Polls Show Americans Strongly Reject More Gun Control.

[GreenStormCloud]

http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-in-seattle/wa-congressmen-play-it-cool-as-polls-reject-gun-control-following-shooting


According to Rasmussen, 62 percent of American adults say stronger gun control laws would have made no difference in Saturday’s attack. Only 29 percent of those surveyed said tougher laws would have had an impact. They also do not believe political rhetoric or anger was responsible.

The Gallup results were even stronger, with 72 percent of survey respondents rejecting the notion that stricter laws would have prevented the shooting, while only one in five people said tougher laws would have mattered.



(Rest of the article is at the link)

[aquart]

1. Sigh.

[ladjf]

2. If these polls are valid, then America is too dumb to decide anything,

which may be the case. nt

[Codeine]

8. Disagreeing with you does not equal dumb. nt

[ladjf]

14. I'm not sure that I have your point. Is it that you agree with the polls,

that gun control doesn't need any further restrictions?

To an individual I would have commented that I disagree with you. To the 72% in the polls, I think it indicates a lot of bad thinking which I flippantly referred to has dumb positions. If you are offended, don't be. No one gives a damn about what I think.

[Statistical]

18. Yes. Gun control doesn't work. There is no need for further restrictions.

Violent crime is at a 35 year low.
Homicides are at a 46 year low.

[KansasVoter]

36. How do we compare to the UK? LOL.

[GreenStormCloud]

42. The UK has more violent crime, it just isn't as lethal as us. N/T

[KansasVoter]

46. And why was violent crime and murder lower here in 1965 when....

there were hardly any idiots carrying concealed?

[beevul]

You mean when people could buy guns mail order?

Without backgrounc checks?

[KansasVoter]

52. I said carry concealed. Can you read?

[beevul]

66. Yes I can. You also said in 1965, do you remember saying that?

Before backgrounc checks.

When guns could be bought mail order.

When guns could be bought cash and carry.


Sorry that breaks your argument.


Make a better one next time.

:shrug:

[KansasVoter]

69. How many CCW in 1965?

[beevul]

91. Are you in favor of returning to the laws as they were in 1965? n?t

[BlueMTexpat]

100. What on earth is a "backgrounc check" ... I gave you a pass on

the first one ... but having repeated the same error, I wonder if you have any idea what you are talking about.

[Euromutt]

124. The "c" key is adjacent to the "d" key

Maybe beevul has a short left middle finger, causing him to inadvertently strike the "c" key instead of the "d" key.

In other words, it's just a typo. Don't try to pretend it's evidence of anything other than that.

[beevul]

125. Pretty much.

Although its from damaged hands, rather than short fingers.

[BlueMTexpat]

144. Chill - it was merely a failed attempt at humor in a heated thread. nt

[X_Digger]

77. You trotting out that straw man, again?

You've asked repeatedly whether those in favor of CCW / CHL think that it has some bearing on the violent crime rate, yet when presented with a resounding, "NO!", you continue to claim that someone, somewhere thinks that way.

e.g.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=331344

[one-eyed fat man]

129. In 1965

There was no Federal license needed to sell guns.

You could buy guns at Sears, Woolworth's, Western Auto, and most any hardware store. You could buy guns mail order. Klein's
in Chicago and Bannermann's in New York had big catalogs. There were no waiting periods. No background checks. You could buy government surplus guns direct from the US Army through the Director of Civilian Marksmanship.

Sen. Thomas Dodd, a Connecticut Democrat, was in the Senate trying, again, to get gun control, particularly a ban on handguns, passed. The term, "Saturday Night Special" was coined to refer to small imported or inexpensive handguns, a cynical ploy on the term, "Niggertown Saturday Night"

He gained some small notoriety when a Colt's Pocket Model fell from his pocket on the floor of the Senate. While he suffered some derision as a hypocrite for having a gun, nothing was said about obvious fact that he was in habit of carrying it pocket, concealed.

Upper class whites were not much affected by concealed carry laws, even in Washington, DC in 1965.

There are other examples of remarkable honesty from the state supreme courts on this subject, of which the finest is probably Florida Supreme Court Justice Buford's concurring opinion in Watson v. Stone (1941), in which a conviction for carrying a handgun without a permit was overturned, because the handgun was in the glove compartment of a car:

"I know something of the history of this legislation. The original Act of 1893 was passed when there was a great influx of negro laborers in this State drawn here for the purpose of working in turpentine and lumber camps. The same condition existed when the Act was amended in 1901 and the Act was passed for the purpose of disarming the negro laborers and to thereby reduce the unlawful homicides that were prevalent in turpentine and saw-mill camps and to give the white citizens in sparsely settled areas a better feeling of security. The statute was never intended to be applied to the white population and in practice has never been so applied. (emphasis added)

[GreenStormCloud]

20. I want people to discuss the polls, instead of discussing me. N/T

[w4rma]

68. America is right to dislike more restrictions on our lives. More gun control is more police state.nt

[dwilso40641]

98. Look

at who was just elected.

[emilyg]

117. So anyone who doesn't see

things your way is dumb?

[spin]

147. It may also be the case that you are not smart enough to realize that the majority ...

could be right.

When you call Americans "too dumb to decide anything" you paint with a very broad brush.

In my experience, when a person stereotypes others he proves that despite his level of education he remains a fool.

[Forkboy]

3. What, and give up show business?

[ladjf]

4. Meanwhile, a couple of armed security guards would have

definitely changed to dynamics of what would happened. How much would they have costs? $500.00. That's peanuts for her security.

[Taverner]

A couple of cops on site would have helped too

[ladjf]

11. Without a doubt. Chances are the attack would never have happened. nt

[GreenStormCloud]

28. You assume the guards would have been hired only when something was going to happen.

The guards would have been needed for ALL congressional events, for ALL congressperson. So that is $500 X 435 X 365 = $80,000,000

[Statistical]

30. The sad thing is $80 mil is a rounding error on our $3.2 trillion federal budget. n/t

[ladjf]

151. Your formula computes the costs for all 435, every day of the year.

I had in mind only the ones who have been threatened and only on the days when they have public events. I further had in mind their paying for it out of the campaign accounts.

But, were it to take 80 mil, it would still be worth it. At least one or two of the congress persons' staff could be tasked with armed security duty at public appearance. They sure as hell need to do something besides showing up, making themselves totally vulnerable and hoping for the best. Why take a chance like that? If the would be assassins were aware that at least two people on the staff were armed and prepared to shoot back, most of them wouldn't have shown up in the first place.

[Taverner]

5. Gun control doesn't do any good

That's why

Yeah, you can ban handguns and you end up taking them from the folks who obey laws.

Criminals will just find another way to get them...

[guitar man]

106. Exactly

The night I got shot 25 years ago I wasn't carrying because I was concerned I might get in trouble for doing so. The criminal that shot me didn't give a shit...

[otohara]

6. Wow - We're Stupid

seriously stupid

[Lint Head]

7. We live in a democratic republic not a democracy.

The majority does not rule.

[Statistical]

59. Still with 70%+ support the elected officials of said Republic know

that oppossing the will of the people on this issue has real consequences.

Ask Bill Clinton about the cost of the worthless AWB in the 1996 election.

[Hoopla Phil]

104. Correct. A majority cannot vote away anyone's civil rights.

Thank the founders for recognizing the right to keep and bear arms in the 2A.

What's the old adage? "A true democracy is 3 wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner - a democratic republic is an armed sheep contesting the vote."

[ladjf]

153. Money rules America. nt

[Still a Democrat]

9. Flatly wrong

The extended magazine allowed him to get more shots off without reloading. More people are dead because that was part os the assault weapons ban we no longer have.

[villager]

12. +1

n/t

[Kaleva]

15. Extended mags weren't banned under the AWB

It was illegal to manufacture and sell new ones after the AWB went into effect but it was still perfectly legal to purchase and own an extended mag during that time. And because so many were made, there never was a shortage of such magazines during the time the AWB was the law.

[Still a Democrat]

50. And Loughner's were manufactured and sold after the original ban

so if the ban had been kept in effect he wouldn't have had it.

[Kaleva]

58. Which wouldn't have prevented him from buying such mags made before the ban.

[beevul]

60. There are, according to estimated I've seen...

There are, according to estimated I've seen somewhere in the neighborhood of between 500 million, and a billion so called high cap mags in circulation in America.

Do you think things would have been different if he use pre ban mags?


Do you think that someone that would commit murder would simply "skip it" rather than use an illegal magazine?

[Still a Democrat]

67. You're assuming a logical and sound mind

We don't know what effort he would have gone to or if he would just settle for what he could purchase at his friendly neighborhood gun store.

[Statistical]

73. so called "high capacity" mags were available in every gun store in American during the "ban"

Had the ban not expired they would still be available. Used magazines during the ban fetched very high prices. Many gun stores bought and sold used magazines.

[Still a Democrat]

79. Thanks for making my arguement

They would have been less available and more expensive, therefore less likely to be purchased.

[X_Digger]

80. He purchased a second gun that same day.

Had he chosen, instead, to purchase more 30 round magazines, he could have done so.

[Still a Democrat]

86. I'd rather err on the side of Gabby and the other victims

instead of putting faith in the intellect and logic of Loughner.

[Statistical]

89. Well Gabby is pro-gun rights so I doubt she wants your "support"

if it means working against everything she stood for.

[Still a Democrat]

92. She's a lot bigger than that, don't you think?

She wouldn't want people supporting her because there's political disagreement? Everything I've read indicates she isn't like that.

[X_Digger]

99. He was 'together' enough to plan well in advance.. (purchased Nov 30).

What makes you think he wouldn't have been 'together' enough to put one gun back and grab another couple of magazines?

[Statistical]

84. He bought two $500 firearms (only used one). $200 in magazines and ~$100 in ammo.

If you are going to:
a) get death penalty
b) die in the attack
c) spend rest of your life in prison

Do you really think another $20 in going to prevent the crime? Honestly. If you think about that logically that is the conclusion you reach?

[Still a Democrat]

88. So Loughner was logical?

You have a lot more faith in his grey matter than I.

[Statistical]

90. No he wasn't logical but he was comitted.

You seem to think he would have just what? called the whole thing off because the total cost was $20 more (despite spending well over $1200 plus cost of cab, meals, and hotel room).

[BlueMTexpat]

102. Actually, Loughner was quite logical ... if one accepts his

initial cockamamie premises. Which I don't.
The timeline is chilling. And very telling.

[beevul]

111. How do you know when they were manufactured? N/T

[Straw Man]

113. You're right.

And Loughner's were manufactured and sold after the original ban

so if the ban had been kept in effect he wouldn't have had it.

No, but he could have had another one exactly like it, only manufactured before 1994. It was still legal to sell the old ones. Stores had tons of them, still in the package, New Old Stock. Being a non-renewable resource, though, they were starting to get more expensive. I wonder if that would have deterred him.

[Statistical]

17. No you are flatly wrong.

Columbine shooters had no 30 rnd magazines and killed 4x as many people.
George Hennard in Killeen TX had no 30 rnd magazines and reloaded (many?) times killing 5x as many people.
Cho at Virginia tech had no 30 rnd magazines and reloaded 17 times killing 6x as many people.

[Still a Democrat]

41. Sorry

those were different situations.

[X_Digger]

53. And this shooter would have likely chosen different tactics if limited to 10 rounds.

He purchased a second gun the day he purchased the Glock.

It's nice to think that 'if just this one thing had been changed', a tragedy like this wouldn't happen.

I wish that it were so.

[shadowrider]

137. How in the world are they different?

Mass murder is mass murder, regardless the method used, regardless how many shells a mag will hold, regardless how many people a fertilizer bomb can kill, or an IED or an out of control drunk driver.

How are those mass murders different from the mass murder in Tuscon?

[former9thward]

19. You are flatly wrong.

Changing magazines would take 2-3 seconds.

[boppers]

48. Uh, no. Changing takes less than a second.

Example:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z67PNOuj93w

[Still a Democrat]

57. He wasn't posing for a You Tube video in his living room

When a person is in a chaotic situation and full of adrenaline, that's different.

[boppers]

76. It all depends on practice and training:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CAFxgQmxbGI

[Still a Democrat]

81. Yes, in addition to the situation - I like how you guys make my arguements for me

Gonna guess Loughner wasn't really well trained, either.

[boppers]

87. Nope, he didn't seem to be capable of that kind of follow through in his life.

I'm generally in favor of requiring testing, training, and education for the use of potentially lethal devices. Want to drive a vehicle? Sure, get tested.
Want to handle explosives? Sure, get tested.
Want to own and/or carry firearms? Sure, pass some tests on skill, competence, knowledge of the law, and get re-tested every few years.

[Statistical]

83. I think IDPA is better demonstration.

It shows how someone with practice can shoot, move and reload very quickly and accurately.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M7ZNRslvj1Q

[one-eyed fat man]

136. What if's

all those folks who are coming out of the woodwork, girlfriends, classmates, teachers, friends, and telling anyone who will listen how they knew he was crazy all along?

Didn't one get quoted as saying as soon as he heard the news on the radio he "knew it was Jared?"

Now if any, one or all of those people had done something then, the shooter would either be in a psych ward someplace or on medication. In either case, his mental health history would have been in the FBI database so that when some store clerk phoned in the background check NICS would have stopped him?

Why do you have no blame for them?

Yet you are convinced if ban hadn't expired and he hadn't been able to buy 33 round magazine none of this would have happened.

[Cali_Democrat]

10. 'Murka

Fuck Ya

[Upton]

13. Excellent..

it's nice to see the American public is not fooled by the emotional arguments of the anti gun crowd..

There will be no further gun control..:thumbsup:

[Violet_Crumble]

21. Since when does gun control equal 'anti gun'?

I've tried to understand the mindset of anyone who opposes gun control laws that would put some restrictions on mentally unstable individuals being able to walk in and buy a gun, but I've yet to see any coherent unemotional argument...

[Statistical]

25. Because no useful proposals have been made in last 20 years.

It is nothing more than the same tired ban for the sake of banning (despite evidence it doesn't work) and restrict for the sake of restricting.

Some here even propose things like punitive taxes, and banning all guns.

You show me some sensible gun control legislation and maybe that title changed but until then gun control crusaders have EARNED that title.

[Violet_Crumble]

34. You don't think Australian gun control laws are sensible? Why?

Y'know, wanting to place restrictions so that mentally unstable folk can't walk in off the street and buy a gun isn't 'restricting for the sake of restricting'. Supporting gun control is most definately not 'anti gun', no matter what the gun-nuts in the US try to say..

[Statistical]

44. Nobody has proposed that in US in last 20 years.

What has ACTUALLY been proposed by anti-gun crusader has been a bunch of bullshit do nothing laws which simply ban or restrict for the sake of restricting.

Nobody is saying ALL GUN CONTROL is worthless but what has ACTUALLY BEEN PROPOSED is beyond worthless. It is insulting, ineffective, and in some cases Unconstitutional.

* gun ban in Chicago
* gun ban in DC
* the so called "Assault weapons ban" which is bills had truth in advertising would be called "scary black rifle ban which bans weapons based on looks"
* ban on 11 round magazines
* ban on all centerfire rifle (on the grounds they are "armor piercing")
* raising excise tax on firearms
* national ballistic registry
* requirements for smart guns (despite technology not existing)
* a beyond stupid law that would make law abiding gun owners felons if a politician comes within 1000ft (regardless of if the politician can even be seen).

There hasn't been a single useful gun control legislation in the last 20 years. The title is WELL EARNED for anti-gun crusaders in our government.

Most gun owners would support:
* a system to better block mentally ill persons from obtaining a firearm
* a aystem to allow the NICS for private persons to ensure private sales aren't to a prohibited person
* tougher sentencing for repeat offenders with firearms
* better access to public mental health
* mandatory reporting of potentially dangerous persons by authority figures (schools, doctors, police, etc)

None of which have been proposed by people supposedly looking to "effective and sensible gun control". Instead the same tired bans and restrictions get trotted out, year after year and the label "sensible gun control" gets stamped on them.

[Violet_Crumble]

65. Then they need to...

When it happened here, it happened at the federal level with the cooperation of all states and territories. And it's been successful so far.

I suspect that in the US, the issue of guns is like many other things, and has become so polarised that there's very little middle ground to be found. I think part of the problem is there seems to be a culture in the US where owning a gun is a status symbol or something. I know coming from a different country with a different gun culture that I'd be totally freaked out walking down a street and knowing that some people around me are carrying guns. They make me really uncomfortable if they're not being carried in public by professional types like cops..

[Statistical]

71. Well in the US many of the people pushing so called "sensible gun control"

have in the past advocated banning all guns, or saying if they could they would ban all guns.

Why should gun owners trust them? At to that the track record of pushing just punitive, Unconstitutional, do nothing crap why would anyone other than an anti-gun crusader support it.

The Instant Background check system (NICS) is well supported by gun owners. It was lobbied for by the NRA (as was the updated to block mentally ill persons). I can't speak for all gun owners but if we saw bills proposed that were actually useful I would support them.

Last weeks tragedy is a perfect chance to "start new" instead what do we see:
* McCarthy calls 11 rnd magazines "high capacity" and pushes a bill to ban them. Same bill she has pushed every year for past decade.
* Republican proposes a bill to make law abiding gun owners felons if they bring a gun within 1000 ft of a politician.

If that is the face of "sensible gun control" well THEY CAN FUCK OFF. Support for gun control won't climb until we actually see REAL USEFUL SOLUTIONS!

[lawodevolution]

119. We are not interested in turning the USA into a facist police state like Australia where they will

" I know coming from a different country with a different gun culture that I'd be totally freaked out walking down a street and knowing that some people around me are carrying guns. "

Soon be censoring the Internet like china. We have a different culture in the US, please respect that.

[Name removed]

94. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[benEzra]

163. About 80% of the guns sold annually in the United States for lawful purposes

are flat-out banned in Australia. Period. A lot of guns popular in Europe are banned in Australia, for pete's sake.

Australia might once have had reasonable gun regulations, but their laws as currently constituted are ridiculous. They are extreme even by European standards.

[X_Digger]

43. Not to mention the incrementalist approach endorsed -openly- by many.

We're going to have to take one step at a time, and the first step is necessarily -- given the political realities -- going to be very modest. . . . e'll have to start working again to strengthen that law, and then again to strengthen the next law, and maybe again and again. Right now, though, we'd be satisfied not with half a loaf but with a slice. Our ultimate goal -- total control of handguns in the United States -- is going to take time. . . . The first problem is to slow down the number of handguns being produced and sold in this country. The second problem is to get handguns registered. The final problem is to make possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition-except for the military, police, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors-totally illegal.

Pete Shields, founder of Handgun Control, Inc. which is now the brady campaign

"Brady Bill is "the minimum step" that Congress should take to control handguns. "We need much stricter gun control, and eventually we should bar the ownership of handguns except in a few cases,"

Rep. William L. Clay D-St. Louis, Mo

I think you have to do it a step at a time and I think that is what the NRA is most concerned about, is that it will happen one very small step at a time, so that by the time people have "woken up" to what's happened, it's gone farther than what they feel the consensus of American citizens would be. But it does have to go one step at a time and the beginning of the banning of semi-assault military weapons, that are military weapons, not "household" weapons, is the first step."

Stockton, California Mayor Barbara Fass

"My staff and I right now are working on a comprehensive gun-control bill. We don't have all the details, but for instance, regulating the sale and purchase of bullets. Ultimately, I would like to see the manufacture and possession of handguns banned except for military and police use. But that's the endgame. And in the meantime, there are some specific things that we can do with legislation."

Bobby Rush; Democrat, U.S. House of Representatives, Chicago Tribune, Dec. 5, 1999

"Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal." U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno, December 1993



They have only themselves to blame for intransigence-- you told us you'd whittle away at it, we're not letting you start whittling.

[boppers]

49. In the last 20 years? Sure!

Background check.

[Statistical]

64. Good point. The NRA lobbied for implantation of NICS.

I was thinking it came into effect in 1989 but it was 1999.

[boppers]

72. The sad thing about it is the backlog.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=201959&mesg_id=202370

Laws that aren't enforced (or enforcible) are problematic.

[Statistical]

75. That I agree with 100%.

I would even support a bill to require speedy updating of NICS.
I would also like to see it easier to mandate counseling and more rapidly transfer metnal health records to NICS.
Finally I want to see some penalties on states which allow a backlog to occur.

How about $10,000 fine per day per backlogged record until resolved.

[boppers]

82. A law to enforce a law...

Hm... I wonder about the enforcement of *that* law... :(

[Statistical]

85. Well without penalties not so much.

I guess I wasn't clear I don't want to just see the law enforced I want to see it improved and I want to see tangible penalties put in place.

For example states that don't comply see penalties deducted from their Medicaid funding automatically (no appeal, no way to bypass, doesn't take any action).
Don't block your mentally ill you lose $10,000 per day, per record. Period.

We would see the backlog at 0 records nationwide. They would hire the proper number of people to ensure system works. Without any consequence of course states will cut corners.

[beevul]

27. Since when?

Here, have a look:

"In fact, the assault weapons ban will have no significant effect either on the crime rate or on personal security. Nonetheless, it is a good idea . . . . Its only real justification is not to reduce crime but to desensitize the public to the regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation." Charles Krauthammer

We're going to have to take one step at a time, and the first step is necessarily -- given the political realities -- going to be very modest. . . . e'll have to start working again to strengthen that law, and then again to strengthen the next law, and maybe again and again. Right now, though, we'd be satisfied not with half a loaf but with a slice. Our ultimate goal -- total control of handguns in the United States -- is going to take time. . . . The first problem is to slow down the number of handguns being produced and sold in this country. The second problem is to get handguns registered. The final problem is to make possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition-except for the military, police, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors-totally illegal.

Pete Shields, founder of Handgun Control, Inc. which is now the brady campaign

"Brady Bill is "the minimum step" that Congress should take to control handguns. "We need much stricter gun control, and eventually we should bar the ownership of handguns except in a few cases,"

Rep. William L. Clay D-St. Louis, Mo

I think you have to do it a step at a time and I think that is what the NRA is most concerned about, is that it will happen one very small step at a time, so that by the time people have "woken up" to what's happened, it's gone farther than what they feel the consensus of American citizens would be. But it does have to go one step at a time and the beginning of the banning of semi-assault military weapons, that are military weapons, not "household" weapons, is the first step."

Stockton, California Mayor Barbara Fass

"I shortly will introduce legislation banning the sale, manufacture or possession of handguns (with exceptions for law enforcement and licensed target clubs). . . . It is time to act. We cannot go on like this. Ban them!"

Sen. John H. Chafee R.-R.I., In View of Handguns' Effects, There's Only One Answer: A Ban, Minneapolis Star Tribune, June 15, 1992

""My staff and I right now are working on a comprehensive gun-control bill. We don't have all the details, but for instance, regulating the sale and purchase of bullets. Ultimately, I would like to see the manufacture and possession of handguns banned except for military and police use. But that's the endgame. And in the meantime, there are some specific things that we can do with legislation."

Bobby Rush; Democrat, U.S. House of Representatives, Chicago Tribune, Dec. 5, 1999

"Mr. Speaker, my bill prohibits the importation, exportation, manufacture, sale, purchase, transfer, receipt, possession, or transportation of handguns and handgun ammunition. It establishes a 6-month grace period for the turning in of handguns. It provides many exceptions for gun clubs, hunting clubs, gun collectors, and other people of that kind."

Rep. Major Owens (D-Brooklyn, N.Y.), 139 Cong. Rec. H9088 at H9094, Nov. 10, 1993

"I would like to dispute that. Truthfully. I know it's an amendment. I know it's in the Constitution. But you know what? Enough! I would like to say, I think there should be a law -- and I know this is extreme -- that no one can have a gun in the U.S. If you have a gun, you go to jail. Only the police should have guns."

Rosie Takes on the NRA, Ottawa Sun, April 29, 1999

"A gun-control movement worthy of the name would insist that President Clinton move beyond his proposals for controls -- such as expanding background checks at gun shows and stopping the import of high-capacity magazines -- and immediately call on Congress to pass far-reaching industry regulation like the Firearms Safety and Consumer Protection Act introduced by Senator Robert Torricelli, Democrat of New Jersey, and Representative Patrick Kennedy, Democrat of Rhode Island. Their measure would give the Treasury Department health and safety authority over the gun industry, and any rational regulator with that authority would ban handguns."

Josh Sugarmann (executive director of the Violence Policy Center, Dispense With the Half Steps and Ban Killing Machines, Houston Chronicle, Nov. 5, 1999

"We will never fully solve our nation's horrific problem of gun violence unless we ban the manufacture and sale of handguns and semiautomatic assault weapons."

Jeff Muchnick, Legislative Director, Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, Better Yet, Ban All Handguns, USA Today, Dec. 29, 1993

"The goal of CSGV is the orderly elimination of the private sale of handguns and assault weapons in the United States."

Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, http://www.csgv.org/content/coalition/coal_intro.html (visited June 20, 2000) (boldface added) ("The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence is composed of 44 civic, professional and religious organizations and 120,000 individual members that advocate for a ban on the sale and possession of handguns and assault weapons.")

"Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal." U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno, December 1993

"We're bending the law as far as we can to ban an entirely new class of guns." Rahm Emmanuel

"We're going to hammer guns on the anvil of relentless legislative strategy! We're going to beat guns into submission!" Charles Schumer

"Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of all Americans to feel safe." Diane Feinstein

"I don't care about crime, I just want to get the guns." Howard Metzenbaum

"I am one who believes that as a first step the U.S. should move expeditiously to disarm the civilian population, other than police and security officers, of all handguns, pistols and revolvers ...no one should have a right to anonymous ownership or use of a gun." Dean Morris

"I do not believe in people owning guns. Guns should be owned only by the police and military. I am going to do everything I can to disarm this state." Michael Dukakis

"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them...'Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in,' I would have done it." Diane Feinstein

"No, we're not looking at how to control criminals ... we're talking about banning the AK-47 and semi-automatic guns." --U.S. Senator Howard Metzenbaum

"What good does it do to ban some guns? All guns should be banned." U.S. Senator Howard Metzanbaum, Democrat from Ohio


"Until we can ban all of them , then we might as well ban none." U.S. Senator Howard Metzenbaum, Senate Hearings 1993


"I'm not interested in getting a bill that deals with airport security... all I want to do is get at plastic guns." -U.S. Senator Howard Metzenbaum, 1993

"Nobody should be owning a gun which does not have a sporting purpose." Janet Reno

"We have to start with a ban on the manufacturing and import of handguns. From there we register the guns which are currently owned, and follow that with additional bans and acquisitions of handguns and rifles with no sporting purpose." Major Owens

"If it were up to me we'd ban them all." Mel Reynolds CNN's Crossfire, December 9, 1993



Those people, or people with views like them, would build on anything they could.

[Violet_Crumble]

31. That slippery slope crap is just that...complete crap...

We've got strict gun control laws here in Australia and guess what? People still own guns. It's just that people who are mentally unstable can't just walk into a store and buy a gun. I take it that yr opposed to any sort of restrictions at all? This time could I get a reply that doesn't consist of some copy'n'paste slabs of slippery slope crap from some gun-nut site? I'd prefer you to tell me in yr own words, thanks....

[beevul]

40. Is it?

"We've got strict gun control laws here in Australia and guess what? People still own guns."

Really? People are free to own semi-automatic handguns and rifles there are they?

I have a feeling that your going to say that people shouldn't own them. If thats the case, its not such a slippery slope after all is it.

"I take it that yr opposed to any sort of restrictions at all?"

Why would you say that? What evidence have you for jumping to that conclusion?

FWIW, I support background checks at retail sale, and prohibition of violent felons and mentaly ill from possession or purchase of firearms. I guess you took it wrong.

"This time could I get a reply that doesn't consist of some copy'n'paste slabs of slippery slope crap from some gun-nut site?"

First, what makes you think those come from a "gun nut" website?

Second, Did you bother to actually read any of them? Those are public officials, organizations, and verified and sourced quotes, for the most part.

Year after year, starting in te late 80s gun control groups and supporters scream at the tops of their lungs that we need "reasonable " regulating, and for quite a few years they were getting their way.

Now they're doing it again, pretending they never passed any.

You tell me, when is it enough?

And keep in mind, this is a constitutionally protected right, in America.

[Violet_Crumble]

56. Yes, it is. Slippery slope logic is totally lazy logic...

Yes, people are free to own weapons. Farmers are one of the groups that are allowed to own them. I'm wondering why you seem to think everyone should be able to walk into a shop and buy one.

I'm not sure why yr getting a bit hostile. If it's true that you support gun control measnures like restricting the sale of weapons to criminals and mentally unstable people then you and I have no argument with each other.

So, where did you copy'n'paste all that from if it wasn't from a gun-nut website? You certainly copied'n'pasted it from somewhere...

Yes, I read everything, which is why I commented the way I did about the stupidity of slippery slope arguments...

The US does need gun control laws passed. It's absolutely ridiculous that people carry guns round in their pockets that go off accidentally in restaraunts and wound other patrons, and it's even more ridiculous that mentally unstable people can easily get hold of a gun.

[beevul]

105. No, I disagree.

"Yes, people are free to own weapons. Farmers are one of the groups that are allowed to own them. I'm wondering why you seem to think everyone should be able to walk into a shop and buy one."

I didn't ask if people gould own guns,I asked if people could own semi-automatic weapons. Specifically handguns, shotguns, and rifles. What is the answer to that question?

I think anyone not prohibited by law, SHOULD be able to walk into a gun shop and buy one. Is that somehow wrong?



"I'm not sure why yr getting a bit hostile. If it's true that you support gun control measnures like restricting the sale of weapons to criminals and mentally unstable people then you and I have no argument with each other."

I'm not getting hostile at all. I'm sorry if it appears otherwise, as theres no hostility on my part. Sometimes text does not translate well.

"So, where did you copy'n'paste all that from if it wasn't from a gun-nut website? You certainly copied'n'pasted it from somewhere..."

These are quotes I've accumulated over the years, and keep in a text file. the purpose of which, is to refute claims of "nobody wants to take your guns", and like claims.

"Yes, I read everything, which is why I commented the way I did about the stupidity of slippery slope arguments..."

Are you of the opinion that theres simply never slippery slope?

"The US does need gun control laws passed. It's absolutely ridiculous that people carry guns round in their pockets that go off accidentally in restaraunts and wound other patrons, and it's even more ridiculous that mentally unstable people can easily get hold of a gun."

We HAVE what control proponents called "sensible gun control" laws, when they were pushing them. Now they pretend we have none. they were iether lieing then, or lieing now. One way or another they were lieing. And now theyre asking for more. Theres your slippery slope, demonstrated and real.

I think its ridiculous when people carry them in pockets and go off as well. Thats what conceal carry holsters are for.


On edit: If you reread those quotes, you'll see the stated intent to use an incremental approach. Thats the definition of a slippery slope.

[PavePusher]

127. "allowed to own", "one of the groups"..

You see, in this country, owning weapons is a right, not a privilege begged from bureaucrats.

[one-eyed fat man]

138. Let me ask a simple question?

Each and every organization promoting gun control has in its charter the goal of a complete ban on private ownership of fire arms.

Were they lying then, or are they lying now?

The various leaders, proponents, and writings of these groups have stressed that they expect to do this piecemeal, step at a time, however long it takes, don't care if the lie cheat or steal, but the complete ban on the private ownership of firearms is their goal.

Were they lying then, or are they lying now?

If someone had been telling you for fifty years they want a total ban, suddenly said they only wanted "common sense controls," would you believe them?

Or would you finally ask your self, were they lying then or are they lying now?

[lawodevolution]

120. If I had to live under Australia's gun laws I'd have to give up every gun I own.

[beevul]

126. As would I, except maybe 1

A 17 hmr bolt action rifle...


Somehow I don't think they'd like that one iether though, since is can accept a larger than ten round mag.

[pipoman]

39. Define "mentally unstable"

and explain how we determine someone to be "mentally unstable"?

[Name removed]

45. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[shadowrider]

139. HINT: Anyone deemed mentally unstable by a government authority

CANNOT walk in and buy a gun and have any hope of passing an NICS check. What other "gun control laws" would you propose to strengthen what's already there?

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[BeFree]

16. That's right

We don't need more gun control.

But we do need to begin controlling those who own guns.

This is a people problem. Not a gun problem.

Maybe whenever a person buys a gun, they need to have to wear a badge?
And if caught not wearing their badge? Then take away ALL their guns.

If all gun owners were exposed for the danger they are, maybe they won't be so dangerous?

[Statistical]

23. Gunowners aren't dangerous.

Most homicides and violent crimes are committed by repeat criminals (they wouldn't wear any stupid badge they aren't suppose to have firearms to begin with).

There are roughly 270 million legally owned firearms, and almost 100 million guns owners. Only a tiny fraction of those are used unlawfully each year (as in a far less than 0.01%).

[BeFree]

54. well

we make cops wear a badge. why not the potential criminals?

you may say guns don't kill people.
well, that's right.
it's gun owning people who kill people.

they need to be controlled, these people.

[PavePusher]

128. Caution: Your bigotry is showing.... I mean glaring. n/t

[Euromutt]

132. How many reasons can I give you why not?

First, murderers are a fraction of tenth of a percent of gun owners, and that's counting legal and illegal possessors of firearms. Criminological evidence indicates that rather a large number of murderers are people with prior histories of criminal activity, of whom those with felony convictions are legally prohibited from owning firearms anyway.

So you'd be penalizing a large number of people on the basis that a relative handful of offenders shared one characteristic with them.

Second, there's a little something called the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America, which states, among other things, that an individual cannot be forced to provide evidence to incriminate himself. The Supreme Court has already ruled (in Haynes v. United States in 1968) that someone who is illegally in possession of a firearm cannot be prosecuted or punished for failing to register it, as registration of an illegally possessed firearm would constitute self-incrimination. This ruling completely undercut the rationale for registering firearms, since the very people whom registration was supposed to penalize--those illegally in possession of firearms--were exempt from prosecution. The only people who can be punished for failing to register firearms are those who own them legally in the first place.

You can bet that any actual attempt to get "potential criminals" to wear a badge advertising that status would founder upon the same rocks. Actual criminals would be exempted due to the freedom from self-incrimination, and the only people who could be penalized for wearing badges would be those who hadn't done anything wrong, and weren't intending to do anything wrong, in the first place.

In short, it wouldn't a damn thing to improve public safety. But then, that's not really what gun control is about, is it?

[shadowrider]

141. why not the potential criminals

Tell me, wise one, how do we determine who is a "potential criminal" and what makes you think they'd voluntarily wear a badge? Hey, here's an idea, maybe they can be tattooed.

[Still a Democrat]

70. Loughner was a gun owner

so that kind of belies your statement.

[Statistical]

78. MEH.

Statistically speaking gun owners aren't dangerous.

Still you do bring up a point. Laughner was mentally ill and shouldn't have access to firearms. As a gunowner I would like to see persons like him blocked by the NICS. I would support bills that did that.
However instead we see the same tired do nothing feel good, Unconstitutional trash we have seen for last two decades.

Is it any surprise support for gun control is at an all time low?

[former9thward]

24. Sorta like the yellow stars Jews had to wear in Germany.

That will work.

[BeFree]

62. Eh?

You think the German Jews in 1931 were as dangerous as the gun owners of today?

[former9thward]

93. I don't think either are dangerous.

But you would want to identify to the populace who are "dangerous" in your view like the Nazis did in Germany.

[BeFree]

103. Gun owners are a danger

They kill lots and lots of people.

You, trying to conflate Jews with guns, is disingenuous.

Does wearing a badge at a work place equate one with Nazi Germany? Really?

[Upton]

107. Congresswoman Giffords is a danger?

She's not only a gun owner but she supports RKBA. Millions of Americans, millions of good Democrats own guns...are they all dangers too?

[BeFree]

108. Yes

More of a danger than hammer owners.

Gabby didn't have her gun that day, but someone did. Who was more dangerous?
Take your time.

[Euromutt]

131. I'm sure some of them were

Assholes come in all shapes, sizes and ethnicities. I'm sure there were some Jews who bore some resemblance to the money-grubbing exploitative hook-nose of Nazi propaganda. But I think we can agree that treating Jews as a group as if they all conformed to that template is an act of gross generalization; we don't punish groups based on the actions of a fraction of a percent of their number.

Now here are some numbers: there are an estimated 80 million legal gun owners in the United States. At last count, there were an estimated 400,000 violent crimes committed with firearms annually, 390,000 of which were non-fatal. Even assuming the all these violent crimes were committed by legal firearms owners (which they weren't, but just for the sake of the argument), that means that at most 0.5% of legal gun owners committed a violent crime with a firearm, and (assuming that each homicide was committed by a different perpetrator) 0.0125% committed a homicide.

Are there any circumstances in which you would punish or ostracize (or at least marginalize) 199 people because they shared a characteristic with one guy who committed an ill? Let alone 79,999? Should we force Muslims to wear a badge because a relative handful of them committed the 9/11 attacks and the Fort Hood shooting? If not, then why penalize gun owners in general for the actions of at most 0.5% of their number?

[guitar man]

32. !!

Good to see ya still have this schtick going.... Great satire, keep it up!

:hi: :spray:

[one-eyed fat man]

140. A badge? Like yellow stars or pink triangles?

[beevul]

22. Good.

Maybe energies can be focused on other things of real value instead.

[jp11]

26. With no real details.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/business/econ_survey_questions/january_2011/questions_gun_control_january_10_11_2011

http://www.gallup.com/poll/145556/Doubt-Political-Rhetoric-Major-Factor-Ariz-Shootings.aspx?utm_source=tagrss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=syndication&utm_term=Politics

Stricter gun laws/gun control leaves a lot to be filled in, so I don't think it would have made much if any difference in what we typically mean by 'stricter/tougher' you'd have to go to an extreme for them to have likely had an effect. A perfect example is if he couldn't have obtained the 30 round clips he may have been able to acquire two guns, or perhaps bought a higher capacity clip illegally, or used homemade bombs, etc.

If the goal is kill a person you don't need a gun, if the goal is kill many people you don't need a gun, it is just often the lowest bar for effort and effect in this country and often is the 'first thought' of those inclined to want to do those kinds of things.

[Statistical]

29. One fact to add. He DID obtain two guns. He left one at home.

Likely because he (mistakenly) believed that a single gun with a 30 round magazine would have been more effective than two guns with standard mags.
The results of Virginia Tech show that he was (thankfully) wrong.

[X_Digger]

63. He actually did purchase a second gun, so that could have been possible. n/t

[aikoaiko]

33. They are probably correct about more restrictive laws not impacting the Giffords assassination.

Even if he had 10 round magazines.

I think Americans are rejecting emotional arguments about gun laws.

[Name removed]

35. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Warren DeMontague]

37. And meaningful gun control at a Federal Level is simply not going to happen.

What I find interesting, though, is that a majority of Americans are also pro-choice, yet the GOP still wants to outlaw abortion and contraception.

[Major Hogwash]

47. Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow. But a few more mass killings like what happened, and it is

INEVITABLE!!!

Mark my words.

[Statistical]

51. Nope Violent crime on 30+ year decline, homicide rate on 40+ year decline.

If we ended the war on drugs we could see those rate fall even more.

Super majority of Americans believe the 2A protects and individual right and oppose banning guns.
Even more generally only a minority supports expanded gun control.

More people own guns, and own more guns. Laws have become more liberal and more standized. More people are legally carrying guns, and can carry in more places.

Despite all that violent crime and homicides continue to decline.

Your "inevitable" is same weak words we have heard for 30+ years.

[KansasVoter]

55. LOL.....you are funny. Need to protect your family??

[Major Hogwash]

61. This is MLK weekend, whoop it up -- they killed him with a high-powered rifle.

So, put that in your backpack and carry it around with you on the playground, kid.

[madinmaryland]

74. Sad, if that source is to be believed.

[Tsiyu]

95. To the gungeon in

3.....2.....1.....

[Forkboy]

97. Thank Christ.

[unkachuck]

96. this country is nuts....

....it's like encouraging everyone to own a rattlesnake....and then when a child gets snake-bit and dies, we all wring our collective hands in shocked disbelief....

....Do you think we should restrict the ownership of rattlesnakes? HELL NO! ....nuts

....having guns easily accessible is not honoring the memory of sweet little Christina Green....

[X_Digger]

101. Psst, Christina's father disagrees with you..

Before you trot out her name, you might want to consult with him.

[friendly_iconoclast]

157. Oh, you *had* to go and ruin a perfectly good Lovejoy....

[ProgressiveEconomist]

109. Nobody's advocating more GUN control--but we DO need BULLET control,

to make it more difficult for Jared Loughners to kill or wound 19 people in SECONDS before they have to reload. Rep. Carolyn McCarthy's bill, which she's slated to introduce on Tuesday, does not propose "more gun control", but rather bans legal transfers of high-capacity magazines used (SWAT teams aside and recreational target-shooters aside) only by psychotic mass murderers. As usual, the ultra-righties who commission polls deliberately had them ask the WRONG question, to induce a huge bias and further public disinformation on the simple issues of the day.

IMO, the poll also should have asked, 'Have Federal taxes gone DOWN or gone UP since Barack Obama was inaugurated?' Then we could stratify the results and learn precisely how the abjectly misinformed most manipulated by the Grand Right Wing Disinformation Machine bias poll results, and what the at-least-partially-reality-based populace thinks from unbiased questionnaire items.

[Euromutt]

134. I'm going to repeat what I said elsewhere on this forum

The assertion that, if only some item a mass/spree killer used had been illegal, he wouldn't have killed as many people relies entirely on the unstated--and grossly insupportable--assumption that killers don't tailor their plans to the weapons they have available.

If Loughner hadn't been able to acquire extended mags for his Glock, he might instead have acquired a second handgun, and perhaps rented a truck to plow into the crowd before alighting and using his weapons. Hey, Tomohiro Kato managed to kill more people (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akihabara_massacre) with a rented two-ton Isuzu and a knife than Loughner did with his supposedly oh-so-dangerous extended mags.

And how hard do I have to shout "bullshit" at the notion that "only psychotic mass murderers" use what Rep. McCarthy (and "Rep." in this context is short for both "Representative" and "Republican") describes as "high capacity" magazines. McCarthy's definition of "high capacity" is anything more than 10, and the fact is that every patrol officer who isn't still carrying a revolver has at least three "high capacity" magazines on his or her person while on duty. If they are, to a man, "psychotic mass murderers," we seriously need to re-examine our police forces.

[friendly_iconoclast]

159. Describing millions of people as spree killers is a *great* way to get their votes....

...in some alternate reality that none of us live in.

[shadowrider]

135. Nobody's advocating more GUN control - HUH????????

You haven't been reading these boards for the last week, have you.

[friendly_iconoclast]

158. And this newest attempt at IGP (incremental gun prohibition) will also fail.

Or do you honestly believe millions of law abiding gun owners will simply fail to notice gems like:

...bans legal transfers of high-capacity magazines used (SWAT teams aside and recreational target-shooters aside) only by psychotic mass murderers.

"We think you're a spree killer. Remember to vote for us!"

[benEzra]

165. "Used...only by psychotic mass murderers"

bans legal transfers of high-capacity magazines used (SWAT teams aside and recreational target-shooters aside) only by psychotic mass murderers.

I suppose if you disregard the 99.9999% of use that is legitimate, you can pretend the remaining 0.0001% constitutes "all" use. But that doesn't make it so.

By your logic, we should ban:

"kitchen knives used (chefs and home cooks aside) only by psychotic serial killers."

"digital cameras used (professional and amateur photographers aside) only by child pornographers."

"motor vehicles used (professional and nonprofessional drivers aside) only by drunk drivers."

"Microsoft and Mozilla web browsers used (researchers and lawful Internet surfers aside) only by criminals and Third World spammers."

[shadowrider]

166. You can take my Mozilla from my cold, dead hands n/t

[David__77]

110. The second amendment is clear.

Just as clear as the first.

[Orrex]

112. I can't even count how many have been slain by luntics petitioning for a redress of grievances.

We need stronger redress-of-grievance-control laws immediately!

[X_Digger]

114. How about murderers freed by the fourth? fifth? eighth?

Serial rapists? Pedophiles?

[Orrex]

115. Searching for the point...

still searching...

[X_Digger]

116. You said..

I can't even count how many have been slain by luntics petitioning for a redress of grievances.

I changed that to (essentially):

I can't even count how many have been slain by luntics exercising their rights protected by the fourth amendment.

I can't even count how many have been slain by luntics exercising their rights protected by the fifth amendment.

I can't even count how many have been slain by luntics exercising their rights protected by the eighth amendment.

Murderers are freed to kill more victims, rapists are set free to rape again, etc- all by exercising their rights.

You tried to make the point that nobody is killed by a lunatic exercising their rights protected by the first amendment, I supplied examples of other luntics (sic) doing so with other rights.

[Orrex]

118. With respect, I believe that you missed my original point

I was in fact drawing a sarcastic parallel between "gun rights" and "redress of grievance rights," insofar as few people argue with much passion about the latter. The post to which I replied was equating the clarity of the 2nd to that of the 1st, so I thought that it would be amusing to highlight the least invoked (and least remembered) portion of the 1st.

I can't even count how many have been slain by luntics exercising their rights protected by the fourth amendment.

I can't even count how many have been slain by luntics exercising their rights protected by the fifth amendment.

I can't even count how many have been slain by luntics exercising their rights protected by the eighth amendment.

I would be interested in reading more about such cases--surely you have some citations?

Of course, if a person is prosecuted in a way that violates the 4th, 5th, or 9th, then that's the prosecution's fault and not the defendant's. If the prosecution has failed in its duty, then the prosecution is to be blamed for freeing the defendant; the amendments themselves should not be blamed.

[X_Digger]

123. I must've missed it on first go-around then.

I would be interested in reading more about such cases--surely you have some citations?

Any criminal set free on a technicality who then goes on to commit more crime.

By asserting their rights (ie, excluding a confession arrived at by coercion or even torture in contravention of the 8th), public safety is endangered by releasing a criminal.

Shorter (hopefully clearer) restatement- rights are not judged or infringed merely based on the harm that might result from their exercise.

[lawodevolution]

121. "2. If these polls are valid, then America is too dumb to decide anything, "

Bigots just keep posting here.

There are plenty of Internet bigots willing to hate me for having been born into a culture of gun ownership. Guns are part of my heritage and I view those who hate me just for that fact to be no different than the KKK, for example, you hate us mainly due to your ignorance.

[Hoyt]

130. Hardly the same. The rationales you guys use to promote carrying in public are amazing.

[Euromutt]

133. How the hell would you know, Hoyt?

You insist on referring at every opportunity to some "guns-in-every-waistband" lobby that exists almost entirely in your own imagination, since even a cursory reading of this forum will show that the pro-RKBA posters do not advocate coercing anyone who does not want to own, let alone carry, a firearm to do so (that's the "every" part consigned to the trash heap) and that pro-RKBA posters firmly advocate the use of holsters that cover the trigger guard against errant fingers and other objects (and that's the "waistband" part consigned to the trash heap).

You're not actually interested in giving us a fair hearing or trying to understand our point of view. Instead, you try to mischaracterize us at every opportunity. Accordingly, you sure as fuck don't get to tell us what we think or what we're saying, because you can't fucked to even try to understand.

And Jesus, you aren't even competent enough to do it in a way that would produce some grudging admiration on my part, because your mischaracterizations are so obviously bullshit.

[Hoyt]

149. Bull Shit? So is carrying a gun into a church, bar, public park, restaurant under the guise of 2A.

I don't think people ought to be packing guns in public in the 21st century, no matter how dang attached they are to the things. You don't like it, tough.

[lawodevolution]

154. actually it's tough for you, given that we can carry guns in many public places

seems like you need to come to terms with reality, people often carry guns in public.

[Euromutt]

174. I've been meaning to ask you: what's so special about a church?

Personally, I'm wholly in favor of prohibiting possession of firearms in bars or any other establishment whose primary source of revenue is the sale of alcoholic beverages for consumption on the premises. For that matter, I'm also in favor of it being illegal to be in possession of a firearm in public while legally "under the influence."

But what's so special about a church? Be advised I'm an atheist, so theological arguments aren't going to sway me.

[Name removed]

176. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[one-eyed fat man]

142. I am still waiting for an answer

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=360231&mesg_id=360715

Turns out there were a couple of those despicable 'toters,' as you are sneeringly wont to call them, near the shooting in Tuscon. They did not respond by blasting everyone in sight or each other as you frequently predict.

One of them had his hand on his weapon (still concealed), but neither had weapons drawn. They held their fire. Circumstance when they got to the scene did not warrant shooting and they did not.

Is not that exactly what rational people desire responsible, legally armed individuals to have done?

Do consider these "toters" a failure because they were not strategically positioned around the parking lot waiting to pounce on a lunatic assassin?

Do their level headed actions that day stick in your craw?

[shadowrider]

143. Isn't it amazing

Anti's scream CCW doesn't help and this tragedy proves it since CCW holders didn't come out blasting.

But if they HAD come out blasting, they'd be screaming about irresponsibility and the possibility more people got shot.

Seems you can't win with these knuckleheads.

[Hoyt]

152. And they didn't help. Thank God for a 61 year old unarmed lady who did help.

And a few others who rushed in after it was over.

[Hoyt]

150. They held their fire because they realized they were about to shoot the wrong person.

Yet, a 61 year old lady did more than any of them to stop the killer. And, she didn't need a gun.

BTW -- I only heard of one guy with a gun who even had a chance to do anything, and he admitted that he almost shot the wrong person. It was over so fast, I doubt most toters had a chance to even think about doing anything.

[lawodevolution]

155. I don't think he almost shot the wrong person, he delayed firing because

he didn't view that the situation required for him to shoot. He made a very good decision, yet you criticize him for having made a good decision. Shame on you.

[friendly_iconoclast]

160. I'm glad to see you're down with the Newspeak- "Carrying guns in public is ineffective"

The Oldspeak of "There'll be shootouts because no one will know who the criminal is." is just so 20th Century....

[Name removed]

175. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[lawodevolution]

122. Take note, somewhere around 62-72% of America are against further censorship of my heritage and

Culture. No amount of angry hateful comments against gun owners will advance your cause and if you honestly fear guns than you should packup and move to a "gun free" utopia like Haiti or Nigeria.

[Still a Democrat]

146. You're misreading the poll

It says those percentages mistakenly believe tougher laws would not have prevented the shootings. Actually solid majorities want as much or more gun control than we currently have.

[X_Digger]

148. You mean like this?

http://www.gallup.com/poll/1645/Guns.aspx


'solid majorities', eh?

[Still a Democrat]

167. Exactly, thank you - 86% want as much or more gun control

which is a pretty solid majority in my book.

Just 12% agree with you and want less.

[X_Digger]

168. Lol, spin spin spin..

The way I read it, 54% want the same or less.

The best way to state it is that a plurality want the laws to remain the same-

http://articles.cnn.com/2009-04-08/politics/gun.control.poll_1_gun-laws-gun-owner-rights-people

Now, a recent poll reveals a sudden drop -- only 39 percent of Americans now favor stricter gun laws, according to a new CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll.
...
46 percent want no change in the current law, while only 15 percent want gun laws that are less strict.

The single largest group wants laws to remain the same.

Just 12% agree with you and want less.

Do you also hire yourself out for parties? Anything else you can tell me about what I want without me saying it?

[Still a Democrat]

169. And now you've come up with one at 85% wanting the same or more gun control

and just 15% agree with what I presume is your position. If it isn't and you actually support the current level or greater, I'll stand corrected. But I doubt it.

[X_Digger]

170. And 100% want the same, less, or more! (see how stupid that sounds?) n/t

[Still a Democrat]

171. My response would be more gun control - what would yours be?

Hmm?

[X_Digger]

172. Not a damned thing (gun control-wise).. I'm in the plurality.

I'd like to see better funded and higher availability of mental health services- there should be parity with other health services.

[Still a Democrat]

173. Okey dokey

:)

[NaturalHigh]

145. I'm glad to know that I'm in the majority on this one...

even though I'll undoubtedly be called stupid here on DU.

[onehandle]

156. Republican Rasmussen poll within story that does not have that headline from a right wing website.

I must be in the gungeon.

[Name removed]

161. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TPaine7]

162. Do you prefer the Gallup results? Or are they too soiled by association?

On a side note, if someone proved to you that Hitler, Stalin and Mao agreed that 2+2=4, would you lose the ability to balance your checkbook?

Inquiring minds...

[friendly_iconoclast]

164. Psst. Don't tell them where high speed rail and government antismoking programs got started,

or that ultraconservative Barry Goldwater supported the idea of gays in the military. The resulting cognitive dissonance

might be bad for their health...