna do with your gun, chop broccoli with it?

If you think that every human over the last half million years was less moral than YOU because they ate flesh, I'd say you really are deluding yourself.

Think, that is. Look up violence. The delusion is yours and always has been.

Fishing is violence as is killing a chicken. Your self-serving definitions aside. Sea Shepherd is heading back out against your friends. We can talk more about it later.

Nothing violent about owning a gun. Your fork? Inaction v action. *shudder* Good luck with that. LOL!

Still leading.

Bad one. I mean, really, what an incredibly stupid comment.

To nourish people. Guns do NOT have other uses. What an incredibly stupid false equivalency.

You probably won't get it, but it's still funny. Thanks.

In case you don't remember me, before I was yewberry, I was tofunut.

Your guns... sicken me. I'm so sorry to learn that you are a guns-rights apologist. I really thought you were a friend.

Vaya con Dios, flvegan.

If your friendship line in the sand is that "he has guns = bad" then fine, fuck you.

When you get it, I'll welcome you back. I'm no apologist, but then I have animals and actions to protect as well. I actually do shit.

You may have "thought" I was a friend, and have now dismissed me based on your own...whatever. I'm the real fucking deal. I steal animals, and folks come around. I protect them. Let me know when you can say the same.

Challenge met. Have at it, "friend" LOL!

That is probably the threshold I imagine.

After all, they banned them in Australia and the UK after mass shootings there. No effect whatsoever, right?

Right? Am I right?

It merely pointed out that you can't compare Australia's situation (with so few guns) to here in the U.S. (with so many).

Its one thing to ban something that was never a "problem" to begin with, quite another animal when the "toothpaste is already out of the tube," so to speak.

No more mass shootings in Scotland. Not many shootings at all.

Seems like an effect to me.

were in circulation in Scotland before the ban? Scotland is a little smaller than South Carolina with about 500,000 more people. That is a much different situation.

I'm sick of this whining about how hard it's going to be. Gun humpers certainly are lazy, delicate little flowers who don't have the strength to accomplish anything beyond pulling a trigger. What wimps.

Over the same period. It's a worldwide thing.

it's mass shootings.

That's true.

there's a damn gun-sickness in this country.

It would be nice if everyone who responded to you so cleverly upthread would at least be willing to admit that we have an issue before making the leap to drugs, alcohol, and forks.

At first it was knives, then spoons, now forks. I suppose chopsticks will be next. Or maybe a whisk? Oh, I know, coffee mugs!

And whisks? Don't even get me started.

Banning her right to have a gun was akin to her banning my right to have coffee.

I told her go ahead and try. See if she can get her representative to put forth a bill like that. That's what Democracy is about.

revolting

do any of these gun nuts actually have the courage to fight in a real war - Afganstan still needs people.

Last edited Wed Dec 26, 2012, 11:25 AM - Edit history (1)

Gun owner (not a nut) here. Served for six years in the Army from 2004-2010. My father, also an Army veteran who served in Vietnam has two safes full of firearms in his home.

So, yes. Some of us would be willing to serve in combat and have.

but you're not 100% of the equation

Or least greatly reduce their frequency and magnitude.

from happening tomorrow. As that is a ridiculous target, we can toss out the ridiculous aim. Banning guns now and in the future - coupled with measures to diminish the gun fetish culture and help mental illness - is intended to steadily decrease over time the desire and the tools of carnage.

drunk drivers are a much bigger threat to me and my family.

...for the mere fact of having a firearm in the house. Correlation, not causation, but correlation nonetheless.

Bleeding is a symptom, but that doesn't mean we don't try to staunch bleeding.

to make sure it is the study I think it is?

You're more likely to be killed by a bullet than by a car.

deaths due to drunken drivers are a common occurrence.

Gun deaths are geographically concentrated - the highest murder rates are in the inner cites where gangs, drugs, poverty and despair are found.

Over half of those gun deaths are suicides.

Automobile deaths have always outpaced gun deaths up to now. What happened? Public health officials started treating automobile deaths as a public health crisis. They wanted to do the same thing with guns, but they were prevented from doing so by the lobbying efforts of the NRA. As a result of this action and inaction, automobile-related deaths have steadily dropped over the years. Gun related deaths have not. As of now, you're more likely to be killed with a bullet than with a car. And this is all due to the NRA, and the brain-dead fuckfaces they have defending them. These deaths are preventable. Psycho gun freaks kept these deaths from being prevented. Fuck every last one of them.

But didn't we try to ban cars without seatbelts in them? And cars with drunk drivers in them? And lately, cars with Drivers using cell phones in them?

Lets try and ban guns guns that shoot a large number of bullets in a small number of seconds. And Guns that are unsecured/unregistered/untraceable. And guns with mentally ill persons having access to them.

and arrest drunk drivers. so at least there is some chance of them being stopped before they kill someone . though we can still improve things .

but with guns they can't do anything in many cases until someone is killed.

the number one predictor of someone killing someone else is a criminal record. The justice system could remove many potential killers from society if they were to focus on violent criminals instead of fucking around with non-violent offenders.

And as I said, even with all those weapons, drunk drivers represent a much bigger threat to me and my family. If banning guns will work then lets ban alcohol.

That's why it's doomed to failure.

Cars, pools, fire, toys, stairs, bikes, cleaning supplies and pets perhaps?

If it saves ones life isn't it worth it?

Oh, talking about NYC, are we? Well, don't you find it a TAD interesting that these events are coming fast and furious (pardon the pun )?

Hurricane SANDY=SANDY Hook.

Was Hurricane SANDY the October surprise?

SANDY HOOK mentioned in "The Dark Knight?!"


Stop and use your thinking cap. No need to line it with tin foil.

Just STOP. This is being done by design. Nothing just happens in a barrage out of nowhere.

Problem/reaction/solution. Learn it. Live it. Tell it to fuck the hell OFF!

Just couldn't help outing yourself, huh?



RL

Gotta answer this one even though I'm not even a 'gun folk'...this is SO exciting:

Keeping my hypothetical guns is worth...hmmmm...four dead kids.

Do I win? Do I win?

up as soon as all criminals and law enforcement give up theirs.

here at DU is like pissing in the wind. They feel they have clever answers supplied to them by the NRA and refuse to acknowledge any true logic by going off on another unrelated tangent.

Personally, I feel some of them are paid.

We are all paid highly for being on DU and listening to ignorance and hatred even on Christmas Eve. I hope I really do hope that this hatred don't consume those on DU that think this way and spill over onto their family's on such a wonderful and peaceful night. Restart your hatred after Christmas give it a break your not changing anyone's mind.

That hatred often carries with if double digit body counts.

This is a time for bold action, a bold agenda. If they don't like it, the hell with them...

Just a matter of who has the most votes. So how many House republicans do you expect to vote for a gun ban?

But my guess is that you probably voted for one. If so, what are you doing on DEMOCRATICunderground.com?

In case you haven't wondered, we fight for what we believe it. I'm sorry you don't like it. That is unfortunate.

Last edited Wed Dec 26, 2012, 12:25 AM - Edit history (1)

for all the fulminating done here, there will have to be a vote. Do you think there are the votes for the laws you want?

I have no problems with you fighting for what you believe in. I just don't see much in the future to be concerned about. Go read Feinstein's AWB. With friends like her and the president, I don't worry about anyone taking away my guns.

but you know that.

I do wonder why you are here in the first place. If we're so horrible wanting to take away your guns, why do you want to be with us? Why not just stay away in whatever web holes the gunners like to be in?

Why aren't you on a right wing Republican website where you will be more loved and respected? Why stay here where so many cannot and will not ever love you, like you or respect you? Or agree with you...

hard as it might seem, millions of Democrats own guns.

And we are not going to let people like you tell us what we have to believe in order to be a Democrat.