Why America's gun laws won't change...

[ProudDad]

"Our responses tend to be ones in which we punish the offender and try to enable individuals to protect themselves. But we are reluctant to act collectively to make our communities and our country safer," he said.

...

The National Opinion Research Center found in 2007 that 82% of those surveyed supported a ban on assault weapons, while CNN found that 79% of Americans favoured requiring gun owners to register their guns with local authorities.

Most gun control advocates point the finger at the National Rifle Association (NRA) for stymieing the political will in Congress to act.

...

So, even after the horrifying events of Tucson, the sum of all these factors - frontier history, an individualistic society, a potent gun lobby and powerful rural states - most likely equals business as usual for US gun owners.

http://www.bbc.cdeo.uk/news/world-us-canada-12158148

'cause as a nation, we're fuckin' crazy!!!

[gratuitous]

1. We worship at the altar of the High Church of Redemptive Violence

And you might as well ask the Catholic Church to bulldoze the Vatican as ask Americans to give an inch on the cheap and easy access to firearms.

[Pancho Sanza]

3. If you had a magic wand, what would you be saying as you waved it?

If you want to ban guns, just say so.

[ProudDad]

14. Strawman...

Almost no one of the Progressive persuasion is promoting an absolute ban on guns...

Just some rationality...

So you can put your strawman back into the closet...

[spin]

27. Define rational gun law ..

usually the real anti-RKBA answer in the debate over firearms is that no one should own any firearm or any firearm which holds more than 6 rounds and is semi-automatic. All rational laws passed in the future should incrementally lead to this final result. Of course, the people who propose new guns laws will never admit this

But rationality runs into reality. Banning and confiscating firearms is impossible and futile just as banning the illegal importation and use of drugs.

We have plenty of rational gun laws right now. Admittedly they will not prevent a person with a severe undiagnosed and untreated mental illness from committing a mass murder. Neither would any other "rational" laws that the anti-RKBA contingent has proposed.

We can improve existing gun laws such as making sure records get into the NICS background check faster. We can impose harsh sentences on those with a violent criminal background found carrying a firearm illegally. We can do a lot to actually make a difference or we can just sit around and try to pass useless "feel good" laws such as another ban on assault weapons or a ban on high capacity magazines,

[Pancho Sanza]

38. You apparently don't know what "straw man" means. I simply asked for your own opinion.

If you don't want to say what you believe, you should just say so.

[ProudDad]

42. No, you suggested that we just want to ban guns

that's the strawman I referred to...

[Pancho Sanza]

52. I did no such thing. I said "IF you want to ban guns, just say so."

Nowhere in that English sentence is a claim or even an implication that claims to challenge your position on the subject. I do think it's fascinating that you won't come out and just say what you would do if you had your druthers. It smacks of disingenuousness.

[gratuitous]

31. I'd say

"I hope Pancho Sanza learns to read some day."

The wand would probably explode in my hand, though.

[Pancho Sanza]

64. One can always hope...

:shrug:

[aquart]

2. No. But we don't seem to know the purpose of a nation very well.

Or even the nature of our species.

[slackmaster]

4. We are a species of bloodthirsty killer apes who are adept at making and using tools

It's perfectly natural for us to own and use weapons.

[ProudDad]

12. As long as you hold on to that myth

nothing will change...

And more will die...

Way to go!

[slackmaster]

13. Do you believe that God created humans in their present form a few thousand years ago?

Just curious as to which part of what I wrote you don't believe in.

[ProudDad]

15. You deny the capacity for rational though and redemption...

Humans generally have been able to control their use of "tools"...

Until the invention of the dominator hierarchies about 10,000 years ago...

ALL of the civilized, advanced nations on Earth have been able to control their "impulses" viz a viz guns...

What the hell's wrong with USAmerica???

[slackmaster]

20. No, I have never denied that in any way

ALL of the civilized, advanced nations on Earth have been able to control their "impulses" viz a viz guns...

What the hell's wrong with USAmerica???

There's nothing wrong with USAmerica. The problem is a small minority of people who can't control their violent impulses, or who are simply psychopaths who lack empathy for others.

A large majority of us are perfectly fine people. We are not defined by the few who don't live by the legal and moral codes that most of us accept and abide by.

[spin]

29. I believe that we are a result of alien manipulation of our DNA ...

it makes just as much sense as any creation myth that I have read.

[john donathon]

17. haha

maybe we should all be locked in cages

[slackmaster]

5. There's a reason I don't give much weight to surveys on this issue...

The National Opinion Research Center found in 2007 that 82% of those surveyed supported a ban on assault weapons...

Invariably surveys that ask questions of that nature lack controls to gauge whether or not participants actually understand the question. I know that a lot of people are not at all clear, or have blatantly incorrect notions about what the term "assault weapon" really means.

People know that assault and weapon are both bad sounding words, so something that has both of them in its name must be very bad indeed. Yet ask randomly selected people to explain in their own words what it really means, and you'll get a wide range of mostly incorrect answers.

[hughee99]

6. If I understand correctly, a number of states still have "assault weapon" bans

and require gun owners to register their weapons with local authorities.

[slackmaster]

7. California has had full registration of handguns since 1968

Yet criminals still manage to acquire and misuse them.

[hughee99]

11. Exactly.

If people want such laws, the federal government is not their only avenue, but getting those laws passed at a federal, state or even local level doesn't necessarily address the real problem.

[ProudDad]

33. The real problem is the gun culture and promotion of violence

as a solution of international and personal problems in USAmerica...

Along with the denial of Community in favor of the myth of a loose collection of freelance "independent" individuals...

Guns ARE just tools but the easy availability of near military capable armaments over the counter is not helpful...

[ProudDad]

16. And right next door here in the New Mississippi, Arizona

is an open market on guns...

Just 8 hours from L.A.

And even closer are huge supplies of "legal" guns...

That's how "criminals" still manage to acquire and misuse them...

[slackmaster]

22. Serious question - How many gang bangers in L.A. bother driving to AZ to get guns?

I doubt that any ever do that, when they can acquire stolen ones on the black market or have their girlfriends buy them from California dealers in straw purchases.

[ProudDad]

25. They don't have to

they steal them from "honest citizens" who have too damn many of them...

Or from federally licensed gun dealers...

Or proxy buyers at good ole' Bubba's 2nd Amendment store...

[CTyankee]

36. That's a good one. "ole' Bubba's 2nd Amendment store"

I'll have to remember that one..:toast:

[ProudDad]

45. In fact, here in Tucson

the flags were run all the way up to the top of the flagpoles when I drove by "ole' Bubba's 2nd Amendment Store" yesterday...

Giffords is their enemy 'cause even though she's a gun owner and 2nd Amendment "friend" she has a "-D" after her name...

And yes, there IS a "2nd Amendment Gun Store" here in town...

Just 2 doors down from the "Gun Locker"...

I'm not sure if it's owned by "ole' Bubba" though...

[CTyankee]

53. Oh, it's a real store? I thought it was just a well crafted zinger!

I was born and raised in Dallas, but "caught the drift" and when I left to go east to college I never returned to live there again.

I've never been to Tucson but I've heard that there are some really wonderful people there. It's terrible what happened in your midst...you must be very sad...

[ProudDad]

107. Tucson IS a wonderful place.

and because of the great people we hang around with and the basic multicultural, laid-back, socially "liberal" nature of this place...

We have been able to weather the events -- probably better than most...


A poor crazy person shooting up the place is something that can, and does, happen everywhere in this country...

We really don't feel that it reflects on our community...

Only on our state's horrible policies concerning mental illness funding and gun laws...

[PavePusher]

115. There is a gun store called "Second Amendment Sports" in Tucson.

Despite the insinuations of the other poster, they are quite well run. I have bought some guns there myself.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

99. Do you have any qualified sources to back up your statements

or just your prejudices?

[Riftaxe]

67. So the solution is for California residents to

find some way to force Arizona residents to bend to their will(well in truth, the will of a small minority of Californians)?

[CTyankee]

8. This is sad for the American people. The NRA is a regressive, undemocratic

organization that has allowed extremism to control the debate in Congress. We can only hope that Obama will get enough sane justices appointed to the Supreme Court that we can undo the damage...I am hoping for another reversal of a mistaken Court decision. It CAN happen, it HAS happened on other issues (such as the Lawrence decision of a few years back). There is no reason we cannot have a less fanatical viewpoint prevail in the high court of the land.

[nadinbrzezinski]

9. Actually we have a strange consensus emerging

First Meghan McCain having a sensible position... no you do not need extended mags... well unless we have a zombie invasion that is.

And then... pigs do fly... Chenney has the same position... (I need a super strong umbrella by the way)...

This is not insignificant. Tucson might be one mass shooting too many...

Did I mention both are (formerly) members in good standing of the NRA? And I mean the in-good-standing, they are still NRA members.

And some are already saying it... the NRA is a radical organization.

So we may see changes... as a consensus is forming.

[CTyankee]

21. I think the extremists are getting worried. Tucson might have been "a bridge too far."

The arguments are getting quite ramped up, even here. The rhetoric can get very hot, very fast. It's amazing. They twist the discussion into bellowing about minutiae...watch some of these threads and how they go...

[nadinbrzezinski]

49. Yep, I think it is quite possibly one shooting too many

No, I don't expect THIS congress to go there... but the demand is starting to take form.

[Katya Mullethov]

103. They are on parole and they know it

Even in the face of an amazing 24/7 onslaught of anti self-defense horseshit in the media , the ratchet is still going backwards everywhere . More control gets the bird every time .

Perhaps if they started a Tuscon Shooting Channel (and included it FREE with basic) this might possibly start working even a little bit .

[Straw Man]

124. Ah, those pesky minutiae...

They twist the discussion into bellowing about minutiae...

...otherwise known as "facts."

You may be suffering from "Carolyn McCarthy Syndrome": your ultimate goal of the elimination of private ownership of firearms causes you to overlook the detailed information that your incremental strategy requires. The problem becomes maintaining the pretense that the incremental restrictions are "reasonable" without the information necessary to defend those restrictions.

I'm sorry--was I bellowing?

[DonP]

10. How many respondents even know what an "assault weapon" really is?

Not that knowing what you're talking about banning is all that important anyway right? As long as you get the percentages you want for your headline.

[ProudDad]

18. Well, one good rule of thumb is

if you can kill 6 and wound 13 persons in less than 15 seconds...

That's a fucking "assault weapon"...

[slackmaster]

23. You could do that with a pump shotgun and 5 rounds of ordinary hunting ammunition

I'm not impressed by your definition.

[ProudDad]

26. You're not impressed by anything

except unlimited license to own any kind of firearm you might fancy...

It's a waste of time trying to reason with such as you...

Bye!

[slackmaster]

35. Keep on whacking it

[CTyankee]

60. Wasn't that a funny argument? It didn't even make sense...if that were true

then Loughner would have used the shotgun and 5 extra rounds. It would have been cheaper. Why didn't he? Well, a shotgun would be hard to conceal, that's just for starters and pausing to reload would have been enough time for the others to grab him and knock him down, just as they did when he tried to reload the weapon he used.

You are right, it's a waste of time...

[slackmaster]

65. A typical pump shotgun holds five rounds in its magazine

No reloading would be required.

Shotguns have been used in mass shootings.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/jun/03/police-cumbrian-random

[beevul]

106. Actually...

He could have used a winchester model 12 (common and inexpensive shottie) which with the factory plug removed could hold 6 in the magazine, and one in the chamber.

He also could have removed most of the stock and sawed off the barrel. Whats a 5 year felony mean when one intends to murder in multiples?

That makes a shotgun EASY to conceal. Thats also why its illegal.

Also, the fact seems lost to you, that 7 shots from a sawed off shotgun at close range into a crowd, would have done far greater damage than 31 pistol rounds, WITHOUT a reload. Again, theres a reason sawing off shotguns, and shotgun barrels below a certain length, is illegal.

You do understand that shotguns generally don't shoot a slug unless loaded with deer slugs, and instead shoot a circular shaped pattern of shot, ranging from below BB size, to 9mm slug size, depending on the load in the shell, right?

[guardian]

66. if you can kill 6 and wound 13 persons in less than 15 seconds...

Then by definition all automobiles are assault weapons.

[rl6214]

112. I could do that with a revolver

and a couple of good old fashioned speed loaders.

[DainBramaged]

19. Just another day of guns guns guns for everyone one one

Your guns ain't going to be taken away, go work for a real cause...

[RSillsbee]

125. Our guns aren't going to be taken away

Because we continue to work on this cause

I would have loved to have been a fly on the wall when the reports of the gun rush of 2008 started to come in to (then) President Elect Obama's campaign headquarters.

I can just see some staffer whispering in his ear " Sir, if you touch guns you are going to a one term President I promise you"

[shadowrider]

68. It's a scary looking one with a shoulder thing that goes up. It's usually made

of 100% plastic and fires heat seeking bullets

:hide:

[Upton]

24. We have more than enough gun laws already..

Enforce the ones we have, and leave us law abiding gun owners alone. This sudden push for more gun control legislation is just a backdoor approach to bring us further down the road to what the anti gun crowd really wants...an all out ban.

[ProudDad]

30. Obviously we DON'T have enough gun laws

since Mr. Loughlan was able to purchase a weapon over the counter that enabled him to kill 6 and injure 13 persons in less than 15 seconds...

Tell that to the families and friends (myself included) of those people killed and injured here in Tucson... :puke:

[Upton]

41. Obviously we do..

violent crime has been declining since before the AWB was instituted in 1994 and has continued to do so after it's expiration in 2004..

[spin]

57. Your state may have over 100,000 people similiar to Loughlan

who can go into a gun store today and buy firearms and ammunition but these people has already been identified by the legal system as having a serious mental problem which makes them dangerous to others.

States have to input the names of the people who they have identified as having severe mental issues to the NICS background check system before they would be refused the purchase of a firearm at a gun store.

Arizona estimates that it has 121,700 records of people that have been determined to have a disqualifying mental illness that need to be input into the NICS background check database and in the last two years and eight months your state has only input 4,465 names.

You can review your state's progress or that of any other state at:
http://www.bradycampaign.org/xshare/Facts/2011-01-05_Overview_State_Records_of_Mental_Prohibitors.pdf

note: this data comes from the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence

[consigli]

78. Don't jump to conclusions

You can review your state's progress or that of any other state at:
http://www.bradycampaign.org/xshare/Facts/2011-01-05_Ov...

Consider your posted source of information, it comes from the Brady Campaign. They would have a reason to "twist" the data to validate their existence, i.e. - University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit. I'm not claiming they did. I'm just suggesting the data be confirmed by neutral entity before anyone use to prove any points.

[spin]

84. In this case I believe them...

Which is odd for me.

The reason is that the Brady Campaign hasn't really been pushing this information and you have to dig to find it on their web site. You have to use the search function to find their article on the states being behind on inputting mental data. Their page on the issue is at: http://www.bradycampaign.org/legislation/backgroundchecks/nics

Currently they are pushing to get Congress to ban large ammunition "clips" and trying to blame heated political rhetoric and limit access to "high-powered guns". (The Glock 9mm is high powered????)

They have an excellent opportunity to do something useful such as pointing out the problem with mental records which was supposed to be resolved after Virgina Tech. Instead they are pushing their typical "feel good" useless bullshit.

[one-eyed fat man]

76. If any of the people

who were all over the place telling anyone who'd listen they knew how crazy the lunatic was had done anything to have him put away or treated, things might have been different too.

if, if, if,....

If some poor schmuck at an Amoco station in the Bronx had not sold a buck's worth of regular to a jealous boyfriend 87 people wouldn't have been incinerated. The blaze was intense charred corpses were found still seated at tables with glasses in their hands.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

100. Obviously you are wrong

There are enough laws on the books, if we would only enforce them, and that includes reporting people with mental health issues.

To cravenly try and disarm those who need them for effective protection is wrong. Just ask people like me who had their lives saved by someone in my family using a semi automatic magazine fed pistol to kill a perp where he stood.

Armed gays do not get bashed.

[oneshooter]

101. Would you be willing to surrender both houses of Congress

AND the White House for 20+ years to pass your gun control ideas?

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[oneshooter]

120. Gee, no answer yet. He must be running scared of the thought that HE could do that! n/t

[shadowrider]

121. Sometimes I think that's a tradeoff they'd be willing to settle for if only

they could get their beloved restrictions/bans put in place.

Of course, then they'd blame everyone but themselves and their movement for it.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

28. Repeat after me, "Assault weapons are not a problem"

The AWB is a stupid issue. It did not effect crime and cost democrats thier seats. Furthermore... THEY (assault rifles) ARE NOT A PROBLEM. Despite how much someone thinks people don't need these things, they account for much less than 3% of all homicides annually. Assault rifles are ranked behind "Other non-firearm Weapons", "Edged Weapons", and "Hands & Feet" when it comes to deaths per year.

THEY ARE NOT NOT COMMONLY USED TO COMMIT CRIME AND BANNING THEM WILL ENSURE DEMOCRATS LOSE.

And guess what else, registration is fucking worthless because criminals don't register their weapons. It's not even a crime for a criminal to fail to register thier weapon because, get this... criminals registering thier weapon would result in self incrimination (fifth ammendment violation).

Seriously ask yourself how "registration" does ANYTHING useful to lower murder/crime rate.

[ProudDad]

32. "criminals" generally don't commit mass murder with "illegal" weapons

individuals do...

And how would "registration" and bullets with ID marking harm law abiding gun owners?

(And please don't regurgitate that bullshit about needing to defend yourselves against the oppressive government. That dog just DON'T HUNT!)...

[hack89]

37. Registration and bullet ID won't stop crimes

it might make it easier for the police to investigate after the fact but neither would have made an iota of difference in the Arizona shooting.

[ProudDad]

40. "And how would "registration" and bullets with ID marking harm law abiding gun owners?"

you aren't answering...

And the assault weapons ban that was allowed to sunset WOULD HAVE BLOCKED Mr. Loughlan's purchase of high-capacity magazines over the counter...

Thus saving lives by allowing him to be stopped after 10 shots instead of 31...

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

51. Perhaps Loughner would not have been stopped after 10 rounds.

Would someone have been ready or near loughner at the point when he had expended 10 rounds... would there have been opportunity at the right times to confront the gunman? Would loughner have chosen a more potent weapon, increasing the mortality rate, given he was limited to 10 consecutive shots? Maybe a simple humting shotgun would have killed many more.
:shrug:

If you change critical variables you cannot assume the same timeline of events. Your statement, "Thus saving lives..." is erroneous and subject to wide scrutiny. It's impossible to predict the outcome of events when changing any variables, let alone a variable that plays a part in weapon selection, timing, and tactics.

[hack89]

54. Irrelevant to the issue

since they won't stop crime there is no reason to use them to infringe on civil rights.

High cap magazines were legal and could be purchased over the counter during the AWB - the AWB merely banned the manufacturing of new high cap mags - the tens of millions made before the ban were still perfectly legal. The AWB would not have stopped Loughlan.

[CTyankee]

58. Lawrence O'Donnell made mincemeat of an AZ RW congressman last night

with this very argument. The rep. was spouting his RW bilge like a goddamned robot and after giving him enough rope to hang himself O'Donnell just piled on...I think it's up in Political Videos. I recommend that viewing to ALL who are posting here...but I don't think some will be listening...ah, well...

[aikoaiko]

127. Actually Lawrence O'Donnel lied in that segment (or was woefully ignorant).

He makes his case saying that if the assassination occurred in 2003, Loughner would not have been able to get his hands on a 30 round magazine and that is categorically false. It undermines him as a journalist.

And we do not know what would have happened if Loughner had multiple 10 round magazines. It could have been the case that he was moving around (as has been described) and by the time he finished shooting his magazine he was then close enough to the hero civilians for them to intercede. We really don't know enough details to know how things would have been different if Loughner had multiple 10round mags.

[PavePusher]

136. Louey was using misplaced foaming-at-the-mouth anger and fear-mongering...

in place of the evidence he did not have to support his assertions... because that evidence does not exist.

He's also the guy who just recently stated on Morning Joe, that he wants to ban all guns in civilian hands.

He's an authoritarian social facsist.

[rl6214]

113. The AWB would not have stopped Loughlans purchase

You could still get any hi cap magazine while the AWB was in place, they were just about three times the price.

[rl6214]

114. The Virginia Tech shooter, Cho

Did all of his killing using a 9mm handgun with 10 rounds mags. He changed out his mags 17 times during his shooting spree and was not stopped during any of those mag changes.

That makes this statement:
"Thus saving lives by allowing him to be stopped after 10 shots instead of 31..."
Not a true statement.

[PavePusher]

116. It won't have any effect on criminals...

and will cost legal gun owners more money.

Don't try to be disingenuous, it isn't your strength.

[Euromutt]

128. Ever hear of a place called Edmond, Oklahoma?

Back in 1986, an incident occurred at the local post office that played a large role in giving the English language the term "going postal" when part-time mail carrier Patrick Sherrill shot 20 co-workers, 14 of whom fatally. The weapons he used were two G.I.-standard Colt M1911A1 pistols with 7-round magazines. Not 30+, not 10, seven. And yet he racked up over twice Loughner's body count.

Hell, in 2008, a guy in Tokyo killed more people than Loughner did, using a rented two-ton Isuzu truck and a dagger (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akihabara_massacre).

The problem with a claim along the lines of "Loughner wouldn't have to been able to kill as many people if he hadn't had extended mags" is that it assumes that all other variables are equal, and that's not an assumption that stands up to scrutiny. Mass murderers adapt their plan to the weapons and equipment they have available. Loughner had bought a second gun but, apparently, he decided not to use that because he thought the extended mags would give him sufficient firepower with one gun. So without the extended mags, Loughner would (plausibly) have taken a different approach (e.g. using two guns) and things would have been little different.

Edited to fix tags.

[Euromutt]

129. It's a question of cost-effectiveness

The cost being both to the taxpayers in general and gun owners in particular.

Putting unique markers on bullets would make the ammunition significantly more expensive (as in a multiple of what it costs at present), and the system required to keep track of the serial numbers would cost even more. It won't make a difference to mass/spree shootings, since these almost invariably result in the shooter being either arrested or zipped into a body bag; it's perfectly obvious who did it, so tracing the ammunition to the buyer would have no added value whatsoever. Ditto for most intimate partner killings.

And for that matter, I think the notion of bullet ID aiding criminal investigations in general is an example of the "CSI effect" at work. In real life, when bullets strike flesh or building materials, they tend to deform, leaving very little in the way of clean markings. There's no reason to assume the unique markings would even be legible after the bullet had actually been fired and hit something. As it is, most ballistics evidence relies on firing pin, ejector and extractor markings left on ejected cartridge cases, and even that's not as reliable as it's made out to be.

We've seen this with the "ballistic fingerprint" databases imposed by the states of Maryland and New York. In spite of thousands of guns being included in the databases, at a cost of millions of dollars, these databases have enabled law enforcement to solve exactly one gun crime that they could not have by other means. The thing about ballistics is that it's good for linking an existing suspect to a crime (e.g. you know the victim was shot with a .40-cal Glock, and you find one in a search of the suspect's apartment); it's almost completely useless for identifying a suspect.

-*-*-*-

Registration would also be expensive, but more importantly, it would facilitate confiscation by providing government with records of who owns which guns. When it comes to tracing a firearm recovered from a crime scene, we already have a system that allow law enforcement to do that; we don't need registration.

Registration has next to no use as a crime prevention tool because in Haynes v. United States (1968) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haynes_v._United_States the Supreme Court ruled that someone who was in illegal possession of a firearm in the first place could not be prosecuted for failing to register it, since requiring him to do so would violate his right against self-incrimination. So a registration requirement has no added value against persons in illegal possession of a firearm.

It also has little added value in investigating crimes committed by person who possessed their firearms legally because, again, in mass/spree shootings and intimate partner killings, it's almost invariably pretty fucking obvious whodunnit.

So in a cost/benefit analysis, "bullet ID" and firearms registration carries sizable costs for negligible benefit.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

43. The question is not "how would it affect law abiding gun owners"...

The question should be, "How does this gun control measure, which will be very expensive to implement, hinder criminals."

Registration and microstamping has nothing to do with legal gun owners... it's an ineffcetive MASSIVE waste of money that could go towards other more effective measures.

Registration and Ammunition Microstamping are costly. Imagine the cost of Canada's gun registration cost multiplied 10X-15X. In the end, the costly systems will not stop people who plan to break the law. The shooter will use one of the 300 million existing non-microstamping friearms (or a cheap revolver) or modify the hammer/striker to obfuscate the serialized impression. Even ammo is very simple to make on your own - collect brass, form lead bullet, add powder & primer. Tons of shooters make thier own ammo because it's much cheaper.

[GreenStormCloud]

71. Individual IDs on each bullet would be extremely expensive.

It would require complicated, massive bookkeeping. And the IDs could be easily removed by the buyer. So you would accomplish nothing, except discourage ordinary people from buying guns and ammo. But then that is your real objective.

Further, bullets can be easily homemade. It isn't rocket science. The technology is hundreds of years old. Even the molds, the press, and the dies can be homemade.

[hack89]

34. Besides historically low violent crime rates?

You have never been safer - most people understand this basic fact.

[ProudDad]

39. This will be changing

since most of us are in a real Depression (not a "recession")

And there's a direct correlation between economic downturns and violent crimes...

I was safer in the war zone in Oakland, CA than I am here in the mecca of gun lovers, Arizona...

[CTyankee]

44. Good point! We can bid fond farewell to THAT talking point....

[slackmaster]

56. It looks like you're hoping for a rise in violent crime

Why is that?

[Upton]

46. Well, if you believe that to be the case..

wouldn't it be in the best interest of you and your loved ones to be prepared?

[Pancho Sanza]

47. Why in the world did you leave paradise to go live in a state full of crazies?

That's just beyond weird...


:eyes:

edit for typo

[ProudDad]

108. Because Tucson is NOT Arizona... (n/t)

[PavePusher]

117. Open carry bigotry, much? n/t

[Pancho Sanza]

122. Urm, I carry concealed in a different state. Maybe you should have your sarcasmometer calibrated...

:D
;-)

[PavePusher]

126. Aargh, I meant...

"Open carry of bigotry..."

Bad grammer on my part.

And if that was sarc, I completely missed it. My bad... :think:


P.S., I O.C. and C.C. depending on weather, mood and destination, mostly O.C. In Tucson.

[Pancho Sanza]

133. No problem, I just assumed my post was one of my usual obscure ones

;-)

[PavePusher]

134. Heh, finally got around to re-reading the thread...

and parsing the verbiage while sufficiently caffeinated.

And I do owe you an apology. My comment should have been directed to the other person.

Mea Culpa. Maxima.

[hack89]

50. Gun ownership has sky rocketed in the past 20 years

as the crime rates continued to fall. You have to go back to 1963 to find a lower murder rate in America.

How many economic downturns have we had since 1963? Face it - the facts are not on your side.

[X_Digger]

69. Umm, actually, no.. Phoenix is safer than Oakland

Here are the 2009 murder rates:


CALIFORNIA..Richmond.........45.82
CALIFORNIA..Oakland..........25.71
CALIFORNIA..Inglewood........23.95
CALIFORNIA..Salinas..........20.19
CALIFORNIA..San Bernardino...16.03
CALIFORNIA..Norwalk..........12.65
CALIFORNIA..Stockton.........11.29
CALIFORNIA..Pomona...........11.10
CALIFORNIA..Modesto..........10.27
CALIFORNIA..Vallejo...........8.74
CALIFORNIA..Fresno............8.73
CALIFORNIA..Long Beach........8.62
CALIFORNIA..Victorville.......8.54
CALIFORNIA..Bakersfield.......8.16
CALIFORNIA..Los Angeles.......8.11
ARIZONA..Phoenix..............7.64
ARIZONA..Tucson...............6.39


err, had it bass-ackwards.

[petronius]

73. Looks like you left out a word: isn't Phoenix safer by those numbers?

I assume they're rates per 100,000?

[X_Digger]

75. Yah, had it flipped around..

Those are the rates per 100,000 for 'murder and non-negligent homicide'.

[CTyankee]

83. Phoenix? I thought the OP was talking about Tucson...

[CTyankee]

85. Funny how these little, er, "discrepancies" creep in, isn't it?

Little, itty bitty "changes" in the actual city...naw, no big deal, just a little "slip up" but things get all changed around...funny, isn't it?

[X_Digger]

90. *Both* are safer than Oakland..

The OP doesn't have 'city' in his profile. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=user_profiles&u_id=112054

I listed both Tucson and Phoenix.

Both have a fraction of the homicide rate of Oakland.

[petronius]

87. The OP said "Oakland" and "Arizona" when he started this subthread

The poster I responded to compared Oakland to both Tucson and Phoenix - Tucson is apparently safest of the three...

[CTyankee]

91. how strange that the city became Phoenix....

[X_Digger]

92. Tucson is even safer than Phoenix.

What crawled up your backside?

[PavePusher]

118. Apparently, the truth.

And I think it kicked 'im in the liver.

[petronius]

93. Why is it strange? Neither city was specified by the OP, both are in the table,

and the point is perfectly clear.

If you think the other poster was trying something underhanded, why do you think he would switch to a city that makes his point slightly less (although still thoroughly) crushing?

:shrug:

[X_Digger]

95. LOL!! Tucson and Phoenix are even safer than New Haven, CT

Murder and non-negligent homicide, rate per 100,000

CONNECTICUT..New Haven....9.70
ARIZONA..Tucson...........6.39
ARIZONA..Phoenix..........7.64

[friendly_iconoclast]

110. Your interlocutor(s) seem to have dropped the subject. Inconvenient truth, eh?

Factose intolerance is never a pretty sight.

[X_Digger]

111. Apparently so. n/t

[X_Digger]

89. *Both* are safer than Oakland..

Since the OP doesn't mention where in AZ he lives, I included both.

[friendly_iconoclast]

74. Damn you, you trashed a perfectly good screed with verifiable facts

Please keep at it...

[GreenStormCloud]

72. We have been in this recession for two years and the crime rate is still going down.

According to your theory it should have increased dramatically already. What has increased dramatically in the last two years in gun sales, and the violent crime rate is dropping.

[Euromutt]

130. "This will" have been "changing" for over two years now

This depression started in the second half of 2008. It's now early 2011 and the available statistics do not show an increase in violent crime.

And there's a direct correlation between economic downturns and violent crimes...

Care to show any empirical evidence to that effect? Like, say, statistics.

Yes, it's been taken as axiomatic until recently that economic downturns should be accompanied by increases in violent crime, but the statistical evidence to support that assertion has been weighed and found wanting. One can just as readily appeal to the College of It Stands To Reason that crime should decrease in an economic downturn, at least in the number of incidents, because most people have less to steal.

We can reasonably predict an increase in certain types of violent death: suicides and domestic murder-suicides in particular as people feeling hopelessness due to debt and unemployment lose it. But homicides are, even in the US, a comparatively small subset of violent crime overall, and even a slight reduction in robberies could easily offset that in overall violent crime figures.

[damntexdem]

48. Exactly right. But there's another reason: Dem pols without spines.

The NRA has almost all politicians running scared.

[Pancho Sanza]

55. Well then you should work harder to get Dem pols who will fight for YOUR position

and to hell with the wishes of most of their consituents. It's a great way to get Republicans elected.

[CTyankee]

59. Fortunately, we have some rational voices with Rachel, Keith and Ed.

But we have a lot to do. Our state has elected a rational voice in Dick Blumenthal and we will probably have a rational voice taking Joe Lieberman's seat. We need more of their quality. And we need to diminish the influence of the NRA,along with the MIC and the Chamber of Commerce and the banksters. The NRA is right up there with the other bad guys...

[RamboLiberal]

61. I love Rachel, Keith & Ed - but they went to irrational hysteria

on the gun issue since the Gifford's shooting. They didn't even do their homework & spouted a lot of falsities

[CTyankee]

62. What did they say that was so wrong, in your opinion?

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

70. There are thread(s) about why what she said is wrong.

go look them up.

[lawodevolution]

86. "And we need to diminish the influence of the NRA". Sorry, you don't decide if the power of the NRA

Increases or decreases unless you plan to join. Otherwise you cannot force others to drop their memberships. Or do you plan to use force against the NRA?

[CTyankee]

94. And obviously, we have to fight harder against the false and the hate.

And we will.

[spin]

79. There are only 4 million NRA members ...

what difference could they make in a national or state election?




source: http://www.gallup.com/poll/144887/continuing-record-low-support-stricter-gun-control.aspx

The support for more gun control is not there. Possibly all the hyperbole every time another state passed "shall issue" concealed carry hurt the gun control movement more than most imagine. No state turned into the "Wild West". Those who opposed the new laws were seen as "Chicken Little" running around in terror saying that the sky is falling. The NRA was shown to be right and no states that passed "shall issue" concealed carry, castle doctrine and "stand your ground" and "take your gun to work" have revoked any of these laws.

The Arizona shooting had little effect.

No Shift Toward Gun Control After Tucson Shootings
Most Point to Troubled Individuals, Not Broader Societal Problems
January 19, 2011






http://people-press.org/report/695/

[derby378]

63. The polls cited by that BBC article are obsolete

Nowadays, less than 50% of Americans support a ban on what are obliquely referred to as "assault weapons." Our collective consciousness regarding our Constitutional rights is slowly reawakening.

[Euromutt]

132. It's probably also because respondents have become inured to the term "assault weapons"

In a way, 2007 was a very long time ago, well before the run on so-called "assault weapons" immediately following Obama's election to the presidency. Suddenly, a lot of people decided that they wanted to get an AR-15 variant before their sale might be prohibited, and screw the appellation "assault weapon." I remember reading some story of a couple in, I think, Ohio, picking up a pair of 9mm handguns and an AR and the wife saying "we just bought an assault weapon" with absolutely no awareness evident of the odium that term was designed to convey.

The term "assault weapon" has, very simply, been reduced in the public consciousness to an indication of a semi-auto rifle with a detachable magazine. It's lost any odium that was meant to be attached to it through sheer over-use, with the media and anti-RKBA activists calling damn near everything an "assault weapon" from Loughner's G19 to a bolt-action Mauser used to shoot a cop in Chicago several years ago. When you use a term like "assault weapon" interchangeably with "firearm" often enough, it loses its power. The term "weapon of mass destruction" is fast going the same way, given how any damn gun is referred to as a "weapon of mass destruction" these days.

The currency of language is not unlike literal currency: if you print too much of it, it loses value, until finally, it becomes competely worthless.

[Katya Mullethov]

77. They are changing somewhere nearly everday . Towards more freedom

The fear of getting fired is stymieing the political will in Congress to screw us .

[CTyankee]

80. Let's hope we get meaningful gun control change...

what a terrible shame this in on our country...

[lawodevolution]

88. Yes "meaningful gun control change"

Will be the elimination of gun registration schemes and "assault weapon" bans. Change to shall issue permits in every state or constitutional carry

[CTyankee]

96. Yes, hopefully we can move towards a more western European style of gun control.

It will be slow, but those of us who value human life can push for these changes that will save lives and bring a better sense of safety to our communities...

[X_Digger]

97. Talking to yourself, now? n/t

[Pullo]

123. That ship is sailing in the opposite direction

Major gun control initiatives in this country tend to lead to less firearm restriction, not more.

The Brady Bill, the AWB etc. should be given credit for turning the NRA into the force it is today.

[Euromutt]

131. Do you understand what a "western European style of gun control" entails?

The introduction of gun control law in western Europe were never intended to address a violent crime problem, mainly because there wasn't one. Those laws were for the most part introduced shortly after the end of the first world war because the governments in question feared that an armed populace (including a sizable number of disgruntled demobilized soldiers) might consign them to the same fate as the Russian and German imperial governments suffered. Similarly, Mussolini introduced gun control in Italy primarily to deprive leftists of the tools of armed revolt (which is why Italian law prohibits civilian ownership of firearms in military and police calibers: it's not about the lethality, it's about armed insurgents not being able to acquire ammunition they can use from government stocks).

Gun control in western Europe cannot be credited with reducing violent crime, not with preventing increases of same, nor even with preventing mass/spree shootings. The examples of Solliès-Pont & Cuers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Borel), Dunblane (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunblane_massacre), Erfurt http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erfurt_massacre), Winnenden (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winnenden_school_shooting), Cumbria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumbria_shootings) should tell us that no amount of legal restrictions on private firearm ownership will prevent mass/spree killings, and though those are a comparatively recent phenomenon, it's not like prior to that there was a shortage of terrorists being able to illegally acquire firearms, resulting in armed attacks and shootouts with security forces. I mean, Jesus, the Munich massacre (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munich_massacre), the OPEC conference attack (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlos_the_Jackal#OPEC_raid_and_expulsion_from_PFLP), South Moluccan separatist attacks in the Netherlands (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Moluccas#South_Moluccan_terrorist_action_in_the_Netherlands), the "German Autumn" of 1977 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Autumn), the Iranian embassy siege (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Autumn), the coordinated Rome and Vienna airport attacks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rome_and_Vienna_airport_attacks), the euphemistically named "Troubles" in Northern Ireland... hell, living in the UK and the Netherlands in the 1970s and 1980s, I remember the constant barrage of news reports terrorist operations in western Europe, up to and including a gunfight between the German Rote Armee Fraktion and the Dutch police outside my grandparents' apartment building in Amsterdam. And European firearms laws didn't stop any of this shit for an instant.

The perception--or rather, the misperception that European gun laws are somehow instrumental in keeping European homicide rates down is because we (as a Dutch national by birth, I get to say "we") trust the government when it tells us that this is the case, even though there's not actually any evidence to support that claim.

[PavePusher]

135. Damn! Why must you continue to introduce facts and citations...

in the face of a satisfying hand-wringing?

Also, you have reminded me that I have not had a decent chicken or donner kabob since I left England. Three years now, sigh....

[CTyankee]

98. We can only hope that as we change our country on health care reform

we can also change the backward, regressive thinking on gun control. We can do this with progressive, liberal Democrats in control. That is what we are all about on Democraticunderground.com, isn't it?

[Katya Mullethov]

102. Thought control ?

To a degree , but it don't seem to work at all with the smarter ones .

[friendly_iconoclast]

109. It's a little less obvious than saying "false consciousness"- but the idea is the same

Some people would like to return to the days of top-down opinion control, and are more than a little peeved that their

"thought leaders" of choice aren't defining the argument about gun control anymore.

[PavePusher]

119. "in control"?

You are quite disturbing.

[timo]

81. DONT FORGET

Uncle Sam gets a shitload in taxes from gunowners, thats a cash cow they are not willing to do with out!!

[CTyankee]

82. Good! Let's get MORE! I wonder tho if it is enough to compensate for the loss of lives.

nt

[timo]

104. ???

how about the lives of innocents taken abroad by illegal drone attacks? wanna send the whitehouse a bill for those?

[CTyankee]

105. hey, I'm as unhappy as you are about our ramped up policy in Afghanistan.

That's a whole 'nother thread right there...