sorry, did you say something?

Thanks, but don't mention it.

And of course living - if you can call that living - in perpetual fear of everything and nothing simultaneously, unable to comprehend that laws that were written can be as easily overwritten with new ones.

The Great American Slaughter by GUNS....folks have had enough of the daily deaths by gun.

I am not one of them. Question is not sarcasm either.

Unless they are criminals and shouldn't own guns. Why would you do anything else?

We're awash in them in a way that other "advanced" nations are not.

When all you have is a hammer, etc.

When Cain killed Abel...

The simple fact is this: *IF* someone is determined to kill, he will find a way to do it by whatever means necessary. I, personally, have been shot at and missed, also shot at and hit. I've seen others get shot and stabbed. I have also seen a drunk asshole chase his girlfriend around outside of a bar with his car, trying to run her down. He missed her, but lost control, slid sideways, and slammed 3 innocent bystanders between the car and a brick wall. None of those 3 survived the crash. The driver did, but was dragged out of the car by an angry mob from the bar and was beaten to death right there in the street.

Killing isn't a "gun" problem, it's a "mental health" problem, IMHO.

Peace,

Ghost

more visceral, bloodier, more exhausting. They might run away, or fight back. With a gun it's just aim and pull the trigger. Must be some reason why it's been the preferred method of murder since they were invented.

Do you deny that a percentage of murders would not occur absent the convenience of a firearm? What about the 20K firearm suicides/year? Would all those people have found an alternative method?

than a few times, most people are afraid to pull the trigger... They just use it as a scare tactic, one that works (pulling a number out of my ass here) 99% of the time. About 30 years ago, I had one find out the hard way that his gun didn't scare me. I was in peak physical condition then, worked out daily, trained in martial arts and knew how to disarm someone.

I could tell he was scared, because he was shaking while holding the gun, a .44 Magnum, right in my face. I had an 8-ball of coke and a fifth of Jim Beam in me and felt 10 feet tall and bullet proof. I started pressing my forehead into the barrel while telling him "go ahead and pull the trigger if you have the balls... come on, put me out of my misery". I was watching his eyes the whole time, and could tell that he was getting flustered. I kicked him in the nuts and snatched his gun away from him and pistol whipped him with his own gun. I know I got lucky that night, and it could have turned out a lot different, and I wouldn't be here to tell about it.

A few years later, I was in a biker bar with some buddies and some idiot tried to start a fight with me. He pulled out a little palm-sized .25 semi-auto. I tried to take it away from him and it went off in the process, hitting me in the foot. I still got the gun away from him and pistol whipped him, too. When he was knocked out on the floor, I shoved the .25 in his mouth. My biker "brothers" grabbed me and took me out a hidden hallway in the bar and got me out of there before the cops came. I could have stayed, as I was well within my rights of self defense, and had a bar full of witnesses, but we just didn't like dealing with cops. Luckily I wasn't hurt bad at all. I was wearing a pair of Caterpillar Lineman's boots, and the bullet actually stuck halfway through one of the eyelets and barely penetrated my foot. It was nothing that a week and half of Neosporin, peroxide and bandaids couldn't heal. I never even went to a doctor or hospital. Again, I got lucky and things could have turned out a lot different.

As for suicides, it's my opinion that it's the same as murdering... if someone is DETERMINED to kill their self, they are going to do it any way they can and nothing is going to stop them.

Peace,

Ghost

my point stands, regardless. most violence is impulsive, and guns make it easy.

as you said, most people are scared - not determined.

I refer to that period of my life as "The Dark Days", and do my best to keep them dead and buried.

I live a peaceful, laid-back, old hippie lifestyle now. I'm tucked away in the foothills of The Great Smoky Mountains, living and loving life...

Peace,

Ghost

"you can have marriage equality, voting rights, infrastructure spending, progressive taxes, public schools, reproductive rights, pentagon cuts, wall street reform, working minimum wage, and some sensible gun control, or you can have your guns and none of the other things on the list. You pick".

This really doesn't seem that hard to me.

Let's face it, background checks, registration, etc. is all meaningless. What is *needed* is a ban/confiscation of all assault weapons and handguns. Breechloading shotguns and single shot rifles is all anyone needs for hunting, and that can come with heavy insurance and training requirements.

What does hunting have to do with the 2A?

With that being said, we don't need 2/3's of Americans, we need 51% in 37 states, and the it can get rammed through whether they like it or not.

Currently 47% of Americans are or vote Democratic. If we safely assume that the 25% in favor of a sensible gun ban are Democratic, then we only need to swing 4-5% of Americans further our way (and with the rising tide of the youth vote and they way Republicans have completed alienated immigrants, both documented and undocumented, that will happen eventually), at that point we as members of the Democratic party need to collectively agree sensible gun control is the way to go and get the amendment made before the Rethugs have a chance at stealing power and blocking it.

You're serious?
You really think you can ram through a gun ban.

This is pure comedy gold.

carry "Breechloading shotguns"...

They are law enforcement

Bye.

I like stories.

Yeah movies...about your level of understanding I bet.

Don't represent my views, just like Nugent and the NRA don't represent my views. I support reasonable gun control options, like UBCs and no firearms for felons. I assume you agree? In fact, in northern Virginia today the police arrested a guy for murder, and of course he was a convicted felon who should never have had a gun in the first place. A good starting point for enforcing our gun laws would be to keep firearms out of the hands of convicted felons and to enforce the gun laws on the books.

You can enforce gun laws that ban felons from owning firearms. And you can require background checks for gun show purchases (I support). What is your (constitutionally acceptable) proposal?

What is constitutionally acceptable depends on the composition of the SCOTUS. But even the Robert's SCOTUS feels that the Second Amendment does not confer absolute rights. So any talk about constitutionally acceptable would probably depend on how any particular proposals would fare under SCOTUS review.

But in my, ideal world, and under current views of the Second Amendment:
1) Universal registration and tracking of all purchases
2) A limit on the number of guns that can be purchased in any month to perhaps one gun. In my view, multiple regular purchases probably indicate a private dealer.
3) Require liability insurance for all guns. Let the market decide what costs are required to insure guns.
4) Require gun locks and/or a safe for all arms.
5) Extensive training and regular retraining.

That would be a good start.

What do you feel?

Mandatory firearm insurance, at least as has been discussed recently, also has serious legal problems, and to the extent it's actually insurance, would be totally ineffective in reducing crime or accidents.

I've discussed the issue extensively before, and will just re post an earlier comment:

Mandatory insurance is a feel-good measure and little more than solution looking for a problem.

First, you cannot insure against your own intentional criminal acts. Insurance also wouldn't cover the effects of violence unconnected to the owner's firearms. Personal liability insurance is not a some general crime victim recovery fund funded by legal gun owners (which would have its own myriad of constitutional problems). For instance, even if the recent shooter of the reporters in Virginia has liability insurance, the victims' families would not collect a dime from the policy.

Second, since the incidence of firearm negligence among lawful gun owners is minuscule, despite the occasional graphic news story (recall that the USA has about 100+ million legal gun owners and over 300+ million firearms), the cost for such policies would be (and are) negligible. If the government attempted to artificially raise the costs of such insurance above what actuarial standards required, it would become a tax or penalty on gun ownership, and no longer "insurance" (again, with significant constitutional problems).

Third, most homeowners and renters policies already cover accidents involving firearms.

Fourth, if the intent and design of the policy is to discourage the exercise of a constitutional right by simply making it more burdensome or expensive, it would almost certainly be unconstitutional in the same manner the courts struck-down poll taxes and literacy tests for voting.

Fifth, the vast majority of crime involving guns does not involve legal firearm owners or guns, and therefore this policy would have little to no effect on crime rates as such firearms would still not be insured even if mandatory. "Mass shootings" are also an extremely small percentage of gun crime.

Sixth, firearm accident insurance and policy riders are already very cheap and readily available, and the NRA is one of its largest proponents. If specific firearm insurance became mandatory, it would be a huge financial windfall for the NRA not only as a provider and vendor (similar to how AARP is a vendor for health and life insurance), but also as an endorser as they are the largest firearms safety organization in the country.

Seventh, there is no data to suggest that the country actually has a problem with uncompensated losses resulting from accidents involving legal firearms. What problem does the mandatory insurance proposal actually address?

Eighth, the lack of liability insurance does not prevent accident victims from suing someone for their negligence or criminal acts.

and given that the SCOTUS has indicated that Second Amendment rights are not absolute and unlimited, any supposed Constitutional problems are more political problems than Constitutional.

Moreover, as with all rights, just because they are not "absolute and unlimited," it does not mean any or most restrictions are lawful. There is an entire very large body of complex law on the subject of scrutiny of restrictions on constitutional rights. I would also encourage you to read the Heller and McDonald decisions, as they will shed light on the type of firearm restrictions that would be upheld by the Court.

However, you a correct that your proposal and others, many of which probably would pass constitutional muster, are not enacted because they lack sufficient political support, not due to the Second Amendment.

and can we further agree that, if money=speech, nothing will be done about gun violence other than pretty speeches?

that concerns over the Second Amendment are currently secondary in the debate. If largely constitutional restrictions such as UBC's are impossible as a political matter, more severe restrictions of dubious legality are beyond rationale consideration.

However, the money issue is largely a red herring, and like the NRA, is used as an excuse for gun control failures.

NRA and other gun rights lobbying wealth and direct influence is vastly overstated. It's easy to see what money is spent as the records are mostly public. More importantly, gun control proponents have more than ample money for their cause, including a pet billionaire, and numerous wealthy celebrities, politicians, photogenic family members of victims, very sympathetic media, and dedicated organizations willing to advocate their cause. Notably, in the recent Colorado recall elections, Bloomberg and his allies actually outspent the opposition by 6 to 1 and still badly lost. Gun control simply isn't losing because of money.

fear trumps all other considerations. Fear sells guns, and fear is broadcast on the news every day. Guns are seen, irrationally in my view, as insurance against gun violence. Households with guns are far more likely to see gun violence, but that dies not stop the NRA and the true believers among the gun owners from wanting ever more firearms.

Consider also that until the Robert's SCOTUS, the Second Amendment was NOT interpreted as an absolute right and local gun regulations prevailed.

Until that time, your opinion on what others need is irrelevent

and what proposals do you suggest to deal with the problem?

By the way, now much money does a Cabinet Secretary of Needs make?

has been halved over the last couple of decades, all while gun laws have generally liberalized nationwide and many millions of more firearms have entered circulation. We're actually doing a pretty good job of addressing the issue, although as with other problems, more work still needs to be done.

I would also note that the purported gun violence epidemic is largely quarantined to major urban areas (with comparatively strict gun control and mostly run by Democrats). Solutions to address urban violence should not penalize many millions of suburban and rural gun owners who represent a fraction of the problem.

the main perpetrators of the gun violence, cannot purchase guns in rural states with no gun regulation?

Your urban, Democratic residents sounds like coded language, and has been used as such by the GOP when politicians do not wish to say "black people". I do not accuse you, but this type of "dog whistle" language does not help your argument.

The Chicago Tribune did a series on gun violence and prominent in the story was the fact that many of the guns that are used in crimes in Chicago are purchased in Indiana, a mainly rural state controlled by the GOP.

The data is readily available from DOJ, and denying the reality makes addressing the problem all the more difficult. That's precisely why myopically focusing on the comparatively rare mass shooting or "assault weapons" when all rifles represent a tiny fraction of gun crime, while often largely ignoring far greater number of deaths and injuries in cities like Detroit, Oakland, Flint, Memphis, Newark, Baltimore, and elsewhere, appears disingenuous and will not demonstrably lower crime rates, firearm and otherwise.

Moreover, whether it's inconvenient or not, racial disparity rates in both offenders and victims is meaningful to ascertaining workable solutions to the violence problem.

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

The issue of guns coming into the cities is also a red herring. First, if it was the guns actually causing the violence, the crime rates would be similar to the cities in rural and suburban areas with weaker gun laws. This is not the case, and amply demonstrates a myriad of factors responsible for urban violence that need to be addressed well beyond guns (e.g., poverty, gangs, education, population density, healthcare, etc.). Further, it's legally and morally unacceptable to restrict the rights of many millions of non-urban gun owners who statistically are no threat in order to to address urban violence, particularly when firearms are only a symptom of the malady.

what is the illness?

And what is the cure?

and pistol grips.

The cure involved finding the reasons people want to kill each other, and addressing them, not passing another fucking cartridge capacity limit or waiting period law Some ideas:

1- drug legalization (this will take a huge chunk out of violent crime)

2- more treatment for mental illness and drug addiction

3- more outreach and empowerment to urban poor populations

4-for mass killings, stop media glorification and 24/7 coverage of events. Don't make name and info about shooter public.

The problems with violence (note I didn't say gun violence) in this country are complex and have long history, the kind of thinking like ITZ TEH GUNZZZ BAN THE GUNNNZZ is over simplistic and will not work. More and more people are starting to realize this.

How do you propose to identify these mass shooters before the shooting starts?

And how do you propose to limit access to guns of these various mass shooters when many of them purchased the guns legally. Or took them from a family member who purchased them legally.

Violence IS violence, I agree. It does not matter what tool is used. But how many drive by knife massacres have there been? How many drive by karate attacks have there been?

Guns make mass killings easier, because killing in quantity is what high capacity weapons are designed for .

Guns make mass killings easier

ow do you propose to limit access to guns of these various mass shooters

w do you propose to identify these mass shooters before the shooting starts?

most will just dismiss it, where are the "gunz"?

If I want to purchase 10 firearms in a month's time, why do you feel you have a need to know why?

Any dealer at a gun show, and that is most booths, must by federal law perform NICS background checks. Even at the gun show, per existing federal law. Several states require all sales to have a background check.

Last edited Fri Oct 9, 2015, 11:05 PM - Edit history (1)

As most weapons are sold at dealer booths, a federal background check must be performed by federal law. The myth that gun shows do not require background checks at purchase. It is a private sale exemption as it falls to the state to regulate within the states border.

Nice to have a nice civil discussion.

Happens very rarely on this topic.

to do something. If people cannot arrive at a solution what will be the end result?

I think that a lot of the anger here at DU is a reflection of the fear on both sides that neither side is listening. And while we argue, people are dying. Two new shootings today on campuses, while people with holstered guns demonstrate in Oregon.

after very large amounts of alcohol and if they were under 21, more than that also would likely be illegal. And it seems to have been in campus housing areas, they were after school hours and at parties I believe. a Stretch to call them school shootings, imo.

That said, how do you propose to solve the problem?

A lot of it is cultural. So much violence in movies, games and on TV tends to desensitize people today. The drug war causes much gang violence and should be severely limited to the very worst drugs. Our mental health system sucks, we need universal coverage and it needs to be fully funded. Alcohol needs to be treated more like the Europeans treat it. That might cut back on binge drinking. The uneven distribution of wealth and lack of good paying jobs needs to be dealt with. Our existing firearms laws need to be heavily enforced. Parents that leave weapons insecure and a child gets injured or killed, they need to be charged heavily. Straw purchasing laws need to be strengthened and enforced. Just a few things off the top of my head. It needs to be a very comprehensive approach, nut just going after pistol grips and bayonet lugs.

I also agree with the idea of prosecuting instances where unlocked, unsecured weapons are used.

But background checks and locking weapons aside, so many of these shootings seem to be random acts of violence, with little or no prior behavioral problems. In so many cases, the alleged shooter is described as a quiet nice person. People who do not need to use a straw buyer to purchase a gun.

My feeling is that existing firearms law is unable to solve the problem. But given that there is no political will to enact legislation, I fear that the shootings will continue. As will the sincere political posturing. If ISIS was killing 30,000 US citizens every year, the public would be demanding a war. But this violence is internal, a cancer that is hurting the body. And like cancer, the treatment is rarely successful without removing the cancer.

That problem could be lowered if people had decent jobs with less stress of how they are going to get through the day. Lower the Alcohol and drug problems would also be a benefit and possibly lower gun murder rates more.

According to the study, violence linked with inequality by country as well as by region and urban areas. I will look for it today.

Just think, a discussion about guns without any name calling.

I am glad you at least read my posts.

violent crime, including firearm deaths, have been halved in the last 20 years.
Now, that said, the level of violence is still unacceptable, there are things that can reduce the firearm deaths.
My number one proposal would be to end the WOD and shift the funds to the mental health care system which would greatly reduce the number of suicides overall.
Another proposal would be to pass the UBC bill in Congress, cut the DOD's budget and shift those funds to the ATF to better enforce the nation's firearms laws, and, while we're at it, start rebuilding the nation's infrastructure, which is in disrepair, which would have the benefit of creating hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of new jobs and businesses.

That's just a few, there are other's I would be more than willing to look at and give serious consideration.

But perception is important, or the GOP would never elect anyone to anything.

I agree with your first proposal, assuming that WOD refers to war on drugs. A massive amount of money wasted, and a massive militarization of police departments around the country, with no success.

On the second proposal, the GOP shows no sign that it is willing to actually govern. They are concentrating on Benghazi and repealing the Affordable Care Act. I also agree that cutting the war budget would do more for the security of the nation than bombing other countries.

Rebuilding the infrastructure would provide millions of jobs, thus increasing the GDP and massively stimulating the economy.

I think these are all excellent proposals. All that is lacking is political will.

There isn't a constitutional answer, b/c that part of the constitution prevents the only reasonable answer- start confiscating guns and melting them down en masse.

Or are you going to let others with firearms do your bidding?

You're free to call on the Congress to amend or repeal the 2A, but be advised that it will take 2/3rd's of both chambers of the Congress to vote to amend/repeal, and then 3/4th's of the states to ratify it, IOW, it will take only 13 states to vote any such change to the BoR.
Think you've got the votes?

I laughed so hard I spit my water all over my screen.
Thanks for that, it made my night.

Does everyone who opposes murder have to join the local police force and kick in doors? If I oppose reckless driving do I have to personally sit out on a highway with a radar gun and hand out speeding tickets? No? Then stop bring up this intellectually vacuous argument.

Very Cheneyesque, if you ask me...

That question would be: who, precisely, is going to be carrying out that confiscation? It's not an easy question to answer.

It should go without saying that voluntary, proactive compliance with such a law would be...sparse. One need only look at estimates of compliance with strict regulations enacted in NY and CT, post-Sandy Hook. Official state estimates are 10-15%. A full and complete ban (or bans on ownership - not just new sales - of widely-owned weapon types) wouldn't seem likely to do any better than that.

Thus, active confiscation would have to be carried out if the law were to have much effect. Who's going to conduct that confiscation? The police? Even if every uniformed officer in the country agreed to follow those orders (astronomically unlikely...), that's about 700,000 people. There are about 80,000,000 gun owners in this country. The problem is obvious.

Even if there were no resistance - and there would be - with those numbers, it would take years and years to accomplish (with the suddenly-robust black market "backfilling" for those who had been disarmed). The more realistic scenario, sadly, is that a lot of cops would say "fuck off" to those orders (both for reasons of their own safety and for vehement opposition to the law), and those that didn't would see their numbers quickly reduced by attrition when people elected to resist. There is no way law enforcement is adequate to this enormous task.

So use the military? Posse comitatus aside, the military is, if anything, more pro-civilian-gun than law enforcement. The same caveats about refused orders apply...with much greater consequences, given the enormously greater size and power of the military compared to law enforcement. No responsible civilian leader would risk the state of the armed forces in this way.

So who, then...?

In speaking in realistic terms, you would do what Australia did- have a gun buy back to start. Following that, you institute a grace period, or perhaps even a provide gun boxes to allow people to anonymously dispose of weapons. Have a campaign ad encouraging family members (spouses, parents, adult children etc.) take weapons and leave them in the drop box (since the weapons are contraband, technically their value is zero, thus they can't be "stolen.&quot . Add in a public awareness campaign about the evils of gun ownership, and be sure to add a strong pro-gun control theme to public schools to change people's hearts and minds.

Give that a few years, and then you start concentrating on "gun hoarders"- people who not only kept their weapons, but kept large stockpiles. Use social media, offer cash rewards to turn in weapon violators, etc.

You won't get every black market gun and Saturday night special off the street, but you will make amazing strides, and EVENTUALLY we'll reach the status of somewhere like Britain or Australia. Gun crime isn't non-existent, but it is substantially reduced. It isn't something that will happen over night, it requires a culture change. Its one I think we will one day rise up and embrace.

And I very much doubt that large chunks of the military would obey such orders, even if you eliminated posse comitatus and it were actually legal to use the military in this way. Forcible confiscation really is a non-starter in this country.

Buyouts would be something that might well work, at least on smaller scales, like Australia, with its comparatively low number of civilian guns. For the nation as a whole, it would be ruinously expensive. I mean...320,000,000 or so civilian firearms. I wonder what the total value is? Somewhere between 50 and 100 billion USD or so? Quite possibly more...

I think you're on to the long term solution: a cultural change. That change will be a lot more likely if people feel genuinely safer. That, in turn is going to require some big changes in how we get information (our current news media makes its money peddling fear...). Frustratingly, just being safer isn't good enough (we've been seeing a reduction trend in violent crime rates for a couple decades now). We have GOT to stop living in fear.

But there will also have to continue to be an actual reduction in violent crime...otherwise people like me (5'3", 112lbs and a gun owner) will have trepidations about losing their mechanical advantage against an assailant. The more dysfunctional a society is, the more at risk physically weak people become...or at least feel they become. The analytical part of my mind (which dominates my personality in most cases) tells me my risk probability is low. But that same part also tells me the probability is greater than zero...and a more emotional part seizes that fact and runs with it. Note: I also am a competitive target shooter, but those guns aren't really good for personal self-defense: big, heavy bolt-action rifles. I'm talking about the guns people keep for self-defense here.

The problem is, despite years of good news about crime rates, it's hard to shake the feeling that things are moving away from a stable, relatively peaceful, successful society, not towards it. There are fewer violent crimes...but more mass killings (more people who snap?). The oligarchs continue to amass greater and greater levels of political power and capital, and aren't even subtle about it any more (TPP, anyone?). Partisan political divides grow wider every day. "The centre cannot hold..."

To many, the future seems bleak indeed. It may or may not be of any use to be armed in that future, but it's certainly the case that a lot of people believe it would be. The cultural shift away from civilian gun ownership will have rough going in a society on the trajectory ours seems to be on.

you want bans and confiscation, but yet you don't want to get your hands dirty, you would rather let other's with firearms do the heavy lifting.
Know what that's called? Hypocrisy.

Should grandma have to sit on the side of the road with a radar gun? Should a ten year old have to go out and hunt down murder suspects? No?

Amazing, it is almost like people get PAID to do stuff like that.

In contrast, most drivers aren't armed, and traffic cops usually aren't out to seize the driver's cars


Don't take it personally- "Service for thee, but not for me" has a long tradition in
this country. Here is a list of some other Americans with a similar mindset:


John Wayne
William Loeb
Mitt Romney
Ted Nugent
Dick Cheney
Toby Keith
Donald Trump...

Btw, what if I told you I was wheelchair-bound? You don't know anything about me, but keep going for ad hominem attacks when your other arguments fail.

But of course the NRA will say that what works in many countries can never work here.

Guns are necessary to defend ourselves against the UN helicopters,

or the Russians,

or invaders from space. Or something like that.

deprived of their most useful self-defense tools.

But there is really no reason to dwell on those inconvenient facts and ruin an otherwise wonderful "feel good" narrative - right?

the rate of violent crimes committed per 100,000 population is 386.3 crimes per 100,000 in the US, versus 305.5 crimes per 100,000 in Australia.

And the rate of violent crime in Australia has gone down over the last decade.


Rather than read and accept the NRA's talking points, please read the article at the link I will provide and tell me what you think.

http://theconversation.com/faking-waves-how-the-nra-and-pro-gun-americans-abuse-australian-crime-stats-11678

As has that of the US, despite no such laws being passed.

And then do some research and tell me how many gun massacres have occurred in Australia since the Port Arthur massacre prompted the CONSERVATIVE government of John Howard to act.

being used to perpetrate crimes against persons (rape, assault, robbery), the point is that criminals now have more freedom to commit crimes - because they are now facing an unarmed citizenry.

It's not difficult to understand. Home invasion (HI) is much less likely to happen in the US than in the UK or Australia. And HI is more likely to happen in these countries since gun-control measures were enacted. Why? The simple answer is that a criminal is less likely to enter a residence where the occupants are more likely to be armed. Should anyone be surprised at this?

1) You made a specific point about rising crime in defenseless Australia.
2) I refuted your point and pointed out (in the link) how the NRA cherry picks statistics to deceive its members.
3) The US is number 1 in the world for incidences of violent crimes per 100,000 residents. Since this contradicts NRA fantasy you ignored it and accused me of side stepping.

Interesting example of NRA logic.

I think the NRA unduly influences idiots to think they need tons of guns to feel secure

that linked inequality and violence in countries and in areas. The study claims to show a link between inequality and levels of violence. If the study is correct, and given the current, historically high level of inequality in the US compared to all the other OCDE countries, THAT might explain why the US has such high levels of violence.

We did a poll in 2007 and 51% of DUers said they owned at least one gun.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x518023


Do you believe that half the DUers polled do so because of some stupid reason that Carson or Trump gave?

I can't wait until this stupid name calling is sent back to the Gungeon where it belongs.

insomuch as the innertubes convey reality.

10s of 1,000s are dying every year thanks to your constitutionally-protected hobby, maybe you can understand why some people might be upset and say mean things about the poor innocent semi-automatic tools.

mainly because I think they've already won, and all that's happening is a negotiation on the terms of surrender.

How else can you describe a situation where the Democratic Platform acknowledges the cultural significance and legal relevance of a individual right to keep and bear arms, the Supreme Court has spoken on the subject, the President himself admitted that he cannot do any more and there's no support in Congress for meaningful firearm restrictions, and support for gun rights and against restrictions is steadily increasing, even after events like Sandy Hook.

Nobody likes to lose, but most people recognize when they have. And a few people actually delude themselves into thinking they are winning, after they've already lost.

The gun control extremists remind me very much of the conservatives that still think they have a chance at stopping gay marriage. The gun control extremists think that they can actually get the 2cnd amendment repealed, while the anti-gay marriage morons think the nation would actually pass on amendment banning gay marriage. Both sides think they have a huge amount of popular support, but that the will of the people is being suppressed by third parties, or crooked politicians.......while the truth is, it's actually them that are attempting to thwart the will of the people.

From http://www.bradycampaign.org/about-gun-violence:

On average, 31 Americans are murdered with guns every day and 151 are treated for a gun assault in an emergency room.

Every day on average, 55 people kill themselves with a firearm, and 46 people are shot or killed in an accident with a gun.

I stated an opinion, backed it up with data that half the posters at the time were gun owners, and asked if the OP if they honestly thought half the DUers were just like Carson and Trump in their reasons for owning guns.

But thank you for not addressing any of those points in your response.

And if you don't like what I say, since you are unable to respond in kind, feel free to alert or quit whining.

Only those who responded to the poll, said anything at all, which was likely, no more than a tiny fraction of DUers.

You can't blame me for the people who didn't vote. That's just plain silly.

That's all I'm saying.

I'm not saying one side is more right than the other. 51-49 is almost a tie. My question was to the OP asking if they thought nearly 400 of their fellow users held the same opinions and reasoning as Trump and Carson.

I own a gun and do not do so because of Trump and Carson's reasoning.

Nor do I pay much attention to posts like this one which purport to tell me how I must feel.

...should we be sitting down?

the statement would be "please vote for my Republican opponent in the next election."

Never forget that DU is not representative of the wider electorate, and an elected representative intentionally failing to stand during the National Anthem wouldn't even be acceptable to many liberal Democrats here.