========

...at every well child visit I do, and further encourage parents to have a similar conversation with parents of playmates at homes their kids visit.

I tell them to use my advice from the pediatric office as a way to broach the subject if they aren't sure how to bring it up, and recommend that if the other parents get all bent out of shape about the question, then "those kids can come to your house, but not vice versa." I have not had any parents be upset when I raise this topic.

I cannot image living with the guilt of being responsible for death of a child, be it mine or someone else's, because I had been negligent about securing a gun. Unforgivable.

We need to fix this. America is the only country that has this problem.

And we have a gun problem because GOP billionaires need votes, and they use identity politics issues like guns to divide America and get those votes. And they don't care who gets killed.

There is no denying that.

The death and injury numbers are a large umbrella covering multiple problems. Each problem has its own solution. Which problem did you want to discuss?

does that mean we have to ban them too??

I hope you don't support the 'tactical culture' and own a lot of guns and support blocking all gun laws.

Because if you do, sadly, you are complicit in American gun deaths. Americans get killed in cities regularly with guns. That's why city mayors want strict gun control. It's not like living in suburban or rural areas. Guns are bad for america and we need restrictions.

A common misconception by USA citizens.

Protection of life authorizations rare

Very few authorizations are made under the protection of life category. These would mostly include cases where there is an active police file and a verifiable threat as well as police confirmation that they cannot provide adequate protection for that person.

Section 117 of the Criminal Code of Canada exempts on-duty police officers, members of the Canadian Forces, peace officers and persons training to be become police or peace officers from the restrictions on carrying handguns.

There are also provincial regulations that cover who may or may not legally carry a handgun. For example, Alberta regulations set out two levels of peace officers, with different weapons authorizations.

There are also laws and regulations that apply to shooting ranges, guns shows and transporting handguns to them.

I own a car, and purchase alcohol every so often. I guess I'm complicit in drunk driving deaths, too.

And, what is "tactical culture"? I do military reenactments, and own several firearms, most with eebil bayonet lugs. Some of them are even semi auto, and one of those uses detachable magazines. (designed in 1940, an upgrade of the 1938 model. Guess which one, and you win a cookie.)

Because your purchases fund the NRA.


Similar to those who buy Koch Industries products, or who stay at Trump hotels. Your money funds the destruction of America.

I'm undecided about your body of work here; I keep going back and forth between:



and

Because gun companies want money, GOP billionaires want votes, and Americans are propagandized by the right and don’t realize how damaging our gun culture is.


You can go with:

I didn't see that on my receipt.

They are big donors to the NRA.

It makes sense - it's a business investment for them. Gun CEOs only care about making money. They don't care who gets killed.

"profit for gun manufacturers", "They are big donors to the NRA."

"Gun CEOs only care about making money."

So, my money goes to profit for the gun companies, who then give it to the NRA, so they can make more profit, to give to the NRA...

If they only care about making money, why are they giving so much of their profit to the NRA? Seems like they would want to keep more of the bottom line, if they're so greedy.

Exactly. This is called Marketing 101. Gun manufacturers are engaging in product marketing and lobbying. And if you buy guns, you're helping.

Were you just looking to boost your post count or actually looking for a conversation?

Yes, some folks are killed by people using handguns.
Yes, some folks are protected using handguns.

Disarming the Good Guys before you disarm the Bad Guys is counter productive.

You’re pushing the stupidest right wing talking point of all.

You can’t stop the first shooter with more guns.

Fewer guns, fewer deaths. Ban handguns and semi autos.

I think allowing single shot weapons is a reasonable tradeoff to allow real hunters to pursue game like deer without introducing too much risk of massacreing kids.

..."there is value in respecting real hunters."

Are hunters the only type of gun owner that deserves respect?
Do competitive shooters deserves respect?
Do those with an interest in self-defense deserves respect?
Do hobbyists and collectors deserves respect?

If the answer is no for any of those groups, please explain why.

You list four groups. The first two can do their thing with single-shot rifles and/or on ranges. Great. That doesn't help get Americans massacred. The fourth can keep all the antique non-working guns they want. Put some melted lead in the barrels.

The third group helps get Americans massacred. So no. Patriotic Americans should want to keep guns out of their hands.

In other words, we're advocating for EXACTLY what Canada does.


Canadian gun laws: they stop gun killing in Canada, and they'd work here too. Let's do it.

Certain Olympic competitions and various other sport shooting use semi-autos.

Once again my questions:

Essentially these questions are yes/no. Feel free to elaborate on your answer.

You've answered no for self-defense which seems especially disrespectful. The Constitutions of several states particularly name self-defense as a valid reason for owning arms. These laws were written by folks who participated in constructing the Federal Constitution. Of the many positive contributions the US has made to the world, the idea of a Constitution as a principle body of guiding laws. Since the US Constitution, a super majority of nations in the world have followed suit by codifying foundational laws in a Constitution. Great legal minds from this country have gone around the world to assist in these efforts. Those folks who believe what has existed here for over 2 centuries can easily be swept away are kidding themselves.

An AWB may pass judicial review if properly and reasonably developed.

Relegating self-defense, sport and collectors/investors to 150 year old technology is backward.

If you believe in a right to life, you believe in self-defense.

The designs of a majority do not negate the rights of a minority. Not in Congress nor in an alley.

Pull the other one; it's got bells on...

You're the one limiting the solution here.

Fewer guns may or may not lead to fewer gun deaths.
However, the criminals are happy to substitute other weapons as needed. Dead is dead. The tool used by the criminal does not matter.

Keeping the guns out the hands of the Bad Guys and of the other disqualified people is a good thing.

on the other hand, not expecting much from someone who puts "maniac" in their name.

from the thread:

Gun sales go up, particularly of handguns which are the primary firearm used for murder (about 90%). Murder rate drops in half in about a 12-year period (1991-2003).

You posted that more guns hasn't meant more deaths.

ManiacJoe said that fewer guns won't lead to fewer deaths.

When you find charts that show fewer guns causing more deaths, you'll be backing up his statement, however until then you have not backed up his statement.

You know, you're so hung up on getting all the details right and here you can't even be bothered to know what question you're answering.

Guns are durable goods... properly cared for, they can last decades or even centuries.

Where can I find data for a state that had a noticeable, documented decline in gun ownership so I can correlate this with murder rates?

Gun ownership rates are based on surveys, I believe. I mean, going by things like registered guns in a particular jurisdiction is a joke because most places don't have registration, and of course even those that do have large quantities of unregistered guns.

Hmmm... how would you find this out?

Good question. You would need a situation where gun ownership rates dropped sharply but the homicide rate stayed the same or got worse..

Aha!

The United Kingdom! After two mass shootings (one of them a school shooting) in 1987 and 1996, Parliament moved to ban, confiscate, and destroy semiautomatic rifles in 1988 and pistols in 1997. Not just a ban on new sales... confiscation and destruction of existing privately-held firearms.

So, let's see how that worked out... oh dear.



Wow, the UK rate doubled from 1967 to 2003. Imagine that.

Yes, yes, yes, I know it's still much lower compared to the U.S. rate, but banning/confiscation/destruction of guns didn't seem to lead to fewer murders at all.

How about Australia? After the terrible Port Arthur massacre, the Aussies also banned & confiscated (with compensation) what would be generally referred to as "assault weapons", over 643,000 of them. Surely that did something significant, right?



Hmph.

That's a puzzler.

Unless you like dead kids. Then, by all means, don't restrict sales of guns designed to kill humans.

he committed a federal felony by making a "sawed-off rifle" without ATF permission.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demagogue#Fearmongering



Claiming to be concerned about children has always been a popular tactic to use on the
weak-minded:

Texas Ranger LeBoeuf (sp?) Glenn Campbell.

Wouldn't drowning and car crashes be 2 separate categories?
If not, aren't most child shootings also unintentional but somehow get their own category?

on guns.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dickey_Amendment_(1996)

Maybe you meant this one?

(Not your fault -- doing a standard copy/paste link from that page doesn't seem to work.)

Not sure why it didn't work.

Possibly a topic for a future ATA thread.

Read my previous posts in the thread: https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=205422


Where do you get your misleading stats and facts about guns? Do you read 'tactical' magazines or anything from the NRA? Gun groups?

All you did was repeat a claim made by another. I quoted the actual excerpt from the 1996 Dickey Amendment. The law restricts the CDC from supporting or advocating gun-control.

But go on with asserting lies. You're making a case against yourself.

Here's an Arthur Kellerman quote for you: "If you’ve got to resist, you’re chances of being hurt are less the more lethal your weapon. If that were my wife, would I want her to have a .38 Special in her hand? Yeah." (Health Magazine, March/April 1994)

This is FROM the CDC report. It was a few posts above.

The fact is, the GOP has prevented government from collecting data on guns. Because the NRA and GOP are scared of gun data. They know what it will show.

In '96 the GOP flexed on the CDC for having participated in "gun-control" advocacy in addition to collecting data. The CDC leadership has chosen the safe and protected path of doing nothing. They're not independent and they're not acting like leaders at all. They just get in line for their congressional handout and do as they're told.

In the 104th Congress the Senate majority of Democrats dropped from 57 to 47 and the House majority of 258 dropped to 204. This occurred as a consequence of the 1994 elections. You are free to think, speak and write as you wish but my conclusion is that the passage of the 1994 AWB contributed to that.

So there you have it. Conviction at the CDC for more than 2 decades has run as deep as the wallet. During the 111th Congress with a Democratic Majority in both houses, why this issue did not become important enough to at least enact guidelines for the CDC concerning research on firearm effects is beyond me. Horsetrading is what politics are all about. You give some to get some. Each party has their own set of political priorities. "Gun-control" has been a political loser for Democrats since the federal AWB. We got the Brady law in the '90s with background checks, etc. That was progress. The AWB was absolutely a bridge too far and the party has been paying for it for going on a quarter century. Democratic leadership apparently did not make that CDC research an important enough issue. Maybe there were issues like healthcare that were more precious or more exigent. I'll tell you what I've read, HRC tested the waters once during the campaign on the AWB issue and never again. Politicians know for sure that for the minority party, it's all about elections. From your own party you have allegiance. From the opposition you need certain attractive qualities and a scarcity of reasons for folks to simply vote against you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_elections,_2018I look at this time, RIGHT NOW as a time to GET DEMOCRATS ELECTED. As much as it may seem disingenuous, focusing on these issues will not swing marginal voters from purple areas your way.

At this point right now that 1996 law is an excuse that Democrats can use to say, "It's the Republican's fault."

Wake up. This is the age of information. A video of athlete burping at lunch can go viral. Make some progress. Get that CDC research defined and set by law. Have an accomplishment. You think the data will point in your direction. Good. Get the data. Get some congress critters in place to pass the law to get the data.

In this time where trump has convinced most every Democrat to simply vote against any Republican, to whom are you trying to appeal for a vote? It is my bet that every Democrat will vote against every Republican. The only pivotal campaign issues will come down to those that swing Republicans to vote against trump and their own party. Auribus teneo lupum. Regardless of what you do, you have the attention of the wolf. From my perspective feeding the wolf that it might relax and sleep while we take the advantage and win elections is the course of wisdom.

If Democrats want more a 22 year old excuse, now is the time. Stop trying to kick the wolf in the balls.

I know the gun politics very very well. I have family members who are insecure and need guns to feel manly.

I promise you: this is the time to take a stand. This is about the lives of American kids. Don’t hide behind flawed stats. First, the report I quoted is correct and you are debating semantics: your own quote says federal research was chilled by GOP and NRA.

Second, here’s the only statistic that matters today:

SEVENTEEN KIDS JUST GOT KILLED because GOP billionaires and corporations need gun politics, to get votes for their pro-billionaire actions.

You’re either on the side of America or you’re on the side of the NRA - who will go down in history as asbestos or tobacco companies did - traitors to the American people interested only in profits. Which side do you want to be on?

What you say is fair- that Dems are going to vote against GOP no matter what, so why push this issue now? Even beyond doing what’s right, there are two political realities to care about:

1. People want Dems to take a stand. They want them to be for something. And the Dem activist base cares about gun violence. If Dems don’t lead on this issue they risk losing their base.
2. As someone from a purple (red, really) area, I can testify this issue will persuade Republican women. We have a historic chance to win moms and sane GOP women to our side.

Gun control is the obvious right thing, and it’s also good politics.

That didn't go well last time, and with even more AR-15's in circulation, you are talking about rounding up a whole lot more weapons than were in civilian hands before. And what all the "banners" are really talking about right now, is confiscation. Confiscation, or the "Australian method", will fail, and horribly. Because "get them off the streets" means going out and rounding them up. I wouldn't want to be the one knocking on doors for that.

You may need to amend the law 6 months from now if gun manufacturers figure out a loophole.
That's fine. Pass a new law that closes the loopholes.

The intent is clear: ban guns meant for killing humans. This is not hard. It's only hard if you believe the NRA propaganda, which chooses to flood the news with details in order to confuse the issue.

Ban assault rifles. If too hard: ban all semiautos.

Part of the NRA gun strategy is to sow confusion by talking about gun features.

If guns are too complicated for you to work out how to ban the guns that massacre kids, we've got a GREAT alternative solution:

You can't work out what an assault weapon is? Fine. Then ban all semi-autos and allow all single-shot weapons.

Because, after manufacturers modified their production of guns to move them from "assault weapon" to "not an assault weapon" category, there was a lot of bitching and whining and gnashing of teeth about how they were "exploiting a loophole" or "circumventing" the law. It was blindingly obvious what they would do ("can't have a bayonet lug AND a pistol grip? Okay, grind off the bayonet lug!&quot and it exposed the uselessness of the law. Which you want to reinstate but want other people to define "assault weapon".

And if it's so obvious, then why have some states had to expand the definition of "assault weapon"? My state, Connecticut, did after the Sandy Hook shooting. Not that it's helping the body count in Bridgeport or New Haven or Hartford, but hey, another victory in the culture wars, right?

But in a way, you're spot-on although you may not realize it: you really can't figure out what an "assault weapon" is because any definition is both arbitrary and based on accessories... unless you go after the operating system itself.

A ban on semi-automatic long guns, without exception, would be the way to go to avoid the "loopholes" that your side (who defined what an assault weapon was to begin with) complain about.

Now, this simply means that things like pump-action tactical rifles (they make, for example, a pump-action AR-15) would take off to replace the now-banned AR-15s and such, but hey, you'd have something new to complain about at the next school shooting BECAUSE YOU HAVEN'T ADDRESSED THE PROBLEM.

I fundamentally believe that our founding documents are inspiring. You can tell from the acceptance of the rest of the world that the idea of concise guiding principles is a major advancement over prior governments. The Bill of Rights was passed over 225 years ago. It hasn't been changed since. The 14A has come along to kind of expand the restrictions to state governments but nothing in the BoR has been removed.

There will always be those with a design to blame the weapon and ban it. Here is what I see as simple deductive reasoning:

Step 1- An unbalanced angry person with unchecked rage and enough resources to be dangerous feels slighted. (Although the pro-ban folks won't see it, this is the place to start. Addressing the causes for violence is a major key.)

Step 2- Many folks feel ignored by the world or those around them. Many folks with certain disorders are especially offended when they perceive that no one wants to hear their complaints or ideas. I can't stress this enough because it is a source of anger and an opportunity for defusing it. (I worry about what might happen if the world starts to ignore trump.) The unhealthy combination of being ignored or unvalued professionally or personally or both is a trigger. I can't believe many staunch Democrats don't see this.

Step 3- Often the families and friends of these folks avoid them. It's not always a failing of the close F&Fs since our society has demanded more money and more work from us all. We have gone from a time when many families had 1 job and 3 or more children to where families often have 1 or 2 children and 3 or more jobs. Many people don't have time to listen or be social. The cues that would be noticed and obvious can be missed by busy people lacking in any regular time to interact.

Step 4- Being ignored and undervalued also gives focus to an enemy. Maybe a spouse, a workplace, a school or some surrogate group or location to blame a rejection real or perceived.

Step 5- There aren't that many arsonists out there. There aren't that many chemists or biologists out there. Targeted murders tend to be shootings. Especially when planned ahead. The Las Vegas bastard planned ahead. Most of these folks want the attention they feel they lack. They think along the lines of making society unable to brush them off. Maybe they leave a rambling letter of complaint. Maybe they've gone beyond that and feel their issues are obvious and just would to inflict the pain they feel.

Step 6- If someone wants to inflict pain and injury, they most likely aren't thinking of spending a few years mastering boxing, martial arts or swordsmanship. The same thing that makes a gun an ideal means of self-defense makes it a good choice for murder.

Step 7- The reasons for choosing an AR (or other assault weapon rifle) are logical. A rifle amy often be a subconscious choice because a larger weapon may be harder to ignore. A rifle has a substantial feel to it. The personal power trip the killer plans also may often include the need to scare the hell out of his targets. Honestly the bigger the weapon the scarier. Some rifles are scary looking. I've read some pro-"control" folks say that if they can't be banned to paint them pink with a Hello Kitty design. An AR or AK looks scarier than a Walther PPK. Just my opinion. ARs are currently about the most popular selling rifle in the country.

Conclusion- If someone wants to inflict pain and fear, they will often choose a long gun which they perceive as scary as a weapon. This isn't universal but apparently very common. This won't stop if scary rifles are not available. The killer will move on to another means. In some cases they may build their own weapon. The Bath Michigan killer was angry at his whole town. He lost an election. He decided that he could inflict the most pain by killing the whole town through murdering all of its children. It would seem to me to be a mind-crushing thought that my whole community would die off and be a ghost town because almost every child was murdered.

Back here in the real world, try again. Guns are not too complicated for me. For you, I'm not sure.
If you want life to regress 100 years or more, maybe you could make everyone become Amish.

This is not a simple problem. Blaming a type of weapon isn't the answer.
If you think it is, convince me.

Exclaiming, "NRA talking point!" proves nothing.

It's on gun fetishists to come up with a good definition of assault rifle that doesn't get American kids killed.

If you can't - ban all semiauto rifles.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demagogue#Personal_insults_and_ridicule



BTW, don't expect those you insult to do your research for you.

"ban all semiautos". There are other rights in the Bill of Rights other than the 2nd, which you would have to get rid of to even consider this. Like, "taking". When you ban them, you are "taking" them. You think the budget is overspent now, come up with several billion more for compensation. And a $50 Wal-Mart card isn't going to cut it, either. Some top end semi autos will fetch several thousand, apiece. That's why some gun owners consider their collections "investments".


"The intent is clear: ban guns meant for killing humans."

OK, let's talk "intent". Technically, you could make the case that every firearm produced since the 1400's have been "meant for killing humans". Unfortunately, wars bring out the best of research and development. So, are you calling for a complete ban on firearms? Truthfully, now. You don't have to answer here, just to yourself. If so, that horse left the barn 600+ years ago. There is no way that a total firearm ban, in ANY country, would work. Welcome to the 2010's, with 3D printers, and a machine shop in your garage. The "intent" to use a firearm to murder others is in the heart of the individual, not the lockwork of the gun. Guns are not "evil", any more than drugs are "evil". It's the user that is evil. And laws just proscribe what is illegal, and what is not, and provide parameters of punishment of violation of same. After all, murder has been illegal for thousands of years, but it still happens. Do you really think someone with murder in their heart is going to be stopped by a puny little equipment ban?

Incredibly simple.

The rest of your points are NRA talking points. And you and others that repeat these positions get Americans killed.

By making these obfuscating arguments, you're helping Americans get killed by guns.

Look at these kids. They were torn apart by a rifle designed to kill humans. It is our responsibility as Americans and humans to stop this.

Ban semiautos. Ban assault rifles. Ban handguns. Stop gun deaths.


Sandy Hook victims. They are dead. Imagine if these were one of your kids.

OK. Gotcha.

...in no essential different from Bible-quoting, or chanting snippets from Quotations from Chairman Mao Tse-tung

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quotations_from_Chairman_Mao_Tse-tung

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clich%C3%A9#Thought-terminating_clich.C3.A9

17 yo gangbangers shooting each other aren't quite "children".

That’s why we need a handgun ban.

So American kids can stop getting killed by handguns in American cities.

Kids get killed by guns, because our country is flooded by guns. Our country is flooded by guns because GOP billionaires and gun corporations pay for pro gun propaganda and hate, to get votes for tax cuts for billionaires.

I wasn’t sure whether when you criticize the inclusion of 17 year olds, you are denying that too many kids get killed by guns in America.

Whether 17 year olds are kids or teens seems like a distinction without a difference.

But if you agree with the main point - that we need to ban handguns to prevent needless killing of our kids - that’s fine with me.

To my knowledge that has not changed.

You mention that this was reversed under Obama. Are you sure? This study was funded elsewhere and published by Pediatrics Journal.

I think the expiration on the prohibition of gun violence research is next month. See attached article from the Atlantic:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/553430/