Democrats Need to Drop the Gun-Control Issue

[Coyote]

I recently changed my stance on gun-control. I think it's a dead-end and only harms the Democratic Party.

Guns and the violence that accompanies it are too embedded in American culture, they enshrined it in their Constitution for Christ's sake.

Moreover, Americans are too fearful to ever put down their guns, so the Democrats need to wise up and just drop the issue.

At the very least change their stance and go full-bore in the opposite direction, I say flood the country w/guns and ammunition, let them buy weapons till their wallets burst.

However, at the same time, they need to promote gun safety and consequences for the lack thereof. Every gun owner should be insured, if not, they should be held financially and criminally liable if/when necessary.

Also, keep better track of them, that goes w/the previous sentence.

Let people get and keep their guns to theirheartscontent, but let's all be safe about it.

Guns should be handled like cars. Maintain a registry, pass a basic gun safety and knowledge test, show you can hit something, and be licensed and insured.

 

[MarcATL]

I have no problem with gun owners being held financially and criminally liable. . . however, if you make insurance mandatory?

Only the rich and the elites will be able to exercise their 2nd Amendment rights.

This is akin to the poll tax that we once had that excluded folks from voting.

It is also why our elections tilt toward the rich and the powerful. . . money is speech in this nation.

Once you require folks to need money to exercise their rights? You start to go down are very dangerous path.

The corporations are already very busy at subverting the public government and replacing it with a corporatacracy controlled by technology. . . you want to help strip the poor even more of their natural rights?

Which billionaire corporatist do you work for?

Yeah, that's why I said "if not."
Don't force on people, but do promote it.

The insurance doesn't have to be expensive and existing insurance companies can implement a special or additional or whatever gun insurance fee right now.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

I recently changed my stance on gun-control. I think it's a dead-end and only harms the Democratic Party.

Guns and the violence that accompanies it are too embedded in American culture, they enshrined it in their Constitution for Christ's sake.

Moreover, Americans are too fearful to ever put down their guns, so the Democrats need to wise up and just drop the issue.

At the very least change their stance and go full-bore in the opposite direction, I say flood the country w/guns and ammunition, let them buy weapons till their wallets burst.

However, at the same time, they need to promote gun safety and consequences for the lack thereof. Every gun owner should be insured, if not, they should be held financially and criminally liable if/when necessary.

Also, keep better track of them, that goes w/the previous sentence.

Let people get and keep their guns to theirheartscontent, but let's all be safe about it.

Why do you bold certain words? Is that some sort of OCD disorder? No chance they drop that issue. That is embedded in their platform as pro life is for the GOP.

 

[MarcATL]

Guns should be handled like cars. Maintain a registry, pass a basic gun safety and knowledge test, show you can hit something, and be licensed and insured.

That's it right there.

 

[Nostra]

I recently changed my stance on gun-control. I think it's a dead-end and only harms the Democratic Party.

Guns and the violence that accompanies it are too embedded in American culture, they enshrined it in their Constitution for Christ's sake.

Moreover, Americans are too fearful to ever put down their guns, so the Democrats need to wise up and just drop the issue.

At the very least change their stance and go full-bore in the opposite direction, I say flood the country w/guns and ammunition, let them buy weapons till their wallets burst.

However, at the same time, they need to promote gun safety and consequences for the lack thereof. Every gun owner should be insured, if not, they should be held financially and criminally liable if/when necessary.

Also, keep better track of them, that goes w/the previous sentence.

Let people get and keep their guns to theirheartscontent, but let's all be safe about it.

If you Dimwingers aren't shitting on the Constitution, what will you do?

 

[MarcATL]

Why do you bold certain words? Is that some sort of OCD disorder? No chance they drop that issue. That is embedded in their platform as pro life is for the GOP.

They can certainly learn.

 

[MarcATL]

If you Dimwingers aren't shitting on the Constitution, what will you do?

Pretty colors. Me like!

 

[Nostra]

If you Dimwingers aren't shitting on the Constitution, what will you do?

Pretty colors. Me like!

Of course, you are used to reading & writing in crayons.

 

[MisterBeale]

I have no problem with gun owners being held financially and criminally liable. . . however, if you make insurance mandatory?

Only the rich and the elites will be able to exercise their 2nd Amendment rights.

This is akin to the poll tax that we once had that excluded folks from voting.

It is also why our elections tilt toward the rich and the powerful. . . money is speech in this nation.

Once you require folks to need money to exercise their rights? You start to go down are very dangerous path.

The corporations are already very busy at subverting the public government and replacing it with a corporatacracy controlled by technology. . . you want to help strip the poor even more of their natural rights?

Which billionaire corporatist do you work for?

Yeah, that's why I said "if not."
Don't force on people, but do promote it.

The insurance doesn't have to be expensive and existing insurance companies can implement a special or additional or whatever gun insurance fee right now.

I agree with not forcing it.

Most states require you to have some form of insurance to drive.

. . . when I was younger, I was outraged at this notion. Mostly b/c the total expense, even for personal liability for one year, was more than the cost of a used car.

This always seemed to me, to be an economic war upon the poor and the young by the economic elites. And a hindrance upon the economy, for those who want to better themselves.

. . . but? Driving is NOT a protected constitutional right, anymore than healthcare is.

Since those days, at least in my state, personal liability insurance rates have dropped about 300% (for me at least, and for many, given age, credit scores, and driving record,) and small business growth and job opportunities for the poor and middle class have completely rebounded in the past two or three decades in this state. Obviously, there is more to it than just insurance reform.

. . . but the point here, is that the banking and insurance sectors are very closely intertwined, and any opportunity for financialization of the economy, at the expense of the poor and middle classes, WILL be taken.

REMEMBER THIS, as not only are small towns dependent on small business, but, so too are the micro-economies of the various minority communities. If you place more financial requirements on the poor and middle classes, sapping resources away from these communities for the economic elites? Then, invariably, it will lead to less economic activity and less job growth, as between 40 and 50 percent of jobs are dependent on small business and the local economy. This leads to crime, poor health, police oppression, hopelessness, drug abuse, etc. And then, the media and establishment will play their stupid identity and divide and conquer games on us to distract us from the misdeeds of the political, cultural, and financial elites that run the show.


I would be very, very wary of both parties trying, yet one more way, to funnel the economic resources of the poor and middles classes into the pockets of the financial elites. It was the DNC that was represented by them this time. . . but the GOP is not guilt free of them. They donate to both parties, and have corrupted the entire system. Malcom X knew this well.

Financialization - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[2aguy]

I recently changed my stance on gun-control. I think it's a dead-end and only harms the Democratic Party.

Guns and the violence that accompanies it are too embedded in American culture, they enshrined it in their Constitution for Christ's sake.

Moreover, Americans are too fearful to ever put down their guns, so the Democrats need to wise up and just drop the issue.

At the very least change their stance and go full-bore in the opposite direction, I say flood the country w/guns and ammunition, let them buy weapons till their wallets burst.

However, at the same time, they need to promote gun safety and consequences for the lack thereof. Every gun owner should be insured, if not, they should be held financially and criminally liable if/when necessary.

Also, keep better track of them, that goes w/the previous sentence.

Let people get and keep their guns to theirheartscontent, but let's all be safe about it.

You can't mandate a fee for the exercise of a Right, as mandatory insurance would do...

Murdock v Pennsylvania.......the democrats tried Poll taxes to keep blacks from voting and that too was found unConstitutional......

We don't need to keep track of guns, criminals get caught with guns all the time...we just have to keep the democrat party from releasing the violent gun criminals that we actually catch...

No one is arguing against gun safety, in fact I fully support it......but you aren't going to use it as a tool to prevent law abiding people from owning and carrying guns...

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

There is no issue. It's like immigration and abortion, everyone knows nothing is going to be done of any real difference.

It's a wedge issue used by the right to divide the American people and deflect from real issues Republicans have no answer for, like abortion.

 

[2aguy]

Since the vast majority of legal gun owners will never commit a crime or shoot anyone I would say violence does not accompany gun ownership. And violence is certainly not enshrined in the Constitution.

Most undocumented immigrants don't commit violent crimes... but you want to round them all up.

The crime and violence in this country are social ills and have nothing to do with people who legally own guns.

Again- most people who are killed with guns are killed by people they know. A gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a household member than a bad guy.

The thing is, I agree, if you limited gun ownership to responsible people, you wouldn't have a problem.

Except if you did that, most people wouldn't really want them.

The gun industry wants the bad guys in that three block radius to have lots of guns so you get scared and want them, too.

If they are in the country illegally, they broke the law...they need to be arrestd, sent home, and then they can actually use the legal process to enter the country....that is a hard concept for your tiny brain, but that is how it has to work.

Thanks for citing the lie of 43 times more likely to die by your own gun....I always enjoy using it to show that you are liar, who has been shown that Kellerman the guy who came up with that number retracted it...redid his research, came up with 2.7 and even then the research was bad....then he himself admitted he would use a gun in his home to protect his family....

Kellerman who did the study that came up with the 43 times more likely myth, was forced to do the research over when other academics pointed out how flawed his methods were....he then changed the 43 times number to 2.7, but he was still using flawed data to get even that number.....

Below is the study where he changed the number from 43 to 2.7 and below that is the explanation as to why that number isn't even accurate.

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199310073291506

After controlling for these characteristics, we found that keeping a gun in the home was strongly and independently associated with an increased risk of homicide (adjusted odds ratio, 2.7;

------------


Nine Myths Of Gun Control

Myth #6 "A homeowner is 43 times as likely to be killed or kill a family member as an intruder"

To suggest that science has proven that defending oneself or one's family with a gun is dangerous, gun prohibitionists repeat Dr. Kellermann's long discredited claim: "a gun owner is 43 times more likely to kill a family member than an intruder." [17] This fallacy , fabricated using tax dollars, is one of the most misused slogans of the anti-self-defense lobby.

The honest measure of the protective benefits of guns are the lives saved, the injuries prevented, the medical costs saved, and the property protected not Kellermann's burglar or rapist body count.

Only 0.1% (1 in a thousand) of the defensive uses of guns results in the death of the predator. [3]

Any study, such as Kellermann' "43 times" fallacy, that only counts bodies will expectedly underestimate the benefits of gun a thousand fold.

Think for a minute. Would anyone suggest that the only measure of the benefit of law enforcement is the number of people killed by police? Of course not. The honest measure of the benefits of guns are the lives saved, the injuries prevented, the medical costs saved by deaths and injuries averted, and the property protected. 65 lives protected by guns for every life lost to a gun. [2]

Kellermann recently downgraded his estimate to "2.7 times," [18] but he persisted in discredited methodology. He used a method that cannot distinguish between "cause" and "effect." His method would be like finding more diet drinks in the refrigerators of fat people and then concluding that diet drinks "cause" obesity.


Also, he studied groups with high rates of violent criminality, alcoholism, drug addiction, abject poverty, and domestic abuse .


From such a poor and violent study group he attempted to generalize his findings to normal homes

Interestingly, when Dr. Kellermann was interviewed he stated that, if his wife were attacked, he would want her to have a gun for protection.[19] Apparently, Dr. Kellermann doesn't even believe his own studies.


-----


Public Health and Gun Control: A Review



Since at least the mid-1980s, Dr. Kellermann (and associates), whose work had been heavily-funded by the CDC, published a series of studies purporting to show that persons who keep guns in the home are more likely to be victims of homicide than those who don¹t.

In a 1986 NEJM paper, Dr. Kellermann and associates, for example, claimed their "scientific research" proved that defending oneself or one¹s family with a firearm in the home is dangerous and counter productive, claiming "a gun owner is 43 times more likely to kill a family member than an intruder."8

In a critical review and now classic article published in the March 1994 issue of the Journal of the Medical Association of Georgia (JMAG), Dr. Edgar Suter, Chairman of Doctors for Integrity in Policy Research (DIPR), found evidence of "methodologic and conceptual errors," such as prejudicially truncated data and the listing of "the correct methodology which was described but never used by the authors."5

Moreover, the gun control researchers failed to consider and underestimated the protective benefits of guns.

Dr. Suter writes: "The true measure of the protective benefits of guns are the lives and medical costs saved, the injuries prevented, and the property protected ‹ not the burglar or rapist body count.

Since only 0.1 - 0.2 percent of defensive uses of guns involve the death of the criminal, any study, such as this, that counts criminal deaths as the only measure of the protective benefits of guns will expectedly underestimate the benefits of firearms by a factor of 500 to 1,000."5

In 1993, in his landmark and much cited NEJM article (and the research, again, heavily funded by the CDC), Dr. Kellermann attempted to show again that guns in the home are a greater risk to the victims than to the assailants.4 Despite valid criticisms by reputable scholars of his previous works (including the 1986 study), Dr. Kellermann ignored the criticisms and again used the same methodology.

He also used study populations with disproportionately high rates of serious psychosocial dysfunction from three selected state counties, known to be unrepresentative of the general U.S. population.

For example,

53 percent of the case subjects had a history of a household member being arrested,

31 percent had a household history of illicit drug use, 32 percent had a household member hit or hurt in a family fight, and

17 percent had a family member hurt so seriously in a domestic altercation that prompt medical attention was required.
Moreover, both the case studies and control groups in this analysis had a very high incidence of financial instability.

In fact, in this study, gun ownership, the supposedly high risk factor for homicide was not one of the most strongly associated factors for being murdered.

Drinking, illicit drugs, living alone, history of family violence, living in a rented home were all greater individual risk factors for being murdered than a gun in the home. One must conclude there is no basis to apply the conclusions of this study to the general population.

All of these are factors that, as Dr. Suter pointed out, "would expectedly be associated with higher rates of violence and homicide."5

It goes without saying, the results of such a study on gun homicides, selecting this sort of unrepresentative population sample, nullify the authors' generalizations, and their preordained, conclusions can not be extrapolated to the general population.

Moreover, although the 1993 New England Journal of Medicine study purported to show that the homicide victims were killed with a gun ordinarily kept in the home, the fact is that as Kates and associates point out 71.1 percent of the victims were killed by assailants who did not live in the victims¹ household using guns presumably not kept in that home.6

 

[2aguy]

Since the vast majority of legal gun owners will never commit a crime or shoot anyone I would say violence does not accompany gun ownership. And violence is certainly not enshrined in the Constitution.

Most undocumented immigrants don't commit violent crimes... but you want to round them all up.

The crime and violence in this country are social ills and have nothing to do with people who legally own guns.

Again- most people who are killed with guns are killed by people they know. A gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a household member than a bad guy.

The thing is, I agree, if you limited gun ownership to responsible people, you wouldn't have a problem.

Except if you did that, most people wouldn't really want them.

The gun industry wants the bad guys in that three block radius to have lots of guns so you get scared and want them, too.

OK so why don't you quote where I said i want illegals "rounded up"?

And FYI the gun industry doesn't make a profit on the illegal sales of guns to criminals.

And everyone is killed by someone they "know" but so what? I could say I "know" thousands of people w=but not have any type pf relationship with any of them

And that was the trick he used......the people killed in their own home were killed by the visiting drug dealer or drug buyer or other criminal.........often with a gun that wasn't even their own gun.........but kellerman didn't care about those little details, neither does joe...

 

[2aguy]

Since the vast majority of legal gun owners will never commit a crime or shoot anyone I would say violence does not accompany gun ownership. And violence is certainly not enshrined in the Constitution.

In fact it is an almost vanishingly small percentage of people that commit any crimes involving guns and violence.

Our gun crimes are so concentrated in very small areas of the country that you can see drastic crime stats in a 3 or 4 block distance but outside of that area gun crimes are virtually nonexistent.

The crime and violence in this country are social ills and have nothing to do with people who legally own guns.

Republican USMB posters are always emphasizing how bad crime is in the only city in America, Chicago and you come waltzing in to burst their bubble with these alternative facts.

Who should I believe?

No....I constantly cite D.C., Baltimore, St. Louis, New York, Chicago, New Orleans, Baton Rouge, and any number of democrat party controlled cities....

Then I post this from the Washington Post.......

As the below charts show, Democratic areas (measured by the party that controls the congressional district) are far more likely to experience almost all forms of malicious gun violence than Republican areas.

These charts exclude suicides, for which data are not available on a congressional district basis, so it only breaks down the fraction of gun violence that is accidental or confrontational.
--------

A distinct pattern emerged: In Democratic regions of the country, which tend to be cities, people are more likely to be murdered with a gun than they are to shoot themselves to death.

In regions of the country won by Republicans, which tend to be rural areas and small towns, the opposite is true — people are more likely to shoot themselves to death than they are to be murdered with a gun.
----
In the most Democratic regions, gun violence is more often committed against another, crimes that probably generate more news coverage and fear. In the most Republican areas, it is more often committed against oneself, suicides that may not attract as much attention.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...prising-way-gun-violence-is-dividing-america/

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

I recently changed my stance on gun-control. I think it's a dead-end and only harms the Democratic Party.

Guns and the violence that accompanies it are too embedded in American culture, they enshrined it in their Constitution for Christ's sake.

Moreover, Americans are too fearful to ever put down their guns, so the Democrats need to wise up and just drop the issue.

At the very least change their stance and go full-bore in the opposite direction, I say flood the country w/guns and ammunition, let them buy weapons till their wallets burst.

However, at the same time, they need to promote gun safety and consequences for the lack thereof. Every gun owner should be insured, if not, they should be held financially and criminally liable if/when necessary.

Also, keep better track of them, that goes w/the previous sentence.

Let people get and keep their guns to theirheartscontent, but let's all be safe about it.

Don't blacks need guns to defend themselves against all the marauding bands of white supremacists out there anyway?

 

[2aguy]

Every gun owner should be insured, if not, they should be held financially and criminally liable if/when necessary.

I have no problem with gun owners being held financially and criminally liable. . . however, if you make insurance mandatory?

Only the rich and the elites will be able to exercise their 2nd Amendment rights.

This is akin to the poll tax that we once had that excluded folks from voting.

It is also why our elections tilt toward the rich and the powerful. . . money is speech in this nation.

Once you require folks to need money to exercise their rights? You start to go down are very dangerous path.

The corporations are already very busy at subverting the public government and replacing it with a corporatacracy controlled by technology. . . you want to help strip the poor even more of their natural rights?

Which billionaire corporatist do you work for?

Define "responsible." To anti-gunners that means if your home or car is broken into and your legal gun is stolen, they want you to be jailed, fined and punished for every crime the criminal who stole the gun commits....that is the bait and switch you fall into if you buy into what they want....

 

[Juicin]

Disarming the plebs is just inherently regressive

The rich will always have permits and bodyguards

No reason some little old lady can't carry a revolver around in her purse.

 

[Juicin]

I recently changed my stance on gun-control. I think it's a dead-end and only harms the Democratic Party.

Guns and the violence that accompanies it are too embedded in American culture, they enshrined it in their Constitution for Christ's sake.

Moreover, Americans are too fearful to ever put down their guns, so the Democrats need to wise up and just drop the issue.

At the very least change their stance and go full-bore in the opposite direction, I say flood the country w/guns and ammunition, let them buy weapons till their wallets burst.

However, at the same time, they need to promote gun safety and consequences for the lack thereof. Every gun owner should be insured, if not, they should be held financially and criminally liable if/when necessary.

Also, keep better track of them, that goes w/the previous sentence.

Let people get and keep their guns to theirheartscontent, but let's all be safe about it.

Don't blacks need guns to defend themselves against all the marauding bands of white supremacists out there anyway?

no you just gotta be prepared to turn on the traitor globalists

like they did in cuba, HAHAHA

 

[2aguy]

However, at the same time, they need to promote gun safety and consequences for the lack thereof. Every gun owner should be insured, if not, they should be held financially and criminally liable if/when necessary.

I fully support gun safety and training. I even want it to be mandatory curriculum in high schools which ensures that all students are familiar with the safe use of firearms.

Gun accidents are so rare that it should be fairly inexpensive to insure, but what do we get in return? Also, insurance would not cover intentional actions, so I don't know what the goal would be.

Other than that, I agree with your OP.

The goal is obvious....make gun ownership more expensive....they will take any inconvenience to gun owners they can get......also, they say Insurance, but read what they post....they want you held responsible if a criminal breaks into your home or car and takes your gun by theft.....they want you on the hook for whatever that criminals does with your stolen property...

 

[2aguy]

There is no issue. It's like immigration and abortion, everyone knows nothing is going to be done of any real difference.

It's a wedge issue used by the right to divide the American people and deflect from real issues Republicans have no answer for, like abortion.

We have an answer for abortion....you can't kill your babies........you guys don't like that because you want to be able to have sex with all the women you want and you don't want to have to pay for the babies you create....that is why democrat party males support abortion so strongly...especially when it comes to raping interns...