Maddow debunks all arguments against gun control

[HankyDubs]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=llt0307Wbwg

If citizens need to be armed in order to defend themselves against their government, why shouldn't they own howitzers and flak cannons? Isn't it tyrannical for the government to prevent citizens from owning these weapons?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ueJ_CydW9So

If more guns = less crime, then why is there no statistical correlation between right-to-carry laws and a decrease in crime?

Why is it that the states with the highest per-capita gun death rates are also the states with the highest gun ownership rates?

Why is it that the states with the lowest per-capital gun death rates are also states with gun ownership rates under 20%?

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

The anti-government fantasies and the more guns = less crime fantasies...are just that...fantasy.

Why are so many people dying because some folks prefer fantasy over reality?

It is sad that the gun lobby has to appeal to emotions (fear of crime, fear of government) in order to push their agenda.

[bossy22]

1. not this again

this is the 200th time this has been posted- and rachel's points have been thouroughly debunked

[HankyDubs]

3. saying you debunked is not the same as debunking

Is there a correllation between states that have right-to-carry laws and drops in crime rates in those states? Did you find one?

Isn't it true that states with more gun owners have more gun deaths?

Isn't it true that you can't bring down a stealth bomber with an ar-15?

Isn't it true that the gun lobby uses fear to push its agenda?

[bossy22]

5. its been debunked in previous threads that were posted very recently

"Is there a correllation between states that have right-to-carry laws and drops in crime rates in those states? Did you find one?"
no, and that goes for the opposite as well. Right to carry laws seem to have a neutral effect.

"Isnt it true that states with more gun owners have more gun deaths"
nope. In fact there is again no correlation whatsoever. Here is a list of different states and there homicide rate http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2011/tables/11s0304.pdf . You will see that some states with high gun ownership have high murder rates- and others with high gun ownership have very low murder rates

"Isn't it true that you can't bring down a stealth bomber with an ar-15?"
that is true, but whats your point? Why would you need to shoot at a stealth bomber? Also, the AR-15 was not designed to be an anti-aircraft weapon. its the same as me asking "isnt it true you can't fly over the atlantic in a tricycle?"

"Isn't it true that the gun lobby uses fear to push its agenda?"
partially true, but then again almost everyone uses fear to push an agenda. Gun control groups are just as guilty if not more in using fear to push their agendas

[HankyDubs]

8. thanks for playin!

"Right to carry laws seem to have a neutral effect."

Meaning that they have no appreciable effect. More guns do not mean less crime.

"Here is a list of different states and there homicide rate"

She refers to gun death rate, not to homicide rate.

"Why would you need to shoot at a stealth bomber?"

Isn't this the scenario you envision? That the US government would turn its full military might against its citizens?

"partially true, but then again almost everyone uses fear to push an agenda."

Completely true. The gun lobby uses fear of faceless criminals to push its agenda.

[bossy22]

13. no thank you

first off, why does the specific weapon used in murder matter? dead is dead. 200 people murdered by blunt force is not better than 200 people shot. its like looking at traffic deaths involving red cars and basing your conclusion on which state has the safest roads just on that information.

ohh and btw, i did address the question, look at the statistics and see.

[ZombieHorde]

15. "She refers to gun death rate, not to homicide rate."

Wouldn't the homicide rate be the better rate to examine?

[bossy22]

19. yes it would- and thats why rachel's arguement falls flat on its face

[pipoman]

38. Wrong

Meaning that they have no appreciable effect. More guns do not mean less crime.

It is abundantly clear that less guns = less crime. In fact I believe the stats do in fact support more guns = less crime. If you disagree, let us see the stats from some reliable source, not a pundit or blogger. My stats come from The Bureau of Justice Statistics, US Department of Justice.

Nonfatal firearm-related crime has declined since 2000.

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/glance/firearmnonfatalno.cfm

Nonfatal firearm crime rates have declined since 2000.

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/glance/firearmnonfatalrt.cfm

Serious violent crime levels declined since 1993.

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/glance/cv2.cfm

Since 1994 violent crime rates have declined, reaching the lowest level ever in 2009.

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/glance/viort.cfm

How can any of this be?

Every single year there are more and more guns, last year as many as 14 million iirc. Since 1994 we have gone from 3 states with concealed carry to 46 states. So yes, I absolutely believe it is easier to make the claim that more guns AND concealed carry do in fact = less crime. Let's see your stats which prove me wrong.

[HankyDubs]

46. Racel cites the stats you seek...2nd vid

If X_digger was honest, he would look at the stats you offered and say:

Correlation does not = causation.

[pipoman]

49. Why don't you link me to the actual stats?

How do you explain the stats I linked to considering ever increasing gun numbers, concealed carry, and ever increasing liberalization of gun laws?

[pipoman]

54. OK so I watched it and she did no such thing

she said it but showed not one single statistic which even comes close to proving anything. In fact she too said, "more guns do not equal less crime", then proceeded to cite gun death numbers which have nothing at all to do with crime rates. I cited actual crime stats which have been on constant decline while every year millions more guns are on the streets and millions more people are carrying them publicly. Her argument is a total and complete failure.

[HankyDubs]

68. Here ya go

This is the info she is referencing. http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=10881

Now as I pointed out, the stats you mention don't prove anything at all. Your attempt is pretty laughable...everyone knows that crime rates are influenced by a wide variety of factors...your attempt to associate the crime rate with one single factor is a joke.

[pipoman]

77. A link to an opinion paper

is far less conclusive than the facts, which you have not disputed, that during the same time gun laws across the country have been liberalized, concealed carry has been adopted by all but 2 states, and tens of millions of new guns have been sold into private hands, violent crime has decreased to 40 year lows. There is no logical argument for increased gun regulation. Even your very own opinion piece, try as they did, couldn't find a single justification for increased regulation.

Does more guns = less crime, really? I don't know. But it would be much easier to support with actual statistics than the opposite, less guns = less crime.

The joke are those trying to promote the idea that increasing regulation on an enumerated civil liberty is justified by one act by one mentally ill person, that's a joke...albeit not very funny.

[Name removed]

87. Deleted message

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

[beevul]

90. Actually, yes it does.

"Your right to own a shiny phallus does not come before my right not to live in a war zone."

Actually yes it does. As your right is not protected or enumerated, where the right you object to is.

That gives one higher legal standing than the other.

"No liberty is absolute."

Nobody has claimed otherwise in this thread.

"As far as I can tell, there is still nothing that would prevent another columbine event, nothing that would prevent another VA tech event."

You mean to say that the gun laws we have now, that you and yours fought so hard for are ineffective?

Funny, that wasnt what yall were saying when you were pushing for them.

And if they are ineffective, why will the next set be any different?

[HankyDubs]

96. so the excuse to do nothing

"And if they are ineffective, why will the next set be any different?"

So the excuse to do nothing is that the laws in place haven't been effective enough?

Close the gun show loophole (s).

[pipoman]

116. Do you have a proposal to do that?

That is, without violating the Constitutional limitation on the Federal Government's power to regulate intrastate commerce?

[beevul]

117. You dodged the questions.

You mean to say that the gun laws we have now, that you and yours fought so hard for are ineffective?

And if they are ineffective, why will the next set be any different?


Care to take a stab at answering them?

"Close the gun show loophole"

There is no such thing as the gun show loophole.

[SteveM]

125. Please define "gun show loophole(s)."

And explain how these "loopholes" are any different than Joe Schmo selling a shotgun over the kitchen table?

[pipoman]

91. Nothing that would prevent a plane crashing into a building,

nothing that would prevent a nut from whacking a politician in the head with a political sign..a free society has risks, always have. Even AdMax Prison in Florence Colorado has murders...there have always been murders and always will be even if you lock everyone up in the most secure prison in the world. The fact is that violent crime is decreasing and is at historically low levels.

So you completely dismiss the absolute fact that violent crime is and has been for 20 years decreasing?

No liberty is absolute.

Spoken as if there are no limitations on this liberty. You do realize that there are literally thousands of limitations on this liberty, no?

The limitations on ANY liberty are subject to proof that said limitations are overwhelmingly beneficial to society. Even your own study, funded I might add by the Joyce Foundation, couldn't find a single shred of evidence that further regulation would be in any way, what so ever, beneficial to anyone....much less overwhelmingly beneficial to society. Your side has already lost. Any attempt to add nonsense regulation will only result in Democratic losses for years to come as they did in the 1990's.

Oh, and your penis references violate the rules of this forum. I won't alert, just fyi.

[SteveM]

124. Sorry, but no gun-control laws based on her rendition of social problems. nt

[SteveM]

123. So do you concede that "more guns does NOT equal more crime?"

After all, that is what the gun-controllers have been chanting mantra-like for years and years. Yet this correlation has not been borne out.

One of the main purposes of having a gun is for self-protection, not solving societal problems. Perhaps John Lott's contention that more guns will lower the crime rate will be proved, but I am not convinced, and neither are most 2A defenders in this thread. But it is interesting to see how the "bumper sticker" sloganeering has changed.

[Tejas]

52. "US government would turn its full military might against its citizens"

That scenario gets posted here in the Gungeon quite often, guess what crowd posts it?

[HankyDubs]

95. you'd rather just

make vague references with dark overtones...I prefer to simply say what I mean.

[Tejas]

104. Well it isn't coming from the Mayberry Garden Club.

If your emotions weren't ballistic, you would have a better mindset to look at others comments about "TEH MILITARY WILL STOMP YOU LIKE AN ANT" and realize just how ridiculous that mindset is. Problem is you can't see much less hear beyond Rachel's rant-for-ratings enough to form an opinion of your own. No, let's listen to Rachel and then parrot it as the gospel.

[SteveM]

126. Tejas has got a point: I don't make that argument, the controllers do. nt

[Tejas]

105. Thanks for idolizing the MSM!

You:
"Isn't this the scenario you envision? That the US government would turn its full military might against its citizens?"

One of the common gun control mantras repeated here in the Gungeon:
"What are you going to do when the US Military comes for your precious guns???!?"



The military-will/what-if-the-military canard is owned lock stock and barrel by the gun control crowd, please feel free to prove otherwise.

[AtheistCrusader]

122. They gotta land and get out of that stealth bomber to use the bathroom at some point.

(mostly snark)

[X_Digger]

6. Once again.. correlation != causation..

To assert (or imply, as Rachel did) that:

"A and B, therefore A causes B" is illogical. Your peer review board would be looking for pitchforks and torches if you tried to pawn that off on them.

As a stats professor once told me (paraphrasing badly, it was 20 years ago..), "A horses front left hoof correlates in speed to his back left hoof. However you can't say that one drives the other, the horse's head has something to do with that."

[HankyDubs]

10. She presented the facts

Sensible persons can draw their own conclusions. Single issue obsessives are free to draw theirs.

[X_Digger]

20. I can present two facts, and intimate a conclusion..

Doesn't make the logic sound.

Hell, even pro-control researchers admit this-

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/329/15/1084

"Third, it is possible that reverse causation accounted for some of the association we observed between gun ownership and homicide... Finally, we cannot exclude the possibility that the association we observed is due to a third, unidentified factor."

Re reverse causation- In a higher crime state, more people may choose to own firearms as a response.

[SteveM]

127. post hoc ergo propter hoc is not a fact. nt

[rrneck]

2. Let me help.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=357498
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=357382
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=357056
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=357088
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=357149
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=357430

[baldguy]

7. Thats fine & dandy - but nothing there actually addresses *****WHAT RACHEL WAS TALKING ABOUT!!!!****...

A major article of faith among gun's rights advocates is that the 2nd Amendment was originally intended to allow ordinary citizens to remove & replace the federal govt by force, if necessary.

Of course that argument is bullshit.

And Rachel PROVED it was bullshit & destroyed that argument. Totally. Absolutely. Utterly. And forever.

[rrneck]

9. How did she do that?

And why would I be concerned with the founders original intent?

[baldguy]

11. Sorry, you've got the burden of proof here.

How did she not do that? Do you believe the 2nd Amendment give you, personally, the right to nuclear weapons? If not, the the absolutist view of the amendment is a fantasy.

Right now it is essentially illegal for civilians to own machine guns, rocket-propelled grenade launchers, mortars, cannons, explosive time bombs, anti-tank guns, Molotov cocktails. I shouldn't say it's illegal - technically they're not actually outright banned, but we do restrict access to these things so greatly that these things do not circulate among American citizens broadly. But if you are with Alex Joneses, and Ron Pauls, and Paul Brouns - if you are with the radicals on gun policy then all of the laws that prohibit us from having these things need to change. In fact all of the laws that prohibit us from having access to anything you can imagine in terms of weaponry need to change because, in their view to do right by the U. S. Constitution you and I need to defeat the U. S. military in battle. We need to be able to overthrow the U. S. government. So we need not only anti-tank guns, and rocket-propelled grenade launchers, and bombs, if the United States military is armed with depleted uranium munitions, if they're armed with nuclear weapons, in order to be able compete with that, in order for you & me to go up against the tyrannical Commander-In-Chief of the U. S. military, and defeat him in battle, you & I should quite literally be able to obtain private nuclear weapons. This is not hyperbole. If you believe the gun radicals philosophy about guns: that gun rights are to protect our ability to overthrow the government, then we need to be able to destroy the U. S. military so we can overthrow that government. (He's) the Commander-In-Chief of the U. S. military. We need to be able to defeat him in battle. Is that what gun rights are for?

[ZombieHorde]

18. The burden of proof is actually on the gun control side.

They are the ones arguing against the status quo.

[baldguy]

21. Oh, my! Another delicate hothouse flower from the gungeon

who didn't bother to listen to what Rachel had to say:

(There are) some, what you might call “common-sense restrictions’ on what weapons Americans are allowed to have. And that’s how the politics of the 2nd Amendment has worked: there is a broadly defined consensus which includes both Barack Obama & George W Bush, and every other politician of either party who holds mainstream views on this subject. It’s the consensus view that the 2nd Amendment protects the right of Americans to own firearms, but there are reasonable restrictions on what that means.

[ZombieHorde]

85. Your post does not contradict my claim in any way. nt

[SteveM]

129. Your perception of heat and florals is peculiar.

[rrneck]

22. LOL!

She hasn't said anything that hasn't been said in this forum a thousand times. Of course, who's parroting who? Are you parroting another talking head because she tells you what you believe more eloquently than you can say it yourself? Or is she just telling her partisan viewership what they want to hear for the sake of ratings?

I'm not particularly interested in discussions of the Second Amendment, but I'll have a try this one time.

Here's the text:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Now, how many members of whatever militia you care to name are not people (aside from the odd guard dog)? The 2A makes reference to a militia that presumably would be drawn from the people, whose right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. That's how you get a militia, from a population of armed people. That's how it reads to me.

It might help you to read Howard Zinn's account of how armed people had to defend themselves from private security companies, local, state and even federal personnel during the labor struggles in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century. Is isn't always about war you know.

http://www.amazon.com/Peoples-History-United-States-P-S/dp/0061965588/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1295055315&sr=8-1
A People's History of the United States
According to this classic of revisionist American history, narratives of national unity and progress are a smoke screen disguising the ceaseless conflict between elites and the masses whom they oppress and exploit. Historian Zinn sides with the latter group in chronicling Indians' struggle against Europeans, blacks' struggle against racism, women's struggle against patriarchy, and workers' struggle against capitalists. First published in 1980, the volume sums up decades of post-war scholarship into a definitive statement of leftist, multicultural, anti-imperialist historiography. This edition updates that project with new chapters on the Clinton and Bush presidencies, which deplore Clinton's pro-business agenda, celebrate the 1999 Seattle anti-globalization protests and apologize for previous editions' slighting of the struggles of Latinos and gays. Zinn's work is an vital corrective to triumphalist accounts, but his uncompromising radicalism shades, at times, into cynicism. Zinn views the Bill of Rights, universal suffrage, affirmative action and collective bargaining not as fundamental (albeit imperfect) extensions of freedom, but as tactical concessions by monied elites to defuse and contain more revolutionary impulses; voting, in fact, is but the most insidious of the "controls." It's too bad that Zinn dismisses two centuries of talk about "patriotism, democracy, national interest" as mere "slogans" and "pretense," because the history he recounts is in large part the effort of downtrodden people to claim these ideals for their own.

[baldguy]

29. A sterling RW review of Howard Zinn's classic text!

From the publisher of the leading periodicals Truck and Driver, Meat International and the ever-popular Poultry World!

But that has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO with Rachel Maddow.

Remember Rachel Maddow? She's the one in the YouTube links in the OP. You haven't addressed ANYTHING that Rachel has said.

[rrneck]

39. I'm not talking to rachel

I'm talking to you. Try using her as a reference , not as cover. I have easily debunked everything you have said so far. It only took about 2 sentences. I can understand how you might miss it.

[baldguy]

53. Um, the OP include two YouTube links from last night's TRMS.

The entire thread is about those clips. :eyes:

And you've debunked nothing - because nothing you've posted addresses anything that Rachel said.

Here, I'll make it easy for you, you delicate little hothouse flower. This is what you need to address. (And you do have to actually WATCH the clips to know what she's saying. And it might be a good idea to take notes & do a little research beyond Wkipedia & the NRA propaganda sites.):

(There are) some, what you might call “common-sense restrictions’ on what weapons Americans are allowed to have. And that’s how the politics of the 2nd Amendment has worked: there is a broadly defined consensus which includes both Barack Obama & George W Bush, and every other politician of either party who holds mainstream views on this subject. It’s the consensus view that the 2nd Amendment protects the right of Americans to own firearms, but there are reasonable restrictions on what that means.

Right now it is essentially illegal for civilians to own machine guns, rocket-propelled grenade launchers, mortars, cannons, explosive time bombs, anti-tank guns, Molotov cocktails. I shouldn't say it's illegal - technically they're not actually outright banned, but we do restrict access to these things so greatly that these things do not circulate among American citizens broadly. But if you are with Alex Joneses, and Ron Pauls, and Paul Brouns - if you are with the radicals on gun policy then all of the laws that prohibit us from having these things need to change. In fact all of the laws that prohibit us from having access to anything you can imagine in terms of weaponry need to change because, in their view to do right by the U. S. Constitution you and I need to defeat the U. S. military in battle. We need to be able to overthrow the U. S. government. So we need not only anti-tank guns, and rocket-propelled grenade launchers, and bombs, if the United States military is armed with depleted uranium munitions, if they're armed with nuclear weapons, in order to be able compete with that, in order for you & me to go up against the tyrannical Commander-In-Chief of the U. S. military, and defeat him in battle, you & I should quite literally be able to obtain private nuclear weapons. This is not hyperbole. If you believe the gun radicals philosophy about guns: that gun rights are to protect our ability to overthrow the government, then we need to be able to destroy the U. S. military so we can overthrow that government. (He's) the Commander-In-Chief of the U. S. military. We need to be able to defeat him in battle. Is that what gun rights are for?

Ready? Set? GO!

[rrneck]

56. oh okay

Please see post 22. Fourth paragraph. Then start thinking for yourself.

[baldguy]

58. You can't refute my point, so you deflect & change the subject.

Are you going to talk about butterflies next? Anything to NOT talk about the issue at hand?

[rrneck]

60. What point did you make?

So far you've only parroted a talking head.

Can't you think for yourself?

[baldguy]

62. If you want to play dumb, Sarah Palin has room in her clown car.

But DU has some standards.

[rrneck]

63. Insults will get you out of this mess. nt

[baldguy]

64. Still waiting.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x360583#360620

[rrneck]

66. Why did post #22 not answer your question?

[baldguy]

70. Because Alex Jones, Ron Paul, & Paul Broun did not referrence such a situation

in the clips Rachel played. And its not referenced by Rachel in her comments.

Still waiting.

[rrneck]

75. what situation is that?

Do you not understand the content that you're cutting and pasting?

Can you not explain it?

[Name removed]

79. Deleted message

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

[rrneck]

78. still waiting for you to start thinking for yourself. nt

[rrneck]

67. still waiting

[baldguy]

73. Fail poster fails.

[HankyDubs]

12. Because you cite the 2nd amendment.

The intent of the founders is relevant if you want to wrap yourself in the US constitution.

[rrneck]

14. When did I cite the 2A?

I don't recall doing so. Got a link?

On edit:

This should give you some grist for the mill

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=327342&mesg_id=327342

[HankyDubs]

41. So what ...

is the basis in US constitutional law that you would use to support your position?

Isn't it the 2nd amendment? Try to be honest now, don't obfuscate and squirm.

[rrneck]

45. I don't need one.

Where in the constitution does it say I can't have a gun?

[HankyDubs]

97. Where in the constitution...

Does it say some dude can't molest little kids?

Bogus argument.

[rrneck]

119. Then by your reasoning

any firearms regulation is unconstitutional. There is of course a mountain of case law that regulates the possession and carriage of firearms. Are those laws constitutional?

[bossy22]

16. so she debunked a bullshit arguement

congrats, i can debunk some commonly held beliefs on evolution- that doesnt mean creationism is right though

also you don't need fancy anti-armor and strategic weapons to defeat a high tech army- just look at afganistan, they did it to the soviets and they are doing it to us- all with 50 year old small arms and improvised home made explosives

[baldguy]

26. Yeah, it's a bullshit argument. Rachel proved that.

But it's a central argument to 2nd Amendment mythology, and without which it's meaningless.

And Afghanistan isn't the right model to look at. Is the Taliban about to invade & take over Washington & New York? No, they're not.

[rrneck]

28. Actually

Afghanistan was invaded by the most powerful war machine in the history of the planet, which seems to be bogged down at the moment...

[baldguy]

33. Not quite, no matter what the Bush Regime would've had you believe.

Afghanistan was invaded by a small part of the most powerful war machine in human history - which defeated the defending army in two weeks. But, out of about 3 million personnel under arms, we've deployed less than 100,000 in Afghanistan - about 3%. And, of course we've used no nuclear weapons.

Even at it's height, the war in Afghanistan was a sideshow & a distraction, and never at any point posed a threat. And was not an expression of the total capability of the US military.

Rachel's point is that any armed civilians wanting to overthrow the govt of the United States WOULD HAVE TO meet that total capability - and defeat it. That is a fantasy.

[rrneck]

42. why would total capability be employed?

The corporate fascists would be shitting in their own nest.

Stop being a fanboy and make your own case.

[PavePusher]

108. You assume the military would not be fractured.

I think that is entirely an erroneous assumption. If things get to a point that significant portions of the population are shooting at government forces, those forces will have been having political issues for some time.

The U.S. military is not the isolated, monolithic block some people seem to assume it is.

[X_Digger]

24. No, she presented a false dichotomy.

Either you should have nukes, or............................................ any regulation is a-ok!

(Ignoring the huge bit in the middle, where rationality rules.)

[SteveM]

128. Um, no she didn't. sorry your forever lost in a time warp. nt

No one here has described the Second in those terms. Those were HER terms; said another way, she is sleeping in straw.

[Maine_Nurse]

4. Well not quite...

"Why is it that the states with the highest per-capita gun death rates are also the states with the highest gun ownership rates?"
"Why is it that the states with the lowest per-capital gun death rates are also states with gun ownership rates under 20%?"

Simply untrue. Look at Maine, New Hampster, and Vermont. Close to the highest ownership rates in the country, although missed as such by most data since around 75% (in Maine at least, and very likely in the other two due to similar transfer laws) of firearms transactions are private sales with no paperwork/registration/etc required). All three not only have very high rates of ownership and very liberal regulations, but also have some of the lowest firearms death rates in the country.

Is that simply because we yankees are smarter? (jk)

[beevul]

17. I hate to burst your bubble...

"If citizens need to be armed in order to defend themselves against their government, why shouldn't they own howitzers and flak cannons? Isn't it tyrannical for the government to prevent citizens from owning these weapons?"

People CAN and DO own privately, howitzers and tanks, and jet fighters, and machine guns, and mortars, and on and on.

Did you really believe they couldn't?


On edit, Since it seems to be a game upthread:

Thanks for playin!!

[HankyDubs]

25. a misrepresentation

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

All NFA items must be registered with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF). Private owners wishing to purchase an NFA item must obtain approval from the ATF, obtain a signature from the Chief Law Enforcement Officer (CLEO) who is the county sheriff or city or town chief of police (not necessarily permission), pass an extensive background check to include submitting a photograph and fingerprints.

OMG...BIG GUBBERMINT TYRANNY!!!!

Persons ar only allowed to own high tech military hardware (like fighter planes) if weapons systems are removed/disabled.

MORE TYRANNY! ALL CITIZENS MUST HAVE A RIGHT OWN FULLY-OPERATIONAL HOWITZERS SO WE CAN BE FREEEEEEEEEEEE.

[beevul]

35. Nice try, but no dice.

I believe the quote in question was:

"If citizens need to be armed in order to defend themselves against their government, why shouldn't they own howitzers and flak cannons? Isn't it tyrannical for the government to prevent citizens from owning these weapons?"

The implication is they they CAN NOT own howitzers and tanks. The flat out LIE is that government prevents citizens from doing so. Its right there in black and white. No misrepresentation or equivocation.

The fact of the matter, which YOU just verified, is the government does NOT prevent citizens from owning them.

Did you not read your own link?

"Persons are only allowed to own high tech military hardware (like fighter planes) if weapons systems are removed/disabled."

First, your moving the goalposts by adding the qualification of "high tech" which can be interpreted or defined in a hundred ways.

Second, lets have a look at the link YOU YOURSELF provided:

Categories of firearms regulated

The Act defines a number of categories of regulated firearms. These weapons are collectively known as NFA firearms and include the following:

Machine guns - this includes any firearm which can fire more than 1 cartridge per trigger pull. Both continuous fully-automatic fire and "burst fire" (i.e., firearms with a 3-round burst feature) are considered machine gun features. The weapon's receiver is by itself considered to be a regulated firearm. Courts have held that where a worn firearm malfunctions in such a way as to fire multiple cartridges one or more times, this makes it a machine gun.<2>

Short barreled rifles (SBRs) - this category includes any firearm with a buttstock and either a rifled barrel under 16" long or an overall length under 26". The overall length is measured with any folding or collapsing stocks in the extended position. The category also includes firearms which came from the factory with a buttstock that was later removed by a third party.

Short barreled shotguns (SBSs) - this category is defined similarly to SBRs, but the length limit for the barrel is 18" instead of 16", and the barrel must be a smoothbore. The minimum overall length limit remains 26".

Suppressors - this includes any portable device designed to muffle or disguise the report of a portable firearm. This category does not include non-portable devices, such as sound traps used by gunsmiths in their shops which are large and usually bolted to the floor.

Destructive Devices (DDs) - there are two broad classes of destructive devices:

Devices such as grenades, bombs, explosive missiles, poison gas weapons, etc.

Any non-sporting firearm with a bore over 0.50", such as a 40mm grenade launcher often used in conjunction with military rifles. (Many firearms with bores over 0.50", such as 12-gauge shotguns, are exempted from the law because they have been determined to have a legitimate sporting use.)
Any Other Weapons (AOWs) - this is a broad "catch-all" category used to regulate any number of firearms which the ATF deems deserving of registration and taxation. Examples include, among others:

Smooth-bore pistols
Pen guns and cane guns
A firearm with combinations smooth bore and rifle barrels 12 inches or more but less than 18 inches in length from which only a single shot can be made from either barrel.

Disguised firearms

Firearms that can be fired from within a wallet holster or a briefcase

A short-barreled shotgun which came from the factory with a pistol grip is categorized as an AOW rather than a SBS, because the Gun Control Act describes a shotgun as “…designed or redesigned to be fired from the shoulder…”
Handguns with a forward vertical grip. It is therefore illegal to place an aftermarket foregrip on any pistol without first registering it as an AOW and paying the $200 "making tax" imposed by the Act.

Has it occured to you that the main gun on a tank is a "non-sporting firearm with a bore over 0.50"?


Thats from your link. Your like itself proves YOU and rach wrong. Google is your friend, and should you choose to use it, and search carefully, you too can find people with fully functional tanks, jets, mortars, etc, INCLUDING working main and machine guns.

Just own up to it and be done with it.



Like I said, Thanks for playing.

[HankyDubs]

98. last night's program

dealt with that, cited exactly the same law I did, and made the same argument.

People go through multiple background checks, they are fingerprinted and periodically there are inspections to determine the weapon is still with its owner.

Thanks for losing!

[baldguy]

109. Orchids don't survive very long when you take them out of the greenhouse,

expose them to harsh sunlight, heavy rain & persistent wind. Delicate flowers just about evaporate when they experience real weather conditions.

They're just like gun's right advocates when they're exposed to the fact that the advocacy of their peculiar predilection directly leads to murderous unending tragedies - nearly all of which could be avoided with maturity, reasonable restrictions & rational gun laws.

[Euromutt]

138. Nice of you to provide plenty of manure though

Since I don't recall when and where anyone established a direct causal link between advocating that private citizens with no history of violent crime or a mental disorder that would make them a threat to the well-being of others should be allowed to possess firearms for the purpose of self-defense and "murderous unending tragedies."

I'm guessing you don't bother reading foreign news much, because mass/spree killings happen in other countries as well, gun laws notwithstanding (there have been quite a few mass knifings in eastern Asia the past few years), and there are countries with tighter gun laws that have higher homicide rates than the United States. And, of course, the U.S. non-gun homicide rate is higher than the overall homicide rate of quite a few others.

But why spend your time trying to figure out why people kill each other and how we might address that when you can just blame the icky guns?

[mr_liberal]

23. Just one fact she hasnt mentioned:

gun crime and other kinds of crime are way down from their peek in the 70s. I thought of that while watching her go through all the mass shootings that have occurred in recent decades. It seemed like she was cherry picking incidents and taking them out of context. She made it look like theres more and more violence now, but in reality its the exact opposite, crime is way down.

To be honest, she seems like someone exploiting this tragedy for her own political agenda, that she's cherry picking "facts" to support her own bias. I could imagine the people that always blame movies and video games etc... doing this too and calling for censorship, they haven't though, yet.

[DonP]

27. Let us know when she gets appointed to SCOTUS until then...

...she's just another talking head with her own opinion and a set of carefully pruned and manufactured "facts" to "support" a point of view that you happen to agree with.

Her POV has no more validity than the guy driving the 151 bus. The fact that she has a microphone and a camera, and a large number of ignorant, unthinking fawning sycophants doesn't make her any more correct or believeable. If it does, then Limbaugh must be a f'in genius.

Interesting though, I've never met anyone that studies the constitution based on YouTube videos. Which law school does that?

[HankyDubs]

31. You drive a bus?

"Interesting though, I've never met anyone that studies the constitution based on YouTube videos."

The YT videos are of TRMS. Nice little ad hominem though...don't attack the argument...attack me for using YT links. Attack Maddow because she isn't on the SCOTUS.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

30. Actually her arguments have been gutted, here and elsewhere

She really hurt her credibility with a number of people by going off without the facts, misstating things, and generally not understanding key points.

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

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

[DonP]

34. No, you're about the 3rd or 4th person to post the same thing

If you took some time you might have seen the rather lengthy threads that deals with each of her points and provides a better perspective on how, after allowing CCW in 48 states, violent crime is at a 45 year low. Or didn't she mention that? The FBI and DoJ did.

None of the oft predicted "bloood runing in the streets" ever occurs the way it's predicted to. Isolated examples of crime using guns yes, but never the wide spread bloodshed that's promised by gun control fans.
No shooting over parking spaces or innocent citizens caught in the corssfire of two minivans shooting it out over a parking space at Albertson'ng

BTW, everyone on this board is also a liberal/progressive and many have been here a very long time. The fact that we feel very differently than you about RKBA doesn't make us any less progressive or you any more right on the issue.

My comment was that unless she is on the court her opinion holds no more weight in law or public opinion than any other citizen. It's only an ad hominem if you choose to identify with the fawning, ignorant sycophants that think she can do no wrong. That kind of lockstep thinking is over on the other side of the aisle.

[beevul]

36. No.

"I do wonder about something, though. I posted this on the gun forum and within minutes I had a dozen responses to it, nearly all in opposition to it. Are you guys sitting in this forum constantly, waiting to attack anyone who takes issue with your gun fetish/obsession?"

No. Were doing what many of us have been doing for years. Reacting to blatant falsehoods and half truths, in an effort to make sure that those that employ such things do not mislead people who aren't knowledgable themselves about this particular subject matter. Plastic guns that aren't detected by metal detector for example. A complete fabrication , they are.

People that trot them out are entitled to thier own opinions, but not to thier own facts. That most definitely includes you.

"absolutist gun rights position"

Yeah, good luck finding anyone at all here at DU who holds one.

[HankyDubs]

40. Still not addressed

You reacted to arguments I didn't make, but not the the ones I did make.

More guns do not equal less crime. No evidence to support a more guns = less crime position.

Gun owners do not protect us from hypothetical guvurmint tyranny. The first, fourth and fifth amendments do that.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

"Yeah, good luck finding anyone at all here at DU who holds one."

Opposition to background checks and waiting periods is an absolutist position. Hatred for the brady campaign indicates strong sympathy with an absolutist position.

Your support for the (anti-librul) NRA blocks any progress on this issue. You stand with the absolutists, no matter how much you quibble here.

Gun control proponents have been ready to compromise for a good long time...but they are demonized here on DU's gun forum.

[beevul]

57. Sorry but no.

"You reacted to arguments I didn't make, but not the the ones I did make."

no, I reacted to an argument YOU trotted out, even if it wasn't an argument you made yourself. You quoted it, aka trotted it out.

"Opposition to background checks and waiting periods is an absolutist position."

There is virtually no opposition hereabouts to background checks. As far as waiting periods, a right delayed is a right denied. Like it or not this is a CIVIL RIGHT ere talking about.

"Hatred for the brady campaign indicates strong sympathy with an absolutist position."

No. Hatred for the brady campaign, is hatred for a group that was founded, and is led by republicans...one that spouts verifiable lies to the public. Heres two examples:

"We're not a gun ban organization. We don't push for gun bans" 3 term republican mayor paul helmke - leader of the brady bunch

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-helmke/nra-gun-licensing-and-reg_b_110778.html

They supported the DC and chicago gun bans. Lie demonstrated and verified right there.

Here he is saying that a glock handgun "“not suited for hunting or personal protection,” said Paul Helmke, the president of the Brady Campaign. “What it’s good for is killing and injuring a lot of people quickly.”

Another verifiable demonstrable lie, right there.

Not to mention that they employ palinesque fear tactics:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_Ll5chfz1qFU/TStwRdnuNtI/AAAAAAAAGnQ/zUpilOIOZO0/s1600/ScreenHunter_05+Jan.+10+15.44.jpg

Still supporting them are ya?

"Your support for the (anti-librul) NRA blocks any progress on this issue."

First I don't belong to the nra.

Second, the nra supports background checks, restrictions on felons violent criminals, and mentally ill, from owning possessing or purchasing guns. They were instrumental in improving mental health reporting after the VT tragedy.

"You stand with the absolutists, no matter how much you quibble here."

No, I really don't. I support background checks, restrictions on felons violent criminals, and mentally ill, from owning possessing or purchasing guns. If thats an absolutist position, in your eyes, you sir are an anti-gun extremist.

"Gun control proponents have been ready to compromise for a good long time...but they are demonized here on DU's gun forum"

Ready to compromise? Really? What are you gun control proponents ready to give up?

[HankyDubs]

82. Sorry but yes.

"I reacted to an argument YOU trotted out,"

Except I really didn't.

I made two central points here:

More guns does not = less crime. No evidence to support that.

Gun owners do not protect the civil liberties of all Americans from full scale attack from the US military.

Still no sufficient responses to these. These are the two pillars on which the entire pro-gun argument rests. They are bunk.

"Still supporting them are ya?"

Actually, according to you...we both support the background checks mentioned in the ad you posted. Is the ad inflammatory? Sure is, but in this case the crosshairs (while inappropriate) are not targeting the congresswoman and crosshairs actually are related to the gun debate. Still pretty tasteless, I agree...but again you and I both agree with the position advocated by the ad.

I don't care that James Brady was a republican. How terribly short-sighted. I care whether he is right or wrong on this issue.

"As far as waiting periods, a right delayed is a right denied."

Horsehockey. The longest waiting period required by any state is 14 days. You can wait two weeks to get your gun. Two weeks might well give a suicidal person time to seek help, allow a violent spouse to calm down, allow for detailed background checks to be completed....all sorts of tragedies can be prevented

Hawaii is the two-week state. It also has the lowest per capita gun death rates. Correlation does not = causation...but this is notable.

[beevul]

88. My god, aren't you even aware of what YOU typed?

You typed THIS:

"If citizens need to be armed in order to defend themselves against their government, why shouldn't they own howitzers and flak cannons? Isn't it tyrannical for the government to prevent citizens from owning these weapons?"

Whether that was yours or not, YOU TROTTED IT OUT, and I destroyed it. Period.

"These are the two pillars on which the entire pro-gun argument rests."

No, they really aren't. Acting like thats true, even believing its true, does not make it true. No matter how piously you believe it, and no matter how many times you repeat it. Thats whats called a straw man argument, in fact.

"Actually, according to you...we both support the background checks mentioned in the ad you posted. Is the ad inflammatory? Sure is, but in this case the cross hairs (while inappropriate) are not targeting the congresswoman and cross hairs actually are related to the gun debate. Still pretty tasteless, I agree...but again you and I both agree with the position advocated by the ad."

Actually no, thats not accurate. I support background checks at retail, AND I support the right of people to sell private property without mandated governmental interference. Not exactly as you describe, is it. Sure, the ad doesn't target a congressperson, it targets CHILDREN. Do you approve of this?

And I notice you have no comment about the Documented verified lies by the brady bunch. Why is that? Feeling ashamed? You sure should be, if you support them.

"I don't care that James Brady was a republican. How terribly short-sighted. I care whether he is right or wrong on this issue."

Maybe your at the wrong website then. Sara brady...republican. jim brady...republican. Paul helmke...republican...seems to be a trend there...perhaps you didn't notice the name of the website that hosts this forum, eh? And if the brady bunch are right on this issue, why the need to lie about it and use palinesque tactics? I mean, if someone is right on an issue, no lies should be necessary to sell it to the public, right? And if they're right on the issue, why is their membership...oh thats right...they really don't have one to speak of anymore. What little they have left of a membership...they sell the names of to advertisers because...THEYRE BROKE!!! Thats another sure sign of being right, isn't it? :eyes:

"Horsehockey. The longest waiting period required by any state is 14 days. You can wait two weeks to get your gun. Two weeks might well give a suicidal person time to seek help, allow a violent spouse to calm down, allow for detailed background checks to be completed....all sorts of tragedies can be prevented"

First, I support the rights of people to end their own lives as they see fit. Its certainly none of my business, and none of yours if someone - an adult - doesn't want to live anymore.

That waiting period might also give some violent ex who ignores your utopian idea of a waiting period and gets a gun from the black market a window to violate a useless paper restraining order and off their former spouse who obeys the law and waits. Never happens, right? :eyes: Doesn't matter to you, I know, since you can just use it as another "senseless tragedy" from which to argue your authoritarian screed.

No. its a constitutionally protected right, and so a right delayed is a right denied.

Sorry but nope. You can't have any waiting periods, and you might lose the ones you have.

Oh, and on that compromise you spoke of...what are gun controllers willing to give up to get what they want?

Opening the nfa registry?

Repeal of the nfa all together?

Repeal of the GCA?

Nationwide CCW/reciprocity?

Because the days of compromise being defined by not enacting as many restrictions as you wanted to this year, and coming back with the remainder and some more next year are over.

You gun controllers get NOTHING, without giving up something, anymore.

[HankyDubs]

99. abolutist nuttery

As to the other BS here, already been resonded to.

"You gun controllers get NOTHING, without giving up something, anymore."

We gave up some more innocents last week, and more tomorrow...what more do you want before you agree to sanity?

[Tejas]

106. There's a big word to describe your statement,

but it escapes me.



"We gave up some more innocents last week, and more tomorrow...what more do you want before you agree to sanity?"

Law-abiding gunowners lost innocents to criminals too, those deaths don't matter to you? They don't count in your big picture?

Are "your" innocents worth more than "ours"?

WTF?

[SteveM]

130. You seem to think that most folks here believe "more guns = less crime"...

when for years and years, the gun-controllers have been pushing something entirely different: "more guns = more crime." That was disproved by the last 15 years, but you seem to think that everyone here has now concluded that "more guns = less crime."

Who is promoting this view? How many others?

[pipoman]

43. Post 38 above proves just that..

I see no credible evidence that more guns mean less crime.

[RSillsbee]

48. Do you think you're bringing some new and exiting topic to the forum?

I do wonder about something, though. I posted this on the gun forum and within minutes I had a dozen responses to it, nearly all in opposition to it. Are you guys sitting in this forum constantly, waiting to attack anyone who takes issue with your gun fetish/obsession?

Do you have any idea how many times this thread has been posted this week? Do you not think we've heard all this before?

I can't speak for everyone but I took one look at your thread title and said to myself" OMG here we go w/ the plastic guns and cop killer boooolits again" "Wonder how long it will be until some idiot brings up the "well regulated militia"

That's why you get so many responses so fast because we're answering the same questions over and over and over and over (ad nauseum)again

[NewMoonTherian]

37. I concede.

I can't defend my positions in the face of that logic. I still feel, on an emotional level, that gun ownership is right and that it should be expanded, but I'll no longer vote as such or support candidates that do. It's only a matter of time before we're defeated anyway, being that we're in the minority in the country.

[aikoaiko]

44. debunking does not mean what you think it means.

Truth is, Rachel has an opinion about some things and sometimes provides useful information.

But right now Rachel is not being a critical thinker. She is being one-sided, emotional, and not self-critical.

[Flyboy_451]

47. ok...i'll play along...

Even though many of these points have been well covered in other threads

With regard to defending against the government with weapons available: there are many of us that own weapons far more powerful than an AR-15. Couple that with the fact there some of us are well trained in combat tactics geared toward this type of situation. Using myself as an example. I spent five years in combat honing my abilities as an Unconventional Warfare Specialist. For those that are not familiar with this concept, it is guerrilla warfare tactics. Using small strike forces to make crippling strikes against numerically superior forces. having a knowledge of the capabilities of various military units, command structure and troop tactics and movement is a powerful advantage for such strikes. With proper leadership, a group of five good marksman can engage a military unit from a distance that is beyond the effective range of the standard M4 carried by such troops and literally reek havoc in short order and then flee. The key is knowing when and how to engage and insuring not to engage in a protracted battle. Select key targets, engage quickly and then retreat before they can bring ordnance to bear.

There are a large number of Americans that are former soldiers with this and various other training, giving them a good base of abilities to draw on.

Now, consider how many soldiers will actually be willing to engage civilians in combat. Keep in mind that these men and women have sworn an oath to defend the constitution, and most of them take this quite seriously. I would be amazed if more than 25% of current active duty soldiers would even openly engage fellow Americans. I would also bet that of the ones that will, few of them will be more than just young kids with little experience that are Rambo wanna-bes. They would also likely be enlisted men, rather than officers, as officers are typically reasonably well educated and typically older and more mature. Keep in mind that the officers are the guys flying the planes and controlling ordnance, not enlisted men. That alone diminishes the military ability to a huge degree in this imagined struggle.

I also think it is highly likely that many of those refusing to engage the general populace are very likely to stand next to civilians with the equipment available to them. All in all, I personally think the civilian populace could well have the strength advantage.

As to more guns=less crime...while there are certainly some that have made this claim, I am not convinced that this is accurate or even a point worth arguing. A more accurate statement is that more guns do not equal more crime. There are too many variables that effect crime rates to even draw real conclusions. The purpose of an armed populace or concealed carry is not to reduce crime, but rather to allow the ability to resist crime with the most effective tools available. While this can result in lower crime rates, it is not the goal, just a side effect, if it occurs. At one time, the FBI did a study and found that use of a firearm for defense resulted in the victim being injured far less often than when the used any other method, including compliance. I will try to find a link when I am at the computer, rather than on my phone.

As to your information regarding crime rates and rates of gun ownership, I have not reviewed the data that you are referencing, so will not comment at this time.

Jw

[HankyDubs]

50. So it's the oath

First, I'm glad to be able to talk to a reasonable person.

"Now, consider how many soldiers will actually be willing to engage civilians in combat. Keep in mind that these men and women have sworn an oath to defend the constitution, and most of them take this quite seriously."

So it's the integrity of persons in our armed forces, and not an armed population that prevents government use of armed forces against the citizenry.

"more guns do not equal more crime."

I don't disagree with this...but I'd speculate that a majority of gun rights activists do hang their hats on the argument, made by John Lott, that more guns equal less crime.

[Flyboy_451]

55. it's not just the oath...

In my experience, soldiers tend to be not only some of the most patriotic people you are likely to encounter, they also frequently display a love of their fellow Americans and our freedoms that is seldom shown in popular media. This is simply a function of people more than anything, I think. Most people are honest, good people and this is just as true of our military as it is any other group.

There are a host a reasons I think that it is unlikely to have to square off against our own military, but I do not believe that this is justification for not being able to do so, any more than I think you should not keep a fire extinguisher available just because it is not likely you will have a fire.

Our founding fathers believed that the government should be in awe of the people and I agree with them on that point. I do not advocate violence as a resolution to the problems that we face as a nation, but I do recognize that power that goes uncontested, easily increases and has a habit of not being in favor of the people.

I have served my time in combat and know the horrors that it brings. I also put on a uniform and badge every day and am all too aware of the dangers that are within our society. I will adamantly oppose any legislation that does nothing more than remove the ability to resist unprovoked violence from the people of our nation. Most "gun control" legislation falls short of doing more than that. Rather than focus on the implement, let's focus on the criminals. If we could magically eliminate all guns, we would still have a crime problem, but if we could do the same with criminals, we could not have a gun problem.

Jw

[Straw Man]

61. Speculation

"more guns do not equal more crime."

I don't disagree with this...but I'd speculate that a majority of gun rights activists do hang their hats on the argument, made by John Lott, that more guns equal less crime.

And speculation is what it would be. I don't hang my hat on Lott's argument. My reasoning goes like this: If private ownership of firearms cannot be shown to pose a clear threat to public safety, then I don't see why I shouldn't have the right to own and carry a firearm for my own protection.

[HankyDubs]

71. Have you turned on the television lately?

"If private ownership of firearms cannot be shown to pose a clear threat to public safety..."

pssst. It can. 9 year old died so you could hold the shiny gun in your hand.

[beevul]

80. What an ugly thing to say.

What was your excuse last week, before the tragedy?

Thousands of Americans died so you could sit here anonymously and say the ugly thing you just said, freely.

I guess that thought had not occured to you.

On edit: There are 300 million-ish guns and 300 million-ish citizens in America. If guns were a serious public safety problem, you'd have far more than the 15 thousand-ish gun homicides anually.

That, is game, set, and match, as far as the public safety argument goes.

[X_Digger]

84. Guns aren't even in the top 10 causes of death, overall..

http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/leadcaus10.html

'unintentional injury' is listed as number 5 for all ages, but when you click on the title, you see that firearms comprise 0.5% of those.

When broken down by age group, 'homicide' does appear in the top 10 for some age groups, and depending on the group, firearms are a large portion (ie, 15-24, homicide is #2, firearms are the majority of those deaths.

[HankyDubs]

100. The green family

"That, is game, set, and match, as far as the public safety argument goes."

The green family, and all the other families of innocent victims...might take issue with you there.

But hell what do you care...

[PavePusher]

110. You might want to look up Mr. Green's words on this very subject....

before you presume to speak for him.

If you do not have his permission to speak for him, and against his own opinion, then you should stay silent.

I anticipate your response to his statements.

[SteveM]

133. I think you are going down in flames...

Again, your remarks are punky and hateful. And you know it; after all, it is a culture war.

[beevul]

221. To quote another poster...

To quote another poster (pavepusher):

Perhaps you should ask Mr. Green's opinion before using it to dance in the blood of his daughter.

Your statements here are outweighed by a statement paid for in a far dearer coin than your faux moral pronouncements.


You ASSUME that families of innocent victims would agree with your point of view.

Mr Green is an example of someone that doesn't.

But hell what do you care...

[Starboard Tack]

121. Guns are not evil. The concept of guns is evil

The idea of using guns for problem solving is just plain stupid. All the rest is smoke and mirrors.

[Straw Man]

111. I see.

9 year old died so you could hold the shiny gun in your hand.

And when children are murdered with knives, is it "so you can carve your steak conveniently"?

[shadowrider]

112. Wonder what that poster has to say about this

28 kindergarten children stabbed in China

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/29/28-children-stabbed-at-ki_n_556520.html

Do I have to give up my steak knife now??

[SteveM]

132. Well, there you have it....

a punky, snarl from a gun-controller. Now THAT is very common here.

In fact you have not shown that private ownership of firearms is a threat to public safety. You have only stooped to hurling crap.

[SteveM]

131. NOW we have it: "I'd speculate..." John Lott is not this forum. nt

[Upton]

51. I could care less whether there's any correlation or not

we have a guaranteed RKBA. I don't have to justify my exercising of that right. Perhaps Rachel, when she's done with her emotional anti gun outbursts, would like to live in a police state with no rights whatsoever..she'll be nice and safe there..

[HankyDubs]

72. but that's not an appeal to emotion

"would like to live in a police state with no rights whatsoever"

No fear being revved up there...right? Try not to have such an emotional outburst.

"we have a guaranteed RKBA"

Absolutist hogwash.

[beevul]

222. Strawman.

"we have a guaranteed RKBA"

"Absolutist hogwash."


He made no argument that the right was absolute.

Nice strawman there.

And we DO have a right to keep and bear arms. Its settled law. Get over it. Or dont.

The settled law remains, either way.

[MannyGoldstein]

59. More guns = more deaths.

For example, see my post: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x360735

[Straw Man]

114. Wrong.

More guns = more deaths.

More guns = more gun deaths. It's a tautology. The thread you're linking to makes that painfully clear.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

65. Rachel was arguing a false premise.

Civilians don't need things like nukes & RPGs & bio weapons to defeat a tyrannical government. With enough small arms, there are simply too many people for government to defeat. Unless you suggest that the government would be bombing and nuking it's OWN land... large weaponry becomes a moot point. Just think about it, there really is no way to beat massive amounts of people when you are outnumbered 22:1 without WMDs - and WMDs aren't really an option to use on your own turf.

Yes, I saw her little braodcast... and, given that her premises are correct, it's a brilliant piece of journalism. But her premise is not well founded. Rachel's assumption that people need WMDs and HE arsenals is incorrect. Any analysis of asymmetric warfare will yield this conclusion.

As for her arguments about correlation between gun ownership an gun violence... no shit! But just because there is low gun violence does not mean that there is less overall less violent crime. Violent crime is the vital statistic to look at to determine if policy really benefits society. Well, unless you're going to argue that you're alright with violent crime "as long it wasn't a gun". :eyes:

[HankyDubs]

74. preposterous

"With enough small arms, there are simply too many people for government to defeat."

Oh please. If the US government started targeting your houses for drone strikes, you'd be completed fked.

"Any analysis of asymmetric warfare will yield this conclusion."

Jared Loughner is an example of asymmetric warfare. A lone gunman appears, assassinates a local political leader.

[beevul]

83. LOL.

"Oh please. If the US government started targeting your houses for drone strikes, you'd be completed fked."

How would they know whos house to target? Think in terms of a "caucasian viet nam", where the enemy can not be easily distinguished from non enemies.

"Jared Loughner is an example of asymmetric warfare. A lone gunman appears, assassinates a local political leader."

I don't think you've thought this out very clearly.

In asymmetrical warfare, the last thing someone engaged in it would do is allow themselves to identified, let alone caught. Point being, the lone gunmen never appears, yet carries out asassinations just the same. And you never know exactly who he or she is if they're successful.Furthermore, the assassin has a single target, neutralizes the target and gets out, rather than trying to mow down a crowd in the light of day. That alone disproves your assertion.

Somehow, I doubt you know anything about it.

You might consider reading up on it rather than looking the fool because you didn't.

[HankyDubs]

101. more ignorance....

"Think in terms of a "caucasian viet nam"

We're all caucasians? Interesting...

Suicide tactics were routinely used by the VC.

You know it shows just how insane the gun crowd is that you have thought so much about this.

[PavePusher]

113. Thinking about tactics in warfare is "insane"?

Ummm.... disconnect from reality and current events, much?

But we're the "insane" ones? oooooreeeeeely?

[SteveM]

134. You are sinking into a mire of prejudice and hatred...

"You know it shows just how insane the gun crowd is that you have thought so much about this."

So, you want to condemn someone because they "...have thought so much about this?" My goodness. And you just call anyone who disagrees with you the "insane" "gun crowd?" Nice. Intellectual. So-o-o-o-o-o liberal.

[X_Digger]

86. Try the DC Sniper... x 10,000 n/t

[beevul]

89. But...But...But...

That could NEVER HAPPEN!!!

The military would put drones on thier ass!!!

Seriously though...can you believe some of the things seemingly intelligent...and some not so much... people have posted in the last few days?

I very much doubt the poster in question has ever given any thought to what ten thousand snipers with real honest to goodness .308/30.06 scoped rifles effective to what...1500 yards or better...would do, in terms of shutting down...everything.

Hell, malvo and muhammed - the scumbag DC snipers - did alot with a glorified short range poodle shooter - not a long range or accurate sniper weapon what so ever.


I guess to some folks gun control really IS a religion.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

115. Here's the thing...

How does the government know who is on what side? Who to "strike"? America is very mixed with no delineated borders separating ideologies and there are no strong indicators of allegieance unless someone chooses not to display them.

At some point, if a force wants to conquor and control an area, streets, cities and homes (the people) literally need to be controlled. There's no doubt the gov could control the air... and there's no doubt it could control the sea... but at some point it needs to go street-to-street and door-to-door. And that is where they loose or, at best, stalemate. Just like the middle east, sure, "shock & awe" was great for the first month or so but when the boots hit the sand it was a different story. US gun owners outnumber US armed forces by over 22:1 and also consider only a portion of armed forces actually engage in fighting. Also consider the amount of armed forces who would actually obey orders to attack Americans (I'm guessing very few).

The premis holds true if there are enough people armed for only self defense coupled with the fact that a gov will not use WMDs or area-denial tactics upon itself. Don't get me wrong... Do I buy guns for this reason (to protect against tyrrany)? No, I buy them because I enjoy recreational shooting. But I do think the notion that the 2A can protect liberty certainly holds true even if I don't neccessarily embrace it. However, I moreso feel that the illegal actions of few should not curtail the rights of many without strong evidence that the rights are not given up in vain. That is why oppose violations of the 2A.

[KansasVoter]

69. This place hates logic. And Rachel = Logic so this place hates Rachel!

[Tejas]

94. Are your walls plastered with Maddow posters?

No hate, she's simply another Hannity/Oberman/talking head. Could just simply care less about any of their opinions, until someone (you?) pushes them as the end-all-messiah of fact.

[SteveM]

135. Lame, indeed...

You claim we hate logic? Why would we "hate logic" when it has served us so well with regards your arguments? But I guess your being sarcastic. Again.

[krispos42]

76. Okay, from the top

1) Because "keep and bear arms" is commonly understood to be weapons that a single person can carry and wield. There's also a public-safety exception to the 2nd Amendment, just like there is to the 1st. You can't falsely yell "fire" in a crowded theater, and you can't own something that can kill indiscriminately. Semi-automatic and manual-action guns are discrete and allow the shooter control over every bullet fired. Full-auto and explosives are too random.

2) Crime rates drop for another year in a row.

Preliminary figures indicate that, as a whole, law enforcement agencies throughout the Nation reported a decrease of 6.2 percent in the number of violent crimes brought to their attention for the first 6 months of 2010 when compared with figures reported for the same time in 2009. The violent crime category includes murder, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault. The number of property crimes in the United States from January to June of 2010 decreased 2.8 percent when compared with data from the same time period in 2009. Property crimes include burglary, larceny-theft, and motor vehicle theft. Arson is also a property crime, but data for arson are not included in property crime totals. Figures for 2010 indicate that arson decreased 14.6 percent when compared to 2009 figures from the same time period.

<more>

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/preliminary-crime-in-the-us-2009

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/preliminary-crime-in-the-us-2009/prelimiucrjan-jun_10_excels/table-3


And, finally...




3 & 4) Because if there aren't any snowmobiles in Florida, nobody dies from a snowmobile accident. If there are fewer guns in a given state, then that state will probably have fewer gun-related suicides, accidents, and homicides.

That doesn't mean, of course that the TOTAL number of suicides, accidental deaths, and homicides per capita is different, just the ones caused with guns.

Of course, the low-gun states tend to be blue states, with better social services, higher wages, and more education. That might have something to do with it, too.

[pipoman]

81. So are you ready to retract your silly OP title yet?

Or are you standing by it?

[HankyDubs]

102. not at all

seems like Rachel and I have cleaned up pretty good here. Those living in a fantasy world might disagree...but then they are probably facing off with Yosemite Sam right about now.

More guns does not equal less crime. No evidence.

An armed citizenry does not protect the rest against attack by the US military.

No one has proven these wrong.

[HankyDubs]

103. maybe i just missed

all the reports of gun owners defending us from the patriot act...

[pipoman]

107. But your OP title:

Maddow debunks all arguments against gun control

Has not held true. You have not even addressed the fact that crime is on a 20+ year decline even though gun laws have nearly universally been liberalized, gun numbers have increased by tens of millions every year and 48 states now allow concealed carry. You and she have failed to make any cogent argument in support of gun control. The only debunking which has happened in this thread regarding gun control is demonstration that there is no justification for any more regulation than is already applied to guns.

[PavePusher]

92. Oh dear, you drank the kool-aid.

Did it have a slight after-taste of bitter almonds?

[Name removed]

93. Deleted message

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

[Festivito]

118. Not debnked from those clips.

I'd go on, but it would just be unheard anyway.

[SteveM]

136. They have their Mosette to part the seas...

Not very good reasoning on the part of Maddow, but we've seen it before.

It's too bad that some "liberals" seek to pump up a moribund "movement" using gun-control as the issue. Kool-aid indeed.

[Starboard Tack]

120. Why it is time to change gun laws

Great piece by Harold Evans in The Telegraph.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/us-politics/8262152/Gabrielle-Giffords-shooting-Why-it-is-time-to-change-gun-laws.html

"A law-abiding American citizen is far more likely to die with a bullet in his body than a British citizen. All the comparable Western countries with reasonable gun laws have long had vastly fewer gun homicides. The murder rate per 100,000 people for the US is 5.2. For Australia it is 0.07, for Japan, 0.05, and for the UK 0.06."

[friendly_iconoclast]

137. The *non-gun* murder rate in the US is higher than the total rate in those countries.

So even if all gun murderers devoted their energies to Zen gardening, we'd still be more murderous that the countries mentioned.

And it's not as low as what Harold Evans claims it is in the UK: 1.43 per 100K, according to this:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/jan/21/murders-drop-home-office-figures

[Euromutt]

139. "Great piece ... in The Telegraph." Isn't that an oxymoron?

the pathetic weakness of laws which allow criminals and madmen to get their hands on real weapons of mass destruction that can fire hundreds of bullets in a minute;

Another nail in the coffin of the term "weapon of mass destruction," dead from chronic misuse. The whole point of the term "WMD" was to distinguish those classes of weapons (nuclear, biological and chemical) from weapons in general. And "hundreds of bullets in a minute"? You're going to need a machine gun set for sustained fire to accomplish that, and even then you're going to have to change barrels. Automatic weapons are no more available to criminals and madmen in the United States than they are in Europe.

A law-abiding American citizen is far more likely to die with a bullet in his body than a British citizen.

Actually, a law-abiding American citizen is probably not very much more likely to die from gunshot wounds than a British one; a very large percentage of murder victims have criminal backgrounds, most notably related to involvement in the illicit drugs trade. A law-abiding American citizen is, however, far less likely to be non-fatally assaulted or robbed than a British one.

All the comparable Western countries with reasonable gun laws have long had vastly fewer gun homicides.

Cum hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy; said countries had lower homicide rates (not just gun homicide rates, but overall) before they restricted private ownership of firearms as well. That's in part because these measures weren't introduced to suppress violent crime, but out of fear the respective governments would share the fate of the Russian and German governments, which had been overthrown just a year or two previously.

There has been no insistent demand to know why a crazy young man could acquire a Glock 9mm, a semi-automatic pistol with a 33-round magazine and so easily kill six people, including Arizona’s chief federal judge, and wound 13 bystanders along with Congresswoman Giffords.

Nobody asked because the answer is already known: Loughner had not been convicted of a felony, nor adjudicated to present a danger to himself and others.

I don't seem to recall to many people in UK insistently demanding last year how Derrick Bird managed to get a shotgun and a firearm certificate despite having a criminal conviction in 1990 (resulting in a suspended sentence) and had managed to keep them while being under investigation for tax evasion. But then, he didn't kill any photogenic 9 year-olds, even though he killed twelve people not counting himself.

Not the arsenal of privately owned guns, 250 million of them, nor the correlation observed in state by state studies of the number of guns and the number of homicides.

Because that correlation only holds up if you look at the top and bottom five states by homicide rate and ignore the other forty. And especially the District of Columbia.

Inexorably they will see how persistently the NRA gets away with murder, how it ignores the appeals of the police forces of the country, and frustrates even the mildest of restrictions.

The appeals of the police chiefs, and they don't speak for their subordinates; they speak for the mayors and city councils who appointed them.

Does it make sense to enable the police to track the source of bullets used in a crime? It does, but the NRA has stopped it.

I think the fact that the system it would take to permit that would cost a shitload of money and not do a whole lot of good has a bit more to do with that. It's superfluous in mass shootings and most intimate partner killings, because there's no question who committed the crime; the perp is usually apprehended or killed at the scene. And in a country where tons of cocaine, meth, heroin and marijuana are smuggled in every year, the criminal element can surely smuggle in unmarked ammunition.

This kind of measure, along with limits on magazine capacities, are chickenshit harassment of legal gun owners; the proponents of restricting private ownership of firearms that trying to ban the guns themselves is a no-hoper, so they go after the accessories instead.

Isn’t it dangerous to allow gun dealers at state fairs and flea markets to sell any number of weapons to anyone – juveniles, criminals, nuts – without any background checks? Yes, but the NRA has been able to keep the loophole.

No, gun dealers--that is, Type 01 Federal Firearms Licensees--have to conduct background checks no matter where they sell the firearm.

Maybe it will give him heart to work now for a restoration of the ban on assault weapons he pledged in 2008. Call it Christina's Law.

Cheap appeal to emotion. Statistically, since the Tucson shooting, three or four 9 year-olds have been killed in motor vehicle collisions. Is Mr. Evans going to write a column bewailing the fact that motor vehicle deaths in the U.S. per 100,000 registered vehicles is almost 3 times as high as the UK's? Of course not, because he doesn't give a shit about dead kids; he just want to exploit their deaths so he can write some hack piece and readers of the Torygraph--like the readers of every other British newspaper--can feel superior to those uppity Yanks who supplanted them as Top Nation and ignore the fact that they have a fraction of our civil liberties and still aren't any safer.

[chrisa]

140. It's pretty simple, less guns = less gun crime. Banning guns = virtually no gun crime.

Unfortunately, this isn't a political reality. I kind of wish it was. A completely gun free country would be kind of nice.

[shadowrider]

141. Then you'd absolutely love Nigeria n/t

[chrisa]

143. Why? The Princes that give you lottery money?

:-)

[shadowrider]

144. Well, it's a gun-free country and a paradise of gun control

Except for the bad guys who have all the guns they want and ruthlessly kill whomever they desire.

It's a paradise of gun control.

Kinda like Chicago and D.C.

[chrisa]

146. But that's more because of poverty.

And the guns used in Chicago and DC were legal at one time. Guns only add to the problem.

If only the bad guys have guns, then it will be easier to determine who the bad guys are.

[shadowrider]

147. So poverty causes all the killing in Nigeria? I beg to differ

It's POWER, the POWER of the bad guys over the good guys. They're soaked with power, they fear no one and everyone fears them.

POWER corrupts.

Poverty aside, Nigeria is a gun controllers paradise with COUNTLESS instances of mass murder. (See what happens when the law-abiding obey gun laws? Only the bad guys have them). Kinda like Chicago and D.C.

[chrisa]

148. Their law enforcement system also sucks. This leads to more crime.

I say let the people who are trained with guns use them. I wouldn't want some random person who wasn't trained with a gun near me, even if he or she was trying to help. That's how innocent people get shot.

If the police had any power there, "the bad guys" would not have any power.

[shadowrider]

166. HINT: Guess who the police side with (it ain't the unarmed populace)

Regardless, it is a gun-free society where guns are completely banned for the populace.

[chrisa]

215. It's a corruption problem. What would an armed citizenry accomplish in this case?

It would just make problems worse.

Weak governments are always the most corrupt ones.

[jeepnstein]

149. "If only the bad guys have guns, then it will be easier to determine who the bad guys are."

It's pretty easy to spot them now. Putting them in jail is a much tougher thing to accomplish. They have all these pesky civil rights that you have to observe even while they don't even pretend to obey the law. The fact they're armed has very little to do with anything other than they go around indiscriminately killing business associates, customers, and the occasional innocent bystander. They hold people who live in the neighborhood as virtual hostages because of the threat of retaliation for cooperating with the police. Most of them don't even pretend to hide what they're doing because they know they'll get away with whatever they're doing most of the time.

[chrisa]

150. That's why these neighborhoods need to be infiltrated, and these people arrested.

More guns wouldn't stop the issue you named. It would even make it worse.

[jeepnstein]

152. Infiltrated?

What on Earth are you talking about? Do you actually believe that you can just go out and gather up "bad guys" like some western movie? It doesn't work that way.

The problem is prohibition is a failure. The War on Drugs has been lost. And your answer is to add another prohibition on top of that? You do understand that the bulk of the gun violence happening in major urban centers is done by guys who deal with long and complex international smuggling routes, don't you? And you want to make something that people pay lots of money for, legally, the target of your next moral crusade? Thanks but no thanks.

[chrisa]

156. I think they can. There just isn't money to do so. And for the second point,

gun control isn't "prohibition." Alcohol was a different kind of commodity. The banning of gun sales would be much more effective, and lead to a much lower crime rate.

Most criminals with illegal guns don't have a complex smuggling network. They're using stolen guns that were once legal.

[DonP]

153. Great idea, we can copy the Germans in 1936 - let's call them the "Gunstapo"

They had a great system for infiltrating neighborhoods and turning in the "wrong" element in the area. Then they made them wear little badges so everyone would know they were the "wrong sort". We could call them the "Gunstapo".

[chrisa]

155. Banning the sales of guns =/= kicking peoples' doors down.

And I don't see how inflitrating criminal gangs is like this either.

[jeepnstein]

158. Have you ever dealt with a gang?

Do you have a clue what you're talking about? I'm beginning to doubt it. Your average criminal has a very limited ability to deal with anyone's rules but their own.

You're somehow thinking that outlawing firearms owned by lawful citizens will make criminals obey the law. I'm thinking they'll ignore that new law about the same way they ignore the one against importing and or manufacturing drugs and selling them openly on our street. All your prohibition would do is open up another lucrative smuggling racket along the already established routes.

[chrisa]

163. Do you really think most criminals are smart enough to tap into extensive gun smuggling rings?

And with less guns on the street, there's less guns to steal for smuggling. Less guns overall = a better society.

Criminals will ignore the new law, and that's what the police are for. By your argument, criminals should be using fully automatic guns, but those are banned. That's why most criminals only use handguns - because they're everywhere.

[jeepnstein]

164. Apparently they are.

The last time I bothered to check there wasn't a whole lot of cocoa production in the States. I don't think our opium poppy crop is exactly booming either. Marijuana? Can't keep up with the demand so we import tons and tons of the stuff. Law enforcement only interdicts a fraction of it.

At least we finally have those pesky rum runners under control.

The only reason they don't smuggle guns in is because they are available in the States. Cut off the supply and they'll tap into a new growth market.

[chrisa]

175. While there will be some smuggling, there will be less guns overall.

And we can more easily trace guns, especially when used in a crime.

Drugs can be grown, and are grown to be consumed. Guns are used to kill people. There's a huge difference.

[X_Digger]

200. 'more easily trace guns'???

When guns are smuggled in, they won't have been declared on an import registry, the government will not have a list of their serial numbers, they won't have a form 4473 filled out.

Can you trace the 'lot number' of a batch of heroin, in case of lead contamination?

*shakes head*

[shadowrider]

202. *shakes head*

Dude, I know the feelin

[chrisa]

206. This is guns that started out legal. If they're used in a murder, you would be able to ID them,

and trace them to the original owner or manufacturer. Then, you could find out how the criminals are getting the guns, and stop it from happening. :)

[X_Digger]

216. Right now all guns that are not 'smuggled' have the items I mentioned.

If you force people (criminals or otherwise law-abiding) to turn to a black market, you're in the spot I mentioned.

*sigh*

[chrisa]

228. People wouldn't use the black market to buy guns like they did alcohol.

There was a whole culture behind alcohol back when prohibition was implemented. People wouldn't risk going to prison just for a gun, unless if they were already criminals.

[X_Digger]

231. What planet are you from?

Do suburban teens not purchase a few joints, a few hits of ecstasy?

You're kidding yourself.

[DonP]

165. The gangs in Chicago run the gun smuggling rings!

I don't know about other cities but in Chicago they don't need to "tap into them", they run them.

Every year a few of them are locked up when they are caught with a trunkful of guns, almost always .38/.357 revolvers and 9mm semi auto pistols (because they are small and easily concealable), that their cousin in Mississippi or Alabama bought from some guy somewhere. In a lot of neighborhoods you don't own a gun, you rent one for a day or two for whatever you need it for.

They smuggle pistols in so the only logical thing to do, as far as, most politicians go, is try and ban semi auto rifles that are the most popular target rifle in the country. As for the police, Chicago police are down over 1000 patrol officers thanks to Mayor Daley.

[chrisa]

174. But you just made my point.

These guns were bought legally at some point. They were either bought for the purpose of being smuggled, or stolen.

Imagine a country without guns, where people could actually not be afraid of being shot if they go into the wrong part of town. We need drastic changes in this country if we want to make this a reality - more money for the people, and more money spread across a more equal distribution. If there's very little crime, then why own a gun in the first place?

[shadowrider]

177. Nope, you'd be able to walk into the wrong part of town

and not worry about being shot.

Boards, however, are a different story

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/sep/29/chicago-derrion-albert-beating-video

[chrisa]

185. That has nothing to do with our country's gun problem. You could

throw 500 million guns across the US, and people would still be beaten to death. You could have 0 guns, and people would still be beaten to death. Guns do nothing to stop that.

However, there would just be these incidents. There would be much less gun crime.

[shadowrider]

197. My point, which you obviously miss is this

These guys apparently didn't have guns, so they used what was available, which was a board.

Regardless the method, the young man is dead, or do you consider him less dead because a gun wasn't used?

[chrisa]

211. Of course not, but it's not relevant to the discussion. He would still

be dead regardless of whether or not guns are around.

The point is, there would still be murder in a society without guns, but there would be less murder, because there would only be murder by other objects. Guns only increase the murder rate.

[Euromutt]

203. I can *imagine* a country without guns, but that's all I can do

Trafficking of firearms is a demand-driven industry. Criminals acquire guns because they want them, not because they're on offer; conversely, traffickers supply guns because a demand for them exists.

At present, criminals acquire their firearms from traffickers who hire straw purchasers to buy them in Mississippi or Georgia, because that's the most ready source. If that source were closed off, they'd find another one, from overseas if necessary. To compare, in most north-western European countries, firearms are tightly regulated. Yet the criminal element--even individuals who aren't members of an organized crime syndicate--don't have a major problem getting hold of firearms. The primary source in this case are the armaments factories of various south-eastern European countries (Croatia, Serbia, Bulgaria, and Turkey even though that's stretching the term "European") where corrupt employees funnel guns out the back door to local organized crime, who run them to their associates in north-western Europe along the same conduit through which they smuggle Afghan heroin. Not having much in the way of social conscience to begin with, the guys on the receiving end in north-western Europe aren't overly fussy about who they sell them to. One customer was Mohammed Bouyeri, a Dutch-born radical Muslim of Moroccan descent, who acquired a Croatian-made HS2000 9mm handgun (marketed in the United States as the Springfield Armory XD) and used it to murder filmmaker Theo van Gogh in 2004. Eight years previously, an animal rights activist named Volkert van der Graaf bought a Spanish-made Star Firestar M43 9mm handgun off a guy in a bar in Ede, and subsequently used it to commit the first assassination of a politician in over 400 years of Dutch history when he murdered populist politican Pim Fortuyn in 2002. Ballistics evidence tied the gun to the robbery of a jewelery store in the north-east of the country prior to its being sold to Van der Graaf.

The situation in the UK is covered in this Guardian article from August 2008, "Firearms: cheap, easy to get and on a street near you" http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/aug/30/ukcrime1

Some illuminating reading in this regard is a piece written by Daniel Polsby, "Firearm Costs, Firearm Benefits and the Limits of Knowledge" published in the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, vol. 86, no. 1, 1995 (http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/PolsbyFirearmCosts.htm ). An excerpt:

With respect to the firearms side of this problem, it cannot be emphasized too strongly that one is dealing with a demand-led rather than a supply-led phenomenon--young men demanding guns as a means of self defense and self-realization. These young men are not merely using guns because large numbers of them are floating around, as mayors and police chiefs insinuate when they tell reporters that "there are too many guns out there." Recognizing this problem as a demand-side situation predicts the limited usefulness (if not futility) of public policies that seek to "dry up" the supply of guns. The most ludicrous policies of this type are "turn-in-your-gun days" or rules that prohibit police departments from selling surplus weapons. But many kinds of regulatory interventions that place burdens on legal markets embrace the same faulty premise.
<...>
Of course gun runners will seek the least cost and most convenient source of supply, whatever it may be, legal markets, if available, but if they cannot deliver what is demanded, the turn to illegal markets, of smuggled guns or guns manufactured in cottage industry, is a simple operation. The acquisition behavior of illicit retail customers should be discouraged modestly at best by piling costs on gun runners. These customers are seeking to invest in capital plant for which there exists no ready substitutes. Licit buyers, on the other hand, usually are shopping for items of personal consumption, for which a number of obvious substitutes (e.g., archery; B-B guns; and for that matter, going to the movies) evidently exist. The implication of this situation, though usually ignored, is very important: the price sensitivity of firearms buyers will diminish as their motive for owning a firearm becomes more sinister. The price sensitivity of buyers will increase as their motive for owning a firearm becomes more innocuous.

Emphases in bold mine.

[X_Digger]

217. Like in the UK?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6960431.stm

Teenagers arrested after shooting in Dover

Pair, aged 17 and 18, held in custody after a man is shot near girls' grammar school in Kent
Tuesday 18 January 2011 08.12 GMT


18-year-old male rushed to hospital after possible shooting in Dover

Police say they cannot confirm whether gun was used on 18-year-old male in 'spontaneous incident' at Frith road, Dover
Monday 17 January 2011 23.03 GMT


Teenagers killed in London in 2010

The death of a 17-year-old on a Peckham housing estate has brought the toll of teenagers killed in the capital in 2010 to 19
Thursday 30 December 2010 18.40 GMT




I can imagine a country without guns.. like I can imagine monkeys flying out my ass. Doesn't mean either will happen anytime soon.

[shadowrider]

168. Oh jeez, they buy guns from the same source they buy their drugs from

Money speaks. If they have it, and they do, their demand will be met through illegal supply (Think weapons manufactured OUTSIDE the U.S. and smuggled in).

[chrisa]

187. The majority of criminals, the underlings,

Don't even know how to get foreign weapons. That's why there's virtually no AK-47s in the US. Criminals just go for handguns that were legal at some point.

[shadowrider]

191. No AK's huh. You GOTTA tell the Latin Kings, Bloods, Crips, Avenues

and all other street gangs that use them in drive-by shootings. Maybe they'll give 'em up since they aren't supposed to have them. Breaking the law and whatnot.

[chrisa]

210. They don't have AK-47s in the least bit. They have handguns that they can't shoot well.

The image of a gangster holding an AK-47 is largely a Hollywood myth, imo.

[shadowrider]

220. *sigh*

You must not watch the news. Are you old enough to watch it without parental permission? You certainly post like you're 10 years old.

[chrisa]

225. I'm five years old. 'I'm posting all by myself!'

:woohoo:

[Marengo]

195. I think you underestimate the efficiency and sophistication

of organized crime in this country. The "underlings" won't need to personally acquire firearms from foreign sources, that will be done for them by the same transport and delivery system which supplies them with illegal narcotics that COME FROM FOREIGN SOURCES. My, but we've certainly been successful in shutting that conduit down, haven't we?

[chrisa]

214. However, the majority of crime is not commited by sophisticated gangs.

It's wannabes that run around with a hand gun that are interested in stealing even small amounts of money. These are the kinds that steal peoples' purses, or rob convenience stores.

[Marengo]

218. Irrelevant. The supply chain is the issue I was addressing in my reply. N/T

[chrisa]

226. Doesn't matter, as most criminals are not connected to gangs, and

are just losers who couldn't get a high powered weapon if they wanted to. If we took away handguns, they wouldn't even bother to try and get those.

[Marengo]

229. Just like we "took away" narcotics, right?

You are missing the point entirely. It does not matter whether or not the average petty crook is a member of a well established gang. If they want handguns, they can obtain them, even if a "ban" were in effect. Following a "ban" there still would be an ample supply of illegal weapons, just as there is now. Criminal organizations would simply import them (just as they import narcotics now) to sell on the streets (just as they sell narcotics now).

As for "bothering", why would you assume they would not? It is a tool of the trade, and the trade isn't ordinarily a respecter of the law.

[shadowrider]

167. Gunstapo. I am sooooooooooooooo stealing that n/t

[DonP]

170. Consider it "Shareware" ntxt

[friendly_iconoclast]

176. You are a bad, BAD person for saying that.

I actually did laugh out loud at that.

[X_Digger]

160. Since you claim it's simple..

Why is it that for the last fifteen years, all crime, including those with guns has been going down, yet the number of guns has gone up?

[chrisa]

186. How about suicides? Toddlers grabbing guns and accidentally killing themselves? Armed robbery?

And crime usually has alot to do with other factors, such as the economy. However, if we took guns away, the crime rate would go down even more than it is now.

[X_Digger]

199. All of those have been going down, too. n/t

[chrisa]

142. I think we should ban all handguns and assault rifles outright..

Do you believe that it's possible?

I don't really see the point of owning assault rifles, or handguns. It's not like they're for hunting (which is kind of mean in itself). And secondly, there is no war even in the vicinity of this country. It's not like there's anything people have to defend themselves against. There's the argument that guns can be used to stop crime, but in reality they're more likely to cause accidents.

Since this would be almost impossible to do, can't we just compromise and ban them in cities? Why would anyone need a gun in a city? I think only the police should have guns because they're trained to use them (though I wish there was a day where even the police didn't need them). I think they should force people to join a civic organization that does community service, or something like that, in return for owning a gun. That way, you know that only the most upstanding people own them.

I hate guns, and I know for certain I will never own or hold one.

[DonP]

151. Boy, I feel the same way about those stupid Miranda rights

I mean as long as we're suspending constitutional rights to make ourselves feel good, let's get rid of those stupid 4th amendment protections too. If dumping the 2nd amendment is OK for oyur feelings, then dumping the 4th will make me feel better.

Bush started to make them irrelevant, but with more people like you we can put them totally behind us. Then we don't have to bother with search warrants, Miranda rights or any of that other stuff. After all if they don't have anything to hide, they won't object to the police kicking in their door and searching their homes, cars and persons without a warrant or reasonable cause, right? It's for the greater good and our government masters and pundits we like know what's best for all of us.

As long as you don't see the point of handguns or "assault weapons" (a totally made up term to fool the ignorant and less informed), I guess I have the same rights and I don't see the point of protecting a bunch of criminals with some stupid "technicalities" either. Seems fair to me.

I love people that are perfectly willing to "compromise" away other people's rights for their own selfish perceived security.

By the way the word Compromise suggests that both sides are willing to give up something to achieve an agreement. So which of the current 22,000 current federal, state and local gun laws are you willing to give up to get what you want?

[chrisa]

154. The 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with gun rights.

It establishes an organized militia (like The National Guard).

And the part about the police kicking your door down is a hyperbole. It has nothing to do with the gun control debate. I just believe that guns are more useless and destructive than any good that could oome out of them.

[cleanhippie]

157. You need to read this.

Seriously, read the whole thing then think about what your comments were and see if anything changes.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/4/21/19133/5152

[chrisa]

178. I am a "Liberal that loves the Constitution." I just interpret it differently.

And I also absolutely hate guns.

The Constitution is also a document that is meant to be ratified to fit our modern reality. Back then, guns were muskets, and the US did not consist of huge cities. Today, the reality is much different.

That article also has the paranoid argument that guns would someday be used against the US Government. Ridiculous.

I think, if people want to use guns, they should join an organization that does something like community service. That way, it could technically be a "militia," and only good people will join (b/c they're forced to do community service). There they could also get extensive gun training.

[cleanhippie]

190. By your rationale...

then if people want to vote, they should also be required to join an organization that does something like community service?


Look, I understand your sentiments, but owning guns, regardless of your (or mine) opinion, IS a Constitutional Right. Period. That fact has been continually strengthened over the years by repeated rulings by the SCOTUS. (you may not like that fact, but that is the way it is)

Here are some more facts (not in dispute) of the matter:

1. Gun ownership is at its highest level in the history of this country.
2. Gun Crime is at its LOWEST levels in 40 years. (yes, that is since 1970)

No one, including me, is making the argument that more guns=less crime. I have NEVER seen that argument made here on DU (I have seen people try to say that is has been, but can never show just where that argument was made).

Considering facts 1 and 2, it stands to reason that less guns does not mean less gun crime, either.

3. Gun ownership is NOT going to end. Even if the manufacture of guns were to cease today, guns would be easily available for many, many years to come. (They would just be more expensive, making only the richest among us the ones who can get them).

Perhaps actually prosecuting criminals under EXISTING gun laws would be enough, I don't know, but I DO know that MORE gun laws will do NOTHING to change the occasional (yes, it really is NOT very frequent) tragedy.

Again, I understand your sentiments, but I would ask you to think about that DailyKos article once again, and try to look at it without injecting your personal feelings in to the matter in order to perhaps gain a different perspective, and thus perhaps a different opinion.

If not, that is your choice, but at least I tried to reason with you.

[chrisa]

209. Gun ownership will never end. It's not a political reality. I'm just offering my opinion.

I don't see how the right to vote is similar to the right to own an assault rifle or handgun. Doesn't make sense to me.

I've read the KOS page posted below. I guess we're just not going to agree. Oh well. :)

[shadowrider]

192. Chrisa, please, quit while you're behind n/t

[chrisa]

208. Tell me about why you think guns do more good than harm, and

I'll just tell you that for every 1 incident where guns do good, there are 100 where they do bad. Just imo.

[jeepnstein]

159. A little light reading for you.

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-290.pdf

[chrisa]

188. I can't get it to open. Must be my 1970's pull-start computer acting up again.

[jeepnstein]

189. I seriously doubt that.

[chrisa]

207. Yup. You're right. I was just too afraid to open it. Haha

:)

[DonP]

161. Least informed comment - EVER!

Ah, that's a priceless piece of commentary there.

Let me know when you can find a single law school professor or other left or right leaning lawyer with any credentials that actually still believes in the debunked "Militia interpretation".

Even Alan Dershowitz and Laurence Tribe, two high profile "right wing nuts" if there ever was one, both dropped that argument over a decade ago.

It's an individual right that has no relationship to serving in a militia - no matter how much some people would like it to.

[chrisa]

179. Okay fine, but why not make it so that "militias" consist of highly trained gun owners?

E.g. people that won't leave a gun on the table for their young son or daughter to grab; or criminals?

This could be done through government sponsored organizations.

[cleanhippie]

196. You seem to keep confusing power given to the Government via the Constitution

with privileges given to the people via the Government. Driving a car on public roads is one such privilege.

The Constitution LIMITS what Government can do, not what PEOPLE can do.

Your answer seems to be getting the GOVERNMENT to ALLOW people to do everything, when the situation is really reversed, we ALLOW the government to do what WE want them to do. (I know, it doesnt seem that way, but that is how the system works. Yes, its corrupted, but that is another argument)

[X_Digger]

162. No, that would be Article I, Section 8 of the constitution.

See here- http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution.html

[chrisa]

180. That was written at a time where invasion could come at any time.

In our current society, I can definitely say that we will never be invaded.

[X_Digger]

198. The point, it went whoosh and parted your hair, didn't it? n/t

[chrisa]

213. How so? Can't the Constitution be changed? Why do we need a militia any more?

[X_Digger]

219. Here's another salient example..

Class, please diagram this sentence:

"The liberty of the press being essential to the security of freedom in a state, any person may publish sentiments on any subject.."

--Rhode Island's constitution, Article I, Section 20


Are only sentiments related to the "security of freedom in a state" protected?

Are only members of the press protected?

Does the opening clause limit the operative clause?



*sigh*

[chrisa]

227. Nope, but guns are a different example.

The Constitution doesn't say, "Allow everybody to own handguns and assault rifles." We could restrict gun ownership to people who are in special, government controlled groups (such as the Community Service group I mentioned above), and we still wouldn't be violating the Constitution.

"The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed" is a vague term that could mean anything.

[Marengo]

230. Oh, now I understand

""The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed" is a vague term that could mean anything."

:eyes:

I sincerely hope you have found the guns forum to be a satisfying play ground. However, the street lamps are on and I think I hear your mother calling.

[DonP]

232. That's 2 for the record book - but a concern too!

"The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed" is a vague term that could mean anything."

and my personal favorite ...

"The 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with gun rights."

But you're starting to make me a little nervous, you actually seem to be moderating your rigid, emotion based ideas somewhat as you read and hear from others who don't agree with your philosophy of hating inanimate objects.

[X_Digger]

233. There's no asterisk in the bill of rights by the second amendment..

.. saying that we get to do whatever the hell we want with this one.

[Marengo]

169. I suggest you stop now

Before embarrassing yourself any further.

[chrisa]

181. I enjoy embarassing myself.

[shadowrider]

193. In that case, you should be absolutely giddy n/t

[chrisa]

212. Naturally!

:)

[shadowrider]

172. So many errors in two small paragraphs and a total of 4 sentences

Where oh where to begin.

Sheesh

[chrisa]

182. Well, what issues do you have with what I said?

[shadowrider]

173. With all due respect, the following are police no-knock shootings

Police kicking your door down is hyprbole

http://www.xdtalk.com/forums/xdtalk-chatter-box/160782-man-gets-5-years-shooting-police-no-knock-raid.html

http://stash.norml.org/update-on-dog-shooting-story-officers-lacked-no-knock-warrant-in-raid

http://www.wsbtv.com/news/10374909/detail.html

http://www.copblock.org/1594/search-and-destroy-utah-swat-team-murders-drug-suspect-on-video/

Best for last
http://reference.findtarget.com/search/Kathryn%20Johnston%20shooting/

Those are on the FIRST page of a search for "no-knock warrant shooting"

The police kicking down your door is hyperbole. Indeed.

[chrisa]

183. No-knock warrants need to stop. They're dangerous for homeowners and the officers involved.

[beevul]

223. No it really doesn't.

What you've done is establish that you know nothing of how the bill of rights functions.

The bill of rights is not a document that "authorizes", or "grants" anything.

The bill of rights protects rights by forbiding government from "going there". Of course its not absolute, but thats how it works.

The Bill of Rights is the name for the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution.<1> They were introduced by James Madison to the First United States Congress in 1789 as a series of legislative articles. They came into effect as Constitutional Amendments on December 15, 1791, through the process of ratification by three-fourths of the States.

The Bill of Rights is a series of limitations on the power of the United States federal government, protecting the natural rights of liberty and property including freedom of speech, a free press, free assembly, and free association, as well as the right to keep and bear arms. In federal criminal cases, it requires indictment by a grand jury for any capital or "infamous crime", guarantees a speedy, public trial with an impartial jury composed of members of the state or judicial district in which the crime occurred, and prohibits double jeopardy. In addition, the Bill of Rights reserves for the people any rights not specifically mentioned in the Constitution<2> and reserves all powers not specifically granted to the federal government to the people or the States. Most of these restrictions on the federal government were later applied to the states by a series of legal decisions applying the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was ratified in 1868. The Bill was influenced by George Mason's 1776 Virginia Declaration of Rights, the 1689 English Bill of Rights, works of the Age of Enlightenment pertaining to natural rights, and earlier English political documents such as Magna Carta (1215).

Delegates to the Philadelphia Convention on September 12, 1787 debated whether to include a Bill of Rights in the body of the U.S. Constitution, and an agreement to create the Bill of Rights helped to secure ratification of the Constitution itself.<3> Ideological conflict between Federalists and anti-Federalists threatened the final ratification of the new national Constitution. Thus, the Bill addressed the concerns of some of the Constitution's influential opponents, including prominent Founding Fathers, who argued that the Constitution should not be ratified because it failed to protect the fundamental principles of human liberty.

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

[shadowrider]

171. There is no war in the viciniy of this country? What/?????????

Get in the middle of two gangs fighting for control of turf and it's every bit a war. They're going on all over the country.

[chrisa]

184. Hardly a war. This is a police and federal matter.

Armed citizens would just make it worse by getting in the way.

[shadowrider]

194. There are already armed citizens and they're smart enough to stay the heck

out of the way.

Never interrupt when bad guys are killing each other.

[chrisa]

205. Here's another thought, though.

Maybe the bad guys wouldn't be killing each other so much if there weren't any guns for them to shoot with. :)

[jeepnstein]

145. She's an actress playing a journalist on TV.

Her show is nothing more than entertainment on par with what the right cranks out. I find her show entertaining but I certainly don't rely on her for any kind of factual accuracy. We constantly rip on the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck but will hold a left-wing version of them up as some kind of primary source for information? Give me a break.

[Euromutt]

204. I don't watch a lot of broadcast TV, but that seems a decent summary

I remember watching some of her stuff during the summer of 2009, when the Teabaggers started coming out in full force, and it was hard to escape the impression that she really, really wanted to be Jon Stewart, but couldn't quite pull it off. Now, I'll be the first to state that The Daily Show and The Colbert Report are the closest things to good, critical hard-hitting journalism we have in this country, but that is as much a criticism of American journalism as it is praise of Stewart, Colbert and their respective staffs. And Jon Stewart would be the first to state that he's not a journalist, or at least, not a serious one.

[RamboLiberal]

201. Meghan McCain offered to take Rachel to an NRA convention

Hope Rachel takes her up on it. Hey next one is this spring in my hometown of Pittsburgh.

And Rachel met her partner at an NRA First Shots class.

[Euromutt]

224. I'm reasonably certain those aren't ALL the arguments against gun control

For me, the primary argument against gun control (or more precisely, additional gun control measures) is this:

A government that refuses to take responsibility for the protection of its individual citizens thereby abdicates the authority to deprive them of the means with which to protect themselves.

The Supreme Court has ruled on numerous occasions (such Warren v. D.C., DeShaney v. Winnebago County and Castle Rock, CO v. Gonzales) that government cannot be held liable for failing to protect individual citizens from harm, even in situations where it failed to do so due to police incompetence (Warren), in spite of credible and strong suspicion of wrongdoing (DeShaney) or even when its failure was in violation of state law and a court order (Gonzales).

Many, probably most, law enforcement officers are dedicated individuals who went into law enforcement because they want "to protect and serve," but if you have the misfortune to find yourself having to rely on one or a few who are incompetent or allow their personal biases to override their professionalism, and things go badly for you as a result, you have zero recourse.

A lot of people, myself included, are skeptical of Lott's research findings (for an insightful critique of econometric modeling, including Lott's work, see "Econometric Modeling as Junk Science" by Ted Goertzel http://crab.rutgers.edu/~goertzel/mythsofmurder.htm but be warned that Goertzel's argument holds true for most medical/public health "research" on the effects of firearms) and don't necessarily believe that "more guns => less crime."

However, since it is demonstrably untrue that "more guns => more crime"--or that "less guns => less crime" for that matter--the onus falls upon advocates of increased gun control to provide compelling reasons why the general citizenry should be deprived of the freedom to acquire the most effective means of self-defense currently in existence. Pepper spray and tasers just don't quite cut it, which is why cops still carry guns. The day someone comes out with a Star Trek phaser that can reliably stun an assailant without killing, I'll be happy to retire my concealed-carry and home-defense guns to range use only, but I suspect we're still rather a long way off from that.