NRA kicks off annual convention, saying it is fighting 'culture war'

If politicians could write laws that would actually prevent criminals from owning guns, then the NRA would support them. But nothing they've offered would do the first thing towards such a productive goal. Background checks? Already have them in every one of the 50 states plus the District of Columbia. Besides, criminals don't go to submit themselves to background checks anyway, even staunch Democrat legislators have admitted that. The dangerously insane have to actually commit a crime against someone before they can be institutionalized, and there's no progress being made to correct that. Politicians are just trying to preen before the camera for their re-election campaigns. They're not interested in substantive solutions when it comes to solving problems.

Gang culture is a start to saving lives. In the 50's gangs used switch bade knive in disputes and subsequently outlawed them. In the last decade or two it is guns and the murder rate has skyrocketed. And those would be illegal guns. No law in the land will stop the gangs.

OldHawk: You're just repeating NRA talking points.

No, I'm stating the obvious. Of course, you're always welcome to try to prove me wrong.

Guns are really only the symptom. The cause is that America is a very violent society. They just don't want to have that conversation because the US's self image is so "holier-than-thou", where "thou" includes everyone in the world, including Japan, where so far only 1 person has died from a gun shot this year (gangser suicide), in contrast to about 2,500 in the US. US likes guns because it is a culture of violence. Just watch movies and TV. It only takes a few minutes before the gun comes out. That is the actual meaning of "culture war". US is at war with itself. And it exports the "culture war" to the rest of the world. Guns for everyone! Even little children who have started to shoot each other. Just another day in the USA.

I'm surprised Obama was not at this convention. You would think buying 2 billion rounds of DHS ammo would give him some NRA leverage.

“This is not a battle about gun rights,” Porter said, calling it “a culture war.... You here in this room are the fighters for freedom."

I am sure many in attendance believe that; others simply prey on the former. Both cases are among the sorriest examples of human behavior observable today. Facts don't matter to these people. You cannot reason with them. They do not learn from experience. Perhaps Darwanism will take care of the problem - except that such a large number of these people have a dozen barefoot children at home, so losing a couple due to weapons lying around is not such a problem.

So, gokai, in your opening sentence, you claim that guns "are really the only symptom". But then you later you say the U.S. "is a culture of violence". So which is it?

Something for you to consider: The man who attacked me did not have a gun, but a nylon strap, which he put around my neck. Not having a gun did not prevent him from being violent, nor from engaging in criminal activity. So it's clear that guns were not the symptom for him. I used my gun to defend myself from him, preventing my premature death. If hoplophobes had gotten their way even fifteen years ago, I would have died by his nylon strap that night.

I've gotten into a lot of these debates here on JT so I can probably predict what will happen. People with no personal experience with guns will bash the U.S. for its "love of guns" and its "culture of violence". People who grew up on islands (England, Japan, etc.) will claim the U.S. should just ban all guns (completely missing the irony that they oppose the U.S. securing its southern border with a third-world country that is effectively run by drug cartels). People who cannot form a substantive argument of their own will vote my posts down and vote posts by their hoplophobic comrades up.

But one thing that will never happen: The people with no personal experience with guns, those who have never seen a gun anywhere other than ion a screen or on a policeman's hip, will refuse to listen to anything that counters their viewpoint. No matter what facts or direct personal experience presented to them, they will cling bitterly to their fear of guns.

Let the debate begin.

So, gokai, in your opening sentence, you claim that guns "are really the only symptom". But then you later you say the U.S. "is a culture of violence". So which is it?

I fail to see what the issue is with that statement....That is like saying knife killings are really only a symptom of a culture that promotes violence as its primary way to resolve conflicts. I guess I don't see what the issue is with such a statement.

OldHawk: I own a .22 caliber semiautomatic rifle that was used for target practice. But I also believe that there must be more controls on gun buying with similar standards in all states. Your argument ("The people with no personal experience with guns") goes out the window in my case. And I think there are plenty more people who feel like I do. So there, you're wrong.

Noliving, you are correct. Gokai wrote "Guns are really only the symptom.", not "guns are really the only symptom". My apologies for the mistake. I'll crank up the zoom on my monitor.

The U.S. isn't the only country with violent media though. England makes those great Bond-007 films, and Japan has violent manga (against children even!), and shows like SP-Security Police and even Mr. Brain, where people get shot. I readily admit that there is a significant part of U.S. popular culture that glorifies gang violence, its apathetic, self-centered lifestyle, and even its ridiculous fashions. And at least the fashions have made their way to Japan.

paulinusa:

I own a .22 caliber semiautomatic rifle that was used for target practice. But I also believe that there must be more controls on gun buying with similar standards in all states. Your argument ("The people with no personal experience with guns") goes out the window in my case. And I think there are plenty more people who feel like I do. So there, you're wrong.

Very good! Now, what other controls would you like to see on gun purchases? How would they stop the trade of illegal guns among criminals? And, were any of your ideas present in the recently-defeated gun control bill?

From an european point of view , it is common sense to have rigorous and thorough checks for anyone buying live ammunitions or weapons , and restricting access to military types of weapons (like automatic rifles with large capacity magazines ) , it's difficult to understand why there would be any opposition at all to such safety measures that are in the interest of everyone . I can understand why the arms companies who want to continue to make huge profits wouldn't want to see this though

The thing that is shocks me though , is the huge influence and power that they have in the congress and parliament among the politicians and senators that they probably fund for that purpose , from here it looks like the greed and private interests of a small but powerful lobby that bribed quite a few high profile politicians is a lot stronger than the collective will of the American people to regulate guns better ( as the polls showed ) , and thus effectively paralyzes the democratic process on that question .

"America is a very violent society".......other than news media and inner city neighborhoods I chose not to visit, I don't se it. Look at the result of the (foreign born) Boston bombers. Nothing but compassion from us very violent Americans. Rap videos is not representative os the average US citizen

From an european point of view , it is common sense to have rigorous and thorough checks for anyone buying live ammunitions or weapons , and restricting access to military types of weapons (like automatic rifles with large capacity magazines ) , it's difficult to understand why there would be any opposition at all to such safety measures that are in the interest of everyone .

We already have all of those measures in place. Well, except for checks for buying ammo. But I do know people who have been called on by the TBI and/or FBI after making large ammo purchases.

The thing that is shocks me though , is the huge influence and power that they have in the congress and parliament among the politicians and senators that they probably fund for that purpose , from here it looks like the greed and private interests of a small but powerful lobby that bribed quite a few high profile politicians is a lot stronger than the collective will of the American people to regulate guns better ( as the polls showed ) , and thus effectively paralyzes the democratic process on that question .

Which polls?

Bribes come from both camps. You really think the gun-control lobby doesn't bribe? You really think that people (voters) didn't call their senators or representatives to voice their opposition to this recent legislation? That it was solely the bidding of gun manufacturers and the NRA?

After the end of the occupation in 1952, the Japanese had the opportunity to rescind the restrictions on ownership of firearms put in place by GHQ. Initially they did nothing but finally six years later passed the firearms and swords control law, which has continued with minor modifications to the present. In 1958, the new law was passed with no debate in the Diet and no opposing votes. Basically they rubber stamped the restrictions put in place by the occupation, banning all handguns, allowing hunting rifles and shotguns with strict conditions and also putting tight controls on sales of ammunition. Currently the nationwide number of owners of legal firearms has dropped below 400,000 (according to a recent police white paper). The number of annual gun casualties in all of Japan is roughly equivalent to one week of Chicago's. Even Japanese gun owners recognize the benefits of the law in curbing violent crime, and support it. Nor do Japanese whine that not having the right to bear arms enshrined in their constitution infringes on their freedoms of speech, worship, assembly, etc. I have to say, after having lived here for more than three decades, that the absence of guns in Japan was a strong factor in my decision to stay here. Another reason is if I did return, circumstances might very well convince me that I need to own a firearm for my own protection -- and I absolutely loathe the notion of having to compromise on my sense of personal safety to the degree that I would feel obliged to own one. It's also fully obvious that the NRA is a pitchman for the gun industry and generously distributes millions of dollars to political candidates to oppose sensible gun control legislation. Another way the NRA does this is with bait-and-switch arguments and fear tactics aimed at distracting Americans about the substance of the debate. It rationalizes a horrendous body count --- well over 100,000 dead from guns since 9/11/2001 --- as the price Americans are willing to accept for their "freedoms." Sorry, Mr. LaPierre, but I find your rousing speeches and your organization repugnant to the extreme. You, sir, are a merchant of death.

Look at the result of the (foreign born) Boston bombers. Nothing but compassion from us very violent Americans.

And armed Boston bombers. In Boston. Which has some of the toughest gun control laws in America.

Rap videos is not representative (of) the average US citizen

Over a certain age, no. ;)

The number of annual gun casualties in all of Japan is roughly equivalent to one week of Chicago's.

More like one day. Still, do you not see a difference in the general culture between Japan and Chicago?

You, sir, are a merchant of death.

And not the gangs, habitual criminals, etc? Fascinating.

Has it never occurred to you that guns are used to defend lives? I've done it. Women - especially those going through nasty divorces and have restraining orders against their estranged husbands - have done it. Elderly people have done it. Do these people not deserve to defend themselves?

I stand by my remarks@Hawk. I've got better things to do with my life than pretending I'm Wyatt Earp at the OK Corral.

People who love guns grew up in environments where owning one was essential for their own survival.

For the rest of us who don't live in such a culture, where for us, owning a gun is completely inessential, and .... well.... pointless, we clearly don't get it. Our fear of guns comes from the fact that they are solely used to kill things.

The issue is a cultural one alright. How do you reverse a culture where having a gun is essential when everyone already has guns? Nobody will want to put their toys away.

You stand by your remarks, but can't back them up. Gotcha.

It has nothing to do with Wyatt Earp and the mythical Old West. That's a typical deflection I've seen before in these debates. It's about self-defense and equality.

The issue is a cultural one alright. How do you reverse a culture where having a gun is essential when everyone already has guns? Nobody will want to put their toys away.

If they're essential, then they're not toys, are they?

The only war s the war that the NRA leadership is fighting against its own members that have said they want full background checks on all gun sales. But perhaps the members should be aware that their alleged organization has been take over by the gun manufacturers that care nothing about the members but only in increasing semiautomatic sales to everyone, including criminals. As the gun manufacturers put more money into the NRA than all 4,000,000 members the Leadership feels it is their duty to puppet any line that the gun manufactures want . Ironically for years the NRA has supported full back ground checks on all gun sales so this counter view is against what the 73% members want. Time to pull membership money out and put it into a lobby for gun owner and not gun manufactures. The NRA has been stolen from its members and their concerns.

It has nothing to do with Wyatt Earp and the mythical Old West.

You're correct@Hawk; the change actually occurred several decades before Wyatt & Doc Holliday. See below.

"The Civil War dramatically accelerated the slow cultural shift instigated by the increase in arms production in the 1840s. By 1865 it would seem that most Americans believed that the ability to use a gun made one a better man as well as a patriot more able to defend the nation's liberties -- they certainly showed a willingness to act on that assumption...The Civil War established these attitudes permanently by demonstrating the need for one American to be able to kill another..." From Chapter 10 (The Arming of the American People), from "Arming America: The origins of a national gun culture" by Michael A. Bellesiles (2000, Winner of the Bancroft Prize).

You're correct@Hawk; the change actually occurred several decades before Wyatt & Doc Holliday.

It's still a diversion. I asked valid questions, challenging your views stated in your previous post. Care to answer them?

Another here who grew up with a few rifles in the house, my oldman hunted & trapped in his youth, my brother & did some target shooting in our youth, later I lost interest, brother owns a couple guns & does a bit of hunting, no big deal.

Neither are the checks & balances in place where I hail from for the most part, & we are neither allowed or NEED to own hand guns & all those STUPID military type weapons some yanks are fond of.

Oldhawk if you want to learn what reasonable people do I suggest you look north of the 49th parallel.

As for the nra............clearly its one messed up organization & clearly it needs to be labels a SUBVERSIVE organization & kept under careful watch as it is a clear & present danger, lots of people in the nra who in all likely hood shouldnt even be able to look at a gun much less own one!

And the politicians who bailed on even background check..........wth! They should be taken of & figuratively shot down at the next election, & they should hang their heads in shame!

“Mr. Obama said he wasn’t going after our guns. As soon as the Connecticut thing happened, he came after our guns.”

What a stupid hick.

the NRA... a bunch of narrow-minded regressive idiots.

Has it never occurred to you that guns are used to defend lives? I've done it. Women - especially those going through nasty divorces and have restraining orders against their estranged husbands - have done it. Elderly people have done it. Do these people not deserve to defend themselves?

Hawk@Are those what you meant by "valid questions"? I must have mistaken them for regurgitations of NRA doctrine. (I note how you tiptoed around statistics that consistently show guns in the home are far more likely to be used on members of the same household than on outside intruders.) But hold on -- Japanese women have nasty divorces, etc. as well. So these problems are by no means uniquely American. Yet people in Japan appear content to work out their disagreements without resorting to firearms. Got to give them at least some credit for common sense.

they will cling bitterly to their fear of guns.

Our fear of guns comes from the fact that they are solely used to kill things.

It isn't so much a fear of guns as a fear of the kind of people who think that they need guns.

If they're essential, then they're not toys, are they?

The sarcasm went right over your head like a bullet from a gun, and you never even noticed it.

Another here who grew up with a few rifles in the house, my oldman hunted & trapped in his youth, my brother & did some target shooting in our youth, later I lost interest, brother owns a couple guns & does a bit of hunting, no big deal.

You lost interest, so you don't care if the people who NEED to protect themselves lose their rights to do so?

Neither are the checks & balances in place where I hail from for the most part, & we are neither allowed or NEED to own hand guns & all those STUPID military type weapons some yanks are fond of.

Is this about where you hail from? Or can you recognize that not all cultures are the same?

As for the nra............clearly its one messed up organization & clearly it needs to be labels a SUBVERSIVE organization & kept under careful watch as it is a clear & present danger, lots of people in the nra who in all likely hood shouldnt even be able to look at a gun much less own one!

Exactly what parameters are using to make that judgement? Say, do you remember when the Leftists in the media started getting nervous about the T.E.A. Party rallies? They were openly debating how bad the violence was going to be at these rallies. They weren't debating if there was going to be violence, just how bad it was going to be. Because right-wingers are violent, just ask Chris Matthews, or pretty much anybody on MSNBC. Not only did the violence not happen, but at many of the rallies, the T.E.A. Party folks brought their own trash bags and picked up after themselves. Meanwhile, Leftists at the Occupy rallies committed thefts, vandalized property, committed sexual assaults and rapes, and defecated on police cars. Who would I rather have guns, the legal owners in the NRA who don't commit crimes, or the Leftists destroying lives and property at Occupy rallies?

And you know what? You sounded like the folks on MSNBC in your above post.

And the politicians who bailed on even background check..........wth!

Can YOU name a single state that doesn't have background checks?

"Mr. Obama said he wasn’t going after our guns. As soon as the Connecticut thing happened, he came after our guns."

Maitake:

What a stupid hick. the NRA... a bunch of narrow-minded regressive idiots.

Do you have any idea how many handguns carry more than 10 rounds of ammunition in the magazine? You're in no position to be calling others narrow-minded.

"This is not a battle about gun rights,” Porter said, calling it “a culture war.”"

So just shoot it.

I feel so, so sorry for the woman in the picture. She doesn't realize what an embarrassment she is. Being frail, sitting in a chair, and getting old doesn't mean a gun gives you any power or makes you younger. If anything the picture should be used as a reason why gun control is necessary.

Virtuoso:

Hawk@Are those what you meant by "valid questions"? I must have mistaken them for regurgitations of NRA doctrine.

Sure, keep posting what you can't prove.

(I note how you tiptoed around statistics that consistently show guns in the home are far more likely to be used on members of the same household than on outside intruders.)

Oh? Were those stats presented? How about I present stats that consistently show guns are used in defense of crimes - including outside the home - far more often than they are used in crimes?

But hold on -- Japanese women have nasty divorces, etc. as well. So these problems are by no means uniquely American. Yet people in Japan appear content to work out their disagreements without resorting to firearms. Got to give them at least some credit for common sense.

Which takes us back to the first valid question I asked of you, and which you ignored/missed: Still, do you not see a difference in the general culture between Japan and Chicago?

It's not just cultural, though. A 100-lb. woman is by no means an equal for a 250-lb. man. But armed with a handgun, she certainly is. Don't believe me? Think that's just NRA talking points? Then see if you can spot a difference between these two news articles:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,528300,00.html

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,528072,00.html?sPage=fnc/us/crime

As Neo_Rio pointed out, there is a cultural difference, and it's difficult for one side to see why the other side does what they do. But the difference between me and you (and cleo, GW, etc.), is that I at least try to understand the other culture. None of you try to understand mine. When I go to Japan, I don't feel any need to have a gun. I don't ask why women aren't armed to protect themselves against rapists. But none of you are the least bit open-minded to the fact that guns are effective for self-defense here. I'm living proof of that!

It isn't so much a fear of guns as a fear of the kind of people who think that they need guns.

And what have these people done to you, or anyone else, dear cleo? And why are you more afraid of them than you are the actual criminals who victimize people?

I feel so, so sorry for the woman in the picture. She doesn't realize what an embarrassment she is. Being frail, sitting in a chair, and getting old doesn't mean a gun gives you any power or makes you younger. If anything the picture should be used as a reason why gun control is necessary.

Why do you think she doesn't deserve the ability to defend herself?

Wikipedia number of guns per capita. Australia had a great example of how to change hawks into doves and it's worked. Note their placement at 42nd (2007). Switzerland would also be a model worth exploring for Americans as they're 3rd (2007) but still about half that of USA. As a Canadian the site shows us at 13th (2007). Japan 164th (2007).

It doesn't take much to change, as the Australian example only took months. John Oliver's comedy report was too funny but sadly true.

America can't succeed because this is a cultural problem. It's just not capable to face issues any more. Pick a topic. I would like to be wrong but posts here and elsewhere tell me otherwise. Ah well. There's always any other country in the world. The world is large and beautiful to not be worrying about small minds

I'm off to hanami on Sunday, it finally bloomed in Toronto. Happy Spring!

Oldhawk: "Why do you think she doesn't deserve the ability to defend herself?"

Defend herself against other fools with guns, no doubt. The issue is not if she 'deserves the right', the issue is about stricter measurements to ensure her right is justified. Why the NRA and gun-nutters are against stricter checks but talk about criminals having guns and what not is beyond logic.

The old woman in the photo does not look strong enough to pull the trigger, and would probably do more harm to herself than anyone else.

If she can hold it up (and apparently she can), she can easily pull the trigger. What would you rather she do? You're not going to move in and protect her, are you?

America can't succeed because this is a cultural problem.

It's not just cultural, but also logistical. Even historical. But on the subject of logistics, of the countries you named (Australia, Switzerland, Canada, Japan), how many share a porous border with a third-world country that is essentially run by drug cartels?

Oldhawk: "If she can hold it up (and apparently she can), she can easily pull the trigger. What would you rather she do? You're not going to move in and protect her, are you?"

Once again you completely avoid the point. It's about stricter background checks, not about if a frail old granny can hold up a pistol and shoot someone. What if she's senile and thinks her grandkids are coming over to take her 'gawd given' guns away? Do you think she's therefore qualified to own a weapon that would kill her grandkids because she's just strong enough to pull the trigger.

I'm telling you, this picture is a campaign for why guns should not be in the hands of everyone who has hands -- it's a statement that stricter checks are in order.

But do answer me this: the argument of the NRA is that criminals will have guns regardless of laws, and that stricter laws mean more innocents might die. But if it's just about checking on the background of people, including criminals, what's the problem? If you're not guilty, why not prove it?

Once again you completely avoid the point. It's about stricter background checks, not about if a frail old granny can hold up a pistol and shoot someone.

I haven't avoided the point at all. In fact, I've addressed the matter of background checks several times already. We already have background checks. In every state, and D.C.

Want me to go through it in detail? Fine.

Buying a handgun at a retail store? Background check through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. The FBI reviews criminal history, mental health and restraining-order records to weed out those who are legally barred from gun ownership.

Buying a handgun at a gun show? Those guys are federally licensed (FFL) dealers. Background check through the same National Instant Criminal Background Check System.

Buying a handgun online? The gun is shipped to a local FFL who then ships the gun to you after completing a... (see where this is going yet?) background check through the same National Instant Criminal Background Check System.

But you said this is about stricter background checks? Considering the current system, how would this be possible? The only other trackable venue is private exchanges between family members and other private parties (and yes, I've done those). These stricter background checks will still do nothing to stem the flow of illegally traded guns among criminals.

What if she's senile and thinks her grandkids are coming over to take her 'gawd given' guns away? Do you think she's therefore qualified to own a weapon that would kill her grandkids because she's just strong enough to pull the trigger.

If she's senile and has family, do you really think she would be living alone? Dude, what kind of family are you from? ;)

But do answer me this: the argument of the NRA is that criminals will have guns regardless of laws, and that stricter laws mean more innocents might die. But if it's just about checking on the background of people, including criminals, what's the problem? If you're not guilty, why not prove it?

Because it's not including criminals. It's only targeting those who are already in compliance with the laws. More bureaucracy, less productivity. The other issue is the 4th and 14th Amendments. If what I'm doing is not illegal, then it's none of the government's business.

My image of the elderly woman with her antique pistol is of someone who likes guns. Just likes them. Many do but it doesn't really hold up in a reasoned debate, does it?

My ageing mother in Florida, at 87 years, has never felt the need to own a firearm, nor would she want me to move in to protect her.

My aging mother in Tennessee, at 72 years, carries a gun. And you know, I never felt the "need" to carry a gun either, I just did out of habit. And then somebody tried to mug/kill me one night. Street violence is hardly predictable.

Whenever, wherever a firearm is purchased, at a gun shop, gun fair, or even online, the purchase should not be allowed until a full and proper background check is made of the purchaser.

As I've mentioned many times in just this thread (and in detail in my previous post), we already have all of that. In every state, plus D.C.

Oldhawk: Yes, you are completely avoiding the point. What's wrong with STRICTER checks if nothing is wrong with the people who own guns?

"Because it's not including criminals. It's only targeting those who are already in compliance with the laws. More bureaucracy, less productivity."

The laws need to change, as is evidenced by the massacres we read about constantly but that Americans more or less shrug their shoulders at. If they are in compliance with the laws, what's the problem? Can't buy the gun fast enough? The gun show uzi that saw a nine-year-old kid blow his head off should have perhaps been not given to the nine-year-old kid?

Oldhawk: The granny in this photo is far more likely to doze off and shoot herself than she is to avoid some British invasion (that the constitution granted guns to militias). She's more likely to kill a relative and a loved one than she is to kill someone that threatens her.

No member of my family has ever felt the need to own a firearm.

To repeat: And you know, I never felt the "need" to carry a gun either, I just did out of habit. And then somebody tried to mug/kill me one night. Street violence is hardly predictable.

The granny in this photo is far more likely to doze off and shoot herself than she is to avoid some British invasion (that the constitution granted guns to militias). She's more likely to kill a relative and a loved one than she is to kill someone that threatens her.

And you determined this how, smith?

Well I have to say that I don't mind what they're doing.

Using the phrase "culture war" is bombastic and won't resonate with moderates. If anything it will turn them off. Hopefully the NRA will talk about the legislation that was defeated while failing to understand that 90% of the public supported it. I want to see them get in from the the microphone and own that.

La Pierre is going to speak, someone so inept at getting the point across that the NRA had to muzzle him recently. Hopefully he will say something that embarrasses gun owners and pushes more people to the other side. I suspect he will.

As for the speakers.... Rick Perry? Sarah Palin? Rick Santorum? Ted Cruz? All a different flavor of the same crazy and I'm glad they are being associated with this. I'm guessing this group will present an image that a lot of people won't want to associate with unless you are hard core Republican which is a shrinking group that can't win the White House. I'm all for more self-inflicting wounds from the Right.

Come on, Right Wing. Let it all hang out for the world to see.

Old Hawk: I haven't avoided the point at all. In fact, I've addressed the matter of background checks several times already. We already have background checks. In every state, and D.C.

We have what amounts to a voluntary background check system since there are so many loopholes. Let me ask you this: If you wanted to buy a gun without a background check, would you be able to do it? If you answer YES then you really have no business going around telling people that background checks are everywhere.

Yes, you are completely avoiding the point. What's wrong with STRICTER checks if nothing is wrong with the people who own guns?

What's the point of stricter checks if those people are already in compliance? Other than making the purchase more of a hassle and tying up federal resources that could be used to target illegal gun trade?

The laws need to change, as is evidenced by the massacres we read about constantly but that Americans more or less shrug their shoulders at.

Constantly? Shrug their shoulders? You wouldn't exaggerate, would you?

The gun show uzi that saw a nine-year-old kid blow his head off should have perhaps been not given to the nine-year-old kid?

Parents can make bad decisions. And now that parent has paid a heavy price. Now can you point to any post I've ever made that would even remotely suggest that an 8-year-old be given a fully-automatic weapon to fire? Because I'm interested in why you thought you should ask me such a question.

Oldhawk: "And you determined this how, smith?"

The obvious, obviously. She looks like she's about to take a nap and pull the trigger. But more concretely, since you need it spelled out, there is far more danger in what she has and what she is doing than if she does not have it. Do you get it yet? There is a far more likely chance she will shoot off the gun having it in her hands than if she had no gun to shoot off.

OldHawk: "Now can you point to any post I've ever made that would even remotely suggest that an 8-year-old be given a fully-automatic weapon to fire?"

Easily. You are against stricter laws.

We have what amounts to a voluntary background check system since there are so many loopholes.

And what, exactly, are those loopholes?

Let me ask you this: If you wanted to buy a gun without a background check, would you be able to do it? If you answer YES then you really have no business going around telling people that background checks are everywhere.

And if I ask around enough, I could probably buy some cocaine. That doesn't mean that stricter background checks on people buying their prescriptions at my local grocery store pharmacy will prevent that.

I never said background checks are everywhere. I said that background checks are everywhere that law-abiding people buy guns legally. I've said time and again that little-to-no effort is being made to stop the flow of illegally-traded weapons (see: Chicago). This latest piece of legislation was just another Capitol Hill diversion.

The obvious, obviously. She looks like she's about to take a nap and pull the trigger.

Except her finger isn't on the trigger. Obviously. So you used your ingrained prejudice instead of your powers of observation. As I expected.

Look out the window, cowboys.

See any injuns?

Nope.

They ain't none.

So what do you need firearms for?

Easily. You are against stricter laws.

Sorry, but 8-year-olds are already prohibited from possessing fully-automatic weapons. You have to have a Class 3 license, and 8-year-olds are well below the minimum age.

The left truly wants to take guns away from American citizens. This law contains a foot-in-the-door mechanism to lay the foundation for eventual gun confiscation.

Obama himself said to a colleague "I don't believe people should be able to own guns".

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/03/07/John-Lott-Obama-said-I-Don-t-Believe-People-Should-Be-Able-To-Own-Guns

The separation of powers is the only thing stopping him from doing what he wants. Republicans may draw the ire of Obama and the U.S. leftists, but they are doing what their constituents voted them in to do.

RR

The NRA are nothing but a lobby group for gun manufacturers.

They lie, bully and bribe their way through anything and anyone that think are remotely opposed to them.

The issue was about background checks for GUN SALES that take place at gun shows and that are sol privately.

Gun resellers and stores are already required to perform back ground checks before selling a gun. The NRA complained and fought the Implementation of that bill as well. The fact is GUN SALES though licensed dealers has increased over the years since the that bill was passed, which clearly demonstrates that the whole NRA argument at the time was rubbish.

Currently today, the only way for gangs, criminals and low volume illegal gun dealer can OBTAIN GUNS is through GUN SHOWS and PRIVATE SALES.

The fact that the NRA ARE CELEBRATING that these people can still access guns through these channels clearly shows you that the organisation is clearly lost touch with the reality on the ground.

Don't worry, the day will come when the USA will close this loop whole which is largely responsible for the deaths of thousands of its citizens every year. That will also be the day that the NRA wakes up and realises, just like the Republican party, that they really are out of touch with the majority of Americans.

The sooner that day comes the better.

A firearm can be "gifted" with zero background checks.

Yes, I can inherit my father's hunting guns. How would such a transaction be checked without total (national) gun registration?

In Nevada, North Dakota and South Carolina, there's no minimum age for owning a long gun. In Vermont, the minimum age for both handguns and long guns is 16. In Montana the minimum age for a long gun is 14.

Say, what are the violent crimes rates for those states? How they compare, with, say, Illinois?

Good night, everybody.

OldHawk: It's about self-defense and equality.

And sometimes putting up with 2-year olds getting shot in the head. Would you agree?

Currently today, the only way for gangs, criminals and low volume illegal gun dealer can OBTAIN GUNS is through GUN SHOWS and PRIVATE SALES.

Gun shows don't provide any type of legal loophole. Private sales are the only ways for gangs, criminals and low volume illegal gun dealers can obtain guns.

the difference between me and you (and cleo, GW, etc.), is that I at least try to understand the other culture. None of you try to understand mine.

No point trying to understand something that is unfathomable. As ever, the gun debate deteriorates into 'we need guns in America because America is such an unbelievably dangerous place'. I do not understand how anyone can seriously put that forward as an argument in favour of gun ownership, and yet still choose to live in a place they themselves characterise, graphically and emphatically, as being a cesspit of violent crime. if it's really so bad, and you want to protect yourself and your family, geddoutta there. If it isn't really so bad, then you're simply exaggerating and spinning porkies in an attempt to justify hanging onto your dangerous toys. In either case, the argument holds no water.

The FBI reviews criminal history, mental health and restraining-order records to weed out those who are legally barred from gun ownership.

The FBI checks are apparently not thorough enough to weed out moronic parents who want to put a loaded gun in the hands of a 5-year-old so that he can shoot his 2-year-old sister. If there is anything at all legal about that situation, the definition of 'legally barred from gun ownership' is way, way too slack, and it seems stricter checks - and laws - are in order.

8-year-olds are already prohibited from possessing fully-automatic weapons

It seems a fully-automatic weapon is not needed. A 5-year-old can kill his sister with a gun manufactured specifically for children.

what have these people done to you, or anyone else, dear cleo?

So, because I have never personally been in a traffic accident, I should have no opinion on who should be allowed to drive on the roads? (People with proper licenses that they had to take a test to obtain, please). Because I have never personally been in a plane crash, I should have no opinion about what kind of people should be given employment as pilots? (ditto). Because I have never personally got food poisoning from eating in a restaurant, I should not care whether restaurant workers wash their hands after going to the loo and before handling food? (Touch wood on all of the above)

And why are you more afraid of them than you are the actual criminals who victimize people?

Lemme see now....I would count the actual criminals among the scary people who think they need guns. They're not a separate group. Pity the pro-gun people cannot see this.

First, there is the cultural problem: the US has a culture of violence = war. As is frequently said, the US has lost just over 5,000 soldiers in 10 years of fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, but looses 11,000 EVERY year in the US. Second, there is the psychological dimension. American males are so emasculated by the power/money structure and the modern American woman, that holding and shooting off a gun is the only way to feel empowered. It makes them masculine again. Or at least makes them feel masculine, which is what is important to the US male ego. It has been written about alot.

Simple. Don't yell at each other here or anywhere else. It's wasting time. VOTE! If you don't like a certain law or support another law pertaining to guns then vote out or keep the politicians who support it or not. For example, if you were not happy about universal checks not being passed and if you have voting rights in a certain area then vote out those who have an "A" rating from the NRA. At the same time if you want the same laws to continue without changing (or perhaps have more open gun laws) then vote for them again. These days it's easy to find where politicians stand on gun laws.

Vote! There is more power in that than any gun created! The power of democracy. Keep it political and live with the results.

Now I remember, in relation to my post above, it is the "gun is a phallus symbol" psychology.

Keep it political and live with the results.

Nishikat@It's next to impossible for voters to overturn any of the amendments in the Bill or Rights. On the other hand, states that have attempted to rein in the gun epidemic with local legislation have found they have no way of preventing inflow of guns from neighboring states having few controls on sales. New York City, I recall, once blamed a high percentage of its drug-related killings and robberies on a surprisingly small number of so-called straw purchasers in Virginia, who used to buy up trunkloads of handguns and drive them into the city, where the guns were profitably resold to drug dealers. (Who I suppose needed protection a lot more than than do most feuding married couples.) It's obvious that the US desperately needs national laws for tracking and limiting individual purchases of both guns and ammunition. Try proposing that, and you'll get an immediate filibuster from reactionary South Carolina congressmen, who as far as I can tell are still fighting the Civil War (which their state started). Gun-related problems might have have been avoided if the U.S. Supreme Court had ruled in previous test cases decades ago that the 2nd Amendment -- which unambiguously states that the purpose of the right to bear arms is for organized, collective self-defense ("a well-regulated militia") -- must be followed to the letter.

Personally, I have yet to hear from someone bringing up the issue of "smart guns." You know, the ones that refuse to fire because they have some embedded technology like RFID or sensors or the grip....

No point trying to understand something that is unfathomable.

The right of the people to freely own arms in America goes to her very soul and founding as an independent nation. It was when she was still a British colony under her rule that British General Thomas Gage, the appointed royal governor of Massachusetts had sent 700 British soldiers to Lexington and Concord to confiscate arms and ammunition being accumulated by the colonists. This was immortalized by a poem by Ralph Waldo Emerson in which the term, "the shot heard round the world" was first used.

By the rude bridge that arched the flood, Their flag to April’s breeze unfurled, Here once the embattled farmers stood, And fired the shot heard round the world.

The actual war for independence in the U.S. was started by a government action trying to seize arms from the colonists. They weren't going to give them up then without a fight and Americans are not going to give them up now. American culture is a gun ownership culture and it is so much a part of the American experience that after independence was won that the right for private citizens to keep and bear arms was enshrined into the U.S constitution so it would remain so for all future generations. America, as all nations has been shaped by her unique history. In America, citizens defending the right to keep arms themselves is not something that ever will be cast over easily for those that wish to see guns banned in the U.S by force of law. It is part of America's historical DNA to resist such moves just as it was at the birth of the country itself.

In a nut shell, culture is just a set of attitudes, values and behaviors that are shared by a group of like minded individuals. Culture war is a merely a social interaction between groups with conflicting cultural perspectives. Culture wars can vary in intensity from simple debate to all out genocide; but one characteristic that is pretty uniform with almost all of them is that both sides hold that their cultural perspectives are superior and the other side’s inferior. So both sides use every argument they can to support their own agenda while at the same time make every effort to denigrate the opposition. No matter what the issue it always boils down to “us against them”.

So in fact Mr. Porter makes a pretty valid point when he refers to the current gun debate in America as a “culture war” because it is clearly a conflict between two distinctly contrasting points of view and both sides are doing their damnedest to demonstrate their superiority over their inferior opposites.

One interesting aspect of this current debate is the way that the opposing sides attempt to portray the opposition. A quick scan of the posts in this thread reveals a number of examples such as:

the sorriest examples of human behavior observable today.

Perhaps Darwanism will take care of the problem - except that such a large number of these people have a dozen barefoot children at home, so losing a couple due to weapons lying around is not such a problem.

What a stupid hick

a bunch of narrow-minded regressive idiots

gun-nutters

There’s not really anything from the other side in this thread but I have seen gun control advocates depicted as effete, unpatriotic elitists by some members of the American gun culture.

It appears, at least to me, that this culture war has more than just a little class conflict in it as well.

Again, it has to be political. VOTE!!

Is the NRA too hard? Actually some groups of pro-gun reformists think the NRA is too soft and the NRA is hated by these reformists just as much as those who think the NRA's only mission is to sell more guns. Just think what would happen if there are enough pro-gun reformists who vote. In that case the availability of guns more deadly than they already are would increase (and future guns will be more deadly as technology progresses). Fully automatic machine guns would be easily available without the expense or special permit, for example.

What you want or what you don't want just VOTE about it.

NRA kicks off annual convention, saying it is fighting 'culture war'

All I can say to that is these people are stark raving mad!

Old Hawk | "Let the debate begin."

The debate began. A majority of Americans wanted action. Big money from the gun industry stole their democratic rights. OldHawk throws up a smoke screen.

Come on, Right Wing. Let it all hang out for the world to see

I'm not sure there's much to see.

Come on, Right Wing. Let it all hang out for the world to see.

I doubt there's much to see

The left truly wants to take guns away from American citizens. This law contains a foot-in-the-door mechanism to lay the foundation for eventual gun confiscation.

Geez. What utter bollocks. Really, this is the kind of flagrantly dishonest, baseless fear-mongering one would expect from paid-hacks.

I wasn't convinced of the usefulness of some of the provisions of the defeated gun control bill (particularly with respect to limits on capacity of gun magazines) and believe an honest debate was warranted but this poster's comment is part of the problem; intelligent policy discussion is sacrificed to partisan claptrap.

But of course it's the Obama administration that's the cause of spiking sales of guns and ammunition. Eh?

I believe in the Second Amendment. I believe in people's lawful right to bear arms. I will not take your shotgun away. I will not take your rifle away. I won't take your handgun away. [ ] There are some common-sense gun safety laws that I believe in. But I am not going to take your guns away. So if you want to find an excuse not to vote for me, don't use that one. [ ] It just ain't true. - Obama

"The left truly wants to take guns away from American citizens. "

But the NRA is accused by some of being "truly" left as it is claimed that this organizations does not lobby for much more open gun laws than what we have today.

Left? Right? It's ridiculous?

cleo: The FBI checks are apparently not thorough enough to weed out moronic parents who want to put a loaded gun in the hands of a 5-year-old so that he can shoot his 2-year-old sister.

Yep.

Background checks only try to stop criminals, but stories of legal yet irresponsible gun owners are endless. It's pure collateral damage that no gun supporters will admit to, instead switching the conversation to how safe they are personally with guns, as if that somehow erases the fact that a 2-year old got shot. They see no link at all between their position on guns and the collateral damage that happens from them.

But the NRA is accused by some of being "truly" left as it is claimed that this organizations does not lobby for much more open gun laws than what we have today. Left? Right? It's ridiculous?

You have a point but Ted Nugent is trying to rectify the NRA to a more stern pro-gun position. NRA not giving an inch now to the LIbs/Globalists/right sell-outs etc.

You have the huge financial issues with no prosecutions and are only getting worse. Extremely large Gov/DHS build-up of guns/ammo/drones etc. Gov/ATF openly giving guns to Mexican gangs/criminals "ATF Fast and Furious." No warrant home entry and forced evictions by gunpoint (Boston).

==> People are buying guns in the largest numbers I have ever seen and ammo supply is short. People are buying physical gold and silver in the largest numbers I have ever seen. Gov is more out of control (debt) and seems to be gearing toward war (this includes Japan) -certainly they are building up for it. People are storing food and growing gardens (inflation).

It appears, at least to me, that this culture war has more than just a little class conflict in it as well.

Nice observation, Kuya, though it really has less to do with class than where the classes are located - and thus, it is much more cultural-based.

A certain segment of American society seems socially schizophrenic: They bemoan, for example, the very government spending that keeps their societies afloat. Similarly (and there are many other examples), they fear the police state but continue to support policies that will only bring the police state closer, and that is unrestricted access to weapons.

The NRA and its ilk has a stereo message for America: To those who are relatively rational, they pretend to offer rational solutions to the horrible violence guns have brought to America - but always with caveats that make such achievement impossible. To those enveloped in the "cultural zone," they offer coded messages to stimulate paranoia.

Thus, "We support universal background checks for gun sales" is rapidly subverted to "records must not be kept for longer than milliseconds and must not create any undue (and we'll define that adjective for you, thank you very much) burdens to lawful gun owners." At the same time, the message to the faithful is this: "Background checks will necessarily lead to a national gun registry, and the next thing you know, the black helicopters will be hovering over your home compound, preparing to call in the drones." Any rational argument from the NRA ilk is immediately subverted by dog whistles to the faithful.

There is also a terrible strawman-ism that immediately appears whenever this issue is discussed. Witness the above comments on how the government wants to take guns away from Americans. It begins like this: "We need a more rational approach to gun ownership in America." "Sounds nice - but you want to take away our guns, right?" "No: That is nowhere on the agenda. We simply want greater efforts at keeping guns out of the hands of those who would misuse them." "You want to take away our guns, don't you?" "No, we WILL NOT TAKE AWAY YOUR GUNS." "YOU WILL TAKE AWAY OUR GUNS!"

Ad naseum. In the meantime, the death toll climbs.

And if I ask around enough, I could probably buy some cocaine. That doesn't mean that stricter background checks on people buying their prescriptions at my local grocery store pharmacy will prevent that.

Beautiful strawman argument! It boils down to this: Laws exist, yet people continue to break the laws; therefore, laws are useless.

OldHawk, a better example would be: Stricter background checks on pharmacies could prevent people from abusing prescription medication. Know what? - They do!

OldHawk: I own a .22 caliber semiautomatic rifle that was used for target practice. But I also believe that there must be more controls on gun buying with similar standards in all states. Your argument ("The people with no personal experience with guns") goes out the window in my case. And I think there are plenty more people who feel like I do. So there, you're wrong.

1: .22 ammo is the hardest to get right now. 2: for target practice you really want a bolt action. 3: worst case .22 scenario => buy a Marlin 39AS etc (great gun) and shoot varying .22 long/short in it.

<http://www.mtguns.com/cm-2.htm > Probably the best .22 Match you can get for the price "From Russia with love" (US Shooting Team JR entry level gun)

...completely missing the irony that they oppose the U.S. securing its southern border with a third-world country that is effectively run by drug cartels.

WaPo's fact checker had this to say on cross-border gun trafficking claims:

Given the lack of hard data from Mexico, we can't calculate a precise figure for what portion of crime guns have been traced to the U.S. Based on the best evidence we can find so far, we conclude that the 90 percent claim made by the president and others in his administration lacks a basis in solid fact. But we also conclude that the number is at least double what Fox News has reported, based on its reporters' mistaken interpretation of ATF testimony. Whether the number is 90 percent, or 36 percent, or something else, there's no dispute that thousands of guns are being illegalIy transported into Mexico by way of the United States each year.

NolivingMAY. 04, 2013 - 02:25PM JST Gun shows don't provide any type of legal loophole. Private sales are the only ways for gangs, criminals and low volume illegal gun dealers can obtain guns.

And the NRA clearly supports this!

Ted Nugent is a rock singer.

"Gov/ATF openly giving guns to Mexican gangs/criminals" F&F is a non-story now and when you google it a movie comes up.

Not only did the violence not happen, but at many of the rallies, the T.E.A. Party folks brought their own trash bags and picked up after themselves. Meanwhile, Leftists at the Occupy rallies committed thefts, vandalized property, committed sexual assaults and rapes, and defecated on police cars.

TEA Party rallies last for a few hours on average. Isn't it rather foolish to compare that to actions which go 24/7 and can last for weeks?

And can you prove the crimes above were, in fact, committed by "leftists" and not right-wing impostors out to damage the image of a movement which officially rejects violence? We know that the right-wingers have it in them, and are no strangers to using excrement. Take the famous NRA member and weapons-advocate, Ted Nugent. In order to evade service in the military during Vietnam, he showed up at his draft board smeared in his own feces.

I strongly suspect that the vast majority of NRA/TEA party members don't have the kind of 24/7 days-long commitment in them. It would not take very long or very much provocation for their conspiratorial and ignorance-fueled anger to boil over among themselves -- especially once their Port-a-Potties were taken away, the entertainment stopped, and night fell.

Leftists? Someone mentioned the left? Why do people always connect the left and gun control? There are a lot of gun control policies originating from the Right. Namely Nixon and Reagan. Nixon even wanted a handgun ban.

In the same way that those who have never wanted or needed a gun cannot fathom the logic behind the feeling that guns are so necessary, those who have always been around guns and use them can't imagine life without them. But there is no doubt that the latter are the biggest losers!

@Sailwind,

Thanks for keeping part of my post alive.

Sorry buddy: The fact is that toddlers are more at risk from... is still pretty dismissive.

Ted Nugent is a rock singer.

Has-been rock singer and current gun nut.

Good point, Yabits!

Right now, taxpayers — be it those who responsibly own gun, those who recklessly do, or those who have never even touched a firearm — take on the financial burden of guns: violent crimes are estimated to cost taxpayers $3.7 billion every year.

It's time that these freeloaders face up to the cost they accrue to society.

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/04/02/1812251/gun-liability-insurance/?mobile=nc

My father keeps a gun by his bed. He even asked my wife if she wanted to see last time we visited. What he didn't know was that my wife and I went to Guam and decided to go to one of the gun ranges there and shoot a few. A blast! I own two guns, both given to me by my two grandfathers, one's a shotgun, the other's a 22 rifle. We used to skeet shoot on my grandfathers land in Illinois over the Thanksgiving holidays when I was a kid, and some Rabbit and Quail hunting.

One BIG problem is the cheap $100. gun manufactures that surround big cities feeding the gangs. You never hear about this problem. I am pro-gun and pro back round checks. What I don't understand is how those clicking the "BAD" button on some posts. It's like you have never read a history book before. Sometimes governments DO NOT act in it's citizens best interest. Keeping them afraid is in our best interests.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And before the "bad" finger clicking ensues, we all love guns, otherwise there would be no war.

It's time that these freeloaders face up to the cost they accrue to society

At the very least, let society give the freeloaders a very powerful financial incentive to police themselves and their collection of guns and ammunition much more effectively.

Every gun that gets into the wrong hands was once in the custody of someone who possessed it lawfully, though perhaps not responsibly. Private insurance would be able to be applied at the point of the transfer of custody of every firearm. The cost of the policy to someone who "loses" a weapon would, in most cases, increase to the point where they would be stored far more securely to begin with -- which is what should happen.

It's not a perfect solution. Nothing is. But "perfect" should never become the enemy of the good.

Other than requiring that all gun owners maintain liability insurance, the government would not have to be involved with the details.

I hardly think providing insurance companies billions of dollars in windfall profits is very smart and really is a dumb idea. Requiring a law abiding citizen who owns a gun to purchase a liability insurance policy that will only pay out if they stop being law abiding is just giving money away to the insurance companies. I promise I won't be a criminal premium payments each month to an insurance company?? Turns the whole innocent until proven guilty concept upside down.

And those that are criminals certainly aren't going to sign up with Allstate the good hands people that is for sure to fork over a monthly premium. Secondly just like your car if someone steals it and uses it to commit a crime your not liable and if your gun is stolen there will still be no insurance payout to the victims either.

they are used for recreational shooting

= simulated killing.

it is kind of ironic that something that is designed to kill kills less people recreationally than activities that are not.

What are you trying to say? that when people shoot other people with guns, it usually isn't 'recreational' so it's OK? Unavoidable? Ironic?

the irony of that statement of it isn't designed to kill yet it keeps killing more people every year than something that is designed to kill.

Average annual gun-related deaths in the US 2005-2009: 31,151

There was a case in Florida where three young men wanted to beat some pedestrian up randomly but they picked a fight with a guy who was carrying. Florida has "Stand Your Ground". The victim shot one of the three attackers justifiably. But when he continued to shoot and I believe killed one of the others who was at that point running away then the original victim was charged with a crime.

cleo:

No point trying to understand something that is unfathomable.

Millions of people have no problem understanding it, so perhaps the issue is on your end.

As ever, the gun debate deteriorates into 'we need guns in America because America is such an unbelievably dangerous place'. I do not understand how anyone can seriously put that forward as an argument in favour of gun ownership, and yet still choose to live in a place they themselves characterise, graphically and emphatically, as being a cesspit of violent crime. if it's really so bad, and you want to protect yourself and your family, geddoutta there.

We would like to change the conditions of where we live, can you understand that? When it comes to moving to a safer place, it sounds easy to you, but how many can afford to live in a $750,000+ neighborhood that comes with a security gate and a security team? A $500 gun is a much more viable option. would we rather have a less violent society? Of course. But NO substantive attempts are being made to prevent violent crime.

The FBI checks are apparently not thorough enough to weed out moronic parents who want to put a loaded gun in the hands of a 5-year-old so that he can shoot his 2-year-old sister.

And how, exactly, would you test for that?

It seems a fully-automatic weapon is not needed. A 5-year-old can kill his sister with a gun manufactured specifically for children.

Or a child can get killed with a motorcycle manufactured specifically for children. Parents bear the responsibility.

So, because I have never personally been in a traffic accident...

What does that rant have to do with private gun owners? Are you a criminal who preys on others? Are you wanting a safer work environment for you life of crime? No? Then my gun is no threat to you.

Lemme see now....I would count the actual criminals among the scary people who think they need guns. They're not a separate group. Pity the pro-gun people cannot see this.

No, pity you, who cannot tell the difference between criminals who victimize others, and innocent people who pose no threat to to you and simply do not want to be victims.

gokai wo maneku:

Second, there is the psychological dimension. American males are so emasculated by the power/money structure and the modern American woman, that holding and shooting off a gun is the only way to feel empowered. It makes them masculine again. Or at least makes them feel masculine, which is what is important to the US male ego. It has been written about alot. Now I remember, in relation to my post above, it is the "gun is a phallus symbol" psychology.

Wow, that's bizarre. Obviously it was written about by people who completely ignored the hundreds of thousands of American women who own guns to defend their bodies.

zichi:

Most of the firearms used by Mexican drug cartels, which are usually handguns, are manufactured and bought in America through "straw man" purchases, who acquire arms on behalf of others with the intention of being trafficked to Mexico.

We could try securing the border. It would have a number of positive effects. But I'm told that doing so is somehow "racist".

gcbel:

I believe in the Second Amendment. I believe in people's lawful right to bear arms. I will not take your shotgun away. I will not take your rifle away. I won't take your handgun away. [ ] There are some common-sense gun safety laws that I believe in. But I am not going to take your guns away. So if you want to find an excuse not to vote for me, don't use that one. [ ] It just ain't true. - Obama

If you've got a health care plan that you like, you can keep it. - Obama

The sequester is not something that I've proposed. It is something that Congress has proposed. - Obama

We got back every dime we used to rescue the financial system. - Obama

Every idea that we've put forward are ones that traditionally have been supported by Democrats and Republicans alike. - Obama

For the first time since 1990, American manufacturers are creating new jobs. - Obama

We've excluded lobbyists from policy-making jobs. - Obama

I didn't raise taxes once. - Obama

Sorry, gcbel, but Obama lies a lot.

Superlib:

Background checks only try to stop criminals, but stories of legal yet irresponsible gun owners are endless. It's pure collateral damage that no gun supporters will admit to, instead switching the conversation to how safe they are personally with guns, as if that somehow erases the fact that a 2-year old got shot. They see no link at all between their position on guns and the collateral damage that happens from them.

Because it's impossible to stop all parents from making any mistakes. Some people aren't connected enough to reality to realize that. After all, neither of you have proposed a viable solution.

Laguna:

A certain segment of American society seems socially schizophrenic: They bemoan, for example, the very government spending that keeps their societies afloat. Similarly (and there are many other examples), they fear the police state but continue to support policies that will only bring the police state closer, and that is unrestricted access to weapons.

Could you please list the countries that have had a police state with an armed citizenry? Because unless I'm mistaken, every police state in history was over a disarmed populace. Otherwise, the police state never would have been possible to enforce.

WaPo's fact checker had this to say on cross-border gun trafficking claims:

What did WaPo have to say about cross-border drug-trafficking and gang migration?

It's time that these freeloaders face up to the cost they accrue to society.

So how do you propose to levy this liability cost on drug dealers, gang-bangers, muggers, and rapists?

zichi:

In 2010 the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) ran 16,454,951 background checks for firearms purchases. Only a small number of these purchases (78,211 or 0.48 percent) were denied.

That's because criminals tend to avoid the types of purchases that require background checks. They seem to prefer back-alleys, crack houses, and just plain stealing them. None of which were covered in the recent legislation.

yabits:

And can you prove the crimes above were, in fact, committed by "leftists" and not right-wing impostors out to damage the image of a movement which officially rejects violence?

Hahahahahahahahahahaha!!! "It's a conspiracy!" Riiiiight. And I suppose it's right-wing imposters that commit the violence and vandalism at G8/G20 summits, WHO summits, and every other time that Leftists gather to protest? I repeat: Hahahahahahahahahahaha!!!

I strongly suspect that the vast majority of NRA/TEA party members don't have the kind of 24/7 days-long commitment in them.

Perhaps. Or perhaps they have jobs/families to return to and do so because they're responsible people.

Lots of bad things happened in the past. F&F is simply one of them. What is the point of bringing it up now? Nothing about it panned out except it was a big screw up. What kind of "stories" are bouncing around in the Internet about it just like the Texas lady shooter story? Should someone go to prison over F&F? I haven't heard any news about it. Are there any court cases going on about it? No? Then the issue is in the past.

No, about Google (in the real substantiated news) the Google test car had one accident and it was the fault of the other car's driver. It's not a conspiracy. I guarantee that and unlike F&F it is in the current news and becoming more and more relevant.

Cars are getting safer and guns are getting more deadly. Why are cars still being brought up in gun law debates? The Google cars will use sensors (more effective than human senses) to avoid accidents, not Google maps.

Interesting thread here. Never really weighed in on the whole gun issue. But after reading each post, Id have to side with OldHawk. If I ever lived in the US, Id feel much safer with a gun on me for protection.

Securing the border is to stop Mexicans and other illegals entering America and isn't about stopping American handguns reaching the drug cartels.

True but that would also be one of the unintended benefits is that it would stop the flow of guns to our southern and northern borders.

Abe wouldn't be so quick to change the constitution if the people were armed. GET IT!!!!

We are all debating hopefully in a friendly manner here but no one needs an apology. I actually care about gun ownership since I have family who love to hunt. I also have family who needed a gun for possible protection (they didn't use it) like a hurricane aftermath -- a relative of mine borrowed his friend's gun for that.

I'm bullish about Mexico. But even if they stop coming from the USA (which I believe they are) they will -- sometime in the future -- be made anywhere in the world with 3D printing technology. Won't be as good as a precision made Glock, for example. But even with Universal checks (which I do believe in) eventually they can be made in people's basements anywhere in the world. I'm just wondering how good they will be compared to a gun made in a real gun factory.

America is the cosmopolitan experiment. Is it working? Minorities in the inner cities, the hive of criminal activity. And let's not forget Wall Street. Maybe different races just don't like living together. Face it!

The American guns entering Mexico don't need to cross the border like illegals and drugs do when entering the States. The guns can travel across the border in cars and trucks or in boats by sea. No one is searching for anything entering Mexico.

American border agents can't enforce Mexican law only Mexican border agents can, with that being said if you try to cross into Mexico any any location that is not a designated cross point I have a strong feeling that American border agents will try and stop you instead of just watching you cross the border into Mexico.

And that's the beauty of America, it's always changing.

American agents can't even stop the drugs entering America from Mexico. Why would they even care about stopping illegally obtained guns entering Mexico from the States.

Because those guns go to the people smuggling drugs into America and a lot of those of smugglers are armed with firearms when entering the US.

And I suppose it's right-wing imposters that commit the violence and vandalism at G8/G20 summits, WHO summits,

You specifically mentioned Occupy. Can you prove that the Occupy Movement teaches or promotes the kind of violence you described? (A visit to the Occupy site, or attending any of their meetings would quickly prove the opposite. On the other hand, the FBI has tallied around 75 bombing plans or attempts domestically after 9/11, with nearly 45 having extremist right-wing perpetrators, and another 25 sourced to Islamic extremists.)

And is it not foolish to try to compare an event like a Tea Party rally or NRA convention, where people are together for usually far less than one day at any given stretch, to an action where people are there 24/7 for weeks and even months? It is clear that some on the right wing have a deep fear and loathing of Occupy movement, mainly sprung from jealousy in knowing its own members could never muster anything close to that kind of commitment.

The lady's face in the picture speaks volumes. The caption should have her saying, "And I wasted what's left of my sorry life on this?"

sailwind: a law abiding citizen

The parents of the little girl who was shot were probably law abiding citizens, but it didn't stop her death. The Newtown shooter got his guns from a law abiding citizen. The guy who sells his guns online and doesn't have to do a background check is a law abiding citizen. Same with private sellers at a lot of gun shows. The gun owner who shares the house with a person with mental problems is a law abiding citizen. The gun shop owner who loses guns but isn't required to take inventory to know they are missing is a law abiding citizen. The parent who leaves his guns in places where children can reach them is a law abiding citizen.

You often throw out the term "law abiding citizen" as if they have no part in senseless gun deaths and any regulation that is a burden to them is off the table.

OldHawk: Because unless I'm mistaken, every police state in history was over a disarmed populace. Because unless I'm mistaken, every police state in history was over a disarmed populace.

Were they liberal democracies with checks and balances like the United States? I hope so or else we're comparing apples and oranges. And last I checked there are exponentially more examples of disarmed populaces that did not turn into police states so any example you could give me would be the exception, not the rule. Don't be so paranoid.

Because it's impossible to stop all parents from making any mistakes. Some people aren't connected enough to reality to realize that.

Account for everyone?!?! Are you crazy?!?! There's no way we could possibly do that. We want the rights to sell guns to just about everyone but of course we can't account for stupid people. Sheesh!

We would like to change the conditions of where we live, can you understand that? A $500 gun is a much more viable option. would we rather have a less violent society? Of course. But NO substantive attempts are being made to prevent violent crime.

Well based on your position we could flood places like Chicago with guns to law abiding citizens. That should take care of the gun/crime problem. Tucson is doing it now by giving away free shotguns. If they can get 500,000 or so out there crime is bound to fall!

There is a culture war going on in the USA, but the gun issue is simply one battle front, and the reason it gets so much attention is because its an easy target and spurs hot debate. It's also an excellent vehicle for diverting attention and energies into a morass with very little chance of deeper socially significant impact.

At its root, the culture war in the USA is a profoundly difficult issue: intransigent subjective agenda exacerbated by entrenched entitlement-bias. This pervades virtually every debated issue in the USA at all levels. From the gun debate to educational revisionism, from foreign policy to local politics, and the big bugbear of social ills in the USA, crime: it's fueled by entitlement bias.

But the sad fact of this culture war is that virtually all combatants are on the wrong side: they're pretty much all fighting to insure that their collection of entitlements win out over one or more countervailing sets of entitlements. This is not the way to fix things.

In truth, the real struggle is for values like responsibility and accountability, tolerance and respect, rational and critical thinking, cooperation and compromise, and the courage and commitment to face the tough issues and genuinely work toward something better for everyone even if you don't personally like where it takes you.

The culture war in the USA is being fought by, and between a bunch of five-year-olds...

No, it's urban legend. I'm not aware of any state that considers shooting someone in the back "self-defense".

In Boston you can obviously do this. =Check out pictures of the unarmed kid that was in that boat. Note: he was found by a citizen after the curfew was lifted (the patrol missed his street).

We know that the right-wingers have it in them, and are no strangers to using excrement. Take the famous NRA member and weapons-advocate, Ted Nugent. In order to evade service in the military during Vietnam, he showed up at his draft board smeared in his own feces.

He was expressing himself thru his art ==> What did you expect?

http://www.snopes.com/politics/military/nugent.asp (story sort of true and sort of not)

Is this topic really gonna hit 300 comments? It is the weekend and the mods are away so there is a shot.

Do you want me to keep feeding this and pumping up the heat? Kind of a weak general topic "NRA Convention" and "Culture War" so I'm not sure if it can last.

Yes, guns which are legally bought under current gun laws and illegally sold on and exported by Americans. An illegal or Mexican drug gang member can't buy any firearm in the States? But like President Obama said today, American guns are not only killing Americans but also thousands of innocent Mexicans.

Absolutely. I really don't get where you are going with this considering we are in agreement on this.

The cause is that America is a very violent society.

The evidence of this is in the symbols and rhetoric used. A certain segment of Americans have declared "war" on a growing percentage of other Americans simply because that latter group's ideas about guns have changed over time. Violence, and threat of violence, is at the core of the current NRA leadership's sick belief system.

Take a very close look at the fourth photo in the series above. The "citizen" is wearing a T-shirt with an image of a handgun and the words: "I DON'T DIAL 911." In other words, his message is: "In case of an emergency, I opt for the violent response."

And even though the story was false, some people relish and applaud the story of an armed woman shooting a man who is running away from her six times in the back and killing him, and hold it up as some kind of ideal to achieve.

While I believe that a fear and abhorrence of guns is unhealthy, it's also very clear that, on the opposite extreme, people who send out messages about fighting wars against their fellow citizens, and choosing violence as the first, most preferable option are unhealthy in the extreme. Just the kind of people a decent society would not want possessing lethal firepower. (Not without a heckuva lot of liability insurance, anyway.)

The lady's face in the picture speaks volumes. The caption should have her saying, "And I wasted what's left of my sorry life on this?"

Oh good grief, Ms. Bero is holding a WWII era German Luger at the NRA antique guns and gold showcase as the caption states. Given her age the Luger is more than likely a family heirloom from an American soldier in her family who acquired it as a war trophy and more than likely has a deep personal history for the Bero family on how it came into their possession. She's holding a piece of history.

zichi:

Obama blames American guns for Mexican deaths: ‘Most of the guns used to commit violence here in Mexico come from the United States’

Of course he does. Have you ever seen Obama accept the blame when something has gone wrong? Of course, the irony of Obama, Commander-in-Chief of Fast & Furious, making this public claim, is lost on you.

By the way, maybe this will help prevent you from blindly repeating Obama's propaganda: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/04/02/myth-percent-small-fraction-guns-mexico-come/

The American guns entering Mexico don't need to cross the border like illegals and drugs do when entering the States. The guns can travel across the border in cars and trucks or in boats by sea. No one is searching for anything entering Mexico.

You've never crossed the border, have you? If so, you would know how false your claim is.

Americans frequently blame Mexican drug cartels for the "American Drug Problem" remove the drugs and there wouldn't be a problem, which isn't actually true.

It's often been said that legalizing marijuana would be a great way to undermine the power of drug cartels. In fact, when California considered legalizing it just a year or two ago, it was those same Mexican drug cartels that opposed the legislation.

The same could be said about how easy it for strawmen to buy guns in America and sell them on to the cartels. All of those strawmen are Americans who can buy the guns in the first place. Stop the gun sales and the level of violence in Mexico will fall.

It worked for Chicago... oh wait...

American agents can't even stop the drugs entering America from Mexico.

They catch quite a bit. But is the border secure? No, it isn't. Imagine what they could catch with a secure border.

Why would they even care about stopping illegally obtained guns entering Mexico from the States.

Same reason(s) they do now.

Under current gun laws, strawmen buy guns and sell them on for export to drug cartels in Mexico who in turn not only use them to kill other Mexicans but also also border agents and other Americans who get in the way of their drug smuggling. Clearly, its a loophole in the law which needs closing.

Wait, are those purchases legal or not? In your previous post, you claim they're "illegally obtained guns", but now you're claiming those guns were legally purchased and it's a "loophole" issue.

Strawmen purchases are already illegal, so there is no loophole. The recent legislation would have done nothing to change that situation. Try again.

nishikat:

I'm bullish about Mexico. But even if they stop coming from the USA (which I believe they are) they will -- sometime in the future -- be made anywhere in the world with 3D printing technology. Won't be as good as a precision made Glock, for example. But even with Universal checks (which I do believe in) eventually they can be made in people's basements anywhere in the world. I'm just wondering how good they will be compared to a gun made in a real gun factory.

There was actually a movie about that. Sort of. Twenty years ago, Clint Eastwood and John Malkovich did In the Line of Fire, which was about a Secret Service agent (Eastwood) and a would-be assassin (Malkovich) who had made a small two-shot pistol out of high-grade ceramics. It was a pretty good movie. Of course, 3D printing technology isn't near that level yet. The materials are far from being able to withstand the pressure released from even light ammo. But you're right, one day it could happen.

Laguna:

There is also a terrible strawman-ism that immediately appears whenever this issue is discussed. Witness the above comments on how the government wants to take guns away from Americans. It begins like this: "We need a more rational approach to gun ownership in America." "Sounds nice - but you want to take away our guns, right?" "No: That is nowhere on the agenda. We simply want greater efforts at keeping guns out of the hands of those who would misuse them." "You want to take away our guns, don't you?" "No, we WILL NOT TAKE AWAY YOUR GUNS." "YOU WILL TAKE AWAY OUR GUNS!"

Type "Biden gun control the beginning" into any search engine and see what pops up.

sailwind:

And those that are criminals certainly aren't going to sign up with Allstate the good hands people that is for sure to fork over a monthly premium. Secondly just like your car if someone steals it and uses it to commit a crime your not liable and if your gun is stolen there will still be no insurance payout to the victims either.

Another problem with yabits' idea (given to him by Rep. Maloney, D-NY), is that it puts another financial burden on legal gun owners, and legal gun owners only. Especially Maloney's version, because not buying insurance would result in a $10,000 fine. If that isn't a "dis-incentive" to buy a gun legally, what is? And imagine the conversation with the insurance agent, who doesn't know a sportbike from a pickup truck from an AR-15 from an N-frame Smith & Wesson Model 29:

Mr. Hawk, do you keep you guns loaded in the house?

Of course.

Mr. Hawk, do you have a gun safe?

Of course.

Mr. Hawk, do you ever take your guns out of the house loaded?

I have a carry permit.

So that's a yes?

Yes.

Mr. Hawk, have you ever used a gun in self-defense?

Yes.

Did you fire the gun in that incident?

No. Once the mugger realized that I was armed and he was a split-second from being shot, he let go of the strap around my neck and ran off into the night.

That's not a headache I need or deserve, just to provide for my own defense.

yabits:

You specifically mentioned Occupy.

I could have mentioned the Earth Liberation Front, A.N.S.W.E.R., the World Worker's Party (or whatever their name is), or any of a number of other Leftist anarchist-wanna-be groups.

Can you prove that the Occupy Movement teaches or promotes the kind of violence you described?

They don't have to. They're completely populated by Leftists.

(A visit to the Occupy site, or attending any of their meetings would quickly prove the opposite. On the other hand, the FBI has tallied around 75 bombing plans or attempts domestically after 9/11, with nearly 45 having extremist right-wing perpetrators, and another 25 sourced to Islamic extremists.)

A source for your FBI claims, please.

And is it not foolish to try to compare an event like a Tea Party rally or NRA convention, where people are together for usually far less than one day at any given stretch, to an action where people are there 24/7 for weeks and even months?

Why, because Leftists can only behave themselves for so long? Perhaps y'all should have shorter events.

It is clear that some on the right wing have a deep fear and loathing of Occupy movement,

Gee, can't imagine why... ;)

mainly sprung from jealousy in knowing its own members could never muster anything close to that kind of commitment.

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Thanks for the laugh! Have to admit, that was a pretty good punch line, I didn't see it coming.

Oh wait, were you serious...?

SuperLib:

The Newtown shooter got his guns from a law abiding citizen.

By murdering her. We should pass a law to prevent that.

The guy who sells his guns online and doesn't have to do a background check is a law abiding citizen.

Which guy? I've already explained the process of online gun purchases, and it most certainly does include a background check by an FFL holder. If you're going to make such claims, provide proof.

The gun shop owner who loses guns but isn't required to take inventory to know they are missing is a law abiding citizen.

How is a gun shop owner not required to take inventory? How is any retail business not required to take inventory? I have to take inventory for my business, and I don't even sell guns. Every business that sells any products has to take inventory for taxes, if nothing else.

Seriously, how do you come up with this stuff?

The parent who leaves his guns in places where children can reach them is a law abiding citizen.

That's only in certain states/counties that don't have such laws.

Were they liberal democracies with checks and balances like the United States?

They may have started off that way, but they didn't remain that way.

Again, I asked you: Could you please list the countries that have had a police state with an armed citizenry? When are you going to answer that question?

Account for everyone?!?! Are you crazy?!?! There's no way we could possibly do that.

Somehow, cleo thinks we can. Haven't heard her explain how yet, but I suspect it has something to do with the U.S. being "the richest country on Earth".

Well based on your position we could flood places like Chicago with guns to law abiding citizens. That should take care of the gun/crime problem.

Apparently, you've never heard of the book, "More Guns, Less Crime." Perhaps, like zichi, you refuse to acknowledge any information that challenges your views.

yabits:

Take a very close look at the fourth photo in the series above. The "citizen" is wearing a T-shirt with an image of a handgun and the words: "I DON'T DIAL 911." In other words, his message is: "In case of an emergency, I opt for the violent response."

Obviously, it has never occurred to you that violence is an appropriate response in certain situations. Would you rather I called 911 when that mugger put that strap around my neck? Ah, but I didn't own a mobile phone then (they weren't very common at that time), and I had a strap around my neck preventing me from breathing, much less telling a 911 dispatcher where I was and hoping the police would arrive before I ran out of oxygen.

zichi:

Which State do you live in?

Tennessee.

The Revolutionary War started in April, 1775 when agents of the Crown tried to seize the guns and powder at Concord and Lexington, Massachusetts. Also known as the "shot heard 'round the world". Admiral Yamamoto knew about our gun culture when he cautioned against invading the US west coast. Machiavelli equated gun ownership to freedom in the case of the Germans and the Swiss in The Prince. We'll keep our guns.

And don't forget about the Irish. Fighting the Brits for Independence. 1920s. My GOD how you anti gun people forget your history

Switzerland has very good training for those who have guns. What other factors are different from the US. Any Swiss out there? You are doing something right.

OldHawk: I've already explained the process of online gun purchases, and it most certainly does include a background check by an FFL holder. If you're going to make such claims, provide proof.

LOL. You know what I'm talking about. Playing cute little vocabulary games is a waste of time. I'll just setting for my original point: You personally know you can get a gun legally without a background check. Time to move on. I get the point that you're disingenuous so there's no need to keep hammering it over and over.

How is a gun shop owner not required to take inventory? How is any retail business not required to take inventory? I have to take inventory for my business, and I don't even sell guns. Every business that sells any products has to take inventory for taxes, if nothing else.

Playing dumb isn't the best strategy for debate. I've owned businesses, too. If you need me to explain the process of counting inventory that doesn't include a physical count, then let me know and I'll be happy to help. But I suspect you already know.

That's only in certain states/counties that don't have such laws.

Well it's good to know that common sense isn't universal.

Again, I asked you: Could you please list the countries that have had a police state with an armed citizenry? When are you going to answer that question?

Could you please list the countries that have unarmed citizens and are police states? You are the exception rather than the rule. But you already know this.

Apparently, you've never heard of the book, "More Guns, Less Crime."

You didn't answer my question. Should we flood Chicago with guns as a plan to reduce crime? And considering that we have hundreds of millions of guns in this country why aren't we the safest country on the planet? Perhaps you should read the book, "More Guns, More Gun Deaths." It's written by Common P. Sense.

I get the feeling that I could loan you my car and you'd bring it back with dents, scratches, a missing stereo, two flat tires, and a stain on the seat, and your only response would be "That stain was already there."

OldHawk

Apparently, you've never heard of the book, "More Guns, Less Crime

..written by disgraced academic and darling of the NRA, John Lott (aka Mary Rosh).

Here's what even Conservapedia (no ambiguity about their leanings) says about Lott: Lott gained press scorn after using a pseudonym to praise his book and teaching. Pretending to be a former student of Lott's, Lott called himself "the best professor I ever had". He also earned criticism from conservative Michelle Malkin, who refused to engage in a radio debate with Lott.

any more straws to clutch at?

Superlib:

LOL. You know what I'm talking about. Playing cute little vocabulary games is a waste of time. I'll just setting for my original point: You personally know you can get a gun legally without a background check. Time to move on. I get the point that you're disingenuous so there's no need to keep hammering it over and over.

No, you specifically said "online". You asked if I could find a way to buy a gun without a background check. Yes, but you didn't ask about online. Now you're asserting that a gun can be bought legally online without a background check. Moving the goal posts? I'll call you out on it. Unless you can show an online dealer who does sells without background checks, you are doing nothing but making baseless assertions. Talking out of your sphincter, in other words. The law requires online dealers to ship to FFLs who are legally required to do background checks before sending the gun to the customer. Period.

Playing dumb isn't the best strategy for debate. I've owned businesses, too. If you need me to explain the process of counting inventory that doesn't include a physical count, then let me know and I'll be happy to help. But I suspect you already know.

I've always had to do a physical count. I would certainly think the same would be expected of any legal gun dealer. Losing guns is frowned upon by the BATF. They prosecuted someone just last year for it, if I remember correctly.

Could you please list the countries that have unarmed citizens and are police states?

Once again, you cannot back up your previous posts. Thanks for making that perfectly clear.

You didn't answer my question. Should we flood Chicago with guns as a plan to reduce crime? And considering that we have hundreds of millions of guns in this country why aren't we the safest country on the planet?

Because it's already been answered. Cities and states in the U.S. with higher percentages of legal gun owners have lower violent crime rates. It's only common sense that violent criminals are less likely to attack people they think will shoot them. Chicago is already flooded with guns, but the victims aren't allowed to have any. That's the Left's insane, idiotic, self-defeating, cosmically stupid idea of "common sense".

Perhaps you should read the book, "More Guns, More Gun Deaths." It's written by Common P. Sense.

It must have been written in your fictional country that is a police state with an armed citizenry.

I get the feeling that I could loan you my car and you'd bring it back with dents, scratches, a missing stereo, two flat tires, and a stain on the seat, and your only response would be "That stain was already there."

It's not my fault you are brimming with prejudice that is founded in bigotry and expressed through fantasy.

Get Real:

..written by disgraced academic and darling of the NRA, John Lott ... any more straws to clutch at?

Any problems with the fact that less violent crime exists where the potential victims are armed?

@get real, you mentioned Michelle Melkin, the super-neocon. She's part of the Neocon Statist faction that the failed wannabe Marxist Romney represented. She should get a clue.

OldHawk: You asked if I could find a way to buy a gun without a background check. Yes

Very good.

I've always had to do a physical count. I would certainly think the same would be expected of any legal gun dealer.

I really hope you're joking here.

Chicago is already flooded with guns, but the victims aren't allowed to have any.

So would you support giving guns, when possible, to every adult in Chicago that is eligible for one? And you believe this would cause violent crime to decrease?

From what I can gather, the US has a lot of guns and a lot of deaths from guns. I'm hoping you aren't disputing that. If the author is saying that having guns reduces the overall crime rate, then please show the statistics. I'm curious as to what extent a couple of hundred million guns on the streets (and the collateral damage from it) are saving us from.

I'm curious as to what extent a couple of hundred million guns on the streets (and the collateral damage from it) are saving us from.

If we are to truly believe the statistics, the hundred of millions of guns on the streets has had zero effect and has contributed no increase in overall violent crime in the U.S. The exact opposite has been occurring for years now but that hardly gets reported as it defeats the pro gun banning media narrative bias. We are awash with guns but we are now safer from violent crime then we have been since 1963 and this from the undisputed statistics from the FBI.

US crime rate at lowest point in decades. Why America is safer now.

The last time the crime rate for serious crime – murder, rape, robbery, assault – fell to these levels, gasoline cost 29 cents a gallon and the average income for a working American was $5,807.

That was 1963.

In the past 20 years, for instance, the murder rate in the United States has dropped by almost half, from 9.8 per 100,000 people in 1991 to 5.0 in 2009. Meanwhile, robberies were down 10 percent in 2010 from the year before and 8 percent in 2009.

The declines are not just a blip, say criminologists. Rather, they are the result of a host of changes that have fundamentally reversed the high-crime trends of the 1980s. And these changes have taken hold to such a degree that the drop in crime continued despite the recent recession.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2012/0109/US-crime-rate-at-lowest-point-in-decades.-Why-America-is-safer-now/%28page%29/2

So would you support giving guns, when possible, to every adult in Chicago that is eligible for one? And you believe this would cause violent crime to decrease?

Why is it always a binary choice for you Leftists? Either "nobody" in Chicago has guns (meaning only criminals, cops, and the wealthy and politically connected, have guns) or "everybody" has guns. That seems to be an indicator of Leftist comprehension levels.

No, I would support letting those who want to buy guns, and who are legally able to (not convicted felons, mentally insane, etc.), to buy guns. Let the potential victims who want to take responsibility for their own protection do so. What is wrong with that? Why can't Leftists understand the effectiveness of that?

From what I can gather, the US has a lot of guns and a lot of deaths from guns. I'm hoping you aren't disputing that.

The U.S. has a lot of guns and guns are routinely used to protect lives. Much more often than they are used in homicides. I hope you're not disputing that. I know you're deliberately ignoring it, but I hope you're rational enough not to dispute that.

If the author is saying that having guns reduces the overall crime rate, then please show the statistics. I'm curious as to what extent a couple of hundred million guns on the streets (and the collateral damage from it) are saving us from.

Rapes, murders, car-jackings, muggings, kidnappings... is that a good enough start for you?

In the past 20 years, for instance, the murder rate in the United States has dropped by almost half, from 9.8 per 100,000 people in 1991 to 5.0 in 2009. Meanwhile, robberies were down 10 percent in 2010 from the year before and 8 percent in 2009.

Except in Chicago.

Talk about culture wars!

It's amazing/amusing/sad to watch the lengths and depths one culture will go to in order to avoid understanding another culture. Many posts ago, I predicted that the anti-gun posters here on JT would make no effort whatsoever to understand America's pro-gun culture. And I was right.

They've done so by refusing to acknowledge that guns are used in self-defense, even when I (once again) remind them that I have had to do do in my own life. My experience is a perfect example of why gun bans do nothing but disarm the innocent and put them at risk. Criminals will always be criminals. If they don't have a gun handy, they'll use whatever tools that are available to them. Knives, ropes, straps, their bare hands. If the hoplophobes had their way, I would have died at the hands of a mugger back in '99. And yet they still refuse to admit that they're wrong about their beliefs.

It's all about the illusion, and never about the substance. Gun-free zones are an example of that. The hoplophobes' idea of safety is to declare a school or business a "gun-free zone", and then do absolutely nothing to enforce the zone. Armed security to protect the school, enforce the gun-free zone, and stop whoever violates it? No, we can't have that, we think the children won't feel safe if they see an armed patrol guard, because they might see the gun. (But Leftists want armed security for abortion clinics, which is a study in irony and contradiction in itself, even before the comparison with schools is made.) A business can post a "gun-free zone" sign at their front door, but I've never seen any that provide security to enforce that rule. Except banks. Anybody remember the mass shooting at a Luby's in Texas? Remember the testimony by one of the survivors, who lost both of her parents? She left her gun in the car, because that business had established itself as a "gun-free zone". It's all about the illusion.

Continuing on with that theme, at least one person has said that they or a family member has "never felt the need to have a gun". I know several motorcyclists who have never felt the need to wear protective armor when they ride. And I've seen their injuries from when they crashed. Some states don't require motorcyclists to wear helmets. Some of the motorcyclists in those states don't feel the need to wear their helmets. The rate for motorcycle fatalities are higher in those states.

Graveyards hold many examples of people who "didn't feel the need" to wear their seat belts, helmets, or guns to protect themselves. And that's their choice, as far as I'm concerned. But don't use your ill-informed illusion to deny me my creator-granted right to defend myself. I've already had to use it once. I don't ever want to have to go through that again, but I want to be prepared in case I do. I'm always going to wear my seat belt. I ride ATTGATT, no matter how hot it gets here. (I even shipped all of my gear to Japan just so I could ride for two days, then shipped it all back to the U.S. when I was done.) And I'm going to carry my gun. Because bad things can happen, they are unpredictable, and I refuse to be a victim.

Old Hawk still doesn't get it. All this talk about self-defence, risk, security simply illustrates his own insecurity - imagined or real, I have no way of knowing - in living in the gun-swamped US. If it's so bad, the sensible thing is to get out and let the criminals with guns slug it out amongst themselves, not throw more money at the gun manufacturers. There is nothing smart about paying to live in a rat hole where bad, unpredictable things happen.

Rather than rant on and on about how guns are a 'creator-given right' (what?? I must have missed the bit in the Bible where it says Go forth and shoot people with a fast-moving metal projectile), maybe time and effort would be better spent finding out why there are apparently so many dangerous criminals who will 'use whatever tools are available to them'; find out what the society that produces all these low-lifes is doing wrong (poor education? lack of moral fibre? the wealth gap? poor diet causing brain malfunction?) and then find a way to fix it. Talking tough and carrying a big gun clearly isn't fixing anything.

OldHawk: No, I would support letting those who want to buy guns, and who are legally able to (not convicted felons, mentally insane, etc.), to buy guns.

Do you think that giving a gun to every eligible person in Chicago would make it a safer city?

The U.S. has a lot of guns and guns are routinely used to protect lives. Much more often than they are used in homicides. I hope you're not disputing that. I know you're deliberately ignoring it, but I hope you're rational enough not to dispute that.

I'd be more than happy to support a study that can get down to the bottom of those numbers. I've seen wildly different answers. I'm wondering how many people needed to pull out their gun because they saw someone else with a gun (i.e. needed to be protected from the thing they support). I'm curious as to how many people brandished a weapon as the very first choice of action regardless of the threat. I've also seen data where a robber gets shot, then they assume he would have committed more crimes, so they say that killing him means you have actually stopped 3-4 crimes in the future and they include that in the number. Like I said, I'm more than happy to create some kind of uniform system.

Rapes, murders, car-jackings, muggings, kidnappings... is that a good enough start for you?

I asked you for numbers. Do all of the deaths from guns each year help us to lower the rate of kidnappings by....5%? And is the writer using a uniform violent crime measurement when making a comparison with different countries?

cleo:

Old Hawk still doesn't get it.

Of course I get it. But we'll get to that in a moment.

All this talk about self-defence, risk, security simply illustrates his own insecurity - imagined or real, I have no way of knowing - in living in the gun-swamped US.

Bingo. You have no way of knowing, having grown up elsewhere and moved to Japan. The problem is, you make no effort to try understand. Instead, you let your own prejudice, bias, and paranoia guide you. Paranoia? Yes, I said paranoia. Remember, you're the one who imagined people getting shot in a gun store because they reached for their wallet.

Rather than rant on and on about how guns are a 'creator-given right' (what?? I must have missed the bit in the Bible where it says Go forth and shoot people with a fast-moving metal projectile),

I never said guns were a creator-granted right. Try focusing on my actual arguments instead of inserting ones you invent for me to defend.

I said self-defense is a creator-granted right. I have the right to defend myself from violent attack, do I not?

maybe time and effort would be better spent finding out why there are apparently so many dangerous criminals who will 'use whatever tools are available to them'; find out what the society that produces all these low-lifes is doing wrong (poor education? lack of moral fibre? the wealth gap? poor diet causing brain malfunction?) and then find a way to fix it.

Absolutely, I think it would be great to find the sources to these other factors and implement substantive solutions. The problem is, the people who have the same political mindset as you refuse to do so, and they wield much of the power in this country, and control most of the media.

Superlib:

Do you think that giving a gun to every eligible person in Chicago would make it a safer city?

Strawman. Try again.

I'd be more than happy to support a study that can get down to the bottom of those numbers. I've seen wildly different answers.

Considering the agenda(s) involved, I can't imagine why. ;) Say, remember the study that claimed a surprising number of gun deaths for children, and it turned out that they counted 25-year-olds as "children" so they could include drug- and gang-related deaths in their statistics?

I'm wondering how many people needed to pull out their gun because they saw someone else with a gun (i.e. needed to be protected from the thing they support).

Strawman. Nobody in the gun-rights crowd supports criminals possessing guns.

I've also seen data where a robber gets shot, then they assume he would have committed more crimes, so they say that killing him means you have actually stopped 3-4 crimes in the future and they include that in the number.

The stats for repeat offenders would support that, don't you think?

Like I said, I'm more than happy to create some kind of uniform system.

If it's possible. There's no script to these events, and circumstances vary wildly.

I asked you for numbers.

And I asked you to name the countries which had police states over an armed citizenry, an issue you brought up. Get over yourself.

OldHawk: The U.S. has a lot of guns and guns are routinely used to protect lives. Much more often than they are used in homicides. I hope you're not disputing that. I know you're deliberately ignoring it, but I hope you're rational enough not to dispute that.

Oh I suppose I could just borrow a page from your book and tell you that you must give me numbers or else your point can be rejected, or pre-criticize any result by saying you have an agenda, then go round and round in circles debating the tiniest of points that block any attempt to really answer your question, but I won't. I just don't understand why you'd try to downplay possible research that could give us good information, especially if it includes people from both sides.

an issue you brought up.

I really have no idea where you got that idea from. You brought up the issue of disarmed citizens and police states and I responded by saying there are more examples on the other side. I think you're so used to dissecting the gnats ass and requiring proof of minutia that you just forget when you bring up the argument. With no numbers, of course. If it's your opinion that your number is higher then just say so and we can be done with it.

Nobody in the gun-rights crowd supports criminals possessing guns.

To some of us it's ironic that you would need protection from the very thing you support. I'm sure you get my point so there's no need to delve into the word "protection" and "the very thing" or give a response that misses the target by going on a tangent.

As for Chicago, I was asking your opinion about flooding the city with guns. If you don't want to give it, so be it. You seem comfortable bringing up Chicago and guns so I just assumed you would have an opinion.

SuperLib May. 07, 2013 - 05:01AM JST As for Chicago, I was asking your opinion about flooding the city with guns. If you don't want to give it, so be it. You seem comfortable bringing up Chicago and guns so I just assumed you would have an opinion.

The gun laws might make it harder for those with criminal intent to get their hands on deadly weapons, but reducing poverty in the U.S. could stop criminal behavior before it starts. Poverty is more related with gun deaths than almost any other characteristic, including the percentage of students who carry weapons to school. Majority of murders aren't committed with assault weapons.

In places like Chicago, the rate of gun deaths in the inner cities poorest neighborhoods was about ten times the rate compared to affluent neighborhoods. By growing up poor makes an individual person more likely to commit violence. They have low socioeconomic status, being on welfare, and living in bad neighborhood and high parental stress, since poverty has been shown to increase stress. But how could U.S. goverment reduce poverty in today's economic climate?

The problem is, you make no effort to try understand.

Understand why a person would choose to stay in a place they themselves describe as a hellhole? I'm open to ideas; why on earth would a person do that, when there are so many other, nicer, safer places to live? You said yourself you don't feel the need to carry a gun in Japan - isn't that a much nicer feeling than constantly being on your guard and having to carry a lethal weapon?

Yes, I said paranoia. Remember, you're the one who imagined people getting shot in a gun store because they reached for their wallet.

Mmm, no I don't remember that at all. Where did I bring up the subject of people getting shot for reaching for their wallet? You must be thinking of someone else.

I have the right to defend myself from violent attack, do I not?

But why stay in this place where you think you are liable to violent attack? Why not defend yourself the sensible way, by going to a safer place?

the people who have the same political mindset as you refuse to do so, and they wield much of the power in this country, and control most of the media.

Sounds to me like your problem is with the country. Why stay? (On an aside, I don't know which people you imagine I have the 'same politiical mindset' as - I find nothing at all in US politics that I can relate to, you have far-right-wing conservatives and extreme right-wing conservatives.)

If anyone wants to talk about Chicago- they are NY have similar gun laws but different outcomes. If someone wants to say there should be weaker gun laws because of Chicago then you might also want to consider stronger gun laws because of NY.

Children are shooting children there. Why? Before there was a hierarchy on the streets and in the past if you had nothing to do with the gangs and were some nerd or a jock walking home from school minding your own business you were safe and respected. But with the extreme power vacuum left over from cracking down on all the gangs guns are ending up in the hands of children and with all these teenage hormones going crazy one slight problem or disagreement could turn into something deadly. A jealous ex boyfriend? Perhaps someone looked at someone funny? Some kind of jealousy from success? Suddenly that jock or nerd has to dive for cover. Chicago high schools have security guardS but outside the school they are on their own. Again in Chicago there are children shooting children. Children? Are more or less gun laws needed? Again it's not about the NRA's point of "The Only Way To Stop A Bad Guy With A Gun Is With A Good Guy With A Gun". How can we "Stop a Bad Child with a Gun" in Chicago who wants to kill another child? Thoughts? Should there be open permits so adults can stand outside all the time looking for bad kids? Personally I don't want to do that but who has some ideas? Again, these are children!

" We are awash with guns but we are now safer from violent crime"

Overall the entire world is becoming safer, on average with or without guns. Months ago I read a story in JT about the overall crime rate in Japan falling. The best way to avoid violence and keeping yourself safe is not by owning a gun but by keeping better quality company -- if you have control over that.

If people had been carrying at Luby's would that have happened? Do gun free zones create danger zones? We may never know. Would it have been effective or a false sense of security? In another example of the other extreme a retired seal was gunned down on the shooting range recently -- yes, the baddest of the baddest in a real gun zone.

OldHawk,

Any problems with the fact that less violent crime exists where the potential victims are armed?

Fact? The NRA's fact? John Lott's fact? Or the results of independent analysis? Proof, please!

guns are routinely used to protect lives

...and ambulances sometimes kill people, but that's not their primary function, and we aren't plagued by fantasists exaggerating the scale and impact of it to subjective academics.

sfjp

By growing up poor makes an individual person more likely to commit violence.

And when the criminal justice system is allowed to be a profit center, those children locked in a vicious spiral of poverty, substandard education, and crime.

One thing I've always respected about America is its strong Bill of Rights, especially the First and Second Amendments. In Japan, we lost our right to protect ourselves (chiefly with swords) to a tyrannical government, which although it has been replaced, still has that law in force. We are at the mercy of the police arriving in time to help us, or arriving at all. Or if they do arrive, perhaps not taking us seriously due to our family name or the plot of land we happen to live on. I view the Second Amendment as America's gift to a world that doesn't yet appreciate its importance.

Have you been in many dangerous situations in Japan? You have a right to defend yourself in Japan if someone is trying to kill you. But from my understanding if someone is simply assaulting you then you have the right to assault them back as long as you don't kill them.

Obviously, it has never occurred to you that violence is an appropriate response in certain situations.

Certain situations few and far between. It is not an appropriate response in the apocryphal story related above about shooting a fleeing purse-snatcher in the back six times.

But the T-shirt's message is a blanket one: In case of an emergency, the gun enthusiast never calls 911. He depends on the gun.

Would you rather I called 911 when that mugger put that strap around my neck?

Strawman.

It's not the message the gun-enthusiast's T-shirt is conveying. Using a weapon ought to be an option far down the list, since the vast majority of human altercations are not life-threatening situations. What message is this NRA member sending to the young people who see it?

This interview basically sums up the NRA and the Pro-Gun lobby.

Funny: note the by line re: Tennessee Lawmaker

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

Fact? The NRA's fact? John Lott's fact? Or the results of independent analysis? Proof, please!

Fact.....The media has done such an effective propaganda job in promoting a gun control / banning agenda that only twelve percent of Americans think gun related crime is lower than it was twenty years ago. The vast majority of Americans and international posters here all believe America is under a gun violent crime deluge, that is how effective and powerful a media with an agenda can be in shaping opinions.

From PEW research with real FBI stats to get a real non-biased reality.

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

National rates of gun homicide and other violent gun crimes are strikingly lower now than during their peak in the mid-1990s, paralleling a general decline in violent crime, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of government data.

Despite the attention to gun violence in recent months, most Americans are unaware that gun crime is markedly lower than it was two decades ago. A new Pew Research Center survey (March 14-17) found that 56% of Americans believe the number of crimes involving a gun is higher than it was 20 years ago; only 12% say it is lower and 26% say it stayed the same.

Overall violence is down in the developed world, on average.

Fact.....The media has done such an effective propaganda job in promoting a gun control...

You did not answer his question, being so ready to spew your own attempt at a propaganda job. The claim was made that crime is lower in areas where people are more likely to be armed. Your response only looked at a "general decline in violent crime" at a national level.

If crime is are lower in areas where people are less likely to be armed, then guns can't be proven to be the causative factor. An aging demographic may have far more to do with it. But that won't stop dishonest people from making their plug for guns. The increasing prevalence of guns hasn't brought crime down in what can be called "high-crime" areas.

As for states, Louisiana and New Mexico -- where gun ownership is high -- have far higher violent crime rates than Massachusetts, Vermont, Hawaii, and Maine, where the level of gun ownership is less.

As for the media, it is not as utterly stupid as to present news such as what has happened in Columbine, Tucson, Aurora, Newtown, etc., etc. -- followed by some highly dubious "good news" that "overall, gun crime has declined." What most reasonable and intelligent Americans can see is that a lot of sick and crazy people are getting their hands on weapons and magazines with a very high "kills per minute" rate, and that we are all potential targets, no matter if the place is a movie theater or elementary school.

The NRA believes the answer is Violence First -- as shown by their proposals to inject even more guns into society, and the messages they send in their anecdotal stories and paraphernalia (like that T-Shirt).

The claim was made that crime is lower in areas where people are more likely to be armed

I'm gonna have to go with my gut feeling that the NRA convention just held in Houston isn't going be at the top of a criminals list to do a little purse snatching or any other nefarious activity while it was going on with all those out of town tourists there.

As for the media, it is not as utterly stupid as to present news such as what has happened in Columbine, Tucson, Aurora, Newtown, etc., etc. -- followed by some highly dubious "good news" that "overall, gun crime has declined."

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.

What most reasonable and intelligent Americans can see is that a lot of sick and crazy people are getting their hands on weapons and magazines with a very high "kills per minute" rate, and that we are all potential targets, no matter if the place is a movie theater or elementary school.

Mass shootings are a matter of great public interest and concern. They also are a relatively small share of shootings overall. According to a Bureau of Justice Statistics review, homicides that claimed at least three lives accounted for less than 1% of all homicide deaths from 1980 to 2008. These homicides, most of which are shootings, increased as a share of all homicides from 0.5% in 1980 to 0.8% in 2008, according to the bureau’s data. A Congressional Research Service report, using a definition of four deaths or more, counted 547 deaths from mass shootings in the U.S. from 1983 to 2012.

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/05/07/gun-homicide-rate-down-49-since-1993-peak-public-unaware/

As for the media, it is not as utterly stupid as to present news such as what has happened in Columbine, Tucson, Aurora, Newtown, etc., etc

The Congressional Research Service has a new study out calculating how many people have been killed in the United States in mass shootings since 1983. The number is 547, not including the shooters.

That’s roughly 18 per year.

As the United States averages 54 lightning deaths per year, you are three times more likely to be struck and killed by lightning than to be gunned down in a mass shooting.

http://www.nationalreview.com/media-blog/343647/facts-guns-and-mass-shootings-greg-pollowitz

Are mass shootings something we should accept like lightnings deaths? We should not do anything about them?

sailwind: Fact.....The media has done such an effective propaganda job in promoting a gun control / banning agenda that only twelve percent of Americans think gun related crime is lower than it was twenty years ago.

The media again? Have they ever, ever had any bias for anything that you support, or is running at 0%?. Fact....44% of Republicans think armed rebellion might be needed in the next few years. Fact....legislation with overwhelming support was killed. Whatever information machine the gun supporters have, it's crushing the "liberal media" right now. Not that they would ever skew their information....

I'm gonna have to go with my gut feeling that the NRA convention just held in Houston isn't going be at the top of a criminals list to do a little purse snatching or any other nefarious activity while it was going on with all those out of town tourists there.

Should we have every place in America armed like an NRA convention?

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.

I'm guessing that the number of guns has increased every year for some time now (or all time). We had guns when crime went up, and we had guns when crime went down. Guns themselves did not make America safer. And if the streets are much safer now, why hasn't that changed gun owners perspective that guns are needed for safety? You could have just as easily said that as crime continues to fall there is less need to own a gun for protection. You might blame the media for misinformation on crime but the gun supporters do the same.

People want to see gun deaths as low as possible because it should be. It sounds like you're saying, "We only have X deaths now." That doesn't mean common sense legislation shouldn't be applied.

I'm guessing that the number of guns has increased every year for some time now (or all time). We had guns when crime went up, and we had guns when crime went down. Guns themselves did not make America safer. And if the streets are much safer now, why hasn't that changed gun owners perspective that guns are needed for safety? You could have just as easily said that as crime continues to fall there is less need to own a gun for protection.

Well, according to the ignorant fools known as statisticians, the most logical conclusion based on this evidence would be that the prevalence of guns is not correlated with violence, at all. But, hey, statistics is just a soft science.

bfg4987: Well, according to the ignorant fools known as statisticians, the most logical conclusion based on this evidence would be that the prevalence of guns is not correlated with violence, at all. But, hey, statistics is just a soft science.

I agree. But what you guys fail to understand is that even with violent crime dropping we still have cases of kids shooting their sister, kids bringing guns to schools, sellers not required to do background checks, etc. You are not excused from that.

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010,

Compared with 1993, how likely is it that a person shot in 2010 can survive a gunshot wound? Thanks to the "practice" that many hospitals have gotten -- Atlanta's Crawford Long Medical Center is considered near the top for the treatment of gunshot victims -- would a person be 40 to 50% more likely to survive a gunshot, thus clouding up the homicide numbers? (We know that those wounded in the recent Iraq/Afghanistan wars are much more likely to survive, given vastly improved medical care.

Mass shootings are a matter of great public interest and concern.

If a person kills 2 and wounds 20, is that considered a "mass shooting"? (The answer is "no," apparently.) The Boston bombers killed three and wounded scores. That event would not have the "mass" adjective attached to it, if the standard for a shooting event was applied. But most reasonable people sense something would be wrong with that conclusion.

The Congressional Research Service has a new study out calculating how many people have been killed in the United States in mass shootings since 1983.

It's very fortunate for the NRA that the average American family is composed of two parents and two kids. That way, a husband can shoot his wife and kids and not have it register in the "mass shooting" statistics. The NRA can pooh-pooh and otherwise dismiss the deaths of Sandy Miller (34), and daughters Shelby (8) and Shasta (4), as not being worth counting. The friends and loved ones in Shingletown, CA, know different.

Whatever information machine the gun supporters have, it's crushing the "liberal media" right now.

Americans don't care for the activist gun banning agenda being foisted on them by the media and politicians when it comes to guns. They're still focused on bread and butter issues which is the economy and that is why it failed to gain traction despite the medias constant demagoguery of the issue.

Gallup:

For example, gun control groups put a renewed focus on gun legislation after the tragic shootings at Newtown, Conn., last December. Immigration reform -- long a congressional interest -- has received a new push since the 2012 elections that highlighted Republicans' weakness with Hispanic voters.

Still, despite this interest-group pressure, when the views of all Americans are averaged together, reducing gun violence and immigration reform receive the lowest priority rankings of the 12 issues tested. Instead, Americans would urge their elected representatives to focus on creating jobs, improving the economy, making the government run more efficiently, and improving the quality of education.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/162347/americans-give-guns-immigration-reform-low-priority.aspx

Sailwind is referring to recent statistics that show gun violence is about 50% of the level of the early 1990s while gun ownership in the US is at an all time high. NICS checks are running about one million per year which suggests the number of privately owned guns is increasing by at least that rate. This is in addition to the fact that people with a concealed carry permit get to skip waiting periods in many jurisdictions. Looks like Bloomberg and the other gun control fans have it backwards. John Lott is right; More guns, less crime.

@jerome_from_Utah

It's not at 50% less it's even more incredible than that.

The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993.

Unbelievable that the media would not be plastering this type of news all over the front page. This is not from bogus statistics or disputable sources. The stats come directly from the FBI and the U.S Department of Justice. I could care less if your left or right or somewhere in between, this is one of the most astounding things to have happened in the U.S over the past twenty years. This is good, scratch that, GREAT news and according to Pew research only 12 percent of Americans actually know this? That we are safer now then we have ever been from gun violence?

The only logical conclusion for the media to ignore this the way are doing is because it will totally destroy their concocted narrative of a country that is awashed in gun violence and it would really hurt a Democrat president they've sworn to protect at all costs, a president who made this issue his number one priority in his second term and a media who dutifully rogered up and said ...."yes Sir!!!!! ".

sailwind: Americans don't care for the activist gun banning agenda being foisted on them by the media and politicians when it comes to guns.

None of the legislation voted on proposed a ban. You guys take it to that extreme as a convenience. Except if you're the NRA, at which case the paranoia is real.

Still, despite this interest-group pressure, when the views of all Americans are averaged together, reducing gun violence and immigration reform receive the lowest priority rankings of the 12 issues tested. Instead, Americans would urge their elected representatives to focus on creating jobs, improving the economy, making the government run more efficiently, and improving the quality of education.

Great.

Jerome_from_Utah: John Lott is right; More guns, less crime.

Makes sense, as long as you ignore the 1980s.

Once again, no one here is talking about a ban. We are talking about common sense legislation to prevent senseless deaths from guns. Patting yourself on the back for a lower murder rate isn't an accomplishment from guns, and it obviously gives you the perception that you can write off anyone who brings up gun violence.

None of the legislation voted on proposed a ban.

Once again, no one here is talking about a ban

No offense, but that is not accurate or true.

Senate rejects assault weapons ban on 40-60 vote

The Senate rejected a ban on certain semi-automatic weapons with military-style features on Wednesday in a 40-60 vote.

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/294625-senate-rejects-assault-weapons-ban-on-x-x-vote

We are talking about common sense legislation to prevent senseless deaths from guns.

Unfortunately, we are not with the legislation that was actually voted on and defeated. Taken as a whole it was hastily knee-jerked put together crappy legislation just designed around the political optics and totally designed to look favorable for the democrats to position themselves in the 2014 mid-terms as the "good guys" vs the NRA "bad guys" in crass politics .

I do hope that now cooler heads will actually prevail and that Senator Coburn's back ground check bill will now get the serious look it deserves as it truly is a common sense proposal that would work. I don't see anything happening at all though until after the 2014 mid-terms. The issue is dead now except for the demagoguery we're all going to have to suffer through the next year and a half or so.

The issue happens to have the get out the vote potential for both sides and will be demagogued until the cows come home to fire up their respective bases. The battle in 2014 is going to be for the Senate seats not the House and this issue can make or break moderate republicans in blue states or vulnerable democrats in red states. 2014 is going to be yet another ugly round in divisive politics in America unfortunately.

Have you heard of this? If it happens we might all be screwed:

http://www.adamvstheman.com/category/blog/

I'm not familiar with him so I don't know if he should be taken seriously.

I'm not familiar with him so I don't know if he should be taken seriously.

Adam Kokesh:

According to Wiki He's a far left anti-war protester loon who's biggest claim to fame is by making an ass of himself at John McCain's 2008 nomination acceptance speech.

In February 2007, Kokesh became an active participant in the Iraq Veterans Against the War (IVAW). On March 19, 2007, to mark the 4th anniversary of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, Kokesh and 12 other Iraq Veterans Against the War members participated in an occupation-like mock patrol of Washington D.C

On September 4, 2008, Kokesh interrupted Senator John McCain's acceptance speech of the GOP nomination for President at the Republican National Convention in St. Paul, Minnesota. Holding a sign reading "McCain Votes Against Vets" on one side and "You can't win an occupation" on the other,[22] Kokesh yelled, "Ask him why he votes against vets!" A member of the audience grabbed the sign and tore it in two. Kokesh was released shortly after being detained by local police.[23]

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

He's anti-government and he's planning to take an armed protest into Washington D.C.

He's anti-government and he's planning to take an armed protest into Washington D.C.

He's a loon and a left wing smear merchant that is actively seeking free publicity for his proposed idiotic stunt and it's unfortunate that your actually giving it to him.

sailwind,

We see Kokesh labeled far left, and a left wing smear merchant, yet the Wikipedia link you so kindly provide describes him as a libertarian-oriented Republican supported by Ron Paul.

Either the man is doing a politically ambidextrous Hokey Pokey or someone nearer home is extremely confused.

Non violent direct action with loaded firearms (as he proposes) is an innovation worthy of the very best in supercalifrajilisticexpialidocious even though the sound of it is something quite atrocious psychiatric analysis.

yet the Wikipedia link you so kindly provide describes him as a libertarian-oriented Republican supported by Ron Paul.

I don't think I need to remind you that a huge chunk of Ron Paul's followers to put kindly is that "burritos aren't exactly full of cheese". This loon organized a past protest event with Code Pink about as far left as your ever going to get and interrupted the Republican convention in 2008. I think that speaks pretty loudly what this guy really thinks of the republican party.

From the link I provided:

A much larger protest the following Saturday, June 4, 2011, organized by Kokesh and Code Pink, involved about 200 protesters and 75 dancers.

This loon organized a past protest event with Code Pink about as far left as your ever going to get

What?!?!? A right winger working with left wingers to achieve mutual goals?

That's damned unAmerican! Circle them wagons, boys!!

This loon organized a past protest event with Code Pink about as far left as your ever going to get ...

And this from someone who hypocritically decries bias in the media. Newt Gingrich has been organizing town-hall meetings with Rev. Al Sharpton. Does that make Newt a leftist?

Adam Kokesh has been a registered Republican for most of his life. He's an ex-Marine and decorated combat veteran. (Maybe that is where he became a leftist, since you're into the guilt by association smear.) He ran as a Republican to unseat a Democrat in the New Mexico's 3rd congressional district. Gee, a "leftist" who advocates open carry. Sounds like someone who'd be right at home at the NRA. (Didn't know Code Pink was so pro-gun.)

Maybe his Iraq combat and subsequent PTSD left him a "loon," if you're really that into smearing disabled vets who don't fit your requirements of how ex-Marines should believe and act politically.

sailwind: actively seeking free publicity for his proposed idiotic stunt

Have you read through the messages/comments? People are actually trying to go. The problem is that even if Kokesh bails I'm guessing there are still some who will follow through. It's going to be a dangerous situation.

If he's left wing, you might want to keep that a secret from his supporters.

Sounds like someone who'd be right at home at the NRA.

Doubt It.

http://www.myspace.com/oct27coalition/photos/4935607#{%22ImageId%22%3A4935607}

Kokesh is known for getting arrested for dancing at the Jefferson Memorial (Washington DC)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PWeF6lwg4aY

Washington DC does not allow open carry => which is a direct violation of the second amendment. So with the march from Virginia into Washington DC it will get interesting. Will Washington DC back down or will they accept a lawsuit(s) from violating United States citizen's gun rights.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sraPLEQ70pw DC gun march route.

sailwind: Doubt It.

Give it up.

Give it up.

No comment on my link with Adam Kokesh and Cindy Sheehan having an intimate moment together as she is wearing her "Arrest Cheney" T-Shirt? He's not fitting your preconceived stereotype of a right-wing gun nutter very well that is for sure.

Besides, he's not even going to be able purchase a gun to even be able to participate in his own concocted idiocy. Background check on him is going to reveal his extensive previous criminal arrest record for his being involved in left-wing protests. One does hope that the background check system is able to flag this guy as someone who shouldn't have a weapon in his possession due to his previous convictions and arrests. He's also a person who could very well "snap" due to mental health issues as heis on record, publicly claimed to have PTSD and that alone should more than enough for a Judge to be able to issue an court order permanently banning him from owning any firearms well in advance of any march that he thinks he has delusions of leading.

Give it up.

Give it up.

Just a reminder, it was you who brought this loon into the conversation as some sort example of a typical right wing NRA type without checking into his background . He's nothing of the sort and has been sliding further and further into his own type of out there weird radicalism that even Ron Paul's organization that had once embraced him has had enough of him. He even openly once mused about Romney being assassinated and even for the crazy train followers of Ron Paul that was even to much for them and even they told him to take his lunacy somewhere else.

Prominent Ron Paul Supporter Muses About Assassinating Mitt Romney

Adam Kokesh, a co-founder of Veterans for Ron Paul who received Paul's endorsement for his 2010 congressional run, contemplates a Romney assassination on his talk show. The Secret Service promises a “follow-up.”

Jesse Benton, then the head of Paul's Liberty PAC and now Paul's campaign manager, said Kokesh was a "terrific candidate" at the time.

"Mr. Kokesh is a deeply troubled individual with whom we cut off contact a long time ago," said Benton when told of Kokesh's video. "We have a very cordial and respectful relationship with Gov. Romney and his campaign and reject anyone who would think or talk this way. I hope the Secret Service investigates and takes all appropriate action they find necessary."

http://www.buzzfeed.com/mckaycoppinsrosiegray/prominent-ron-paul-supporter-muses-about-assassina

After looking into this loons background, he'll be arrested the very minute he even attempts to try to pull this stunt off and rightly so. His past background of civil disobedience and arrests, along with actual musings about the assassination of a republican presidential candidate and actual public announcements that he is a deeply troubled individual by former associates would demand that appropriate action be taken to ensure the general public safety and that would include banning him from being near any type of fire arms. He doesn't need a march, he needs to be seen by a mental health professional before its to late and he really does act out on some murderous fantasy that only a blind person can't see the signs of it roiling right now in his head.

if you're really that into smearing disabled vets who don't fit your requirements of how ex-Marines should believe and act politically.

My requirements for an ex-marine or any other decent human being for that matter starts with not posting a video of yourself smoking dope on you tube and then actually describing the experience for the entire world including children to see. This loon actually thinks this is some sort of public service he is doing. You complained about a NRA person wearing a t-shirt that you thought sent the wrong message to children "I Don't Dial 911" was bad. What Adam Kokesh does is worse, ten times worse.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8wLaQLVyJvg

This is one seriously disturbed individual.

.

NRA person wearing a t-shirt that you thought sent the wrong message to children "I Don't Dial 911" was bad.

The shirt carried the NRA person's "preferred alternative" to 911: a gun.

My requirements for an ex-marine or any other decent human being for that matter starts with not posting a video of yourself smoking dope on you tube and then actually describing the experience for the entire world including children to see.

Kids see a lot of stuff and get a lot of messages. I viewed the video and, while not endorsing his actions, I don't believe that they are all that harmful. (And further discussion would be off-topic.) Especially compared to a message promoting violence as the first response to an emergency rather than calling 911.

I believe many on the right can't see that Kokesh's open-carry march on DC is the natural, logical outcome behind the violence-tinged rhetoric and symbols they love to promote in their adoration for the second amendment. The followers and supporters he is attracting are much the same as the TEA Party people. Like this person:

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

As the issue of the Open Carry March becomes a bigger news item in the United States, I'm pretty sure JT will provide some space to comment on it.

The followers and supporters he is attracting are much the same as the TEA Party people. Like this person:

You obviously don't even bother to check things before you post them and then merrily claim the above as some sort of gospel fact.

Your video is by Christopher Cantrell another loon, and he has a facebook page which he states himself:

I am referred to as "Ex-Con Chris Cantwell" numerous times, and if we define ex-con as a man convicted of misdemeanor charges and sent to the county jail for a few months, then that name suits me. As a teenager, I was convicted of petit larceny, posession of stolen property, DWI, and posession of a weapon

And:

Another charge made against me on that blog is that the Conservative Society for Action, the largest Tea Party organization in my congressional district, refused to allow me to interview with them for endorsement. This was not surprising to me, because I oppose war and favor gay rights, positions very unpopular in that organization. I wrote scathing articles about the CSA prior to their refusal, they didn't appreciate it, but I feel good for calling them out.

https://www.facebook.com/notes/christopher-cantwell/detractors-check-your-facts-consider-your-source/10150996328014231

sailwind: Just a reminder, it was you who brought this loon into the conversation as some sort example of a typical right wing NRA type without checking into his background

Nope. I brought it up and asked about it. I said he was anti-government. Then I told you that you should look at some of his gun supporters. Right off the bat you started with the "left wing" diversion and you're sticking to it. Seriously, give it up. It's a waste of time in this conversation.

Back to my original point.... Somehow this guy has convinced thousands of gun owners that it's a good idea to do an open carry into Washington DC. Whether they come or not, it's just astounding that some people would actually come out and support this method of protest.

They have no concept of the potential danger which shows their inability to think rationally. They just keep throwing catchphrases at each other and getting themselves even more worked up and I see that a lot with hardcore gun supporters. Read through the messages on the website and facebook and you will see a lot of outrage but no mention of any specific grievances. It's completely mindless.

https://www.facebook.com/events/252728144871259/

Somehow this guy has convinced thousands of gun owners that it's a good idea to do an open carry into Washington DC. Whether they come or not, it's just astounding that some people would actually come out and support this method of protest.

This guy has posted drivel on the internet that allows faceless electronic dots on a screen to post mindless non-thinking drivel in response. Gun owners are not going to march with this fool and take the risk of getting themselves arrested so that they then will become ex-gun owners. Also anybody who is actually seriously contemplating doing this is going to look at who is leading this before committing to it and will soon find out all they need about Adam Kokesh and conclude that he's a loon and if they don't come to that conclusion they deserve to march with this dope smoking loser and be arrested on the charge of being idiots.

Read through the messages on the website and facebook and you will see a lot of outrage but no mention of any specific grievances. It's completely mindless.

Read the comment sections on The Daily Kos or any other lefty blog site on any story with Sarah Palin as the lead if you want a good comparison of how anonymous hive thinking electronic dots just post mindless non-thinking drivel.

You obviously don't even bother to check things before you post them and then merrily claim the above as some sort of gospel fact.

Note, I said: "Much the same..." and here is what that means:

The TEA Party people, and their preferred candidates and supporters made clear and insistent references to "second amendment remedies" and "bullets" over ballots. The number of signs at TEA Party rallies that contained warnings that guns would be used at some undetermined future time were quite well displayed.

The people this person is attracting to his Open Carry March are not left-wing advocates of gun control. Quite the opposite. What we have here is a marsh full of quacking sounds and you're out here trying to convince us that there's not a single duck in the lot. From over here on the moderate left-of-center, I'm laughing as you try to convince people that an anti-government, anti-tax, anti-gun-control political creature is actually a teal and not a duck.

Perhaps it was the Marines and right-wing libertarianism that finally drove this one person over the edge. From where I'm standing, your continued rationalizations appear more and more desperate.

Right off the bat you started with the "left wing" diversion and you're sticking to it. Seriously, give it up. It's a waste of time in this conversation.

I feel I also owe you something on how I knew about Kokesh before you brought him in this discussion. As you well know I follow conservative blog sites and one of my favorites is Hot Air. Jazz Shaw who writes there had already weighed in on this stunt as soon as it started to become public on May 4th. If you wish to really know what conservatives really think of this, Mr. Shaw summed up this way (and this was before he really knew of Kokesh's background).

Sensible gun owners, along with the NRA, are making the point that the government needs to respect the rights of law abiding, responsible gun owners and spend their time chasing the actual criminals. There could be no better gift to hand to gun rights opponents than to have a bunch of people get arrested for breaking established (if really bad) gun laws or, worse, getting in a shootout with the cops. This is not the type of representation we need in this debate.

Then he updated his original story after he also started looking into Adam Kokesh and his background:

UPDATE: (Jazz) From the Boss Emeritus. Was this all a dodge?

He marched in uniform in mock patrols for the anti-war movement, paraded around holding an upside-down American flag (see Jonn Lilyea for more), was arrested for defacing signs, and traveled to Germany to urge soldiers to abandon their posts and seek aid and comfort with his anti-war minions.

Kokesh, believe it or not, is now running as a Republican candidate for Congress in New Mexico. And, believe it or not, he is getting positive exposure on at least one Fox News show. He has the backing of Ron Paul, the Republican Liberty Caucus, and the 9/12 Project.

The New Mexico Republican Party has its head in the sand. If you have friends and family in New Mexico, make sure they know who the real Adam Kokesh is.

He is an anti-war smear merchant in GOP clothing. Spread the word.

http://hotair.com/archives/2013/05/04/an-armed-march-on-washington-lets-not/

Point being Super, is that when you brought him in I remembered the name and I remembered his background. Conservative sites had already called it a bad idea when they first heard of it and then they looked at his background and discovered him to be a long time left wing protester that conservatives were already actively working to distance themselves from. My "diversion" as you called it was based on my prior knowledge of Kokesh and his background as he was already being rightfully discredited by conservatives themselves well before you brought him in the discussion.

The TEA Party people, and their preferred candidates and supporters made clear and insistent references to "second amendment remedies" and "bullets" over ballots. The number of signs at TEA Party rallies that contained warnings that guns would be used at some undetermined future time were quite well displayed.

The TEA party isn't involved at all here with Kokesh's stunt but do keep demonizing them as public enemy number one as a so called "moderate left-of-center person" .

sailwind: If you wish to really know what conservatives really think of this

I don't.

The TEA party isn't involved at all here with Kokesh's stunt but do keep demonizing them as public enemy number one as a so called "moderate left-of-center person"

I have not "demonized" anyone or any faction here. On a personal level, I think the ideal is that of Sadat -- who was willing to travel to the heartland of those considered his "enemies" to talk peace. I think the right-wingers like to project a great deal. More than anyone else demonizing, I think you are "god-ifying" yourself and your position, claiming that you know who speaks for and who is the "genuine conservative."

But, from the moderate, center-left position, it's very difficult to separate the moths attracted to the conservative lights of the NRA, the 9/12 Project, the Republican Liberty Project, the TEA Party and dozens of other factions on the right. As indicated above, the differences between a duck, a teal, and a loon, are very trivial to those of us who view them all as having lots in common.

Trying to get back on topic for a moment, thought I'd post the title again:

NRA kicks off annual convention, saying it is fighting 'culture war'

I agree with the NRA that this is a culture issue. The problem stems from what is now a minority of people clinging to a clause in document that is over 200 years old that had some pertinence at that time. When there wasn't a strong or unified law enforcement agency (or agencies) to be able to REASONABLY uphold the law. What most sane people get is the fact that the presence of guns equates to gun deaths. NRA supporter Phillip Van Cleave put it very well in an interview when he goofed by saying that if you have more swimming pools then more people will drown. In the same interview, Australia ex-PM Howard identifies how they significantly reduced gun related crime by removing most guns from general society. If people can't understand that then something seriously wrong. If Mr NRA wants a gun that bad then let them have it, because if they think it is going to protect them from the random criminal who flips his mind and shoots Mr NRA's family in an orgy of violence, then MR NRA is living in cuckoo land. It really is simple maths.

Eventually they'll grow up and find more constructive toys to play with.

I think what people might be missing here is.. The most favorite way to commit suicide in america is with a gun. Six out of ten suicides agree. That means about six thousand-ish of the eleven thousand gun related deaths are self inflicted.

Now if Japanese committed suicide w/ a gun well .. that would mean japan would have about 24,000 gun related deaths a year. do you understand how baseless these gun control argument statistics are yet?

This is nothing more than people who don't like american policy trying to undermine the strengths of our rights. If they don't like it please move to a safe gun free country like mexico.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/05/07/181998015/rate-of-u-s-gun-violence-has-fallen-since-1993-study-says

I have not "demonized" anyone or any faction here.

I suppose we need you to once again "clarify" your "moderate, center-left position" May. 04, 2013 - 09:26PM JST Post

I strongly suspect that the vast majority of NRA/TEA party members don't have the kind of 24/7 days-long commitment in them. It would not take very long or very much provocation for their conspiratorial and ignorance-fueled anger to boil over among themselves.

@daxxed

I think what people might be missing here is.. The most favorite way to commit suicide in america is with a gun. Six out of ten suicides agree. That means about six thousand-ish of the eleven thousand gun related deaths are self inflicted.

Now if Japanese committed suicide w/ a gun well .. that would mean japan would have about 24,000 gun related deaths a year. do you understand how baseless these gun control argument statistics are yet?

Yet another pro-NRA shoots them self in the foot? Does that mean that you think people who committed suicide actually deserve to die? Dig into the problem of suicide and you will most likely find that if there was no gun, there would be less deaths. For some, and rather sadly, it is an easy and quick way out. Many haven't sunk to the depths whereby leaping in front of a train is the last resort. In short, your argument supports that less guns means less deaths.

Six out of ten suicides agree.

Is this an advert for toothpaste? Or did you write that as a joke?

daxxed: That means about six thousand-ish of the eleven thousand gun related deaths are self inflicted.

Whew. I was starting to worry after reading about the 5-year old kid who shot his 2-year old sister. Things really aren't as bad as they seem.

About 2/3 of gun deaths in the US are suicide. For example, in 2010, 31,513 people died from guns - 19,308 suicide, 11,015 homicide, 600 accident. However, the US suicide rate is not materially higher than Western European or Australasian countries and is much less than East Asian countries. Americans, it seems, prefer to shoot themselves rather than jump in front of trains/off buildings, poison themselves, hang themselves, fire up the BBQ in the car, etc.

So why is that a big problem?

sailwind: If you wish to really know what conservatives really think of this

I don't.

Sorry to hear that. It almost crosses the line to just having a close minded bigotry against conservatives and gun owners themselves. Not much different than the bigoted attitudes unfortunately that way to many Americans exhibited in the past to groups of people in our history that they didn't care for at the time. For the record no single gun right groups are supporting this idiocy at all.

Some Gun Owners Aren’t Happy About the Open Carry March on Washington

Some gun owners aren't happy about the march either. And gun rights groups have so far declined to support it.

Larry Pratt at Gun Owners of America said the event is "not the kind of thing we would be involved with."

"The folks are potentially there in Congress to take away the unsatisfactory laws, and we think we can possibly get that done," says Pratt. "So that's where we think the focus should be." Pratt also said he hadn't heard of a single gun owner taking part in the event, despite more than 3,300 confirmed guests on the event's Facebook page.

Other gun owners think the march is just a bad idea. "As a thorough supporter of the Second Amendment, for the sake of gun owners and enthusiasts I would think twice about this," Trisha Buchwald, a gun owner in Abilene, Texas, wrote on the march's Facebook page. "This is only going to give the government an excuse to make gun owners look bad and have our guns taken away from us."

http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2013/05/10/some-gun-owners-arent-happy-about-the-open-carry-march-on-washington

I suppose we need you to once again "clarify" your "moderate, center-left position

No need to clarify. Perhaps you should explain why you think gun-toting NRA members are morally superior to others, when there is no evidence to indicate it. It is hardly demonizing to admit they are subject to the same weaknesses of human nature as the rest of the population. The messages we receive are that a number feel guns are preferable in times of an emergency to calling the police. In contrast, many on the moderate/progressive left have made a conscious decision to adopt the principle of non-violence. They are not the types to carry guns.

I certainly haven't "demonized" anyone in the manner you have gone after fellow gun-rights enthusiast, Adam Kokesh.

Some gun owners aren't happy about the march either. And gun rights groups have so far declined to support it.

Many are holding back on making a decision to support it or not. Gun rights advocates are not immune to open carry as a sign of protest. We saw members of the Virginia Citizens Defense League bring 30 openly armed folks to a public library in Richmond last August to protest the library's "no weapons" policy. A non-violent protest by mothers who advocate universal background checks was "joined" by a bunch of openly armed counter-protesters in Indianapolis last month.

People who are afraid the Open Carry march might end in disaster actually support my earlier point about the conspiratorial and ignorance-fueled anger boiling over in a protest lasting less than half a day. (As opposed to the generally very peaceful, months-long demonstrations and teach-ins by the Occupy movement.)

Perhaps you should explain why you think gun-toting NRA members are morally superior to others, when there is no evidence to indicate it.

I never claimed they were morally superior or anything close to this very weird statement you've made. The NRA is nothing more than a special interest group just like Planned Parenthood, AARP, AFL-CIO, NAACP the list goes on that are dedicated to the issues that are dear to them and a voice for their members to congress who has ultimate regulatory authority over them.

The messages we receive are that a number feel guns are preferable in times of an emergency to calling the police.

Not once have you mentioned video games of Hollywood movies as the real cause. You do mention a T-shirt you don't like often enough in a society that doesn't even read much anymore but does watches a lot of television, movies and plays video games for hours on end.

I certainly haven't "demonized" anyone in the manner you have gone after fellow gun-rights enthusiast, Adam Kokesh

Which brings us to most interesting thing that about your posts. Since the tragedy at Sandy Hook you've have been quite vocal in advocating for a more intrusive Government to identify those that should not be allowed to have guns. Going so far as to suggest a neighborhood type screening program and mental health evaluations prior to being able to purchase a weapon. You've additionally wanted this to be renewed every couple of years to ensure that the person is still a 'good risk' to keep his fire arms.

Adam Kokesh would be your poster boy as to exactly the person you yourself would try to identify well in advance as being flagged through your own suggested way as to not being able to own. purchase or be anywhere near a firearm. Yet here you not only have not posted one word that he shouldn't be allowed a firearm by your own standards and have gone so far as to actually give your defacto endorsement of his stunt. It is obvious you feel the political gain of this will ultimately be detrimental to gun owners in the long run and you would be 100 percent correct. Your more than willing to risk a potential violent confrontation and scrap everything you've posted since Sandy Hook on identifying and denying people who should not have guns. I am not.

Your correct I have 'demonized' Adam Kokesh by using the very same criteria you yourself have advocated but have now abandoned on this discussion. I do believe he has exhibited enough bad behavior and poor judgement to not be allowed any possession of a firearm. I do believe posting a you tube video of himself smoking dope should be more than enough for a mental health professional to file the appropriate court documents disallowing his 2nd amendment rights by due process according to the constitution. I do believe in making the process you so strongly advocated at one point but now have discarded used here. I do believe instead of giving him oxygen for his stunt that pro-active police work should be the dominate headline. "Open Carry March Organizer Has History of Illegal Drug Use"........That would pretty much kill this idiocy right then and there as the public would be demanding that he not be allowed any near a weapon much less be able to organize a march. .

sailwind: If you wish to really know what conservatives really think of this

SuperLib: I don't.

sailwind: Sorry to hear that. It almost crosses the line to just having a close minded bigotry against conservatives and gun owners themselves. Not much different than the bigoted attitudes unfortunately that way to many Americans exhibited in the past to groups of people in our history that they didn't care for at the time.

I brought up the topic for discussion. I never turned it into a "left" vs. "right" issue which is something you've focused on. Not me. I tried to get you back on topic by clarifying that. You return by asking me if I want to know what conservatives think, despite what I already said. And now I'm a bigot because I won't go off on your tangent. What's your deal?

Pratt also said he hadn't heard of a single gun owner taking part in the event, despite more than 3,300 confirmed guests on the event's Facebook page.

I'm really hoping the event doesn't happen. But it's the fact that there are so many people supporting this kind of protest and so many gun owners following this guy. They are saying a lot of the same things I hear from other gun owners and you have to wonder about the segment that is being radicalized by that kind of talk.

I do believe he has exhibited enough bad behavior and poor judgement to not be allowed any possession of a firearm

At what point do we stop dismissing people like Kokesh as "Oh, that's just one guy, don't worry about it."? You said the same thing about Alex Jones if I can remember correctly. You also gave the NRA a free pass on their inflammatory rhetoric, saying they are single issue groups and they'll do that from time to time. You wouldn't touch anything that LaPierre has said and you ignored what Porter is currently saying. If you ignore what you don't like then you can say everything else is great.

Another thing I see is gun supporters constantly distancing themselves from the negatives of their positions by saying, "I'm not like that." The story about the kid who shot his sister got a lot of posts from people saying they would never give a kid and gun and leave. The gun owners want to tell us how safe they personally are when there is a story about someone who isn't. Some gun owners come out and say they are against this protest. It's always a problem with the other guy and by saying you aren't him is a way for gun owners to completely absolve themselves from any negative side effects of their policies. Despite what you personally feel these things are happening and they will continue to happen.

Which brings us to most interesting thing that about your posts. Since the tragedy at Sandy Hook you've have been quite vocal in advocating for a more intrusive Government to identify those that should not be allowed to have guns.

Not so. There are simply too many examples -- and now you add Kokesh to the list -- of the gun community being unable to provide anything in the way of ideas or willingness to truly take on the responsibilities closely tied to what the second amendment describes as a "right."

Rather than a "more intrusive" government identifying anyone, I have advocated a free-enterprise, private-sector solution. I don't know who picks up the costs for all of the damage caused by guns falling into the wrong hands, but it seems to me that the gun industry and gun-owning community ought to be a lot more responsible for those costs, rather than socializing them on the rest of the community.

I have not seen one truly effective idea coming from them. The NRA once were strongly for universal background checks -- until they came out against them.

One last thing....

Trisha Buchwald, a gun owner in Abilene, Texas, wrote on the march's Facebook page. "This is only going to give the government an excuse to make gun owners look bad and have our guns taken away from us."

The mindset is interesting. She's not saying that Kokesh will make gun owners look bad, she's saying that Kokesh will give the government an opportunity to make gun owners look bad. There's a disconnect there.

I do believe posting a you tube video of himself smoking dope should be more than enough for a mental health professional to file the appropriate court documents disallowing his 2nd amendment rights by due process...

Due process would require showing that the person has committed a crime. If the laws of his state allow for the medical use of a certain substance, then neither using nor filming that use is a crime. We still have a First Amendment.

From my observation, Kokesh has a much better grip on reality than do many of the gun owners who are upset at him for his active and articulate demonstration of what he regards as his personal freedoms.

Due process would require showing that the person has committed a crime.

Appending this remark, I believe there should be a process/protocol whereby ordinary citizens can file an affidavit expressing "no confidence" of members of a community towards individuals whom they have reasonable doubts about with regards to keeping guns on their property. The process would be very much like seeing a restraining order against someone.

There would then be some requirement on the individual to demonstrate -- with supporting witnesses -- why they should not be considered a risk.

Appending this remark, I believe there should be a process/protocol whereby ordinary citizens can file an affidavit expressing "no confidence" of members of a community towards individuals whom they have reasonable doubts about with regards to keeping guns on their property. The process would be very much like seeing a restraining order against someone. There would then be some requirement on the individual to demonstrate -- with supporting witnesses -- why they should not be considered a risk.

The US Government has already been targeting ex-military and ex-law enforcement and has been very effective in stealing these Americans 2nd amendment rights.

50-year-old David A Schmecker is an honorably discharged disabled US Navy veteran from Connecticut with no criminal record and no psychiatric history. On February 5, Schmecker’s hospital primary care doctor called and heard a message on Schmecker’s answer machine that “sounded peculiar,” prompting him to contact the local police and urge them to visit Schmecker to perform a “wellness check”. “The police came to my home, and, without any justification whatsoever, hauled me away for a psychiatric evaluation at a local hospital. I submitted to their forceful insistence under duress and fear of arrest or worse. I wasn’t arrested, no crime was committed nor any threats were made to myself or others,” Schmecker told Survive and Thrive’s George Hemminger (G4T). “They confiscated my guns and pistol permit. I was released two days later from the evaluation on my on recognizance. I have since attempted to use the courts and attorneys to fight the revocation of my pistol permit. Then on top of everything else, the bills from the short stay at the hospital and EMS bills that they billed me, along with what I had to pay the attorney adds up to a large amount of money,” he adds. Schmecker warns that the harassment he suffered is part of “a campaign orchestrated to disarm law abiding citizens,” adding that he is “concerned about where this country is headed.” As with all contemporary authoritarian governments, the psychiatric system is being used to circumvent courts and bypass normal legal due process.

@badsey - I don't know the real story, but there are conflicting versions out there. The opposite side to your quote above is that David Schmecker refused submit to a psychological evaluation ordered by an interim physician for a pain medication appointment request. Only AFTER that did law enforcement need to get involved. Now, for me, I think it is entirely reasonable to have such a test IF the drug to be administered is known to have psychological side effects that may magnify emotions in any way. Frankly, anyone on medication should seriously consider surrendering weapons whilst they are being treated. What worries me even more now is there is no law against possessing a weapon under the influence of drugs or alcohol. With the mind changing effects of alcohol (and even some subscription drugs) it could turn a dangerous situation into a lethal one.

From my observation, Kokesh has a much better grip on reality than do many of the gun owners who are upset at him for his active and articulate demonstration of what he regards as his personal freedoms.

I'm sure that is based on observations what you saw when he took his hits from his dope pipe in the video and then describe his high for all to see on you tube I guess. Good to see you have no problem with him and his grip on reality based on your astute observations.

"Guns themselves did not make America safer. "

News was reported the drop in crime in Japan -- without guns. We all know America is safer -- with guns. In world news it is reported the (at least 1st world) it is overall getting safer and safer -- with or without guns. If you live a safe lifestyle anyway the chances a gun (where you can own one) will save your life is extremely low. But if you want to have one go ahead -- it's your right.

What does the NRA have to say about "David Schmecker"? I can't find his name on any regular news sites. But when one site pops up in Google news search: "Neither the Veteran's Administration nor local police have confirmed this story yet" OK, see what pans out but nothing that is confirmed really has.

"...have been quite vocal in advocating for a more intrusive Government to identify those that should not be allowed to have guns."

Maybe they should be. One problem is today's guns are much more deadly than they used to be, especially the semi-auto Glocks. One person who snaps and goes crazy with a knife or a revolver is one thing. But that same person with the most lethal gun (such as a Bushmaster or Glock) that can be legally owned is another and you can see how much of a killing machine these guns can be. New technology in the future will mean even more lethal power and if these guns can be legally owned the government will be watching more closely with the history of Sandy Hook, Virginia Tech, and such. You want those deadly guns to be owned by the public? Then get ready for more eyes from the government.

I don't think it's unreasonable to have more oversight on gun owners. Yes, most are law abiding citizens, but many of the recent tragedies had guns used that were from law abiding citizens. If they play a part in the collateral damage they need to play a part in policing.