Dems Don't Want to Talk About Gun Control Because Gun Control Is a Bad Issue for Dems

Comments

1
We're always quick to point out that when it comes to issues like taxation or gay marriage, the GOP straight-up lost. They had the debate, they forced the issue, and the voters overwhelmingly chose Democrats in response.

Well, on the issue of gun control, I think the Democrats lost, and they know it. Unless gun control becomes an issue that people are willing to change their vote over (in the same way that anti-gay attitudes became a 'deal-breaker' for many Republicans this cycle), don't expect Democrats to fight that battle.
2
Treat the disease, not the symptom

http://bit.ly/SWkgyL
3
so long as the NRA holds all politicians in thrall your children will remain at risk.

i weep for the families of Connecticut.
4
Exactly.

Cause talking about legalizing gay marriage or legalizing MJ was really really bad for us too.

Right?

(cowards)
5
Shipping tens of thousands of guns to Mexican cartels probably doesn't help that stigma.
6
I'm a democrat. What happened today, and happens to often is a travesty, and a true abomination. I, however, do not support a gun ban, nor do I believe it would be effective at ending or significantly diminishing gun violence. I believe in the right to bear arms so deeply that, had Barack Obama supported such a ban, I would have abstained from voting for him. Democrats will not support a platform that will alienate a vast majority of Americans, nor should they.

As a nation, we need to reflect on why these stabbings occur. A black and white dictate that guns are the sole reason that these tragedies occur dumbs dialogue and closes minds. We need an open and mature conversation about our moralities that is in line with the constitution. Guns aren't going away. The solution is just not that simple.
7
*shootings, not stabbings....got caught up in that China article for a minute.
8
The notion that the NRA is politically powerful is more myth than reality. See this article at Media Matters:

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/12/13/…
9
Democrats haven't done anything meaningful on gun control since 1994 with what they thought would be a harmless low hanging fruit in the assault weapons ban. And Gore was probably undone by the gun nuts in his home state.

If their sole concern is reelection, they may be right on this. I know several gun owners who vote Democrat consistently and share the values of the Democratic party platform, but who are such gun nuts that they will turn on a dime to vote against someone who brings gun control legislation to the floor. It is the most important political, social, and moral issue of their lives. It is both scary and sad how they can be manipulated to support politicians and policies they otherwise wouldn't. For them to accept a balancing between gun freedom and sane policy is an assault on their core identity.
10
Goldy's in full masturbation mode now! He'd never admit it, but this is the best thing that ever happened to him!
11
@7 NancyBalls: your Freudian slip is telling. True, guns aren't the sole reason. But they have so much more killing power than other weapons like knives. That is the heart of my opposition to widespread gun culture.

If we can diminish the probability that someone in a killing mood has a gun on hand, that will make a huge difference. Might still have mass shootings: those folk might get rifles anyway. But the vast majority of the 30,000+ gun fatalities in the US aren't committed by mass murderers. They are committed by people in a murdering mood and a gun. With that many fatalities, just changing P(has a gun)*P(murdering mood) even a little would have a big effect.
12
Not to mention bad policy, and either ineffectual or unconstitutional.
13
Oxycontin, that Media Matters article makes little sense. The only way to gauge the power of the gun lobby is to see meaningful, effective measures taken at local and national levels. Then the true force of the gun lobby will be revealed. Ask yourself this, if a powerful gun lobby is "more myth than reality", why are the gun control measures I refer to so rarely proposed?
14
@6 Gun ban, no of course not, not even possible. But how about just making them a bit harder to get? How about banning those that seem to serve no purpose but to indiscriminately slaughter large numbers of people? Maybe keep them out of the hands of unstable people?

If you don't think that would work to some degree, then please explain why guns are different from every single other thing we know of.
15
See, I'm going to stick with my original appraisal, which is FUCK YOU GUN OWNERS. Does it "solve anything?" Does it "contribute to the dialog?" No. No, it does not.

Fuck you people and your guns.
16
14: "If you don't think that would work to some degree, then please explain why guns are different from every single other thing we know of."

Actually, guns are not different from any other item/behavior that people want to have/do. Case in point: It was pointed out during the I-502 debate that it was easier for high school kids to get marijuana than alcohol. Why do we think a "war on guns" will be any more successful than the "war on drugs"? If people really desire something, they will go to any lengths to get it.

The causes for today's horror go way, way deeper than some printed words (or lack thereof) in some law book. Until we make violence in general "not acceptable" in this society, we can pass all the laws in the world and it won't solve anything. It's attitudes and feelings that have to change, and that is a harder task to accomplish. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try, but let's be clear on the task required.
17
Democrats haven't done anything meaningful on gun control since 1994 with what they thought would be a harmless low hanging fruit in the assault weapons ban.

In WA State, gun control lost 71%-29% in 1997. Google "Initiative 676" and read the articles.
18
Ya' know, elected officals aren't the only ones that can bring and issue to the fore and provoke a "conversation" about it. Especially not in this state!

There's not a damn thing stopping an independent, non-partisan group from putting up an assault weapons ban INITIATIVE for the ballot in 2014.

Worked for weed, it could work for AK's too!
19
@14 Yes some forms of control would be probably effective, but there are also privacy issues to consider. We need to be able to talk about these things without being overrun by gun-nuts or anti-gun-nuts. And even if stricter controls were implemented, would they have prevented today's tragedy? I'm guessing the kid (it was a young person, right?) didn't buy the guns himself. And the shooting in Oregon yesterday? Borrowed from a friend.

There is a deep sickness in modern society that needs to be addressed. Attitudes like @15 prevent people from having simple conversations about mental healthy, gun safety, and reasonable regulation.
20
Ya' know, elected officials aren't the only ones who can bring an issue up before the public and invoke a "conversation" about it. Especially in this state!

There's not a damn thing stopping an independent, non-partisan group (preferably of concerned parents) from putting up an Assault Weapons Ban INITIATIVE for the ballot in 2014!

If it worked for MJ, it can work for AK's too. Don't doubt it!
21
@10: Do you have a gun?

Put it in your mouth and pull the trigger. It's best for society that you do.
22
I'm very curious - exactly what sort of Gun Control are you proposing, that would be effective, Goldy? Connecticut require a permit, a background check and a "class" for handguns. In this case, the weapons were, apparently, owned by his mother - what exactly would you propose that would realistically have prevented him from taking his parent's firearms?

Really, I'd love to hear a well thought out viable proposal on gun control! I'm unable to come up with one that I believe would work myself. Not when there is close to a 1 firearm per person available in the United States already.
23
#19, we don't know if they'd have prevented today's tragedy. But some common sense controls could save some lives. Problem is that the "progressives" flip out at times like this and throw every crazy proposal out there.
24
@10 remains the single most laughable would-be troll on slog. I reiterate my offer to pay cash money to whichever staffer forcibly changes his handle to "StrangersWeakestTroll".
25
@22

Read:

Firearm deaths are significantly lower in states with stricter gun control legislation. Though the sample sizes are small, we find substantial negative correlations between firearm deaths and states that ban assault weapons (-.45), require trigger locks (-.42), and mandate safe storage requirements for guns (-.48).


Shit works. Vaccines work. Seat belts work. Helmets work. It's science, baby! There's a reason why it's the same gang of know nothings that oppose science at every turn: evolution, global warming, vaccines, homosexuality, and always, guns.

Conservative enemies of science.
26
The US Constitution was written in the 18th Century. the ideas contained within it and the Bill of Rights are based in the Enlightenment, a time when Europe was beginning to shed absolute monarchy. Many of these concepts were rooted in then-legitimate fears that the early US Presidents would imitate Britain by assuming absolute control. To avoid this, the Right to Bear Arms and the abolition of a standing peacetime military were encoded.

Well, no arms that you could purchase would enable you to overthrow the US government today. Whatever the biggest gun you think you can buy may be, Uncle Sam's got a much bigger one. And a surveillance system to track your foolhardy attempt at purchasing the heavy arms for your attempted coup.

So why do we hew to this belief that individuals should have the right to high caliber automatic weaponry?

And why do we make it so easy for crazy fuckers to gain access to these weapons?
27
You're right, Goldy.

At least Mayor McGinn, to his credit, just presented a clear stance in support of gun control measures AND increasing funding for mental health services (as Eli reported in the post before this one).

That's a start, maybe?

@18/20: Good point.
28
Here's another cool idea for controlling mass-shootings: Stop the media blitz. These people are trying to go down in a blaze of glory, to make a mark. If the media would stop making mass-murder so god-damn effective at providing the insane with what they want the insane would look elsewhere. Maybe they'd dance around highways naked or something other such low-body count behavior.
29
@25, we're talking about Connecticut, where A) "Assault Weapons" are illegal (although I believe this sunsetted with the Federal 'ban') B) requires trigger locks C) mandates storage requirements. From Connecticut's Gun Legislation:

"The law imposes criminal penalties on people who (1) store loaded firearms in a way that gives a minor under age 16 unauthorized access to them and (2) transfer handguns to minors under age 21, except as authorized at firing or shooting ranges."

"With minor exceptions, state law bars anyone from carrying handguns (except antique handguns) either concealed or openly without a gun permit in Connecticut, except in one's home or business. The permittee must carry the permit when carrying a handgun (CGS § 29-35(a)). Carrying a handgun without a permit is punishable by imprisonment for up to five years and a fine of up to $1,000, with a one-year mandatory minimum sentence in the absence of mitigating circumstances. Any handgun found in the violator's possession must be forfeited (CGS § 29-37(b)). A permittee who does not carry the permit on his person when carrying handguns commits an infraction and must pay a $35 fine (CGS § 29-37(c))."

From the link you provided, you'll notice that Connecticut has some of the lowest firearms deaths, possibly due to some of the strictest firearms regulations in the country. Yet, that did not prevent this tragedy. So, please tell me how "Shit works".

@26, No one has a "right" to high caliber automatic weaponry. The barrier to purchase of an automatic weapon is quite high.
30
#25, you forgot to mention the most important phase in that article: "The disclaimer here is that correlation is not causation." There is also this zinger: "the sample sizes are small."

The reality is this: Firearm deaths (and rates of violent crime) are highest in big cities with high percentages of minorities in their populations, and generally rise as you go from north to south. This is true all over the continental United States. WA State lower than Oregon, which is lower than northern CA, which is lower than southern CA. North Dakota lower than South Dakota, which is lower than Nebraska, which is lower than Kansas, which is lower than Oklahoma, which is lower than Texas. (North Dakota might have risen since I last looked at this, because of the influx of oil workers.

Vermont and Maine have very few firearms regs, but very low rates of murder and violent crime. Start driving south, and all the rates rise.

So, #25, are you in favor of science, or are you in favor of science that confirms your preconceived opinions?
31
Here's a link to Connecticut's Gun Laws as of 2007:

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2007/rpt/2007-R-03…
32
@26

A bunch of illiterate goat farmers with a backwards religion armed with sub par small arms have been giving the US military a pretty good run for it's money for the last decade.
33
@29
Connecticut ban was instated before the Federal ban and their law is in still in force, New Jersey has an even stricter ban.
34
@29

As many others have repeatedly stressed, this isn't about some magic retroactive perfect law targeted at this one guy to stop this one incident. That would be seriously misguided. We don't write any laws intended to stop one and only one specific instance of crime. We regulate to reduce the overall frequency of incidents, and Connecticut has been successful, overall, compared to states that don't regulate.

The reason this one incident today matters is that it is the latest in an ongoing epidemic of mass shootings. And part of a larger picture of too much overall gun violence. If we had only had this one incident, it would be premature to change anything in reaction. This is just the latest outrage.

It's depressing to think how many of these massacres have to happen before that sinks in. I don't expect much to come of this one. It's not going to be until the next one, or the next one, or the next one until the cracks begin to appear.
35
#32, the Pashtun tribes have been unconquerable forever, even before guns were invented.
36
gun owners: yes, gun controls would prevent this, look around the world, the nations with strong gun controls do not have these massacres at this rate -- nowhere near. also they have far less deaths by gun, and no, death by knives do not rise up in a substitution effect, so shut up on that, too. and those who say what laws would prevent this. the laws they have in japan england wales ireland canada etc. which amount to bans on some weapons, and HIGHLY LIMITED allowance of other guns like rifles and handguns, eg in england only about 4% own guns. under their licensing laws. so the average mom in new jersey SHOULD NOT HAVE A GUN because she LIKE YOU MORONS cannot guarantee her semi crazy kid or friend or drunk husband won't take the damn gun. see, it's you and your ilk promoting guns all over that make them ez to get, by theft or legal ownership, and this helps cause these deaths. now then the second amendment please shut the fuck up. it does not mean we cannot ban a class of guns or regulate the hell out of guns. here's why. we all agre we can ban private ownership of tanks. tanks are arms. ditto, nukes. so you all agree the second a is okay with banning a class of arms. voila, we can ban assault weapons. now get this you morons. back in the day, when states were enacting rights to bear arms that SAID they were INDIVIDUAL rights to bear arms, which the second doesn't, btw, those states like texas WERE OKAY WITH BANNING CLASSES OF GUNS like revolvers so shut the fuck up with the specious legal drivel you spew about -- you're just wrong. underneath all this is hyour wrong views that guns make us safe, guns make us protected from tyranny, my god, do you think they have tyranny in fucking england and canada? they have fucking elections and they don't seem to start as many crazy wars as we do, nor do their ghettos have the vast number of gun deaths ours do, so please shut the fuck up until you're just going to admit you are collossolly wrong. finally the idiots who talk about connecticut laws or rates of this or that within the usa, stop being so fucking deliberately stupid. of course CT laws won't stop guns if someone can waltz in from new jersey. of course dc laws can't stop guns if someone can drive in IN ONE MINUTE from virginia obviously you need national level laws. and then there's switzerland and israel, which prove the rule, which is this: the moreguns you have you can have them with safety if there is helluva lotta regulations in essence, if every owner is in the military. that mom in nj? was she in the militia? nope. we got 200 million guns all over and till you gun loving gun nuts stop your fantasties spewed out over the years from guns don't kill people to gun control doesn't work to this to that blah blahb blah it wont' change, and it's your fucking fault.
37
@33 typical gun lover drivel. of course a state level law does not work. however, in japan canada england etc. all over the world many nations with very strong gun laws and bans do not have these kinds of massacre rates as we have. it's a clear correlation AND causation. gun controls work all over. the denialism and quibbling bullshit of folks like canadian bacon are to blame.
38
@16 Your example proves my point. 502 was not about getting rid of all restrictions on marijuana it was about moving it into a highly regulated market.

It is not so much about the law alone as it is overall access. If the kid next to me in trig is selling dime bags then that is pretty damn accessible. If I have to go to a special store where I will be required to show ID that is much less accessible.

That's the best option. Not a ban, not what we have now, but a system whereby people can access guns, but with safe guards in place.
39
acrtually fire arm deaths are lowest in nations with strong and effective gun controls, such as england, japan, canada, germany. in the usa the laws of a particular state obviously aren't even relevant as there are fifty states in the nation and it's highly mobile. duh. but gun loving gun owners seeking to stop all rational discussion of gun control love to lie the lie that since CT had a ban or Dc or what not and there was a crime there with guns, somehow gun controls don't work. when obviously they do if you look internationally. you need the entire nation on board, big fucking duh.
40
#33, the shooter was able to buy high capacity magazines through the mail. Or wait, maybe that was a different massacre. Come on, there's a reasonably short list of pretty effective things that could be done, if they were done nationwide. They wouldn't completely "solve" the problem. Nothing ever does. But we can greatly reduce the violence without infringing second amendment freedom.

Some of the things that "progressives" push for are just dumb, in my opinion. One example is bans on "assault" weapons, which to me are about as meaningful as banning beards or mullets. Totally cosmetic. And a lot of these people don't know the difference between single-shot, semi-automatic, and automatic. And so on,

But you know that there are gaping holes in the regulatory framework.
41
I'm so glad I completely ignored the internet today.

As usual, people kill people, not guns. This was a failing of the mental health system and social safety net as a whole.

Don't get your wires crossed.
42
Sure, let's ban all the guns.

While we're at it, let's ban the massive media frenzy that inevitably follows every mass killing. Think about it - 30 years ago we had the same gun laws, and yet slaughtering students and moviegoers, or attempting to do so, wasn't a biweekly occurrence. Then Columbine happened, followed by billions of bytes of media raking through every aspect of the killers' lives, not to mention the Hollywood movies, documentaries, and books, all of which provide a huge incentive for any hateful asshole looking for an easy way to leave his mark on the world. What's more, the ubiquitous coverage plants ideas in the heads of thousands of psychopathic lunatics.

A*** L**** wouldn't have gunned down those kids with his mother's legally purchased guns if he'd never heard about the scores of preceding incidents.
43
P.S. As long as the media keeps sucking these killer's dicks (posthumously if necessary), you can look forward to increasingly bizarre and horrific variations of this stuff in the future.

Anyone remember the Wyoming community college shooting from a couple of weeks ago. Barely. No creativity, small body count, and Wyoming? That ain't gonna drive page hits.

But dressing up as the Joker and showing up at the Batman premiere? Or mowing down 20 first graders? Now there's a story that sells!
44
We should do nothing. Because Jesus.
45
Mother Jones has an article on mass shootings and there have been something like 81 since the early 1980s. Almost all of them involve white men, with 4 exceptions: 1 woman, one African American,1 American Indian and the Asian guy at Virginia Tech. In all instances the shooters were mentally unstable or as is the case with this 20 year old had "personality disorders." All were upset by personal stuff in their lives, but in some instances we have no idea what motivated the murdering son of bitch because he usually kills himself. These were people whose wives left them, got fired, or were enraged about something else, or just fucking nuts.

The mental health system cannot contain crazy, violence prone people. In our state Anthony Zamora is an example. Wasn't he just transferred from Western to jail? However the way the laws are written (or fucking ignored by the state legislature) Zamora probably won't be able to be held in jail because he is considered mentally ill and therefore not a criminal.

Western, probably like most mental hospitals, doesn't have the capacity to successfully house violent criminals (see nut case who escaped on an outing and killed people a year or so back from western).

This 20 year old who was obviously a life long troubled youth, lived with his mother who inexplicably owned a set of assault weapons. Why you would have firearms in a house with a troubled male is inexplicable and something I will never understand.

What I do know is shooting kindergartners execution style is the turning point. WHAT THE FUCK is wrong with us? And why do we tolerate it?
46
The Dems also did not want to listen about NDAA, or the TSA... why would they give a shit about guns? Lock people up, give people cancer, shoot their children dead dead dead... that's what America is all about, Charlie Brown.
47
Remember kids, if everyone has a nuclear arsenal, we're all much safer from attack. North Korea and Iran are just doing their part to protect everyone's kids. What's all the fuss?
48
@34: I think you missed my original question which is, what gun law do you propose (or rather Goldy) that would have any effect on what happened in Connecticut? The only thing that I can think of that would be effective would be a nationwide ban (and collection/destruction of the millions of firearms out there) which is never going to happen. Given our country as it stands, the only thing that will help reduce gun violence, in my opinion, is gun education, and better mental health system/facilities/education.

I notice that you don't offer any sort of idea for how to fix this, just restate that things are broken.
49
Seems to me that it makes sense that taking an unconstitutional stance SHOULD be politically difficult. It should be political suicide for rightwingers taking stances against equal protection just as it currently is for saner people taking stances in favor of gun control.

If we have a problem with guns, we need an amendment, not an initiative.
50
The way to lessen the probability that this will happen is to ban all guns. Period. If you say that won't do it, I say it will lessen the probability that this will happen again. That's good enough for me.
51
As others have pointed out, the U.S. Constitution was written in the 18th Century. At the time, the most sophisticated weaponry available was a two-barrel muzzle-loading flintlock. Perhaps if we restricted universal access to those and got all other types out of private citizens' hands, we'd have a safer country. There's no reason for anyone to have an assault weapon in the house. None.
52
If I've learned one thing reading Slog this year, it's that all the evils of the world are caused by two people, Mittens and Rmoney.
53
@51

When the constitution was written the height of communications technology was the printing press. Should we restrict free speech because at the time there was no internet?
54
@53, stupidest straw man argument I've ever heard.
55
I think trying to enact gun control is like going against abortion. You are going to run into a fuck load of resistance. The kind of resistance people have spent their entire lives waiting for.
56
There are a large number of people in America who, sadly, have both fetishized and deified the 2nd amendment. They don't give a flying fuck about the rest of the Bill of Rights. They don't give a flying fuck that the right to unreasonable search and seizure (4th amendment) has been completely neutered. They don't give a flying fuck that the 8th amendment (cruel and unusual punishment) is routinely violated by our corporate, for profit prison system. Nor do they give a flying fuck that the 1st amendment right to assemble and address for grievances is now, for all practical purpose, null and void. Nor do they seem the have the foggiest idea what "Well regulated" might mean. If you are one of these people, please, from the bottom of my heart... Go fuck yourself, you miserable, selfish hypocrite.
57
@55 Uhhh...? Pretty sheltered, right? Hadn't noticed that that anti-choice people are winning in much of the country.

How about this, just like the forced transvaginal ultrasound has nothing to do with medical care and are intended simply to make exercising a constitutional right unpleasant, howabout we force gun buyers the get colonoscopies?

There, see how I've proposed a reasonable measure?
58
@40, but banning high capacity magazines is EXACTLY the bill that's failing in the Senate right now. Today. There's a bill in the Senate to ban high capacity magazines, but it's being deliberately blocked in committee.

Every tiny change in the gun laws receives the full force of NRA-led disapproval. The only tiny changes that ever gain any traction are the ones like the bills that were passed yesterday in Ohio and Wisconsin. Gun rights expanded, control limited. Over and over again.

This is why we don't believe you when you say things like "dialog".
59
Occasionally the tree of Liberty must be watered with the blood of children.
60
can the families sue the person who sold the gun that caused all this bloodshed?

it seems reasonable that someone should be held financially accountable.
61
Hey - how about the utter and abysmal failure of our nation's mental health systems, which have left the often untenable burden of care and therapy to fall entirely on family members - many of whom are unprepared or unwilling to provide the sort of treatment which is necessary to protect individuals such as this young man from others and themselves.

There will always be guns. While gun control is certainly an element of this tragedy, it is just one facet of what was almost certainly a preventable occurrence. In the next 24 hours I can almost guarantee that we will "discover" that the shooter had a LONG history of violent and delusional behavior.
62
You know what causes gun violence? Guns. This idea that they don't, and their users do, is a dead meme that being beaten like a dead horse. If this killer didn't have access to guns, maybe he would have done a mass stabbing like the one in China, but I'd rather the devoted killer have to bring those measures than what happened in that elementary school.

Excuse me, please read this comment 72 hours from now, when it's acceptable to besmirch the perfect 2nd amendment with my baseless accusation that we should aim to have far less guns in society than we do today. ALL. GUNS.
63
What of the 400+ homicides in Chicago this year in a gun free city? Or high crime in DC, Detroit, New York? LA? What of the fact that all these media massacres occurred in "gun free" zones? What of the media that is glamorizing and exploiting these tragedies? What of the War on Drugs that helps create a black market which creates opportunities for violent clashes amongst dealers/gangs/police? What of the mental pollution in our environment that is exacerbating mental instability in some individuals? Or the high rates of medication and pharmaceuticals that are being prescribed to treat the symptom and not the cause? Why is gun violence prevalent in dense urban centers with stricter gun control; where the culture is adverse to firearms, these places that often have gross economic disparity and lack of opportunity? What of the thousands of deaths in Mexico, where the US government funneled firearms through lawful dealers (who were told to continue to sell) to cartels vis a vis The Fast & Furious scandal? Why are you not as upset when our weeping President bombs civilians in Pakistan to kill one "terrorist?"
64
Let's see, mental health issues, video games, the media, the social safety net, fast food, body odor, traffic - what else can we attribute the death of 26 innocent people on? Can we put all the gun nuts on a deserted island for a year, with their guns, to see if they can resolve this question?
65
There have been multiple stabbings on the streets of downtown Seattle.

Is the culprit knives?

No, the culprit is mental illness.

De-institutionalization and the inability to label clearly insane mental behavioral as anything other than a "spectrum disorder" has left our society interspersed with psychopaths and megalomaniacs.

I am not asking them to bring back the Cuckoo's Nest, but what we really need are stronger institutions to contain some of these people outside of society where they can be put back on the path to wellness. Let's explore the building of a clean, modern, and monitored asylum.
66
@62/64: Sigh... Canada has a higher rate per capita of gun ownership than the United States. Clearly there is more at play than simply gun ownership. And at no point did I say that we should not work towards restricting the availability of fire-arms from those who are too incompetent/irresponsible to own them.
67
If it's easy for people to kill people then it will be easy for people to kill people. I hope this makes sense, but I have the sinking feeling that it won't.

http://www.bradycampaign.org/
69
Dems caved in just about almost everything relevant over the last 30+ years, I have difficulty understanding how gun control somehow differs from the norm.
70
Those data demonstrate guns per capita, not owners per capita. A more interesting analysis would probably be to look at violent crime per gun and violent crime per gun owner, though my stats days are long past. At any rate, my point was that there are countries which allow for some form of (rationally controlled) gun ownership, yet experience far less violent crime.
71
What America can learn from Switzerland

In Cities With Little Crime, author Marshall Clinard contrasts the low crime rate in Switzerland with the higher rate in Sweden, where gun control is more extensive.

The higher Swedish rate is all the more surprising in view of Sweden's much lower population density and its ethnic homogeneity.

One of the reasons for the low crime rate, says Clinard, is that Swiss cities grew relatively slowly. Most families live for generations in the same area.

Therefore, large, heterogeneous cities with slum cultures never developed.


http://www.guncite.com/swissgun-kopel.ht…
72
@62 FTW.
73
Kicking a little math from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_g…

and: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cou…

it looks like 4.7x10^-5 murders/per gun occur in the united states, as opposed to 5.2x10^-5 in Canada. But I am very tired and may entirely have carried something wrong. Also, this does not reflect accidental death or non-fatal violent crime.
74
Democrats don't like to talk about gun control because they're hysterically concerned about appearing to prove the GOP's paranoia true.

Could be that only Nixon could go to that territory.
75
Kicking a little math from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_g…

and: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cou…

it looks like 4.7x10^-5 murders/per gun occur in the united states, as opposed to 5.2x10^-5 in Canada. But I am very tired and may entirely have carried something wrong.
76
"Dialog" in gun nut speak is translated to "Don't make me leave my fucking fantasy world where I'm John Rambo and will be of use during a shooting."
77
I also agree that the Second Amendment has been misinterpreted, but my opinion doesn't matter, and your opinion doesn't matter. Short of a constitutional amendment, the Supreme Court has the last word, and resent rulings (one of them dealing with a local gun control law) have shown that this conservative Supreme Court is opposed to it. This is a big reason you don't hear anybody proposing any sweeping legislation, or at least nothing that has a realistic chance of passing.

And yet I think gun control is a better issue than people think. I say that based on the comments I've read on Slog today. Some reliably pro-gun Sloggers are going on the record as supporting some measures, such as tracking sales. I have to think that it's only a very small minority that hear about a classroomful of dead elementary school kids and say, "Whatever."

I haven't heard of any actual leadership from any politician today. That is, I haven't heard any going out on a limb against conventional wisdom and stating that we need to revisit the concept of gun control. The only ones that have are preaching to their liberal choir, so that doesn't count.

I'm not giving Obama a pass on this, because he's not serving his people if he chooses to deflect a problem in the interest of political expediency and, furthermore, there's probably no real reason to be afraid of gun control. If he went out there, like a leader, and made specific, common sense gun control proposals even a number of Republican voters would support, then the issue would be a problem for Republicans, not Dems. I thought the 2012 election showed that America is not a center-right country.
78
Goldy -

The main problem here is a debate about 'gun control' that infers all of these incidents can be managed through law.

The discussion needs to be around gun safety. Given that nuts or criminals will get their hands on weapons, how can we give ourselves a chance against them? The common argument is that 'criminals' will circumvent laws. The fact of the matter is that many of these Amoklauf killings are performed by otherwise law abiding, non-career criminals. Let's start there.

Eliminate private gun transfers; require legal weapons to be transferred via a FFL. Require new weapons to have RFID tags embedded, and existing ones retrofitted when transferred. Give the rest of us a better chance to know when weapons are around us, give me the choice to stay or leave. Not perfect, but allows legal & responsible gun ownership to exist.
79
#50, you're a fucking idiot. Both the U.S. and Washington State constitutions recognize an individual right to keep and bear arms. None of that will change, you fake "progressive" sack of shit.
80
@zivilisierter Wurm, well your analysis is not bad at this time of night, still need to know where you came up with "zivilisierter Wurm" as an alias though.
81
@MacGruber: German for a favorite Melvins song. Just little good-natured self-depreciation :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1LLu2FAb7…
82
@69 that is not true you are just bitter Marx doesn't run the party.
83
Yeah.

82 comments above me says we're not even talking about gun control

Wake up.
84
@28 is right - stopping the media blitz that always results from these tragic events is a great idea. The sick individuals that perpetrate such crimes see their going down in history as a bonus.
85
I'm genuinely curious, Goldy; what would you do different?
The guns used in CT were legally owned and registered to the victim's mother. Her son could not legally purchase guns, ammunition, or use a weapon. He murdered her and stole her pistols, neither of which by any reports were automatics or had expanded clips.

So again I have to ask: what would you have done differently than the CT legislature, if you could? Would you ban all handguns from the US (including those owned by emergency personnel, since there's no reason a cop couldn't also be murdered by their child and their weapon use in a crime.) do you have a plan on how to get 300 million legally owned weapons, and who knows how many illegally owned ones out of the country, and make sure they don't come back? Please, tell us what you would have done differently. Please.

Yesterday was not a failure to discuss or enact gun control. It was a failure of correctly implemented gun control, because you can't always predict or stop insanity. A woman was murdered, her property stolen and used in still further murders. The only failure there was the lack of humanity in her son.
86
#77 - "I thought the 2012 election showed that America is not a center-right country" - why? Because we elected a center-right president?

#83 - I think when people say we need a discussion about guns in society, they're talking about a discussion at the highest levels of government, not anonymous commenters trading insults on an obscure blog.
87
@11: please cite your 30K murdered-by-murderingmood+gun stat.
gunpolicy.org says there are about 9000 murdered by guns in the US. (a number that's been steadily slipping downward, and dramatically slipping downward when you factor against per capita).
@16 win: "Until we make violence in general "not acceptable" in this society, we can pass all the laws in the world and it won't solve anything"
@22 - let's keep guns legal and tax bullets $100 each AND require id chips on each bullet. Register bullets, not guns. Guns will be fired much less if bullets aren't $17 for a brick of 500 (as they are at Cabela sporting goods)
88
The shooter did not come by the weapon he used legally. What form of "gun control" would have prevented this tragedy?
89
Heh, I want to see the dems try to institute some of the extreme gun control measures suggested on this blog - let's have Obama start!

Obama is despised by a large portion of the country now, I want to see that go to a fever pitch.

I think it would be great if this issue is what fucks the rest of his "presidency". However, I bet Obama, beyond empty gestures, does nothing. Because, just like when he jetted off to a fund-raiser the day after those Americans were murdered in Benghazi, he doesn't give a shit other than perhaps how he perceives he is expected to act.

And the rest of the democrat heroes? Only the pussies in safe districts full of liberal nuts will make any noise - like that fuckhead Schumer, and the perennial whiner McCarthy.

All the rest of the dems in states where they have a chance of losing their positions will at best say "tsk, tsk".

And that's how it will be. Suck it, libs.
90
Reducing the total number of guns within the system would have reduced the probability of this gun having been purchased. If that probability becomes small enough, you effectively have prevention.

Once again, the difference between liberals and conservatives is simply this: math. We've got it. You don't.
91
There are other issues that matter, Goldy, issues which will be badly harmed if the Democrats lose elections. Taxes on the rich? Health care? The environment? Abortion? Worker's rights? Keeping the government functioning as something that helps people instead of a feeding trough for crony capitalists? Given the importance of these things, I'd say gun control isn't a hill to die on.

What's needed on this issue is nonpartisan activism to educate the public about the problems with guns to counter NRA misinformation and rebuild support for gun control back up to the point where it's safe for Democrats to take the issue back on.
92
@90:... What? In what way is that a solution? "Well, if we have less guns we'll have less shootings." I suppose that's technically true, but considering there are 300 million legally owned guns in the country and 10,000 shooting deaths a year, it's already such a statistically small percentage of legally owned weapons involve in said shootings that you'd have to eliminate virtually all guns in the country to make a difference. Including those owned by police. And, as previously pointed out, that'll never happen. Sorry, that may count as 'math' for you, but it's not a solution.
93
So has anyone thought to ask Senate Majority Leader to be Rodney Toms what he would propose? Since he isn't a democrat again he should be able to say something, or am I missing something here. Maybe this isn't just an political problem for dems, maybe just maybe it is a political problem for R from swing districts too?
94
the gun owners and gun lovers just lie, lie lie. just know kiro quoted some expert who said "if someone is going to commit violence, they're going to commit violence." the biggest lie of all. fact: japan, england etc. have far lower rates of gun death and massacre. fact: guns make killing EZ. fact: widespread accessibilility of buns helps crazies kill. fact: in china? the knife? didn't kill anyone. some 45% of americans own guns, the nra has creatively spread these lies and talking points, and converted the consumers of guns into messengers of the nra tested message points which are mainly, lies. the last lie is that of nateman, who, conceding the point the less guns means less gun deaths as in japan, duh, thank you, then points out the nra and the gun owners already screwed us as we alreacdy got two hundred million guns lying around, so in short, nateman says to all of us, fuck you, you're going to die because we're too selfish to not have guns no matter what the facts are. so fuck you nateman and your ilk. you are to blame. it's you who spread the lie that guns don't kill, it's you who reversed the AW ban, it's you who tell all the nra sponsored lies and it's you who cynically say things like change will neverhappen. this is exactly what they said about slavery, about women not voting, about jim crow, about everything. this is what the nazi appeasers said: well he's got france, so england should make a deal with hitler. fuck you. you tell lies spread guns around then plead there's too many guns to get rid of them. let me tell you something. there's not. you hace no need for a gun, the killer's mom had no need of guns, no one needs assault weapons, gun control is possible and is in place in about 30 nations and its lying fuckers like you who deny climate change, denied the need for vaccination, and who deny the need and effectiveness of gun control. fuck. you. you. are. to. blame.
95
@10 remains the single most laughable would-be troll on slog. I reiterate my offer to pay cash money to whichever staffer forcibly changes his handle to "StrangersWeakestTroll".
But Dr. Dope, you already hold that title, and I really don't see you giving it up. That and your uncontrollable flatulence are all you have. Interestingly, these are the qualities that put you right in the middle of the Active Shooter Demographic...
96
@94: Aw, muffin. I was hoping you'd rear your head. You finished jerking off to the news reports now? I hoped you' cleaned your own semen off your chin before you started typing. I know how aroused this all makes you. May I suggest actually reading what people write before responding, hun? I can help with the big words if you like. I know you have trouble with that whole civilized discourse thing. Seriously, you and the homophobic troll should just start rage fuckin. You'd feel better.
97
That's quite the fantasy, Nate. I'll bet you have one hell of a porn collection.
98
@85: ban AWs, limit other gun ownership to about 4% of the population meaning peopl ewho a ctually hunt or need a handgun e.g. to carry cash home at night. as in england. so a yahoo like this kid's mom doesn't have a bunch of guns lying around which you call legal but which in fact are part of the pool of guns easily taken. did you notice the outrageious lie at @66 refuted by 68? you guys just lie, lie lie. the USA with gun ownership rates about three times higher than canada this doesn't tell the whole story because in canda and england and such even if you own a gun there's all kinds of bans on types of guns we don't have here plus all kinds of licensing hurdles that basically make it a pain in the ass to own a gun so the average suburbanite or town dweller just isn't goingt to have one. here in the usa, we buy them like fucking high def TV sets. @88: stop being such an imbecile, the form of gun controls they have in canada japan england ireland wales france germany sweden switzerland (if you have lots of guns it's okay if they're all registered and you're in the militia) denmark norway iceland netherlands...jeezy you imbecile, you know damn well what we mean, we mean total bans on many classes of guns and highly severe restrictions on who can own a simple handgun. things that get the total ownership level down, down down . aha, then we come to the nateman argument which is fuck you all, you lose because we in the nra we gun loving gun owners already spread guns all over you can't do anything about it.

the smug position. like white men enjoying power saying it will never change. like climate deniers saying oh well even if there is climate change we can't stop it now. the denialism religion that just so conveniently lets you keep your guns and feel smug and removed from this violence, when in fact, you are to blame, you and your ilk who told us these lies that guns would keep us safe. it will change because enough of you will become ashamed of your own lies and your massively stupid gun ownership, when enough of you have crazy 20 year old nephews who take your guns and shoot up school kids. some of you will bcome ashamed. that's how it will change, nateman.
99
@96: you made a point that there's too many guns for us to lower the rate of gun ownership. I responded. you couldn't answer, so you call names. this after years and years of lies by you and your ilk, that gun make us safe, that guns don't kill, that gun control doesn't work. oh we can point to the data all we want, we can point to japan, to england, to australia which actually took back in guns, and you don't care. let me tell you why nateman. it's because you are an asshole. your series of lies and defenses breaks down one by one, you got no answer, you ulimately are a fucking coward, so I will say it again: enough of you will become so ashamed that you are cuasing the ez access to guns and enabling the gun violence, we will win in the end. so fuck you again. you are responsible. your series of lies goes from guns don't kill to gun control doesn't work to the second amendment this or that and every single one of them is a lie including the fact that somehow we couldn't get back the guns. we can and will so fuck you, asshole, it's folks like you who enable the criminals and crazies to steal your guns and you're too fucking stupid and shameless to admit it. you coward.
100
@97: I do indeed, though my words have less to do with porn than the amusement and contempt the gun troll's lack of grammar, eloquence, and rational thought. There's no point in trying to have a civilized discussion with the yeasty little discharge. And he does take my mind off the tragedy of what actually happened. So I suppose I should thank the filthy little Santorum stain for that.