OH GOD no- Kerry's gun control positions

http://www.issues2000.org/2004/John_Kerry_Gun_Control.htm

If Kerry gets the nomination, the GE's going to be a bloodbath.

it's his gun rights position.

If the reason behind voting for Dean is as he says that if you have a republican and a democrat with the same position on something (let's say the war) then the Republican is going to win every time.

But on this issue if you have a republican and a democrat with the same position you're going to vote for the democrat?

Something is not consistent there.

Whyt the democrats think gun control is a good thing. Or why they ever chose it as a platform to begin with.

Gun rights are an American thing NOT a republican or DEM thing.

As do a good deal of Americans. Again, maybe it's the rural versus urban thing.

(and I'm one who feels very strongly about the issue) neither are many in the black community. Both these groups are important constituencies. It's a "macho" guy thing to be into guns IMO.

This was one thing that bothered me about Dean...

A 14 year old girl shot a moose here in Vermont this year. She's a proud member of the NRA, too. NH is no different. Maine is no different. Rural Pennsylvania and NY are no different. I would also guess that the same is true in any big hunting state.

The Second Amendment is a civil rights issue, just as unreasonable searches and seizures and Free Speech issues are civil rights issues.

If you think about it, the anomoly is the Republicans supporting the Second Amendment, since they generally suck on civil rights.

Here's the thing. Just like the abortion issue, there are people on both sides who are fervent about it. But there are also people who are concerned with it, but not rabid about it. Dean's nomination means the NRA will be a passive group during the campaign. After all, if Dean's running, they will not be able to energize the 80-100 MILLION gun owners in this country with the "They're coming for your guns!" bit, since BOTH candidates have their endorsement. With Kerry, they'll be all over him, and we can't even complain about it, since they'll be RIGHT.

BTW, LOTS of Democratic "core supporters" have fled the party over this one devisive issue, like blue-collar union types who own guns. Gun ownership used to be a Democratic ideal, and IIRC Clinton was the FIRST Democratic President in the 20th century who was NOT a NRA member. I KNOW Carter was a lifetime member...

For people who vote hard right on gun rights, Dean is an example of what Harry Truman said. Given the choice between a Republican and Democrat who has a traditional Republican position, people will vote for the real thing. Harry Truman called this the, um, Zell Miller rule.

Gun nuts tend to vote in large numbers only when they feel threatened. If Kerry is the nominee they will likely feel threatened.

My company's firewall won't let me open the link

It shows a number of bills that he voted for/against in past years. He's very consistent about this issue, at least. Not sure if this is the one we want him to be consistent on, though.

Gun control is to conservatives as abortion is to liberals....:-(

ask any suburban mother. Ask any city mother. Ask any mother for that matter.

is soon to be a mother. She also has a CCW permit. She carries regularly.

My mother has a CCW permit. She doesn't carry regularly, but owns a gun and got the permit to cut down on transport hassles.

in gun ownership in the past 20 years? It's WOMEN.

So much so that manufacturers have been coming out with product lines which cater to women shooters, and they've been selling like hotcakes.

Gun control: The idea that a woman dead in an alleyway after being strangled with her own pantyhose is somehow morally superior to that same woman standing in that same alleyway explaining to police just exactly how her attacker came to have two bullets in his chest...

how many parents have "locked" up their guns only for their children to end up maimed or dead? Guns are for killing.

but don't come to me pushing YOUR choices off on ME. How is your position any different from the anti-abortion folks saying "Abortion's bad, they should be banned"? If you don't want to have an abortion, don't. If you don't want to have a gun, don't. But don't take that right away from others.

My wife is alive today because she carries a gun. It LITERALLY saved her life. She does it legally. If she couldn't carry legally, she'd probably carry illegally, on the basis that "it's better to be tried by 12 than carried by 6".

There were fewer than 1,000 accidental fireams deaths in the US TOTAL for the last year that figures are available. There were many times that number of defensive gun uses in the US in that same time period. How many people are you willing to kill in order to save fewer than a thousand lives a year? Five thousand? Fifty thousand?

You DO know the cause of most gun deaths in the US, don't you? It's SUICIDE. Not murder, and CERTAINLY not accidents.

There's an oft-cited figure that having a gun in the house increases the chances of somebody dying in the house by 43X. Sounds impressive, doesn't it? Subtract suicides, and care to guess what that figure drops to?

Becuase it does affect other people and other peoples children
in england there is less gun related deaths per capita

there are far fewer NON-gun homicides per capita than there are in the US.

The problem isn't one of guns, it's one of violence. There are far more homicides in the US that didn't involve a firearm than there are homicides in most European countries with or without firearms. Given that, it's hard to see how guns could be seen as the CAUSE of the US violence problem...

Guns were never a problem in and of themselves. There was a time not so long ago that kids brought huns to school and lept them in their lockers (for a gun club meeting after school or a sports team). BUT nobody ever got shot (ok rarely). Many years earlier, people had guns sitting by their door but they didn't wander the streets shooting people.

When the lunnies say "guns don't kill people, people kill people"? They aren't as far off as they usually are. There's no such thing as a dangerous weapon... only dangerous people. And for some reason we have LOTS more dangerous people than we had even a few decades ago.

Almost every occurence of some child being killed by a gun in the home involves (criminal) negligence on the aprt of the gun owner.

I don't own a gun (though I have been appropriately trained), but there are lots of things in my house that could kill one of my children (chemicals, etc). I can't imagine not keeping a gun in a place (and in a way) that none of my children could possibly use it.

Parents whose children find and "play" with their guns are taking less care of a firearm than they are with the insecticides and kitchen chemicals in the house. It isn't the gun's fault. It's mom & dad who have the problem. There is no reason a firearm can't be kept in a completely safe fashion.

I hate Kerry's positions on gun control.

people in rural states need to live under urban laws?

Dean doesn't oppose gun control laws for urban states. If urban states want gun control laws, he's fine with that. But forcing rural states to live with urban state's gun laws is stupid and counterproductive.

There are no border guards when you get to those state boundaries, checking to make sure you aren't bringing guns over the state line.

After all, we have border guards at the border of the US, and it doesn't stop illegal immigration or drugs from coming in, does it? What would make guns any different?

I mean, you didn't think I was in favor of setting up border crossings between the states, did you?

I was just pointing out that just like acid rain, guns have no difficulty crossing state borders.

my point is that even if the laws were uniform (all equally restrictive) it wouldn't mean anything. Drugs are uniformly illegal, and still available everywhere.

So why go pissing off people we need unnecessarily? It's cutting off our noses to spite our faces.

Bush laid the bloodbath out last night. They're going to rip the country apart with a marriage amendment.

The gun thing isn't a big deal. Did your grandma have a tommy gun? That's all we're talking about here. Gun safety, not gun confiscation.

the slippery slope.

On edit: Well, I guess they could tie with the pro-choice folks <ducks>.

Heaven forbid we should take a courageous stand for all those kids in the inner cities being killed every day by guns that don't serve any real purpose.

And if you don't like the list, make your own. For whoever is going to throw out that ridiculous argument.

Heaven forbid we take a courageous stand for all those people whose ability to legally purchase or own a firearm is being denied right now because of bills that Kerry and too many other Dems have consistently voted for. People such as:

* People with misdemeanor traffic convictions in Pennsylvania
* Dishonorable discharge from the military (for example, because of being lesbian or gay, or for listening to Malcolm X tapes in the barracks)
* Drug convictions, even if it was a marijuana possession conviction at 18 and the person is now 50
* Convictions in other countries which are felonies there but are not even against the law in the U.S.
* Convictions for such things as sodomy, adultery, fornication...

Any questions? This issue needs to be dropped by the Democratic Party not because it's politically expedient but because dropping it is the right thing to do. And John Kerry has been on the wrong side of it and is one of the worst.

and about a dozen other models of scatter/long/hand guns. Funny thing is ... none of them ever "went off".;-)

Interesting. Never met a single person in my life, north, south, east, west, who owned a tommy gun.

Nobody is talking about doing anything with other guns, just like nobody did anything with other guns back when they outlawed tommy guns either.

and "tommy guns" weren't outlawed, they're still legal to own in much of the country, as long as you're rich and white. Expensive (a cheap one will set you back $7500 now), but legal.

BTW, the law regulating "tommy guns" is the LAST Jim Crow law on the federal books. THAT'S something to be proud of, isn't it? :eyes:

"Grandma having a tommy gun" is a pretty frequent thing. During WWII, soldiers often brought their service weapons home, either legally or illegally. Hardly a week goes by where I don't hear of a case where some Vet has died, and while the family was going through his effects, they came up with a real live machinegun that Dad brought back from WWII or Korea, either US property marked, or an enemy battlefield pickup.

"The gun thing isn't a big deal."

and is why he didn't carry his home state.

Gun control is a HUGE issue. And it HURTS us. Gun control plays well with parts of the Northeast and California. It's a six week dead albatross around our necks in the rest of the country. That was the beauty of Dean's position...He said let the states decide, so places that support gun control can have it, and places that don't support it don't have to have it.

Look I hate it! Look I wish that more people felt the way I did but Kerry will get killed down here and we need all 50 states!!!

He was among those idiots that said that the Columbine massacre could have been avoided had the federal government required homeowners to have trigger guards.

Nonsense!

> had the federal government required homeowners to have trigger guards.

Violent people have such trouble with logic. If there was a trigger lock on the guns, how would they have pulled the trigger? Of course having them would have helped.

The best solution is for their families to have not had one of those things in the first place. Not having is better than locking.

"If there was a trigger lock on the guns, how would they have pulled the trigger? Of course having them would have helped."

They cut the barrels off of a shotgun. How would a $5 trigger lock have stopped them?

If he did, he's stupid. No gun laws would have prevented Columbine. School shootings happen because kids are under too much pressure to be everything to everyone and they aren't allowed to be kids. Kerry wants to add MORE pressure by forcing kids to do community service in order to get a high school diploma. He also wants to aggressively recruit our kids into the military.

That is what the south votes on. Kerry has it. Case closed. They said the same thing about Kerry in Iowa, wasn't true there either. If WE stop stereotyping the south, they will listen to us.

As his many statements on IWR fully attest to.

to even have a hope of getting the NASCAR and cowboy vote down here you have to be reasonable about gun control.

I support gun control as well!

DTH

anti-gun!

Except for maybe James Brady.

But in any case, Bush is going to amplify Kerry's moderate to strong support of gun control to deafening roar.

Bush for 4 more years. Keep up with this ridiculous line and see how quick the Bushies come for your guns if you don't town their line.

10 percent want lighter laws

And I'm pretty sure that most gun-nuts(the people who favor NRA positions on gun control) are against an increase in income taxes, and/or for a Koffi Annan instructed foriegn policy

Read the latest Zogby survey, you are using old numbers. ~80% of Americans support CCW and most do not want to see tighter gun laws. If Kerry panders to the anti-gun extremists it will hurt him badly. Guns are no longer demonized as they once were.

People support the gun laws we have and gunshow loopholes and the other restrictions we still need. Nobody is supporting much more than what we have. Nobody is pandering to anti-gun extremists. Keep throwing out that right wing red meat and let the Republicans win again.

"Americans now feel (concealed weapons permits are) a good law by a 79% to 18% margin"

"Voters nationwide believed by a 66% to 31% margin that there are enough laws on the books and what is needed is better enforcement of current laws."

"Perhaps more surprising is that 68% of liberals and 70% of moderates disagree that gun manufacturers should be sued when a criminal uses their product in a crime."

Public opinion is changing. Kerry is taking a very unpopular position.

I hate to be one of those link please people, but I need to see the whole poll to judge it.

The way the questions are framed, the whole thing, it's ridiculous. Try a poll that isn't slanted to make people panic that the liberals are coming to get them. Good grief.

That would be like calling Bill Clinton a freeper. :wtf:

Don't care who owns the company. People make money and when somebody pays them, they know the results they're supposed to get. That poll framed questions in such a way as to frame every question to get the "oh my god, the liberals are coming" reaction.

Thanks.

The idea's just ridiculous and dangerous. I don't know about those numbers, either, with the concealed weapons ones...those sound pretty wacky. If those are true, the NRA's waaaay too effective in the media. Everything else sounds about right, though.

I think alot of these laws have defined the concealed weaopons laws more succinctly which is why people support them. They usually have things about stalkers and such in them too. For whatever reason NRA types support them, I don't know. But when I read them, I like the regulations in them.

with concealed weapons permits, I could name at least 10 off the top of my head.

When they first started talking about passing "shall issue" CCW laws, the anti-gunners swore up and down that it would mean bloodbaths on every street corner. It's been over 20 years. Where are the bloodbaths?

If it became more common, you'd start seeing a lot more people getting shot.

If you look at the figures compiled by the states with CCW laws, you'll find that people who have CCW permits are statistically much less likely to commit crimes with their guns than a member of the general population at large is to commit a crime with their unlicensed gun.

People who go through the hassles to get CCW permits are NOT the people who are likely to commit a criminal act. Either that, or criminals are not likely to get a CCW permit, since it generally involves background checks, fingerprinting, and training.

As for it being common or uncommon, something like 44 states have CCW laws now, and most have had them for years. If the permits are still uncommon after 20 years of "shall issue" permits, where anybody who wants one and has a clean record can get one, what makes you think that at some future point permit applications are going to skyrocket?

It's about accidently shooting people.

It's like when there are more cars out on the road, you're going to have more car accidents. Right? It's the same with guns. When everyone's carrying a gun around, people are going to be doing stupid things with them, whether it's accidents or misunderstandings or bad decision-making. It makes no difference.

And what I meant by "uncommon" is that CCW permit states aren't that common. If you see it get more common across the US, you'll see our shooting rate go up. That's common sense.

On edit: My last point- I'm not hanging out with anyone that's carrying a gun. If a friend of mine pulls out a gun while we're out on the town and says "Hey, look, I'm packing!" I'm going to ask him what the FUCK he thinks he's doing carrying a gun around. It's just dumb.

"And what I meant by "uncommon" is that CCW permit states aren't that common."

Currently, 46 out of 50 states have laws allowing at least some form of CCW. How much more common can it GET?

I'd like to keep it that way.

After all, the whole point is that it's CONCEALED.

You've undoubtedly met somebody with a concealed weapon, you just don't know it.

them any longer than I had to be.

you'd be well-served to confine yourself to Wisconsin, Illinois, Nebraska and Kansas. EVERY other state has some allowed form of CCW, with 37 of them being "shall issue" or "no permit required". Even so, you may run into somebody carrying concealed in those 4 states, they just will not be doing it legally.

Yessir, that's why Dems are pushing so very hard to renew the AW ban...

Remember 1994? Remember Clinton's referring to all the Democrats who lost their seats because of the AW ban in his SOTU address?

Gun control has become a "third rail" issue.

2004/01/12-15 Would you like to see gun laws in this country made more strict, less strict, or remain as they are?

More Strict 53%
Less Strict 12%
Remain same 34%

And for the more extreme view:
Do you think there should or should not be a law that would ban the possession of handguns, except by the police and other authorized persons?

Should 32%
Not 67%

This has however been trending down from a high of 43% in 1991

I wonder what accounts for the differences between the Zogby and Gallup polls? Usually they are pretty close.

Here's the latest CBS results:

2003/11/10-13
More Strict 51%
Less Strict 10%
Remain Same 35%

Very close to Gallup, I think its in the wording. I have access to Gallup detail as a subscriber, but not to Zogby, do you happen to have the actual survey that Zogby used? This just goes to show how this issue is so polarizing, you word in one way and it goes one way, word it another and its a landslide the other way.

http://client.xntec.com/clientpages/oleary/report0104.html is the Zogby report

The exact wording is here:

“Which of the following two statements regarding gun control comes closer to your own opinion? Statement A: There needs to be new and tougher gun control legislation to help in the fight against gun crime; Statement B: There are enough laws on the books. What is needed is better enforcement of current laws regarding gun control.”


Which is indeed different from the Gallup / CBS polls.

What if one vehemently disagrees with *both* positions? That's a biased poll if there ever was one.

But you're right. This is true of any poll. Including the other polls mentioned here. Wording and option choice can seriously taint the results of any poll.

Because Zogby is a democratic muslim though, I really, really doubt he has any hidden agenda in this.

There's that "other" choice but it doesn't really show all the differing positions.

For example, my position: Would support more gun control in those areas where it is a consumer product safety issue (trigger locks should be sold with new handguns, law requiring parents to keep guns locked up out of reach of children, for example), but would support loosening up or repealing the existing gun laws in those areas where it is a civil liberties issue (prohibited possessor categories, and the federal computerized background check system, for example.)

There are also those who would want fewer laws across the board, whose position is not represented either. Limiting the debate to either "more gun control laws" or "keep the existing laws and enforce them more strictly" shows a definite bias in the poll, whether or not the poller intended it that way.

Most of us support gun control, no?

...I'm not sure the DLC's "tough on crime" line is going to be as universally popular here as conventional wisdom would suggest.

Supporting gun control is a right-wing stereotype of liberals, not necessarily true in all cases.

have the Constitutional right to have arms. It's to protect us from an unreasonable government, & I think in these times, that is a right we can not give away.

there are LOTS of pro-gun Democrats.

take everybodies guns

until AFTER the revolution....because it disarms their supporters.

They will say he's this year's Michael Dukakis, a Massachussettes liberal that is "soft on crime".

I thought we were against that. Most people have seen this applied very unfairly and his wisdom of this vote will go over well.

He also introduced portions of the recent Amber Alert law on child molestors. And supported 100,000 cops on the streets.

He's got the common sense record on getting tough on crime, the record that has proven to work.

What is it about Kerry's position you don't like? Why? How is it different from your candidate's position? Why is your candidate's position better?

Increased Gun Safety

John Kerry is a gun owner and hunter, and he believes that law-abiding American adults have the right to own guns. But like all of our rights, gun rights come with responsibilities, and those rights allow for reasonable restrictions to keep guns out of the wrong hands. John Kerry strongly supports all of the federal gun laws on the books, and he would take steps to ensure that they are vigorously enforced, cracking down hard on the gun runners, corrupt dealers, straw buyers, and thieves that are putting guns into the hands of criminals in the first place. He will also close the gun show loophole, which is allowing criminals to get access to guns at gun shows without background checks, fix the background check system, which is in a serious state of disrepair, and require that all handguns be sold with a child safety lock.
http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/crime/

I don't think that's particularily relevant here.

The fact is, most candidates, including Bush, have very similar stances on the issue of gun control. The problem with Kerry is his goes a good bit beyond most candidates.

It will not stop me from voting for Kerry, if that is who wins the nomination. I will support Kerry 100% then.

However, I personally do not agree with it and from the latest poll numbers think it is a bad stance to take.

I must take issue with your comment: "The problem with Kerry is his goes a good bit beyond most candidates."

Could you please be more specific about in what ways you perceive him to go 'a good bit beyond most candidates'?

And I do think it is relevant to discuss in what was you disagree with him, because it provides a foundation for discussion.

He goes beyond most candidates in his zealousness in attacking the NRA and people who support gun rights. This isn't a big secret. Whereas Howard Dean was happy to have the NRA backing him and even bragged about it, Kerry takes every opportunity he can to rip on anything and everything pro gun. On the other hand, he is very cozy with anti-gun, anti-freedom organizations who seek to outlaw the ownership of all handguns.

(Please note for the record, I am not a NRA member, nor do I intend to be)

Assault weapons ban: This law only bans COSMETIC FEATURES that have nothing to do with crime (when's the last drive-by bayoneting been?) and is a simply a stupid law to placate the mindless masses. So called "assault weapons", a misused term, were rarely used in crime, and according to a NIJ report under Clinton the law did absolutely nothing to reduce crime.

Gun-show loophole: Yeah ok, first of all, hardly any guns used in crime come from this, and furthermore in the most crime heavy areas in the US this is already closed. Next, the deeper issue with this is forbids the personal transaction of firearms. It's a bigger issue than politicians let people know.

"Corrupt dealers": take for instance, the DC area "sniper", who stole his gun. Why should the gun shop be held accountable because someone stole their gun and used it in crime?

Require all guns come with a child safety lock: All guns already come with locks voluntarily. This will change nothing. Locks can stop small children but any teenager can hacksaw or drill them off in seconds.

What really pissed me off was his little photo shoot showing he was a "hunter". Wow, way to kill animals needlessly for a photo-op chief! High respect for animal life there. He does it with a $3000 shotgun too, then proceeds to lecture us on what guns we do and don't "need".

He came across as a total rich elitist using guns the "common man" couldn't afford.

Agggh. As you can see this pisses me off. But you asked, and this is why I didn't want to go into it.

(insert Dean scream of frustration here)

Yes, even though this pisses me off, it's not a make or break issue for me. The economy, war in iraq, and defeating Bush are all more important.

That is why although I disagree with Kerry I will still support him 100% should he win the nomination.

Anyone but Bush, baby.

First of all it is simple false to say Kerry has attacked people ' who support gun rights ' -- it's just not true and I challenge you to back it up. Yes, Kerry has attacked the NRA -- but that does not equal attacking people ' who support gun rights '.

The rest of your screed, for instance, where you attack Kerry for owning an expensive gun, is does indeed come across, as you put it, as no more than a 'Dean scream' -- you've attacked Kerry's position, but you haven't contrasted it with your position, or your candidate's position.

Are you totally opposed to gun-safety laws or what is your position?

First of all it is simple false to say Kerry has attacked people ' who support gun rights ' -- it's just not true and I challenge you to back it up. Yes, Kerry has attacked the NRA -- but that does not equal attacking people ' who support gun rights '.

He's attacked Howard Dean and other politicians for supporting gun rights. This is all recent news, not sure why it's surprising, heh.

The rest of your screed, for instance, where you attack Kerry for owning an expensive gun, is does indeed come across, as you put it, as no more than a 'Dean scream' -- you've attacked Kerry's position, but you haven't contrasted it with your position, or your candidate's position.

Are you totally opposed to gun-safety laws or what is your position?

No, I am not. I simply oppose anti-gun laws that either A) infringe the second amendment too much, and/or B) do not reduce crime.

I'm all for background checks, and don't have a problem with that. Nor do I have a problem with the extensive CCW process in place in most states.

What I would like to see personally is the overturning of the ineffective assault weapons ban, reopening of the NFA registry, and nationwide fair-issue CCW with background check, fingerprinting, and training requirements. I also think that gun bans in cities like Chicago, Washington DC should be abolished and state laws should not be able to be more harsh than federal laws.

Now, I realize though, that my position is not what most people would agree with. As thus, I don't expect whichever candidate I support will support it.

I support Clark. Clark has not attacked people who support gun rights to the degree Kerry has, nor has he supported the extensive gun control Kerry historically has from his voting record.

I still disagree with Clark on gun control, but Clark's an amazing guy and I agree with him on other issues that are far more important to me. Which is why I will support Kerry even though I disagree with him here should he recieve the nomination.

It's an important issue to me, yes, all of the bill of rights is. But when Dubya is ruining this country by the day, you gotta keep things in perspective.

"He's attacked Howard Dean and other politicians for supporting gun rights. This is all recent news, not sure why it's surprising, heh."


Please show one instance of Kerry attacking Dean 'for supporting gun rights'.

You can't, because it doesn't exist. Kerry has attacked Dean for standing with the NRA. Kerry has attacked Dean for his internally inconsistent position on gun rights and states rights. Kerry has attacked Dean for changing his position for his Presidential run. Kerry has attacked Dean for pandering on the issue. But Kerry has never attacked Dean, or anyone else 'for supporting gun rights'.

Please put up or shut up.


As for the second part of your post, I'm glad you acknowledge that you disagree with your candidate. But of course, you aren't running for President, your candidate is. So I will do some research and tomorrow I will compare and contrast Kerry's position and Clark's (of which I know absolutely nothing at this point.)

It makes Dean's "insane rantings" after Iowa seem positively genteel in comparison...

Dean can campaign for him in the General Election in the south and west.

Does Dean need Kerry for anything?

If Kerry endorses Dean, then Dean gets a massive boost on the environmental, foreign policy fronts.

Almost all Democrats (except Dean) are going to be for some gun control. Kerry doesn't want to take anyone's guns away. He supports the assault weapons ban, the Brady Bill, etc. Nothing out of the ordinary for Democrats here.

Good for him, too. :)

there are lots of elected Dems who aren't pro gun control. Take Mark Warner for example. Hell, even our own Maine Mary is against gun control.

As for Clinton's being pro gun-control, remember the 1994 bloodbath? Remember what he attributed it to? The AW ban...

If it weren't for Bush I's betrayal of the pro-gun folks in '89, Clinton wouldn't have been elected in 1992...

Politicians piss of the pro-gun people at their own political peril...there are 80-100 MILLION legal gun owners in the US, and they're all over 18 and can vote.

does nothing but ban cosmetic features. It is horrible and will thankfully expire this year. In Kentucky, a Democrat who came out for a new AW ban will surely suffer.

He's going to win the Gore states and nothing else.

the repukes control congress.

Clinton got nowhere on guns after the 1994 repuke takeover.

The assault weapons ban was passed BEFORE repukes took over.

Clinton admitted this in one of his SOTU addresses.

The Democratic Party's answer to Bob Dole.

Not against ....

Once again: ... DU becomes a forum FOR Conservative positions on Gun Rights, in defiance of Democratic Party positions .... at least in the mind of a VERY few 'firebrands' ...

WHO'd have thought ? ...

Remember the Bill of Rights? That was the document that the PATRIOT Act repealed by a stroke of Bush's pen.

...50 Caliber machine guns, etc., around when the Second Amendment was written. And I think we can all agree that we would want some type of gun control to prevent our freeper neighbor from owning those.

Don

Stinger missiles and RPG's are red herrings. No mainstream organization, even the Gun Owners of America -- of which I am a member -- are advocating civilian ownership of missiles.

As for .50BMG firearms, I would be happy for any of my neighbors, all upstanding, law-abiding citizens, to own them -- as long as I could borrow them occasionally. They are too expensive, both to buy and to feed. The ammo alone costs $1.50 per round. The rifles are several thousand dollars.

I fail to understood how the "progressive" position on gun control is the one that mistrusts the American people and advocates government suppression of a fundamental right.

My Democratic party unwaveringly supports the 2nd Amendment. My fellow Democrats own firearms: handguns, shotguns, and rifles. You'll be hard pressed to find local elected officials -- mostly Democrats now, since we booted out the corrupt Republicans -- who do not own firearms. Our last Democratic party chairman can't tell you exactly how many firearms he owns because he lost count long ago.

I'm an NRA-certified firearms instructor in four disciplines. I'm a competitive shooter. I carry a concealed weapon every day (in KY). I own military style rifles. I'm counting the days until the appalling "Assault Weapons" ban sunsets so that I can trick out my rifles with the accessories they were meant to have and so that I can buy new magazines that aren't artificially restricted to 10 rounds. I think the NRA is a moderate organization on gun rights.

In addition to being a gun rights activist, I am also a Democrat. I have run for office as a Democrat. I have been elected as a Democrat. I have served as a Democrat. I am a board member in the local Democratic Club, and I will soon be a Democratic precinct executive.

So please, don't lecture me on what the Democratic party position on gun control is. The DNC platform position on gun control has done more to damage the Democratic party than George Bush could ever do.

There is ONE Democrat advocate of absolute gun rights ....

Anymore ? ...

The point is: ... YOUR position is peddled here as mainstream Democratic philosophy, .. yet this cannot be further from the truth ....

You are a rarity, not the norm ....

Plain and simple.

I'm positive that he's not for felons with guns.

As far as other Dems who are pro-gun, Howard Dean, Mark Warner, Rick Boucher...all Democrats, all with good or better NRA ratings...there are many more, but those 3 I'm sure of.

platforms, you'll find lots of stuff about supporting the rights of people to own guns...

Maybe it's because the gun-rights position is not "conservative" in any way. It doesn't seem to fit very well with the rest of the reich wing's "tough on crime" demagoguery does it?

Another point: It was the right wing that first started promoting gun control long before some liberals decided to take it up as a holy cause. Their purpose was to disarm radical left groups like the Black Panthers, and possibly people of color in general (the NAACP used to advocate arming back in the 1950s to defend against the Klan.) Then some liberals decided to take up gun control as an issue following the MLK and RFK assassinations, and the nascent new right saw an opening for a new wedge issue to win working class and rural people over to the right wing Repuke side, and switched positions on guns. Or so they claim - IMHO the Republicans have been gun grabbers all along, even when they claim they aren't.

The right wing wants to create a stereotype of liberals as gun grabbers in the public mind. The fact that there do appear to be some liberals who fit that stereotype doesn't help. It's a stereotype created and fed by the right wing, not reality.

It is high time we took that issue back from the right wing.

are what will get you elected where I live. The Party needs to change its image. Want to get gun owners like me fired up? Mention Feinstein or Schumer (Democrats) or McCain (Republicans). I stand for liberty. I cannot fathom how so many in the Party of Liberty are against this one particular Liberty.

I respect Kerry for being consistent, but his anti-gun attacks on Dean will come back to haunt him if he gets the nomination -- they certainly make my skin crawl -- and his transparent, staged hunting photo-ops trying to pander to gun owners are offensive. He can't have it both ways. Bush will trumpet Kerry's remarks and many independents will run screaming away from Kerry. The national Democratic platform needs to drop its anti-gun planks completely and focus on its core message addressing the culture and economics leading to violence.

For what it's worth, I'm counting the days (235 to go) until I can install a collapsible stock and flash suppressor on my AR-15.

He toes the line, rides the fence. Then when the wind's blowing one direction, he jumps over to that side, and when it switches, he jumps to the other. He calls it being "nuanced." You just have to be more "intelligent" than most to really understand him. If you disagree with Kerry or the way that he does things, then you're just simple or a one-issue voter.

But I support Dean on this issue because gun control will not fly in the south. It will not fly in the midwest or mountain west either.

Nobody is truly going to eliminate the damn things anyway. There are too many of them and alot of the larger private arsenals are not registered.

It is simply not worth losing an election for a proposal that will never pass or be successfully implemented even if enacted.

I doubt it. The only places where he'll even bring that up are NY and CA...and maybe not even CA.

everyone knows where he stands and he is consistent.

since it's a deal-killer.

concerning his stance on issues.

he should.

it'll become a big issue. If Dean gets the nomination, it's a non-issue.

the faltering Dean candidacy. It won't work.

John Kerry's position on gun control is imminently reasonable to those who are not NRA disciples--or perhaps desperate Dean supporters looking for a little traction in the New Hampshire race.

Just like Gore's National FOID card proposal was imminently reasonable...it still cost him the election because it pissed off blue-collar union gun-owners and the people of his own home state.

If Gore had Dean's position on guns, Florida wouldn't have mattered.

Kerry will not make that mistake.

John Kerry says his vote for the IWR was "the right thing to do for the country." Discuss. :)

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/editorials/articles/2004/01/22/kerry_in_new_hampshire/

Kerry has been buffeted by criticism over seeming inconsistencies on Iraq. But his position today is the same as the one he took early on. In a meeting with the Globe's editorial board 15 months ago, he explained his vote authorizing the use of force in Iraq, saying he felt the president deserved the backing of Congress to take with him into negotiations at the United Nations Security Council.

It isn't convenient, perhaps, but the realities of disarming Saddam Hussein and rebuilding Iraq are immensely complex. As Kerry put it more recently: " `No' is not a policy."

We think Kerry is best suited to help Iraq prepare for its future. His prescription to bring security and freedom to Iraq is undergirded with a broad, interdependent view of the world. Whether the focus is foreign relations, trade policy, or the eradication of AIDS, Kerry evinces a deeply felt desire for America "to rejoin the community of nations."

_______________________

George W. Bush abused his authority as commander-in-chief; he lied to Congress, the American people and the world about the threat Iraq posed. Bush has misled the nation; he is the one who deserves our righteous anger.

A lot of people I talked to after the 2000 selection voted for bush because "Gore was gonna take my guns!" The gun issue is HUGE and being anti -gun is a deal breaker and will vote for bush even if it hurts them in other ways Dean's stance on guns at least gives people who are a one issue (GUNS) will listen to the other thing he has to say

one reason so many union voters that should be solid Dem voters cross party lines is the gun issue.

I would argue the primary reason we can't win sh!t in the rural districts is because of the candidates we elect often want more gun control. In 2k, we never should have had to fight for heavily unionized PA, MI, MN, WI and WV...we shouldn't have lost TN and Ark, hell even NH or LA should have been ours after the Clinton years.

After the election Bill Clinton said the NRA cost Gore at least 3 states...but he was wrong on one thing: It's not the NRA, it's the gun issue.

I personally will find it very hard to vote for someone like Kerry whose solutions to gun violence are to place burdens on and restrictions on law abiding citizens like myself rather than go after root causes of crime....such as a piss poor economy, underqualified for jobs because schools suck, the war on drugs, and so forth.

I know a lot of people who, like you said, should be on our side, but refuse to simply because of the damned gun control wedge issue. Concede it, for Christ's sake.

gun control

who'd win, the NRA or the MMM/HCI? Who can get more people to the polls? Who has more dues-paying members? Hell, for that matter, which organization's spokeperson's husband worked for Reagan, and which organization's spokesperson bought their son a high-powered sniper rifle for Christmas a few years back?

I'm not a real conspiracy theorist, but given the fact of how much damage HCI has done to the Democratic Party, who Jim Brady worked for, the fact that Sarah Brady bought her son a sniper rifle, and the fact that she only recently switched her party affiliation from (R) to (I), I have to wonder if we've been a victim of a huge false flag operation.

Just on note im not a kerry supporter but respect him for his pro gun control record

but actually, Bush wants to renew the AWB as does Kerry...so I guess Kerry being for gun control will cost him for being like Bush, by the logic in your last post.

What will cost Kerry is pushing for more gun control...just look at the loses the anti gunners have had at the state level and the victories the pro gunners have. The Right To Carry states now number around 36, the anti gunners have yet to win a lawsuit, and more states are likely to become right to carry.

There are more gun owners now then ever.

If the majority of Americans want more gun control, then why is the above true

I hate to break it to you folks who don't wish for any gun control, but the majority of people in the country want some sensible precautions. A few examples from the latest study by the National Opinion Research Center:
<snip>
General and Safety-Related Gun-Control Measures
As Table 1 indicates, majorities support 11 of 14 measures to regulate guns and promote gun safety. 88% want to make gun-safety training mandatory before a gun may be purchased. 79% support requiring a police permit before a gun can be purchased. 78% favor requiring background checks for sales between private individuals. 77% endorse the mandatory registration of handguns and 70% want handgun owners to be required to re-register their weapons at regular intervals. 77% also agree that “the government should do everything it can to keep handguns out of the hands of criminals, even if it means that it will be harder for law-abiding citizens to purchase handguns.” 74% want to require that all new handguns be personalized so they can only be fired by their legal owner. 73% favor both a background check and a five-day waiting period before a handgun may be purchased. 69% endorse limiting handgun purchases to one per month per buyer. 63% back the idea that all handgun owners should at least be licensed and trained in the use of their weapons. 52% favor allowing concealed-carry permits only for those with special needs such as private detectives. <snip>

It is also interesting to note that 49% favored handguns being limited to police and law enforcement personal period. The NRA has even stated that the best gun for home defense is a 12 gauge shotgun, either pump or double barreled.
If you wish to read more on what the NORC survey found, you can go here:
< http://www.norc.uchicago.edu/> The survey link is down towards the bottom of the page.

And then there are the results found out by the marketing research firm EPIC-MRA that polled Michigan NRA members(Michigan being one of the two largest hunting states, and one of the top ten states in per capita gun ownership):

* 64 percent of NRA members favored mandatory reporting of private handgun sales;

* 59 percent favored regulations requiring that guns be stored unloaded;

* 68 percent supported creating uniform safety standards for domestic and imported guns;

* 56 percent supported a law requiring a five-day waiting period before purchasing a gun.

*55 percent were in favor of banning high-capacity magazines that hold the ammo.

And this is the opinion expressed by NRA members! I quite frankly don't see how Kerry's opinions and voting record on gun control issues is out of step at all with the majority of Americans(and I want you folks to note that I am in no way, shape or form a Kerry supporter. I have other issues with him that will probably swing me towards voting Green if Kerry gets the nod). I think that the American public is being swayed by the loud rhetoric of the minority into believing that most people don't want gun control. Yet when questioned, even NRA members express the sentiment that this is simply not so.

Being that this is a democratic republic that we live in, it seems logical that we should abide by the wishes of the majority. Instead we are having to abide by the wishes of the minority, a minority who is adept at telling the big lie. This must come to an end, no matter who wins the Democratic nod. People do not wish to seize all of the guns in the hands of private citizens, they simply wish for sensible regulations that will help guns from falling into the wrong hands, and that will prevent the senseless gun related tragedies that occur each and every day.

It's a sad fact we have to deal with, unless your prepared to move to another country. The Senate and the Electoral College are the world we have to live in.

We can change the players if we don't like them. We can vote in new Senators and Represenatives who see things like the majority of Americans do. As far as the electoral college goes, what do they have to do with setting public policy? Are you saying that they will go against the will of the people if the popular vote elects a pro gun control President?

The fact is that we live in a country where we can elect our represenatives and can make our will known any time we wish. That we have let the NRA and other members of the minority position frame the control debate is more of a knock on we the people than it is on our elected reps. What is needed is to make our voice heard. Judging from the numbers, we will be in great company.

as an impartial, unbiased source?

If you want people to take your arguments seriously, you MIGHT try not linking to sources that clearly show bias.

First off, if you would do some research, you will find that the last time the Joyce Foundation paid the NORC to do some research is in 2000. You can check that out here: <http://www.joycefdn.org/programs/gunviolence/gunviolencemain-fs.html>. Second, the NORC is an unbiased, non-partisan public opinion research foundation. They have been used by foundations, think tanks, and politician both conservative and liberal, because they are quite simply very objective about their research. Third, the NORC doesn't do their work for free, hence they get money from those who wish public opinions, same as anybody else who works in the publlic opinion research sector. Fourth, gee, it looks like I further backed my ass up by including a poll consisting entirely of NRA MEMBERS! What, are you going to say that they're liberal biased whackos too?

Sorry, but your arguement strikes me as desperate, trying to attack the messenger when you can't refute the message. Tell you what, if you've got something to back your happy ass up, bring it.

their primary data source consisted of Joyce Foundation sponsored surveys. To use a bit of computer jargon, "garbage in, garbage out."

And I noticed you didn't link to the second study of NRA members. Please provide a link.

<snip>
"This report primarily utilizes data from 1) the 2001 National Gun Policy Survey (NGPS-01), 2) the 1999 National Gun Policy Survey (NGPS-99), 3) the 1998 National Gun Policy Survey (NGPS-98), 4) the 1997-98 National Gun Policy Survey (NGPS-97), 5) the 1996 National Gun Policy Survey (NGPS-96), and 6) the 1972-2000 General Social Survey (GSS) conducted by the National Opinion Research Center (NORC) at the University of Chicago. The NGPSs were designed by NORC in collaboration with the Center for Gun Policy and Research of Johns Hopkins University with funding from the Joyce Foundation of Chicago. " <snip>

Basically what this says is that the survey was developed in conjuntion with the folks at John Hopkins University(oh yeah, that's a real gun grabber's paradise:eyes:) with funding provided by the Joyce foundation. In other words, the Joyce Foundation provided money to develop a survey, however they had no input into what the survey said. The Joyce Foundation provided NO data. In fact if you wish for the sources, here they are:

REFERENCES
Adams, Kenneth, “Guns and Gun Control,” in Americans View Crime and Justice: A National Public Opinion Survey, edited by Timothy J. Flanagan and Dennis R. Longmire. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1996. Bankston, William B, et al., “The Influence of Fear of Crime, Gender, and Southern Culture on Carrying Firearms for Protection,” Sociological Quarterly, 31 (Summer, 1990), 287-305. Bartley, William Alan and Cohen, Mark A., “The Effect of Concealed Weapons Laws: An Extreme Bound Analysis,” Economic Inquiry, 36 (April, 1998), 2568-265. Bernard, M. and Lester, D., “Attitudes towards Gun Control and Personality,” Psychological Reports, 82 (Feb., 1998), 234. Black, Dan A. and Nagin, Daniel S., “Do Right-to-Carry Laws Deter Violent Crime?” Journal of Legal Studies, 27 (Jan., 1998), 209-219. Blendon, Robert J.; Young, John T.; and Hemenway, David, “The American Public and the Gun Control Debate,” Journal of the American Medical Association, 275 (June, 1996), 1719-722. Bowie, Amy, et al., “Chicagoland Gun Study,” National Opinion Research Center, 1998. Bronars, Stephen G. and Lott, John R., Jr., “Criminal Deterrence, Geographic Spillovers, and the Right to Carry Concealed Handguns,” AEA Papers and Proceedings, 88 (May, 1998), 475-479. Bureau of Justice Statistics, “Homicide Trends in the U.S.,” at www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicde, 2/10/2000. Carter, Gregg Lee, The Gun Control Movement. New York: Twayne, 1997. “Crimes Committed with Firearms, 1973-2000,” Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2001 at www.ojp.usdoj.gov Crocker, Royce, “Attitudes Toward Gun Control: A Review,” in Federal Regulation of Firearms, edited by Congressional Research Service. Washington, DC: GPO, 1982. “Current Trends: Homicides Among 15-19-Year-Old Males -- United States, 1963-1991,” MMWR, 43 (Oct. 14, 1994), 725-727. Davis, James A.; Smith, Tom W.; and Marsden, Peter V., General Social Surveys, 1972-2000: Cumulative Codebook. Chicago: NORC, 2001. Div. of Violence Prevention, “Rates of Homicide, Suicide, and Firearm-Related Death Among Children -- 26 Industrialized Countries,” MMWR, 46 (Feb. 7, 1997), 101-105. Edel, Wilbur, Gun Control: Threat to Liberty or Defense Against Anarchy. Westport, CT: Praeger, 1995. Faria, Miguel A., “Would Prevention of Gun Carrying Reduce US Homicide Rates?” ,” Journal of the American Medical Association, 284 (Oct. 11, 2000), 1788ff. “Firearm Deaths by Intent, 1991-1999,” Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2001 at www.ojp.usdoj.gov Frank N. Magid Associates, “Iowans’ Attitudes towards Guns and Government Regulation of Guns,” October, 1998. Gotsch, Karen E., et al., “Surveillance for Fatal and Nonfatal Firearm-Related Injuries, 1993-1998,” MMWR, 50 (April 13, 2001), SS-2, 1-34. “Gun Control,” Washington Post On-line, at www.washingtonpost. com/nation/specials/socialpolicy/guncontrol Haggerty, Catherine C. and Shin, Hee-Choon, “1996 National Gun Policy Survey: Methodology Report,” NORC, January, 1997. Harding, David R., Jr., “Public Opinion and Gun Control: Appearance and Transparence in Support and Opposition,” in The Changing Politics of Gun Control, edited by John M. Bruce and Clyde Wilcox. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 1998. Harlow, Caroline Wolf, “Firearm Use by Offenders,” NCJ 189369. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2001. Hemenway, David and Azrael, Deborah, “Gun Use in the United States: Results of a National Survey,” Unpublished paper, Harvard School of Public Health, n.d. Hemenway, David and Azrael, Deborah, “The Relative Frequency of Offensive and Defensive Gun Uses: Results from a National Survey,” Violence and Victims, 15 (Fall, 2000), 257-272. Hemenway, David; Prothrow-Stith, Deborah; and Bergstein, Jack M., “Gun Carrying Among Adolescents,” Law and Contemporary Problems, 59 (Winter, 1996), 39-53. Hill, Ronald Paul, “A Consumer Perspective of Handgun Control in the U.S.,” Advancing the Consumer Interest, 6 (Spring, 1994), 10-14. Imhof, Laurie; Kuby, Alma M.; and Hembree, Tina, “2001 National Gun Policy Survey Methodology Report,” Chicago: NORC, 2001. Kann, Laura et al., “Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance -- United States, 1997,” Division of Adolescent and School Health, August 14, 1998. Kates, Don B., Jr.,”Public Opinion: The Effects of Extremist Discourse on the Gun Debate,” in The Great American Gun Debate: Essays on Firearms and Violence, edited by Don B. Kates Jr. and Gary Kleck. San Francisco: Pacific Research Institute, 1997. Kauder, Neal B., “One-Gun-A-Month: Measuring Public Opinion Concerning a Gun Control Initiative,” Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 11 (1993), 353-360. Kellerman, A.L.; Fuqua-Whitlet, D.S., Sampson, T.R.; and Lindenmann, W., “Public Opinion about Guns in the Home,” Injury Prevention, 6 (2000), 189-194. Killias, Martin, “Gun Ownership, Suicide, and Homicide: An International Perspective,” in Understanding Crime: Experiences of Crime and Crime Control, edited by Anna Alvazzi del Frate, Ugljesa Zvekic, and Jan J.M. van Dijk. Rome: United Nations Interregional Crime and Justice Research Institute, 1993a. Killias, Martin, “International Correlations between Gun Ownership and Rates of Homicide and Suicide,” Canadian Medical Association Journal, 148 (May 15, 1993b), 1721-1725. Kingery, Paul M.; Pruitt, B.E.;and Heuberger, Greg, “A Profile of Rural Texas Adolescents Who Carry Handguns to School,” Journal of School Health, 66 (Jan., 1996), 18-22. Kleck, Gary, “Crime, Culture Conflict, and the Sources of Support for Gun Control,” American Behavioral Scientist, 39 (February, 1996), 387-404. Kleck, Gary, Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America. New York: Aldine de Gruyter, 1991. Kleck, Gary, Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control. New York: Aldine de Gruyter, 1997. Kleck, Gary and Gertz, Marc, “Carrying Guns for Protection: Results from the National Self-Defense Survey,” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 35 (May, 1998), 193-224. Kovandzic, Tomislav V., “No, Your Evidence Doesn’t Prove What You Think It Does!” American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 57 (July, 1998a), 363-368. Kovandzic, Tomislav; Kleck, Gary; and Gertz, Marc, “Defensive Gun Use: Vengeful Vigilante Imagery Versus Reality: Results from the National Self-Defense Survey,” Journal of Criminal Justice, 26 (1998b), 251-258. Krug, E.G.; Powell, K.E.; and Dahlberg, L.L., “Firearm-related Deaths in the United States and 35 Other High- and Upper-Middle-Income Countries,” International Journal of Epidemiology, 27 (1998), 214221. Kuby, Alma M.; Imhof, Laurie; and Shin, Hee-Choon, “Fall 1998 National Gun Policy Survey Methodology Report,” Chicago: NORC, 1999. Kuby, Alma M.; Imhof, Laurie; and Shin, Hee-Choon, “Fall 1999 National Gun Policy Survey Methodology Report,” Chicago: NORC, 2000. Kulig, John, et al., “Predictive Model of Weapon Carrying among Urban High School Students: Results and Validation,” Journal of Adolescent Medicine, 22 (April, 1998), 312-319. Kwon, Ik-Whan; Scott, Bradley; Safranski, Scott R.; and Bae, Muen, “The Effectiveness of Gun Control Laws: Multivariate Statistical Analysis,” American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 56 (Jan., 1997), 41-50. Kwon, Ik-Whan; Scott, Bradley; Safranski, Scott R.; and Bae, Muen, “Rejoinder,” American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 57 (July, 1998), 369-372. Leenaars, Antoon A. and Lester, David, “Gender and the Impact of Gun Control on Suicide and Homicide,” Archives of Suicide Research, 2 (1996), 223-234. Lott, John R., Jr., More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun-Control Laws. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1998. Lott, John R., Jr., “Violence Prevention and Concealed Weapons Laws,” Journal of the American Medical Association, 283 (March 1, 2000), 1205. Lott, John R. and Mustard, David B., “Crime, Deterrence, and the Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns,” Journal of Legal Studies, 26 (1997), 1-68. Ludwig, Jens, “Concealed-Gun-Carrying Laws and Violent Crime: Evidence from State Panel Data,” International Review of Law and Economics, 19 (1998), 239-254. Marvel, James E., “Would Prevention of Gun Carrying Reduce US Homicide Rates?” ,” Journal of the American Medical Association, 284 (Oct. 11, 2000), 1788ff. Mauser, Gary A. and Kopel, David B., “‘Sorry, Wrong Number’: Why Media Polls on Gun Control Are Often Unreliable,” Political Communication, 9 (1992), 69-92. McDowall, David; Loftin, Colin; and Presser, Stanley, “Measuring Civilian Defensive Firearm Use: A Methodological Experiment,” Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 16 (March, 2000), 1-19. McDowall, D.; Loftin, Colin; and Wiersema, B., “Easing Concealed Firearms Laws: Effects on Homicide in Three States,” Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 86 (1995), 193-206. McGarrell, E.F.; Chernak, S.; and Weiss, A., Targeting Firearms Violence Through Directed Patrol. Indianapolis: Hudson Institute, 1995. Michigan Partnership to Prevent Gun Violence, “Michigan Statewide Survey,” February, 1998. National Center for Health Statistics, “Firearm Mortality” in Fastats, 1999. National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, National Summary of Injury Mortality Data, 19871994. Atlanta: CDC, 1997. Nelson, D.E.; Grant-Worley, J.A.; Powell, K.; Mercey, J.; and Holtzman, D., “Population Estimates of Household Firearms Storage Practices and Firearm Carrying in Oregon,” Journal of the American Medical Association, 275 (1996), 1744-1748. O’Connell, Jim, “Handgun Sales Misfiring,” Scripps Howard News Service, May 27, 1998. “Overall Firearms Deaths and Rates per 100,000,” 1999 at www.cdc.gov Peter D. Hart Research Associates, “Parents, Kids, and Guns: A Nationwide Survey,” October, 1998 “Poll: Most Americans Favor Stricter Gun Laws,” Yahoo! News, May 27, 1998. Public Policy Forum, “Public Opinion Survey,” December, 1997. Rennison, Callie Marie, “Criminal Victimization, 2000: Changes 1999-2000 with Trends, 1993-2000,” NCJ 187007. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2001. Roundtree, Pamela Wilcox, “Weapons at School: Are the Predictors Generalizable Across Context?” Sociological Spectrum, 20 (July-Sept., 2000), 291-324. Schuldt, Richard; Judy, Eric; Hostetler, Brendan; and McCool, Matthew, “Public Opinion on Allowing Citizens to Carry Concealed Handguns: The Effect of Question Wording on Majority Opinion,” Paper presented to the Midwest Association for Public Opinion Research, Chicago, November, 1997. Sherman, Lawrence W., “Gun Carrying and Homicide Prevention,” Journal of the American Medical Association, 282 (March 1, 2000a), 1193-1195. Sherman, Lawrence W., “Would Prevention of Gun Carrying Reduce US Homicide Rates?” ,” Journal of the American Medical Association, 284 (Oct. 11, 2000b), 1788ff. Simon, T.R.; Crosby, A.E.; and Dahlberg, L.L., “Students who Carry Weapons to High School: Comparison to Other Weapon-Carriers,” Journal of Adolescent Health, 24 (May, 1999), 340-348. Singh, Robert, “Gun Control in America,” Political Quarterly, 69 (1998), 288-296. Smith, Tom W., “A Call for a Truce in the DGU War,” Journal of Criminilogy ano Criminal Law, 87 (Summer, 1997), 1462-1469. Smith, Tom W., “1996 National Gun Policy Survey of the National Opinion Research Center: Research Findings,” NORC Report, March, 1997. Smith, Tom W., “1997-98 National Gun Policy Survey of the National Opinion Research Center: Research Findings,” NORC Report, March, 1998. Smith, Tom W., “1998 National Gun Policy Survey of the National Opinion Research Center: Research Findings,” NORC Report, March, 1999. Smith, Tom W., “1999 National Gun Policy Survey of the National Opinion Research Center: Research Findings,” NORC Report, April, 2000. Smith, Tom W., “The 75% Solution: An Analysis of the Structure of Attitudes on Gun Control, 19591977,” Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 71 (1980), 300-316. Smith, Tom W. and Martos, Luis, “Attitudes Towards and Experiences with Guns: A State-Level Perspective,” NORC Report, December, 1999. Spitzer, Robert J., The Politics of Gun Control. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House, 1995. Stinchcombe, Arthur L., et al., Crime and Punishment: Changing Attitudes in America. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1980. Teret, Stephen P.; Webster, Daniel W.; Vernick, Jon S.; Smith, Tom W.; Leff, Deborah; Wintemute, Garren J.; Cook, Philip J.; Hawkins, Darnell F.; Kellerman, Arthur L.; Sorensen, Susan B.; and DeFrancesco, Susan, “Support for New Policies to Regulate Firearms,” New England Journal of Medicine, 339 (Sept. 17, 1998), 813-818. Tyler, Tom R. and Lavrakas, Paul J., “Support for Gun Control: The Influence of Personal, Sociotropic, and Ideological Concerns,” Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 13 (1983), 392-405. Vernick, Jon S., et al., “Public Opinion Polling on Gun Policy,” Health Affairs, 12 (Winter, 1993), 198208. Violence Policy Center, Unintended Consequences: Pro-Handgun Experts Prove that Handguns Are a Dangerous Choice for Self-Defense. Washington, DC: Violence Policy Center, 2001. Webster, Daniel and Ludwig, Jens, “Myths about Defensive Gun Use and Permissive Carry Laws,” Berkeley Media Studies Group, 2000. Webster, Daniel W.; Vernick, Jon S.; Ludwig, J.; and Lester, K.J., “Flawed Gun Policy Research Could Endanger Public Safety,” American Journal of Public Health, 87 (1997), 918-921. Woolley, Rachel; Kuby, Alma M.; Shin, Hee-Choon, “1997/1998 National Gun Policy Survey: Methodology Report,” NORC: Chicago, 1998. Wright, James D., “Public Opinion and Gun Control: A Comparison of Results From Two Recent National Surveys,” Annals, AAPSS 455 (May, 1981), 24-39. Wright, James D., “Second Thoughts on Gun Control,” Public Interest, 91 (Spring, 1988), 23-29. Yarbrough, Lynwood R., “Would Prevention of Gun Carrying Reduce US Homicide Rates?” ,” Journal of the American Medical Association, 284 (Oct. 11, 2000), 1788ff.

Now are you going to sit there and tell me that all of these sources and references are also "gun grabbers" and biased? Are you simply going to condemn a well respected research institute simply because they take money from the Joyce Foundation in order to develop a survey. Gee, don't you think people have a right to charge money for their services? Are you going to deny the NORC's objectivity in this and other matters? Are you really that desperate? I think that if you checked out their survey(after Table 1) you would find that it is by far and away an objective survey. But heaven forbid, the Joyce Foundation funded this survey's development! Horrors!

As far as the link that you wished for, here: <http://www.mppgv.org/polls/poll-section1.html> And yes, before you get your panties in a wad, it was a poll commissioned by the Michigan Partnership to Prevent Gun Violence. However, before you scream bloody murder, look at their methodology(or if you don't understand it, have someone with a stat degree look for you). You will find their demographics sound, their methodology accepted, and their performance(after all, this poll was performed by a third party, the analysis firm EPIC-MRA) objective. If you can't accept this, then I feel you are being too subjective yourself.

Speaking of which, I notice that you haven't brought anything AT ALL to refute my assertions. You simply keep attacking(futilely) the messenger. Why is that? Could it be because you have nothing to back your own self up?:shrug:
I would be happy to see anything you have to back your position up, but like most gunnies you seem to be long on hyperbole, yet short on facts.

top of my head.

From the bullet points in survey #1:

Point #1: how many lives were saved by guns?

Point #2: What is the non-gun homicide rate compared between those same countries?

Point #4: how many of those were suicides?

Point #5: Again, how many of those were suicides?

Point #7: Of those 93% of cops killed with guns, how many of them were killed with THEIR OWN guns?

Firearms regulation and safety (paragraph #1):

They cite a bunch of people, including Kleck, Kopel, et cetera, as supporting the proposition that "the public is strongly supportive of measures to regulate firearms, promote firearms safety, and keep criminals from acquiring firearms." I think if you check, you'll find that is misleading, to be charitable. It's like saying "a majority of people like to breathe, have sex with dogs and small children, and set fire to schoolbuses full of nuns." and then giving a bunch of cites to back that up. Yes, you can find surveys saying that almost all people like to breathe, and you probably can document that a tiny, tiny fraction of people like to have sex with animals and kids, and set buses on fire. Clumping them together is an academic "no-no", because it gives a false impression. That's what they do here. I'm very familiar with Kleck, and he's NEVER said in ANY work that the public strongly supports regulating firearms. In fact, his findings are diametrically opposed to that proposition. The authors of this "study" are citing people who said the opposite of the proposition that they're citing them for. That means they're either being extremely sloppy, or they're deliberately being sneaky and trying to tell people that other authors support their work when they do not.

That's about all I have time for now, but I've got one question for you. If these programs have the broad-based support you claim they do, and that the articles you cite claim they do, why haven't they been passed? After all, according to the second survey, a supermajority of Democrats, a large majority of Republicans, and a majority of NRA members SUPPORT the programs. So what's the holdup?

First off, those bullet points weren't in survey #1, they were in the introduction, which was devoted to getting some basic FACTS out in the air.

Second, how are your responding questions in any way relevent to these facts(this I've got to hear)? Third, I don't know the answers to these questions, you brought them up, so why don't you do some RESEARCH on them and present it to us? So far all you are doing is blustering off the top of your head, but you aren't backing it up with anything substantial.

Fourth, the quote that you are so incensed over concerning Kleck is as follows: "The public is strongly supportive of measures to regulate firearms, promote firearm safety, and keep criminals from acquiring guns" Now then, the source for having Kleck back this is from Kleck's 1991 book Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America. And while I haven't read this book(sorry, I don't have sixty bucks to throw around casually),and while he seems to be a firm believer in defensive gun use I can see him making a statement similar to this in his book, I mean after all, we do have the Brady Bill and other gun control measures. Surely this is indicative that there IS strong support of measure to regulate firearms. But I would be hesitant to bring up Mr. Kleck's writings. In a 1993 interview(with a friendly questionaire even), Mr. Kleck's defense of his methodology is shaky at best. Here is the link for you: <http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/kleck.interview.html> I think it is more telling to the objectivity of the NORC study that they do include such diverse sources.

Fifth, you are showing with each passing post your complete lack of understanding about the methodology of polls, the complexity of taking polls, and the statistical methods used in analyzing them. Thus you take refuge in the old saw "you can get a poll to say anything" Sorry, but that doesn't fly with me, and it simply shows how little you have to back up your assertions. Polls, if done properly and with the correct methodology are accurate to a fault. If you had bothered to research both polls that I gave you, you would find their methodology sound. Instead you resort to the quick gibe, the sharp tongue. How telling.

Sixth, in answer to your last question. The reason that gun control isn't making more headway in the US is because its opponents have very deep pockets and are very influential in the political process(or haven't you heard of one of the country's largest lobbying groups, the NRA). Money trumps principles almost all of the time, and money is increasingly trumping the will of the people. Just one example for you, from my home state, Missouri. Back in the mid-nineties, an NRA backed CCW bill was introduced and passed our General Assembly, despite the public response being against it. The late Govenor Carnahan vetoed the bill, and it died a quiet death. A few years later, the NRA was back, funding an initiative petition drive to get CCW on the ballot here in Missouri(the first public vote on CCW in the nation). It failed, the people had resoundingly spoken. And yet last year, after a gun friendly, overwhelmingly Republican General Assembly took office, the NRA came in with it's deep pockets, and contrary to the expressed will of the people of Missouri, introduced and passed a CCW bill. Our current Govenor Holden vetoed this bill also, but in the override session, it was passed through anyway, but only after some laws were broken when a pro CCW congressman was flown in off of active reserve duty at Gitmo in order to cast his decisive vote. Just ONE instance of the vast influence and unlimited pockets that gun control opponents have. It is also indicative of their regard for democracy in this country when they fly in the face of the electorate, doing backroom deals in order to get unpopular laws passed. That is why there aren't more gun control laws out there, because money, power and special interests are trumping and stifling the will of the people. That you are willing to throw in with such a big money, big power, undemocratic group of special interests is telling in and of itself

"The reason that gun control isn't making more headway in the US is because its opponents have very deep pockets and are very influential in the political process(or haven't you heard of one of the country's largest lobbying groups, the NRA)."

how your "source" found that the majority of NRA members supported restrictions? What, is the NRA not listening to the majority of it's membership? Considering that the NRA leadership is regularly elected by the membership, and the membership are the people contributing the money that makes the "deep pockets", I have to wonder about your demonizing of the NRA. After all, your own source stated that the majority of their members support regulations. If this is true, aren't they our allies for pushing for more gun control? And if it's NOT true, that pretty much shoots your source right in the proverbial ass, doesn't it? Where does the NRA's power spring from? It's membership. How many votes does the NRA cast in political elections? Not one. It's MEMBERS cast votes, and contribute money, both to the NRA/ILA and to individual candidates.

"Second, how are your responding questions in any way relevent to these facts(this I've got to hear)? Third, I don't know the answers to these questions, you brought them up, so why don't you do some RESEARCH on them and present it to us?"

Regarding polls, they CAN be accurate, but they CAN be utterly misleading. In the methodology part, they state how they conduct the poll, but say NOTHING about the wording of the questions. If you don't understand that the wording of the questions can skew results, well....

My questions are very relevant in that it shows the bias of the article, in that they don't address the basic facts. Take the "93% of cops killed are killed with guns" factoid. If they're killed with their own guns, how exactly will additional regulation prevent that kind of situation? With the "guns are used in gun deaths X number of times" factoid, since the majority of those are suicides, I wonder what exactly why those numbers are included, unless they're trying to "bump up their numbers". With the "people kill people with guns in the US more than in Europe", the fact that they don't address that people kill people in the US without guns more than in Europe is telling. Of course, that would blow their argument out of the water, but hey, the anti-gun groups have a long history of not letting facts get in the way. With the "guns are used to commit crimes X times" factoid, they conveniently neglected to mention how frequently guns are used to PREVENT crime.

If you want to talk about gun ownership in an unbiased manner, you need to talk about not just about the costs, but also about the benefits. Failure to do that simply shows the bias and complete lack of credibility.

Your analysis regarding the NRA and it's membership is pretty much spot on, they aren't listening to their members, they are browbeating them, and they are simply going through the motions. Even GHW Bush quit the NRA in disgust with their thickheadedness(I suppose you hadn't heard about that eh) And don't be so naive, you and I both know that you don't have to vote in order influence the US government, cash does quite well.

As far as the polls, if you do a little digging in both of the sources that I linked to, you will find the questions to the survey.

And I see your point with your questions now that you've explained it, however I still think that you need to back yourself up with some cites when you start making such blanket statements like "people kill people in the US without guns more than in Europe". Do you have a link? Besides, even if what you claim is true, then it just goes to show that we live in a very violent society and really don't need to be adding a lot of unregulated guns to the mix. But I really want to see some links before I buy your assertions.

And as far as talking about the benefits, that is what debates are for. One person brings up one side of the arguement, the second person brings up the other. People weigh in and balance the two out, and voila! a clear, whole picture emerges. But all you have done is engage in attacking my sources, without bringing much to the table. Why don't you lay out a counterarguement, complete with references and links? Then we can go from there.

It comes from it's members, in the form of dues and other contributions. How does the NRA BoD get elected? By the ballot.

Yes, Bush 1 did quit the NRA, but only after there was talk within the NRA about expelling him. And the NRA's membership has gone up substantially since he left (from 2.5 million to over 4 million).

for a comparison of homicide rates internationally, see http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvinco.html

Here are some exerpts from it's tables:

US firearms homicides: 3.72/100k
US non-firearms homicides: 1.98/100k

Germany firearms homicides: 0.22/100k
Germany non-gun homicides: 0.95/100k

France firearms homicide: 0.44/100k
France non-gun homicides: 0.68/100k

Switzerland fireams homicides: 0.58/100k
Switzerland non-firearms homicides: 0.74/100k

As you can see, the US firearms homicide rate and non-gun homicide rates are BOTH substantially higher than those other countries.

Now to counter that argument:

Finland firearms homicide: 0.86/100k
Finland non gun homicide: 2.38/100K

Of course, reading footnote #3 gives the percentage of houses with firearms in Finland as 50%, compared to the US rate of 39%. Finland has a higher rate of non-gun homicide than the US, but a much lower rate of firearms homicide, despite the fact that there are considerably more homes with guns in them over there.

One note: I found one error in this table. The Swiss percentage of firearms ownership is listed as including military weapons in it, citing Killias (footnote 5). If you actually read Killias, he specifically excludes military weapons from his count, and there are a LOT of military weapons in private hands in Switzerland due to their "militia" system which requires all men in certain age groups to keep military weapons in their homes.

Looking at these figures, there can be little doubt that the US has a much more violent society than other countries in Europe. And that even if you just look at the non-gun homicides in the US, you'll see that they are higher than the COMBINED homicide rate in most of the other countries. This makes me believe that there are cultural factors at work, and that there's not a causal link between firearms ownership and propensity towards homicide. In short, we kill more people in the US. Some use guns, some don't. That makes it a violence problem, NOT a gun problem.

You are my Justice/Public Safety HERO ! ....

Go getm tiger ! ...

Time for the HighRoad to slink off on the LOW Road, and right outta DU ....

HOW many times have the 'gun afficiandos' in J/PS demanded that most ALL Democrats HATE gun regulation ? ...

This is the WORST kind of projection ... the kind that lies ....

"When they kick at your front door
How you gonna come?
With your hands on your head
Or on the trigger of your gun?" --the Clash, Guns of Brixton


Given the current political situation, the Second Amendment keeps gaining relevance...

The "militia"/ right wing rural terrorism thing of the early Nineties is gone.

The Tek-9 toting drug dealer posses and Oswaldian sociopaths, against whom the laws were drafted, are still out there to some degree. Law enforcement people aren't going to be thrilled with any further weakening of their tools in dealing with those fellows.

It's over. The meaningful change in that area is restriction of handguns, but the People aren't changing their minds about being against that.

There is no actual 'gun issue' at the moment, only a pile of paranoiacs who get off on imaginary threats to their...personal barrel polishing.

The Democratic Party is not the party of the NRA. There will continue to be gun control laws like the Assault Weapons Ban, the Brady Bill and not letting anyone just get a gun without going through some steps.

during the 20th Century that were NOT NRA members? There was only one...in office from 1994-2000.

Because if NH is reminded of Kerry's stand on guns, he won't win there. NH is a BIG gun state, just like Vermont. If Dean can ask him a question during the debate, I think he should ask him about the NRA and gun control. There are TONS of NRA members who will be voting on Tuesday.

The majority of people won't take the time to dig deeper to research a candidate's stand.....they will go by assumption. And for some, all it takes is to hear something in passing like, "He wants to take your guns away" (and believe me, people say things like this), and they will be history.

It can and will be a deciding factor for some, but not as many as we might think.....doesn't seem to be an issue this time around. (yet)

why do we need machine guns?
Why is it so bad that people wih a violent history like wife abusers dont have guns?
Why is it so wrong that we want to discourage the impact of crazy right wing militias going out to hunt more than deer?
We dont want to take your guns away we just dont want us or our loved ones to get shot in the crossfires

it has to do with giving the people the ability to protect themselves from a government out of control. In todays times i am grateful more than ever for the second amendment.

we'll lose wv again because of his gun control position. that's the reason wv didn't vote gore in 2000, first time they didn't go dem.

Nothing to worry about. Move along, move along...

Personally, I'm anti-gun but for the basic right to own them with the restrictions we have now + registration and licensing. Am undecided on the concealed carry issue, and think that a ban on some automatic guns is reasonable. But the gun issue isn't really that important to me, and Kerry could be the same way.

what matters is that it's important to a shitload of voters, and he's going to get hammered on it BIG TIME.

Let's say only 1 in 5 gun owners takes gun ownership seriously and are irritated with Kerry enough to not vote for him. That's 20 million voters GONE. What was the margin in the last 3 Presidential elections?

Kerry might believe things personally but might not even fight for them to become law.

His position on gun control guarantees his unelectability. He's on record supporting gun control. Just because he's not campaigning on it 24/7 doesn't mean he's going to get a free pass from gun owners.

Once a person is elected, it's too late to stop their agenda. Pro gun people know this. It's like trust and virginity....once it's gone, it's exceedingly hard to get it back...

His positions aren't even extreme in my mind. Kerry must choose his words wisely and explain that he won't be coming to take people's guns away. And as far as his agenda goes, there are more important things to do right now - health care, foreign policy, fixing social security, etc.

gun control WILL be an issue if Kerry gets the nomination....and it's a loser for us....I hope I'm wrong, but I don't think I am...

I'm right - that is, if he gets the nomination. :-)

He may have been sincere. Nobody believed him.

Look, can we at least all agree that of all remaining candidates, Dean will be hardest for the NRA to portray as anti-gun?

clinton said the AWB of 94 lost the party its majority. He was right.

And explain their positions. Some gun owners get afraid and think we are against them and that they could lose their guns. Not many politicians are that extreme. Personally, I don't think there would be as much need for gun control if more goverment money was spent in areas that could improve the national mood.

I think there was more to it than the AWB, like the "scandals" - but that's me.