The Brady "Report Cards" are in...

how does your state rate?

http://www.bradycampaign.org/press/release.php?release=617

Massachusetts: A- ;( (like I should be surprised :puke:)

There's no pleasing these vermin people...

"Gun violence in Massachusetts could increase in 2005 because Congress failed to renew the federal assault weapon ban, which expired last fall, and some of Massachusetts’ neighbors do not have state assault weapons bans.

Massachusetts’ law prohibits anyone under age 21 from buying or possessing a handgun; holds adults responsible for leaving loaded guns around children, requires child-safety locks to be sold with guns and bans Saturday night specials and assault weapons. The state also requires handguns to either have a loaded-chamber indicator or a magazine safety disconnect to prevent accidental shootings.

But Massachusetts does not require ballistic fingerprinting to trace crime guns and does not restrict gun traffickers by limiting the number of handguns that can be purchased at one time."

and then it becomes a lot easier for the nuts to justify killing them.

Dehumanizing the opposing view points by calling us "gun nuts" (or "nuts").

Truth be told, the term doesn't bother me in the least.

It's only the Internet. There were harsher terms I could have used. B-)

Yup, dehumanize them by calling them "vermin"
and then it becomes a lot easier for the nuts to justify killing them.
Or ...
Dehumanizing the opposing view points by calling us "gun nuts" (or "nuts"). (emphasis added)

Are you implying that you justify killing someone?? ... Or that someone else was implying that you justify killing someone? Who might have called you anything?


E-qui-vo-ca-a-tion
is making me puke.

The fact that someone may have called some other people "nuts" in some other circumstances has nothing whatsoever to do with the statement you were replying to, or with your own choice to (pretend not to) call the people associated with the Brady Campaign "vermin".

Most of us lessor humanoids don't scrutinize every word, syllable, nuance, sentence structure or mis-spelling for some hidden meaning or implication.

I know it's probably cold and lonely up there in the "Great White North", but there has to be some deeper explanation for many of your responses to this forum. Might as well post in tongues and simplify the :wtf: factor.

The "killing them" comment that was made by the original poster?. Maybe it had some meaning or relevance to you. I chose to ignore it as idiotic rubbish not even worth commenting on or acknowledging.

If you decipher my response as being "E-qui-vo-ca-a-tion", well think what you will.

call the people associated with the Brady Campaign "vermin".

You say to-ma-to... I say to-mah-to. :shrug:

Ehhh, whatever floats your boat. Anti-gun legislation is pretty much a dead issue here anyways. B-)

..."Definition:
1. a pleading that alleges new facts in avoidance of the opposing allegations
2. an argument that ignores all unfavorable evidence"

Macaulay's classic observation is also quite germane:
"A kind of semi-Solomon, half-knowing everything, from the cedar to the hyssop"

That Thomas Babington had an admirable way of summing matters up perfectly. But brace yourself for the inevitable eruption of snide logorrhea that is no doubt coming - even especially over a stray word, syllable, nuance, sentence structure or stray misspelling...

at this point even a B would be welcome.

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

my posts at
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=105&topic_id=2427592#2428731
and
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=105&topic_id=2427592#2429324

With a little more effort I'm sure we can pull an F next year.

On edit: :bounce:

Ok, here is why the Brady Campaign gets little respect from me.

BC: Gun violence in Georgia could increase in 2005 because Congress failed to renew the federal assault weapons ban, which expired last fall, and Georgia has no law restricting assault weapons or rapid fire ammunition magazines.

Me: I know of no independent study showing decreased gun violence attributed to the 1994 AWB. I also have no idea what a rapid fire ammunition magazine is since all magazines push bullets into the breach at about the same rate.

BC: Georgia does not require background checks at gunshows, does not require child safety locks be sold with guns, does not hold adults responsible for leaving loaded guns around children and even forces police to let people carry hidden handguns in public.

Me: Every gun I've bought at a GA gunshow from a Federal Firearms License holder was preceded by a background check on me. Every gun I've bought in GA came with a safety lock. There are already laws to punish negligent people who don't keep their guns away from children and an accident happens. Police are required to follow the law and let people carry a concealed weapon if they have not proven themselves ineligible. They still made me jump through hoops (finger prints) and wait 3 months for the 'privilege' to protect myself with a concealed weapon.

BC: In addition, the state was awarded the sensible safety star for defeating a dangerous bill that would have allowed hidden handguns in bars.

Me: Meanwhile I get leave my gun in my car when I go to restaurant that serves alcohol or choose not to patronize downtown Savannah, GA establishments because I don't want to go without protection for when I'm walking back to me car with my wife late at night.

Oh well. Its their right to say what they think.

"to let people carry hidden handguns in public"

....In other news, police are also FORCED to let gays, lesbians, athiests, and negroes walk around free, are FORCED to mirandize suspects, and are FORCED to obtain search warrants.

Damn you NRA, for FORCING police to obey the law! Damn you all to hell!!!

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

I guess Mainers will just have to find consolation in their lowest-in-the-nation murder rate (1.2 homicides per 100,000 people).

:cry:

I'm sure there are some in the Brady group who would help raise those numbers to support their agenda.

I'm certain that they're every bit as zealous about control for the little people as the MMM elite.

"Michigan does not require background checks at gun shows"

Misleading at best, all states require that dealers conduct background checks no matter where the sale takes place. And Michigan requires that all handgun transfers go through a police or sherriff department check, along with a waitng period.

Michigan, I am proud to say is a blue state but managed to get a D+ from the Brady's.

Vermont gets a D- even though it has one of the lowest rates of gun-related violence and violent crime in general.

The Brady Bunch is a gaggle of Republican zealots on a "mission".

"The Brady Bunch is a gaggle of Republican zealots on a "mission"."

Republican??

Remember his press secretary Jim Brady taking a bullet in the head?

Jim Brady's wife is Sarah Brady. They're Republicans.

The Brady Campaign supports real safety measures, and supports democrats on a very regular basis, and with good means.

Like when they "support" DC's handgun and armed-at-home bans (but say nothing about DC's exemption for armed business owners)? Or when they "support" Chicago's handgun ban?

Or when they "support" MD's refusal to issue me the same CCW license to protect my family that the state hands out like candy to "private security guards" and off-duty out of state police officers, even though I can easily pass the same background check and training standards in place for the "Security guards," and probably the same training standards of at least some of the off-duty out-of-state police officers?

And I haven't even touched on the "assault weapons" myth.

Whatever, dude . . . .

the assualt weapons ban was key in the dropping crime rates of the 90's and handgun bans are clear safety measures. The only problem with dc's handugn ban is that maryland and virginia don't do the same

A 2000 Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) Youth Crime Gun Interdiction Initiative (YCGII) Trace Analysis Report revealed that 97% of all crime guns recovered in the District came from outside of the city (a shocking 59% were initially purchased from gun dealers in Maryland and Virginia. Another 18% were bought from gun dealers in North Carolina, Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina).

http://www.handgunfreedc.org/facts.htm

“Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review” published by the National Academy of Sciences and “First Reports Evaluating the Effectiveness of Strategies for Preventing Violence: Firearms Laws” published by the Center for Disease Control.

Both studies conclude that none of the scholarly papers reviewed have conclusions that are statistically significant and support assertions that laws restricting or banning handguns or long guns are effective in reducing violent crime.

rates then these "studies" are all you have and the CDC has had its funding threatened many times for trying to study the effects of gun control. Its clear gun laws do decrease crime.

Just a quest what city do you live in? Lets compare it to NYC.

http://www.bestplaces.net/html/crime_compare.asp

San Diego, CA has less than half the murder rate of New York City.

http://www.bestplaces.net/html/crimecompare3.asp?lcity=8480&rcity=9840&view=T

We're worse off on property crime.

NYC, which allows its citizens to own handguns, looks much better than handgun banning Chicago and DC.

decreased crime when it dramatically ACCELERATED the sale of military-lookalike civilian rifles and over-10-round magazines.

Far more AR-15 type rifles were sold in the years following 1994 than in the previous three decades COMBINED. The same could be said of civilian AK-47 lookalikes (mine is a 2002 model), and so on.

The ONLY things the "assault weapons ban" did were

(1) raised the price of replacement magazines by 500% for full- and intermediate-sized defensive handguns, like the one in your local police officer's holster (rifle magazines were not significantly affected);

(2) required that AR-15 clones be sold with fake flash suppressors instead of real ones, or fake adjustable stocks instead of real ones;

(3) required that civilian M16 and AK-47 lookalikes be named something other than "AR-15" or "AK-47";

(4) >>VASTLY<< increased civilian demand for modern-looking small-caliber self-loaders like AR-15 clones, civilian AK-47 and AK-74 lookalikes, and full-capacity rifle magazines.

Since by far the most commonly used guns in crimes are .38/.357 caliber REVOLVERS--and the only long gun on the BATFE Top Ten list is a 12-gauge pump-action HUNTING SHOTGUN--silly restrictions on long guns based on things like how the stock is shaped were and are irrelevant to the crime picture or "gun safety."

(BTW, contrary to popular belief, the "assault weapons" ban did NOT ban any military Uzi's or AK-47's, or any other modern infantry rifle; those are automatic weapons heavily restricted by the National Firearms Act of 1934.)

Crime was decreasing prior to 1994; it continued to decrease after 1994 even though the number of military-lookalike firearms in civilian hands dramatically increased; and the 1994 Scary Looking Gun Ban was irrelevant.

.. that the AWB was "key" in lowering crime?

The only thing the AWB did was to ban Bayonet lugs, Adjustable stocks, and Flashhiders - It did not ban new semi-automatic rifles from being created. I in fact bought a new bushmaster XM-15 (AR-15, without the bayonet lug or flash hider or adjustable stock) several months before the ban expired - and it was perfectly legal. In fact, MORE XM-15's and other "Assault weapons ban friendly" rifles were produced and sold DURING the ban, than existed before the ban went into place - and unless the type of crime that went down was Drive-By Bayonettings, I fail to see how the ban had any impact whatsoever on crime.

Oh - one thing, it also banned manufacture or import of new standard capacity magazines. Though being as there were hundreds of thousands of milsurp magazines for these rifles available before the ban, the maximum effect anyone ever saw was the price go from an average of $15 dollars, to $21 dollars per magazine.

if a crook is so hard up that an extra 6 dollars for a magazine is going to stop him from his crime spree, I highly doubt he would have purchased one of those rifles, which usually cost near $1,000 dollars easily.


And thank you for showing us just how useless DC's ban is, though the rest of us have known it for years.

So... Would you care to explain just exactly how the AWB was responsible for a dramatic drop in crime during the 1990s - During a time when firearm ownership was growing?

AWB was rendered less effective by the gun lobby in congress but it did stop the flow of many thousands of weapons in to the hands of criminals. The AWB should be stronger. It should ban ALL semiautomatic rifles with either a pistol grip, a collapsible stock, or a threaded muzzle for a flash suppressor. It should also ban any magazines larger then 10 rounds. There should also be no grandfather clause all aw that fit those catagories should be confiscated, and ALL semiautomatic rifles should have to be registered and licensed.

I'm glad you aren't in charge.

First you say that the AWB was key in lowering crime, and now you say that it was made completely innefective?

Would you please make up your mind?

how extremist that concept is to Middle American gun owners?



Do you really think a party could enact door-to-door confiscation of all over-10-round firearms or guns with nontraditional-looking stocks and NOT either (1) join the Temperance Party in the political dustbin, or (2) start a literal civil war??

Just what other suspensions of civil liberties would you advocate to make confiscating people's guns even remotely feasible?

Even banning the manufacture of over-10-round magazines for ten years cost the Democratic party the House, the Senate, two presidencies, numerous governorships, and a bunch of state legislatures due to the backlash at the polls. Do you think kicking in people's doors to grab their most prized firearms is going to require LESS political capital? Plus requiring registration and licensure for ALL self-loading rifles (even traditional-looking ones)???

Like slackmaster said, I'm glad you aren't in charge. Especially since you're advocating sending guys with machine guns and body armor to OUR door...and my parents'...and most of my coworkers'...and every other gun owning family I know...

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

Prove otherwise if you can.

how come the crime rates in those 2 states are much lower than in DC?
With loose gun laws and all.
One would expect the crime to be higher there instead of DC, right?

Notably the push to discourage people from firing guns into the air on New Year's Eve.

But a lot of what they support is garbage with no clear relationship to public safety.

However...Sarah Brady and her ilk are hardly a Conservative group. Misinformation and hysteria is their style.

Funny thing in the KY press release,

“Kentucky can improve its grade next year by banning assault weapons and rapid-fire ammunition magazines, requiring background checks at gun shows and holding adults responsible if they leave loaded guns around children,” said Nancy McKenney, of the Kentucky Million Mom March.

What the hell are "rapid-fire ammunition magazines"? This woman is :crazy:

Here's hoping that both KY and OH get F- ratings next year!

OMG they "even force the police to allow people to carry hidden handguns in public" !!

hah.

Every cop I know thinks it's a great law. My CCW class was taught by a cop. Here's to another year of sanity in Kentucky.

We certainly can improve on that!...We need to work harder on that "F"! :)

Howcum Alaska always gets left out? Seems like we are always the bastard calf, the red-headed stepchild and no matter what we do there's nothing said on the news unless we have an earthquake or find more oil. The Brady Bunch won't mention us even though our greasy politicians, in an uncommon fit of common sense passed a law that made it mandatory that if a person wants to carry a gun then that person must have a gun to carry. Although imaginary guns are not illegal the new law assumes that a citizen carrying a gun, in whatever manner the citizen chooses, either concealed or openly, does in fact have a gun. Essentially, if you cut through all of the legal terminology the new law states that you have to have a gun if you want to carry a gun. This does not make the concealed or open carry of an imaginary gun illegal but under the new Homeland security psychiatric guidelines carrying an imaginary weapon is not advisable. Saddam found out the hard way that having imaginary weapons was truly inadvisable so, if you travel to Alaska remember to leave that imaginary shit at home in California or New York and bring a real fucking gun with you. Homeland security is watching.

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

something MA should be proud of.

With a sensible safety star.

But, hey, we got a/a- on juvenile afety and f's ther rest of the way. Make a couple f's int f- and that would be cool.

new york got a B+ :(

lets try a lot harder to be underacheivers next year :)

its not so bad for me-- i dont own handguns, just an AK, so i dont deal with alot of the laws. The assault weapons ban mirrors the fed one and is just as useless, so not more than minor annoyances to deal with. The state police think i'm wierd for calling them about trying to comply with nitpicky laws they say they don't even enforce (like where to place the welds to attach a muzzle device permanently and how to prove what country the wooden parts are made in ;)

The brady people, violence policy center, handgun control inc., etc. CANNOT be trusted as they are propagandists who bend the truth and sometimes make things up. The NRA is guilty of its share of smoke and mirrors, but i find it very strange that the brady people and million mom march people are accepted without question and not seen for the fanatics they are. I'm not sure if its that they honestly know nothing about guns (ive yet to encounter a "rapid fire magazine"), take the word of police executives without question, or they are deliberately trying to misinform the ignorant to push their garbage through.

You want sensible gun laws?

1. subsidize companies to make it easier for people to afford gun safes! Let's do something practical to reduce the rate of gun theft.

2. bring the NICS (criminal database used in instant background checks) up to date, its missing millions of names.

3. increase fines for not reporting gun theft

4. harsher sentences for people who commit crimes with guns, a la project exile.. freeing most of the nations incarcerated drug offenders should make plenty of room for them (but thats a different story ;))

And for god's sake deal with the underlying socioeconomic disease that creates the symptoms of gun crime, without treating the legitimate law abiding gun owners like criminals and passing innefectual, emotional laws that do nothing but sound good.

They would actually get RESULTS. And then pundits couldn't point to the scary crime problem to use as an excuse to remove further rights away from the american populace.

It's always good to be found wanting by any group whose goal is to limit our rights and freedoms.

Any further comments would be superfluous.

so that means we have 20 states to work on.

every state would be an F-.

Just a hunch, but I bet most of the D and F states are towards the bottom, while the A and B states are towards the top.