Cleveland, Ohio - Gun Violence

[mikeb302000]

http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2011/08/authorities_battle_illegal_fir.html">Cleveland.com reports on the dire situation there.

The pace of shooting deaths in the Cleveland area has stalled slightly in the past three years, some say because of stepped-up efforts by local and federal law enforcement agencies to remove illegal guns from the urban center.

Police confiscated more than 3,200 guns from the city streets from 2008 through 2010. People voluntarily turned over 488 more guns during the city's last two gun buyback programs.

So far so good. A slight improvement or stalling is good, right.

But police believe that for every gun they take off the streets, hordes of cheap, illegal guns appear to replace them. The death and injury toll attributed to firearms is still overwhelming, with more than 277 -- mostly minority men and boys -- being gunned down since 2008. And more often, it seems, teens are the ones with the guns.

In a 10-day span beginning July 26, seven people were shot and killed in the city -- five of them were under age 25.

So where are all these guns coming from? "Hordes" of them are coming in. Well, the story goes on to mention straw purchasing as one of the sources. "Some are stolen and others are purchased with no background check at gun and knife shows -- like ones held almost monthly at the Cuyahoga County Fairgrounds."

But, none of that really gets to the heart of the matter. The guns, all the guns, come from lawful gun owners. They all start out manufactured legally and transferred to FFL gun dealers, and after that in various ways, flow into the criminal world.

This is why gun control laws must be aimed at the lawful gun owners, that's where the problem is. Either through apathy, or greed, or stupidity, they are allowing this.

How can we prevent it, you ask? Well it's simple.

1. Background checks on every firearm transfer.
2. Licensing of every gunowner, which requires written, practical and mental health exams.
3. Registration of every gun bought. The licensed owner of the gun will have to renew the registration after three months and yearly thereafter, showing proof of possession.

Those are the main things, after which we can talk about magazine capacity and safe storage laws.

What's your opinion? Would gun control laws like those improve the situation in cities like Cleveland, yes or no?

http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/">(cross posted at Mikeb302000)

Please leave a comment.

[Kolesar]

1. The A-holes at Great Lakes Outdoor Supply had anti-Clinton posters in their windows

Then they get robbed by gun users. How ironic.

[SteveM]

20. Correction: Vast majority of gun users are not robbers. Clearing up your misconception...

BTW, most thugs are surprisingly apolitical.

[Kolesar]

36. "My" misconception? You just fabricated a quote about a "vast majority"...eom

[SteveM]

43. So, the vast majority of gun users are not law breakers? Good. We agree. nt

[Kolesar]

2. Cleveland had tougher rules on guns, but were overruled by the Ohio Republicans

State legislator Tim Grendell, R-Chesterland-Ironic sponsored that usurpation of local power. He also "took away" Cleveland's power to control "predatory lenders" that were causing the foreclosure crisis in the last decade.



Tim Grendell Speaking at Columbus 2nd Amendment March

[ProgressiveProfessor]

15. State premptionis a good thing

[SteveM]

21. Local government does NOT have a federal relationship with state government...

Local government is a creature of the state; in fact county government is an arm of the state. Local government may have varying degrees of autonomy GRANTED it by the state, but even here such autonomy must comport with the state (and federal) constitutions.

[Kolesar]

35. Tell it to the mother of the kid who got shot ... eom

[SteveM]

42. Cashin' in on excessive compassion, are you? nt

[friendly_iconoclast]

45. The State of New York "took away" the power to deny marriage licenses to same-sex couples

I take it then you would support the Cayuga (NY) County clerk?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4958693

Don't serve a dish you wouldn't want to eat...

[ileus]

3. I was told in Feb to get off the street in Cleveland this year.

"Too much violence downtown" by security at the RnRHOF.

[GreenStormCloud]

4. Registration would solve nothing.

So Mr. Jones has a registered .45. It gets stolen in a burglary when he isn't at home. He dutifully reports it to the police. What good does that do? The police don't know where the .45 is now.

You basically want to make it next to impossible for a civilian to own a gun and your side is losing badly at elections and in the courts.

[TheCowsCameHome]

5. Mr. Jones is an irresponsible gun owner.

He failed to secure his gun properly, and as a result it is in the wrong hands.

[GreenStormCloud]

8. Most gun safes can be broken into. They only slow down burglars.

And you still haven't shown how registration solves anything.

[TheCowsCameHome]

10. Then Mr. Jones failed twice, didn't he?

He bought a cheap safe AND failed to secure his weapon.

Mr. Jones isn't too bright.

[PavePusher]

16. So, you'll donate the $5-10K needed for a good safe?

I'll believe it when I see it.

Would you also hold the resident at fault if their house was broken into for any other reason, or if any other type of theft was the intent?

Surely you want to be morally, logically and legally consistent, amIrite?

[TheCowsCameHome]

28. Not a chance, friend........

That's up to a RESPONSIBLE gun owner, if that's what it takes to secure weapons.

Maybe the 2A pushers could chip in for poor old Mr. Jones.

:rofl:

[PavePusher]

38. The only "security" my guns need, legally or morally....

is the locked door to my house.

If you pass that threshold uninvited, you are a criminal and I am not responsible for your actions.

[TheWraith]

49. In other words, you want to make it impossibly expensive for anyone not wealthy to own a gun.

Out of curiosity, when a poor person wants to own a gun to protect their family because they live in a bad area, what do you intend to tell them? "Fuck off, you're not wealthy enough to meet the requirements. Only rich people deserve self defense."

How exactly is that different from the right-wing argument on healthcare: if you're not rich enough, you don't deserve to live?

Thank you for this though. It exposes the false idea that registration and "safe storage" are the "reasonable" measures they're pushed as, as well as the lie behind the claim that no one is attempting to create a de facto ban on firearms. I have no doubt that if you had your way, the entire country would be turned into Chicago, where the elites are allowed to own firearms, and anyone else is at the mercy of the criminal element which will never have trouble getting arms.

[TheCowsCameHome]

50. Feel free to think whatever you like.

If you can't secure your weapon when not in use you shouldn't even own one.

And who the fuck besides you says it takes megabucks to store one where it won't be stolen?

[X_Digger]

51. Most expensive gun safes ($2,500+)..

Carry a UL rating of 'RSC'

http://www.doubleasecurity.net/safe_inventory/SAFERATE2.htm

RSC (Residential Security Container): This is an Underwriters Laboratory™ security rating (Underwriters Laboratory™ is the best known of about 500 non-biased independent testing laboratories, known as U.L.™). The safe must withstand five minutes of rigorous prying, drilling, chiseling, and tampering attacks and must be tested using specific common burglary tools to prevent access to the content.

You have to get into fucking jewelry store vault specifications to get to 30 minutes.

http://www.directsafes.com/tl-30-safe.cfm?productid=755

[TheCowsCameHome]

53. $2,500? And you wanted me to donate $5-10K.................

Who you think yer rippin' off here, son?

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Call LaPierre at the NRA - he'll prolly throw in a few bucks if'n you ask purty.


:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[X_Digger]

55. So is anyone who can't afford a $2,500 safe.. shit out of luck?

That's up to a RESPONSIBLE gun owner, if that's what it takes to secure weapons.

If you want 30 minutes of protection, add on $1,000 (new).. an hour? You're talking bank vault.

But hey, I get it.. you get to claim that you don't want to restrict guns, you just want them 'secure'.. with criteria that most people couldn't meet. Never mind the people who are actually more frequently the victim of crime. Fuck em, right? They can't 'secure' their guns, so they shouldn't have em, n'est-ce pas?

[TheCowsCameHome]

59. Awww.

If you can't keep 'em secure for less than that, you're a hopeless case - or maybe you just like leaving them around so everyone can see your arsenal.

[X_Digger]

61. My guns are secure from casual efforts.

My gun safe weighs 280 lbs. It wouldn't stop a thief with any knowledge of safes and/or a good selection of tools.

Does that make it not 'secure'? Because a determined criminal could break it open in less than five minutes of serious work?

Let me remind you..

Mr. Jones is an irresponsible gun owner.

He failed to secure his gun properly, and as a result it is in the wrong hands.

Are you saying that if it can be stolen, it wasn't 'secured properly'? If not, what is your criteria?

[TheCowsCameHome]

64. If something was stolen, evidently it wasn't secured.....

...was it?

[X_Digger]

65. Lol, so effectively, there is no such thing..

I mean, even if you rented a safety deposit box in your local bank..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baker_Street_robbery

That bank, it wasn't secured, right?

Nor this one..

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Americas/2011/0104/Argentina-bank-heist-echoes-Woody-Allen-films-and-Sherlock-Holmes-tales

Anything else that you consider irresponsible behavior when it's able to be stolen, regardless of the measures taken by the owner?

[GreenStormCloud]

26. You still haven't explained how registration would solve anything. N/T

[TheCowsCameHome]

27. .....And you're the guy that brought up Mr. Jones.

You must have a wonderful imagination.

[GreenStormCloud]

52. So explain how registration will solve anything. You can't.

You simply want to put as many obstacles to gun ownership as you can. Registration is just the first step to confiscation. And registration lists have twice, in the U.S. been used as consfication lists.

[iverglas]

58. why do you want to make yourself look this silly in public?

What registration solves is the transfer of firearms from eligible owners to ineligible persons.

Fuckin' duh.

If the owner of a registered firearm transfers it to someone without registering the transfer, and the firearm is used in a crime and traced to the last registered owner ... oops.

Surely "law-abiding gun owners" don't want to transfer their firearms to someone not eligible to possess them -- intentionally, negligently, accidentally, or because they had no way of determining eligiblity.

Registration of transfers is the flip side of licensing of owners: transfers only to licensed persons, with a way of ensuring that this is the case and deterring future illegal transfers.

Law-abiding owners abide by that law. Simple.

And non-law abiding gun owners -- like straw purchasers -- find themselves facing rather significant problems. Bulk buying can be identified instantly through registration, and unregistered transfers can be traced to them. Straw purchasing loses some of its allure.

You won't be making the mistake of asking that silly question again now, will you?!

[We_Have_A_Problem]

30. If a gun is in my home...

in a safe or not, it is secure. Period.

What do you suggest people do? There has not yet been a method or device created which can make anything theft-PROOF.

[TheCowsCameHome]

31. Then you have nothing to worry about.

Sleep well.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

37. Sure I do...

...people like you advocate for insane and unattainable "safe storage" standards.

[TheCowsCameHome]

41. Tell Mr. Jones.

His gun was stolen.

[ileus]

9. Mr. Jones is the problem....he needs to destroy his guns.

according to some it's his fault someone broke into his home and he should be liable for the stolen property. The criminal is just an innocent victim of his gun.

[TheCowsCameHome]

12. Mr. Jones shouldn't have a gun if he can't secure it properly.

[Atypical Liberal]

13. We have to decide what constitutes "properly secure".

I have a safe that meets the California Department of Justice requirements for safe firearm storage in California.

Is this sufficient?

[ileus]

18. Locked up at the courthouse or police station.

any place else it's unsecure...don't you know.

[TheCowsCameHome]

29. It is until it isn't.

[PavePusher]

17. Does that apply to other property as well?

Again, I ask you for consistency....

[ileus]

34. Only guns....they kill people you know.

[SteveM]

22. Wanna check #6 and #7 below? nt

[DanTex]

24. Yes, the teabaggers won the last election and control SCOTUS

Go teabaggers! But if the economy improves and we keep the White House in 2012, I think there's a decent chance for some progressive change in the next decade. Call me an optimist.

Regarding your little story, as I'm sure you don't understand, guns stolen from legal owners constitute a small fraction of the guns used in crimes. Criminals often steal guns from other criminals, whereas registration is designed to stop guns from leaving the hands of legal owners in the first place.

Still, there will always be a few guns that get into criminal hands. The question is how many. With registration, the answer will be far fewer.

[mikeb302000]

70. you're right, registration will not help much with theft

except when safe stroage laws are in place. Then reporting a stolen gun could lead to an investigation of why it was stolen so easily.

But, registration will mainly put straw purchasers out of business. Also it will constrain you "lawful gun owners" to hold on to your property. You'll no longer be able to sell it at the flea market or on the internet to someone who might be a disqualified person.

[Atypical Liberal]

6. My opinion.

So where are all these guns coming from? "Hordes" of them are coming in. Well, the story goes on to mention straw purchasing as one of the sources. "Some are stolen and others are purchased with no background check at gun and knife shows -- like ones held almost monthly at the Cuyahoga County Fairgrounds."

As has been posted before, criminals seldom get their guns from gun shows:



And this should not be surprising. Anyone selling at a gun show, private or otherwise, is going to be selling at market value. I've been to plenty of gun shows, and there are not many "deals" to be found. Firearms are a low profit margin commodity. Everyone selling guns at a gun show knows exactly what their guns are worth and what they should sell for - probably within ten dollars.

Further, there is usually a police presence at gun shows, both uniformed and undercover. Not exactly the most friendly shopping experience for a criminal.

And it is completely unnecessary. Any criminal or mentally ill person who wants to buy a firearm at market prices need only open their local newspaper classified ads and go to the sporting goods section and make a selection from the numerous firearms available for sale there. No need to go to a gun show and risk rubbing elbows with the local constabulary.

But I doubt most criminals who are after guns go shopping through legitimate channels paying market prices for firearms anyway. My guess is that they buy on the black market of stolen firearms.

But, none of that really gets to the heart of the matter. The guns, all the guns, come from lawful gun owners. They all start out manufactured legally and transferred to FFL gun dealers, and after that in various ways, flow into the criminal world.

This is why gun control laws must be aimed at the lawful gun owners, that's where the problem is. Either through apathy, or greed, or stupidity, they are allowing this.

The entire premise is to restrict the rights of law-abiding people because of the actions of criminals. This is a non-starter for me.

How can we prevent it, you ask? Well it's simple.

1. Background checks on every firearm transfer.
2. Licensing of every gunowner, which requires written, practical and mental health exams.
3. Registration of every gun bought. The licensed owner of the gun will have to renew the registration after three months and yearly thereafter, showing proof of possession.

I don't have a problem with background checks on every firearm transfer, as long as it preserves firearm ownership anonymity.

I don't have a problem with licensing every gun owner, as long as it preservers firearm ownership anonymity.

There is no need for mental health exams since NICS already screens for those mentally ill folks that we think should not have firearms. If we want to broaden the scope of what mental conditions constitute a NICS flag, I'm open to discussion, but once the metrics are defined, NICS works fine.

I do not support any kind of test to exercise a Constitutional right. It violates anonymous firearm ownership, and it is wrong to get government permission to exercise a Constitutional right.

The best compromise I see is to require an FOID like Illinois does, but rather than have an opt-in system make it opt-out. Whenever someone applies for a state-issued ID or driver's license, they will automatically be run through NICS and if they qualify they will be given an FOID card, unless they choose to opt out.

Then, as in Illinois, every time there is a private sale the seller would be required to see the buyer's FOID card and keep a record of the sale for 10 years. Sellers would be motivated to do this because selling to someone without an FOID is a pretty good indicator that that person will use that firearm in a crime, and it will then be traced back to its last legitimate owner, with consequences to follow.

However, if we have to go to the trouble of being licensed, then I want the ability to buy firearms through the mail again without having to go through an FFL. The whole point of going through the FFL was to run a background check. If I'm licensed, that is not necessary anymore.

What's your opinion? Would gun control laws like those improve the situation in cities like Cleveland, yes or no?

Almost certainly not. Crime issues in cities like Cleveland are not gun issues. They are drug and gang issues fueled by lack of economic opportunity. You could get rid of every gun in the world and these urban areas would probably have the same amount of crime.

[mikeb302000]

71. you're trying to pull a fast one on us

about the 35.4 percent who got guns from family and friends, where do you think the family members and the friends got them?

Trace it back far enough, which is impossible because of the choke-hold the NRA has on the country, and you'd find a lawful gun owner who let it slip into a criminal's hand. Sometimes that last lawful owner of the gun is completely innocent, but not usually.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

75. Anything to support that statement?

"Sometimes that last lawful owner of the gun is completely innocent, but not usually."

If the former owner fully complied with the law, they are completely innocent bu definition.

[Remmah2]

7. but crime is down in Cleveland.

http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2011/05/national_crime_statistics_cont.html

[Atypical Liberal]

11. Good point

Violent crime per 100,000


Property crime per 100,000


Cleveland has seen a 35% decline in violent and property crime since 1990.

"Fox noted that violent crime peaked around 1990 largely because of effects of the crack cocaine epidemic that plagued American cities. But as the crack market "matured," leading to fewer disputes over drug territories, violent crime began to recede.

Other factors that led to decreases in violent crime nationally included the large number of people who were imprisoned, the increased use of technology and crime analysis by law enforcement and the graying of America. The Baby Boom generation had begun growing old.

"The group that was growing the fastest was the least criminal," Fox said.

Fox said decreases in property crime are likely attributable to many of the same factors that pertain to violent crime.

Violent crime in American cities has much to do with poverty, Fox said, adding that his studies have shown that the murder rate for young black males last decade remains much higher than for all other groups.

Ultimately, violent crime is a matter of poverty and not race, Fox said.

"Cleveland tends to be near the top for the rate of homicide and violent crime," Fox said. "But when you factor out the percentage of the population that is under the poverty line and the percentage of children who live in homes with fewer than two parents, the connection with race evaporates. It's socio-economic.""

Emphasis mine.

The biggest, absolutely hugest problem here are the socio-economic disparities in our culture that are leaving parts of our culture, namely African-Americans, behind and not allowing them to share in the opportunities outside of a life of crime. As wealth disparity grows in this country, I expect this problem to become worse.

We would be far, far, far better of concentrating on the root causes of crime in this country instead of focusing on the tools that criminals use to commit crimes.

150 years after the Civil War, African Americans are still not fully integrated into American society and enjoying all the legitimate opportunities that are available. This makes turning to gangs, drugs, and crime seem like a good opportunity. It does not matter what tools are available to commit crimes - this underlying issue must be addressed before real progress can be made.

[rrneck]

14. Every time I read one of these

it devolves into some sort of bullshit bombastic come on. I could get better from the local used car salesman.

Tightening gun regulations will deny any number of people of a viable means of self defense. Mental health exams to secure a civil right is time honored tactic used by tyrants everywhere.

1. How do you plan to maintain chain of custody, prosecute offenders, and pay for it without eroding the civil rights of honest citizens?

2. Why don't you actually look into what is involved in a mental health exam and the history of the use of psychiatry in tyrannical repression. What you are suggesting is an absurd travesty.

3. Registration and proof of possession for well over three hundred million firearms and growing by over a million a month could only be accomplished by an extremely wealthy totalitarian state.

Your proposals a little more than absurd bombast in a cookie cutter format designed to drive traffic's to your silly little blog. It's about what I'd expect from an amateur media whore.

[mikeb302000]

72. you're asking about the details of how

licensing and registration would work. Does that mean you admit it would, but question the practicality of it?

I hate comparisons, but think of this one. Every car on the planet should bear a numerical sign identifying the owner of that vehicle. What could be more impractical and more costly than that? Yet, look around next time you take a little drive, and think about Canada, Italy and Kenya. It's the same there.

[rrneck]

73. Spare us the fucking car analogies and produce

an original thought.

If you don't want people assuming details produce them. Or is that out of format?

[Remmah2]

74. Actually not a bad idea.

I can drive a car in any country in the world, criminals are allowed to own cars, 16 year olds can drive, I don't have to register a car on my private property, I can drive my car to school, state parks and universities. If I fail to drive a registered car, all I get is a ticket. My friends can legally drive my car.

[mikeb302000]

76. ha ha ha ha

YOU're telling ME to spare the car analogies. ha ha ha ha

[rrneck]

81. How'd you figure that out? nt

[DanTex]

19. Good OP. Registration would go a long way.

By and large, the opposition comes from people incapable of thinking beyond the black and white "criminals will always have guns". Technically, of course, it is true that some criminals will always get guns, but the question is how many -- making it more difficult for criminals to get guns will reduce the number of gun crimes. It's simple supply and demand, really. You reduce the supply, and the price goes up (here price is measured not just in dollars, but in overall difficulty/risk involved for a criminal to acquire a gun), thereby reducing the total quantity.

Registration would significantly cut down on many common ways criminals get guns. Or more precisely, ways that guns are diverted from the legitimate markets to the criminal markets in the first place. As you put it:

But, none of that really gets to the heart of the matter. The guns, all the guns, come from lawful gun owners. They all start out manufactured legally and transferred to FFL gun dealers, and after that in various ways, flow into the criminal world.

With registration, the main ways that diversion occurs will become drastically more difficult to accomplish:
-- corrupt FFLs
-- straw purchases
-- unchecked private sales
In all three cases, anyone who is systematically diverting guns to the criminal market will leave a rather conspicuous trail in the gun registry.

The other thing about registration is that it may even be politically feasible, not in the short term, but perhaps in the medium term. Yes, the current teabagger political climate will make it difficult to get much done in the next few years, not just on guns, but on a lot of other issues. However, if Dems keep the White House, and the economy improves, a lot of this right-wing extremism will fade, and there may be a genuine opportunity to for progressives to make some ground, again, not just on guns, but also things climate, income inequality, etc. Polls show that registration, for handguns at least, is favored by a comfortable majority, somewhere in the 65% range. And really, since registration would hardly affect law abiding gun owners, the only real opposition you get is from extremists, ideologues, and those whose lives are spent preparing for post-apocalyptic end times.

[Atypical Liberal]

25. How does registration change anything?

With registration, the main ways that diversion occurs will become drastically more difficult to accomplish:
-- corrupt FFLs
-- straw purchases
-- unchecked private sales
In all three cases, anyone who is systematically diverting guns to the criminal market will leave a rather conspicuous trail in the gun registry.

How does registration actually make it harder for criminals to get guns?

FFLs already have to keep a record of every firearm that passes through their hands, and to whom it went. If they are already falsifying this registration information, they can falsify any registration information.

If someone is going to make a straw purchase from an FFL, they have already just registered themselves to that FFL. I fail to see how registering twice will make change the situation.

Even with registration, an individual could still sell a firearm to a private individual and simply claim the firearm was lost or stolen.

And of course, registered firearms are just as easy to steal as unregistered ones.

The only thing that registration does is gives the government a list of all lawful firearm owners.

[DanTex]

32. Lots of ways

Oddly, you seem to understand that a single registry of all guns along with their owners is different from a bunch of sales records scattered at FFLs around the country when it comes to paranoia. The same is true when it comes to stopping gun diversion and solving crimes. For example, with straw purchasers, yes, you can report the gun stolen, but (a) you actually have to do that, which you don't at present, and (b) if you start reporting a lot of stolen guns, it's going to start to look suspicious. Similarly for corrupt FFLs, it's one thing to keep a book of doctored transactions, it's very different for all those to end up in a central registry. Etc.

Another benefit of a registry, of course, is to help police solve crimes and infiltrate gun trafficking networks. Obviously, once a gun goes to the criminal market, the transactions will no longer be reported. Still, you get to see just exactly all the steps a gun has taken until it goes underground, and certainly patterns will emerge, and it will be harder for systematic traffickers to cover their tracks.

[Atypical Liberal]

40. I'm skeptical.

Having read about Canada's registry, which costs some $66 million a year, I am skeptical about it being very useful.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Firearms_Registry

But that is beside the point. The intent of the second amendment is to allow an armed citizenry to serve as armed forces that can replace or at least counter federal military power.

Giving the federal government a list of all such people undermines that ability.

[iverglas]

62. just in case the math eluded you

Canada's registry, which costs some $66 million a year

You do realize that this is a few cents under $2 a year per person, right? Roughly the same in your currency these days.

So what are those wars costing you today, as a US resident?

I'm thinking that you'd need a microscope to see $2 a year for a firearms registry.



typo fixed

[mikeb302000]

77. well said, Dan

but do you sometimes get the impression your interlocutor is not listening.

[Upton]

33. Registration is a precursor to confiscation..

no aware self respecting gun owner, be they Democrat, Republican, or anything else, is going to support such nonsense..

[DanTex]

39. You're actually wrong there.

For example, here's one poll about the issue, showing that 66% overall, and 49% of gun owners support a gun registry. There are others.

28. Require every gun owner to register each gun he or she owns as part of a national gun registry
Total 66 32
Gun HH 49 48

http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/Bloompoll.pdf

As I mentioned, with the economy the way it is, for the next few years, the teabaggers are going to stop anything real progressive reforms from taking place, either with guns or anything else. And with the power that right-wing special interests like the NRA have, it's obviously not going to be an easy battle. But in the medium term, if Dems make a little headway, a gun registry is not out of the question. Because, as much as the NRA would like to ignore these numbers, the reality is that public opinion strongly supports common sense gun laws like registration.

By the way only 9% of gun owners in that poll are "strongly opposed" to a gun registry (the rest are only "somewhat opposed"). On the other hand, 36% of gun owners strongly support a gun registry.

I guess that would make you in that extreme 9%, even among gun owners. Actually, given these numbers, I wouldn't be too surprised if every single Democrat in the US who strongly opposes a gun registry is an active poster on this very message board.

[friendly_iconoclast]

44. A poll from a company owned by Michael Bloomberg? Really?

What are the odds that they would come up with a result that the boss wouldn't like?
Slim to none, and Slim just left town

This is about as valid as posting a poll sponsored by the NRA or Second Amendment Foundation.

[DanTex]

47. Actually, the poll was conducted in conjunction by two reputable polling firms.

One Republican-leaning, one Democratic-leaning.

And, as usual, I see that you have absolutely no evidence to present to the contrary. If you have an NRA-sponsored poll from a reputable polling firm that finds different results, let's see it.

Much more likely, you'll just bury your head in the sand, and hope you can get others to ignore the facts along with you. Same old story, whether it's polls, scientific studies, statistical evidence, etc. One side has the evidence, and the gunners have the denialism.

Meanwhile, back on planet earth, a significant majority of Americans support gun registration, as this and several other polls have found.

[friendly_iconoclast]

46. "But *everybody* I know voted for McGovern!"

Just keep telling yourself that.

Like it or not, the NRA has more members that are Democrats than the various Brady orgs have members.
Unless and until that changes, gun control will continue to erode.

[DanTex]

48. Another 9%-er I see.

Believe me, among liberals and Democrats, your views are a tiny minority. I'd post some polls or evidence, but I know you don't believe in data. Maybe I should try a crystal ball or some Tarot cards.

In fact, even among gun owners, your views are a tiny minority. One thing that I agree with is that many gun owners are perfectly reasonable and well-informed people. Just not the 9% most ideologically extreme zealots, those who strongly oppose gun registration.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

54. The numbers are not nearly what you assert they are

It strongly depends on framing and phraseology.

[friendly_iconoclast]

56. Who needs numbers when you can insult your opponents? n/t

[DanTex]

66. Yes, the numbers are what I assert they are.

The phraseology seems pretty straightforward to me. Here's the exact text that was used in the survey.

Require every gun owner to register each gun he or she owns as part of a national gun registry.

I'm not sure what anyone could possibly be confused about. I'm pretty sure that you, like 9% of gun owners and 6% of the overall population, would answer "strongly opposed". That puts you among the 6% most extremist gun zealots we have in our nation.

Any questions?

And I'll repeat something else. It would be wonderful if just once the gunners would present some evidence of their own, like maybe a poll from a reputable organization that says something different. It's always "that study is biased" or "that poll is biased" etc. No wonder so few Democrats buy the NRA propaganda. Scratch the surface, and there are no facts whatsoever.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

67. The same registry process that has failed in California and Canada?

[DanTex]

68. Nice. Changing the subject like a pro.

Looks like you've got a lot of practice being completely wrong.

[friendly_iconoclast]

57. Here's some data: Brady Campaign membership +/- 55,000 (and that's being generous)

NRA membership +/- 4,000,000.

Which group represents more Democrats, again?

[iverglas]

63. somebody forgot to say

No True Scotsman.

Happy to fill the void!

[mikeb302000]

78. your overlords in the NRA told you that

and you keep repeating it. My other thread was locked because I used colorful language to describe that behavior.

[friendly_iconoclast]

80. Did they invent the confiscation of SKS rifles by the state of California? I think not.

Your expertise about guns and firearms law is on a par with that of Christine O'Donnell about sex...

[gejohnston]

83. and Wicca, which she knows even less about.

http://www.canadaammo.com/product.php?productid=254&cat=1&page=1

[iverglas]

60. if you're interested in a case in point

It turned out to be kind of amusing, but it demonstrates the principles in practice.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x45318

The Cdn Firearms Registry automatically flagged an unusual pattern of transfers -- I believe there were different purchasers and the purchasers were in different parts of the country. The firearms in question turned out to be some kind of collector's items -- which makes sense, since who of sound mind would think of acquiring firearms in Canada for trafficking into the US? But the fact was that a smuggling scheme was thwarted.

So I was addressing the "criminals will always have guns" meme: criminals in the US are not gonna get them from Canada, because we have a registry that tracks firearms transfers, providing a huge disincentive to illegal transfers by anyone remotely law-abiding since unregistered transfers will leave them holding the bag, and that flags potentially problematic transfers when they occur.

Coupled with the licensing scheme (not just background checks at time of purchase), the system throws up various kinds of barriers to acquisitions by ineligible persons and trafficking.

[SteveM]

23. Isn't this a dupe?

Sounds like it came from some gun-control center or wannabee.

[rl6214]

69. Unrec for the idiotic blog flogging

[S_B_Jackson]

79. Would your proposed gun control laws improve the situation in Cleveland?

No. They would be every bit as ineffectual as they have proven in, for example, Washington DC or Chicago, IL.

[Name removed]

82. Deleted message

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