If Only Someone At That Gun Show—and That Other Gun Show, and That Other Other Gun Show—Had Been Armed

Comments

1
Some blood must be sacrificed to protect the sanctity of a well-regulated militia.
2
With 6 you get a free rapid fire clip
3
Sounds like a job for the Gun Show Boo Boo Truthers.

Why take a hard look in the mirror when you can shut your eyes and carry on?
4
I think I've changed my mind.

I think I'm gonna be OK for the time being with rapid expansion of open-carry, concealed-carry, spinning-around-with-your-finger-through-the-trigger-guard-Yosemite-Sam-carry, what-the-fuck-ever.

The greater good will be served over the long haul by an increasing stream of news stories about people shooting themselves, husbands shooting wives, random bullets from dropped guns caroming around coffee joints and Sears Roebucks and church sanctuaries, relative to the occasional story (real or imagined) about someone actually disabling or intimidating a bad guy.

For the most part, their own bodies and those of friends and family will subtend the largest angles around the cores of the Walter Mitty types, so casualties among that subset of humanity will predominate. Distance and intervening merchandise and the fact that for the most part they won't be aiming, will tend to reduce the statistical risk for everyone else. I'm willing to accept the certain near-term increase in casualties, with myself possibly included, if a majority will ultimately conclude on their own that gun fetishism itself is insane.
5
Hey Dan you should do a story on how many people caught AIDS (or Hep C) today by having sex.
6
Should, but won't.
7
At least the people having sex were doing something fun. A gun show sounds worse than an Amway meeting.
8
This reminds me of that Monty Python sketch where they go hunting.
9
Once again CB, your commentary degrades the conversation to the point that you are the one looking absurd. Keep it up, you only help out the cause of those who think that *something* needs to be done about the problem.

As you are rife to point out, we that favor some gun control may not know *exactly* what it is that will fix the gun problem, and we may not be as up on gun minutiae as you are, but we do know that when you continue to spout drivel like you have at @5, you will end up pushing reasonable thinking people away from your point of view, and towards ours. So thank you.
10
So, Dan links to stories on accidental shootings
Across the nation.
So where are the links to stories about shootings in Seattle for the past 19 days?
No one here can name the first (or latest) brown person wounded or killed in Seattle in 2013. Without looking it up.
Judging by the coverage in The Stranger, there haven't been any.
Yet there will be stories posted about shootings across the nation.

Who is shooting whom with what and why?
11
Now it's up to five wounded on gun appreciation day!!!
12
#5 Yeah keep in mind that only ONE person gets an STD when TWO people have sex, not 20 children and 6 teachers.
13
@12 Bingo.
14
It's a sickness.
15
Obviously those were paid Jewish stuntmen.
16
It just goes to show that guns are perfectly safe as long as theyre in the care of conscientious experts.
17
@10: keep teasing us with that fact. at this point, i don't think you know the answer.
18
@4 (from a middle-school math coach): props for the best use of "subtend" in a Savage Love comment this year to date.

@7 (Catalina): Agreed on sex = fun. But Amway versus gun shows? While excesses of household cleaners (even "concentrated" ones) and kitchen gadgets worries me less than our country's abundant firearms, it's only fair to point out that people PAY to go to gun shows, while Amway must tempt their invitees with freebies.

On the other hand, I've never considered/imagined a housewife - worried about her A-cups being "deficient" - buying tupperware and household brushes in order to feel more complete.
19
I want a study on penis size and amount and size of guns owned. I demand it!
20
Incidentally, one of the 'rules' of the Medina gun show is that all firearms are supposed to be unloaded. If you bring a firearm in, the deputies are supposed to check it and make sure it is unloaded.

Now, how about some links to industrial accidents, subway accidents, boating accidents, car accidents, hiking accidents, swimming pool accidents..etc. Oh wait! Those things aren't "designed to kill people". Therefore there shouldn't be any accidents, right? Anyone have any figures on percentage of firearms accidents per number of firearms, compared to percentage of swimming pool/car/whatever, accidents per number of pools/cars/whatever owned?
21
Ah, I see our well-regulated militia is busy watering the tree of liberty or whatever the fuck it is they think they're doing.
22
@20- Like Cascadian Bacon, your argument trying to conflate guns with other, more well-regulated but dangerous things is full of shit. So full of shit you should now go punch your stupid self in your stupid face, repeatedly, until you lose the urge to post such a stupid argument.

Industrial equipment? Dangerous, and well-regulated by shit-tons of laws, plus an ever-evolving safety industry designed to always improve the safety of industrial equipment. Google something like "2-hand controls for industrial presses".

Swimming pools? Dangerous, and well-regulated by building codes and laws. Laws designed to make pools as safe as possible.

Cars? Dangerous, and well-regulated by Federal, State, and local laws designed to minimize the risk. All aspects of cars are regulated, from their manufacture, their design, their built-in safety equipment (you know what airbags are, right), and their operation up to and including licensing and training for their operators.

Guns? Dangerous. And any attempt to make them safer is virulently opposed and ridiculed by the gun fetishists, the gun manufacturers, and their lobbyists. And dingbats like you.

There, don't you feel stupider now, "Randoma"? Commence face-punching now please.
23
Wait, they have to have thier guns unloaded before they can enter the gun show?!? How can they trample on my rights like that? It's my right to be armed and loaded with safety off at all times!! Wasting just a few seconds to load could mean the difference between Freedom and a Kenyan dictatorship! Why do gun shows hate America??!?1!!
24
There are more flaws to the logic.

The types of people who would own licensed, for sport guns and hence go to gun shows, would be those that continue to end up accidentally discharging them.

Most gun control laws would not take hunting rifles away from these people so the accidents would continue.

It raises another question...do these types of accidents only happen to well meaning but clumsy legal gun owners, or are there many more AFVs depicting gangbangers "hilariously" shooting themselves in the fact during parties. What about soldiers. We'll never know.
25
@17
"keep teasing us with that fact. at this point, i don't think you know the answer."

The point is that you do not know who the first (or latest) brown person shot in Seattle in 2013 was.
There is a reason that you do not know who that was.
Are you capable of articulating that reason?
26
@25

Reason: the only guy who thinks it matters is a troll?

We know people of color suffer most from gun violence. Though the snowbillies and hillbilles are high in the running.

So how is this going to lead to scoring a point for your "more guns" agenda? Sounds like the usual gun lobby tactic of changing the subject if you can't squelch the discussion altogether.
27
@4 - I think you have the right idea- These people keep shooting themselves, their wives and their children. although those later two are tragic and sad, they do prevent the fucking idiot genes from being passed along.
28
Wait you mean you can't bring a loaded gun into a gun show? Gun dealers don't even believe their own bs. They know a good percentage of gun show costumers aren't "good guys".
29
@22, Wow. What a well thought out response - certainly shows why it is so hard to have a conversation about gun control. Sadly, completely devoid of actual data. There are far more laws regulating firearms than my swimming pool.. And the only law making my swimming pool 'safe' is that it needs to be fenced in. And, if it was an above ground pool, it wouldn't even need that, or a permit.

Regardless, are there, or are there not, a higher percentage of accidents per device? Or, are you telling me that cars, despite massive regulation, and airbags are actually more dangerous than firearms?

USDOT says that there were roughly 2.2 million people injured in car crashes in 2010, with a total ownership of vehicles on the road of between 140 million to 220 million. Compared to 220-270 million firearms owned, with roughly 70,000 deliberate AND accidental injuries (accidental injuries being significantly lower than deliberate ones, but I'll let you have both) related to firearms.

Great argument for increasing regulation of automobiles. Dr. Awesome. Hope your face stops swelling in a few days. (Statistics for swimming pools are much worse than cars, by the way).
30
@28, Actually you may be able to bring a loaded concealed carry weapon in - I wouldn't know. However, any firearm that is for sale (and could be handled by potential buyers) is supposed to be inspected and unloaded.
31
I'm a bit of a gun nut, and after what I've seen and continue to see at gun ranges, I'm 100% for comprehensive background checks, mandatory safety training, etc. (fwiw, I think the "assault rifle" ban won't accomplish much, even if the majority of bone-headed safety violations I've witnessed were by AR-15 owners.) The only surprise that I feel hearing about these ridiculous, stupid, avoidable accidents is that they don't happen more often.
32
... which is to say that I'm a gun nut/owner who's pretty much on board with what Obama is proposing -- even if I think some parts won't have the desired effect.
33
Wait, does this mean tgat if the Weimar Republic hadn't passed strong gun control laws, the pre-WWII Germans would have just shot each other?
34
@29,

The reason he treated your response with snark dismissiveness is because it's so colossally stupid. I've no doubt there are proportionally far more accidents and deaths related to automobiles than firearms. The difference is that the overwhelming majority of Americans recognize and acknowledge that cars are a necessary and (unfortunately, in many of our opinions) indispensable component of every day life. This is why drunk driving related accidents and fatalities are all the more infuriating to their innocent victims -- alcohol and drunken driving aren't necessary and indispensable to our societies functioning.

As far as swimming pools, I'd be willing to bet somewhere near 100% of swimming pool related accidents and fatalities are suffered by folks actively swimming and/or taking advantage of pool features. Unlike firearm and automobile related accidents.
35
The fact that we don't know the name of the first gun fatality of 2013 in Seattle, or the first person of color to die from a gun in 2013, only goes to show that fatal shootings are so commonplace that we don't ever read the details.

I don't think that's what you're trying to prove, though.
36
Tyliah Young. Age 22, shot dead days ago, just steps from her home in Tacoma. 2 young daughters left motherless.
I find that incredibly sad.
RIP.
37
Who needs false flags when your opponents will gleefully hang themselves if you just let them grab the rope out of your hands?
38
@29 - Everything else you mention besides firearms don't have the express purpose of causing harm. A weapon is designed to hurt/kill. A car, swimming pool, and industrial equipment are not.

Hell, even a knife can be used to eat with. Try that with a rifle.
39
What fairly.unbalanced, and the unregistered troll that pops up around here with the same 'points', is trying to say but doesn't have the balls to is this:
Black people shoot each other. We liberals are too scared to even talk about black-on-black violence because we're afraid of sounding racist. F.U and the troll have no problem sounding racist, because they ARE racist, and proud of it: they think there is something inherent in darker-skinned people that makes them violent. They want to point this out every opportunity they can, in ways designed to make us go "hmmm, maybe that feller on the Interwebs comments is RIGHT, black people suck!"
FU, F.U.
40
@38, Which just further proves what I was saying. Firearms are, relatively, safe. Firearms are designed to hurt/kill, yet percentage of injuries per device are far lower than other things. As a meat eater, and someone who has a small farm (Pigs, goats, poultry) I find a rifle to be a very useful tool.

@34, I'm sorry you find my point to be "colossally stupid." But then I don't think you actually understand the point, which is that there are many things we use, as people, for whatever reason, that result in injuries/death, yet we don't actively try and ban them. Also, the majority of swimming pool accidents are because people accidentally fall into them. Not because people are actively using them. (Particularly in the 1-4 age range) Also, apparently a large percentage of Americans seem to believe that firearms are necessary and indispensable part of everyday life. (I do not necessarily agree with that as a generalization.)

All that said, yes, there are LOTS of things that should be done in regards to firearm education. Several of Obama's Executive actions probably will help, and I am fully behind every single one of the Executive actions that he announced. (Although I am very much against the renewal of the Assault Weapons Ban, and don't think the magazine limitation will help but don't see how it will hurt either). But I'm also of the opinion that the AWB is going to end up being a bargaining chip.

However, the underlying theme in most of these threads is, "Our ultimate goal is to ban guns. Much like gay marriage, and drug reform, we have to take small steps, but ultimately, we want to ban all guns." That, I do not support.
41
@39, The reason why black people are more likely to be exposed to gun violence, both as perpetrator and victim, are directly related to poverty and the "war on drugs". Particularly where drug offenses for black people tend to be much harsher than offenses for white people. (What's the difference between crack and powder cocaine? About 100:1 for sentencing purposes. What's the other difference? White affluent people use powder, Black, and poor people, use crack.) Yes, I am aware that the Fair Sentencing Act has reduced this a bit, but a black, or ethnic person is still far more likely to receive a harsher sentence than a white person for a similar offense.

As I said before, the majority of firearms violence is in the inner city and is mostly non-white people, and none of you gave a shit until a bunch of affluent white children were riddled with bullets. Incidentally, Obama's gun-control response is going to have very little, to no effect, on inner city violence, but apparently we, as a people, don't really care about that.
42
Randoma, out of curiosity, would you rather your most beloved loved one was accidentally drowned in a swimming pool or deliberately murdered by someone with a gun? Or do you feel the same about them?
43
#41,

The people who do not care about inner-city violence are the gun-loving twits who oppose even the most sensible gun laws. You can talk about all of the gun laws on the books, but the fact is the NRA and their minions in congress have done everything to make those laws unenforceable.

Yes, swimming pools are dangerous, especially to young children, as are guns. Both require regulation to reduce the risk to public safety. The fact that one is not well-regulated enough is not an argument against regulating the other.

If you feel like guns are being singled out, it's because they are. Guns are weapons designed to kill. They are not toys. They are not sporting equipment.
44
So, you link to three articles about accidental weapons discharges. Then you try and link that to a commonly held belief that if a licensed person carrying a conceal firearm might have been able to stop the murderers that shot up the schools or the theater, etc.

This is SILLY.

The fact that some people have had an accidental discharge with their firearm is tragic, especially since it resulted in injuries. This however just underscores the need for people to be taught the proper way to SAFELY handle a firearm. Always make sure the weapon is on safe. Always drop the magazine and visually inspect the chamber to make sure it is empty. Even then, keep your finger off the trigger and don't point it at someone. THIS is how you should handle a firearm at a gun show. It's safe, and polite.

Now, on to the other issue. There HAVE been instances of armed guards, people with (legal) concealed pistols, ect. that have been caught in truely life or death situations and and have pulled their firearm, shot the bad guy and defended the lives of themselves and those around them. Incidences like this do not get mainstream media attention. And do you know why? Because the headline "Gunman shot by guard, 20 lives saved" doesn't sell as many papers as the headline that reads "Deranged gunman murders 20 children". It's as simple as that. Yes, shootings like the one at Sandy Hook do happen, and they are a terrible travesty. A firearm in the wrong hands can be a huge force for destruction and, for lack of a less dramatic word, evil. But a firearm in the right hands can also be a strong tool for protection. I'm all in favor of keeping guns out of the wrong hands. Criminals, the mentally unbalanced that are considered a danger to themselves and others. But we need people, armed people, who are willing to protect others. Our United States are protected by soldiers that are armed. Our cities are patrolled by Police Officers and Sheriffs that are armed. Security Guards. They are there to put themselves in harms way to protect the rest of us. And guess what? They still can't protect everyone.

I have served in the military. I learned from a young age how to clean, care for and safely handle a firearm. I learned to respect guns for the tools that they are. Even before the Army issued me my first rifle I knew how to treat a firearm. Not because I was born knowing, but because I was taught. I have procured a Concealed Carry Permit from my local government so I can carry my legally licensed firearm. I have only pulled my pistol out once, to stop a violent assault that was happening to someone I'd never met. I have never had to shoot anyone with it, and I hope I never will. But if I see a gunman shooting to kill innocent people... I know what I will do.

All too often people try to paint gun owners as "nuts", violent sociopaths or militant extremists. I'll admit, a small portion of gun owners ARE like that. And anti-gun advocates point to them and try to say that they we are all like that. The truth is a lot less exciting. Mostly we like to go hunting. Or head down to the firing range, shoot up some paper targets and keep our aim steady. And if need be we are willing and able to defend ourselves, our loved ones and those around us. Because... someone has to.
45
So, you link to three articles about accidental weapons discharges. Then you try and link THAT to a commonly held belief that if a licensed person carrying a conceal firearm had been there they might have been able to stop the murderers that shot up the schools or the theater, etc.

This is SILLY.

The fact that some people have had an accidental discharge with their firearm is tragic, especially since it resulted in injuries. This however just underscores the need for people to be taught the proper way to SAFELY handle a firearm. Always make sure the weapon is on safe. Always drop the magazine and visually inspect the chamber to make sure it is empty. Even then, keep your finger off the trigger and don't point it at someone. THIS is how you should handle a firearm at a gun show. It's safe, and polite.

Now, on to the other issue. There HAVE been instances of armed guards, people with (legal) concealed pistols, ect. that have been caught in truely life or death situations and and have pulled their firearm, shot the bad guy and defended the lives of themselves and those around them. Incidences like this do not get mainstream media attention. And do you know why? Because the headline "Gunman shot by guard, 20 lives saved" doesn't sell as many papers as the headline that reads "Deranged gunman murders 20 children". It's as simple as that. Yes, shootings like the one at Sandy Hook do happen, and they are a terrible travesty. A firearm in the wrong hands can be a huge force for destruction and, for lack of a less dramatic word, evil. But a firearm in the right hands can also be a strong tool for protection. I'm all in favor of keeping guns out of the wrong hands. Criminals, the mentally unbalanced that are considered a danger to themselves and others. But we need people, armed people, who are willing to protect others. Our United States are protected by soldiers that are armed. Our cities are patrolled by Police Officers and Sheriffs that are armed. Security Guards. They are there to put themselves in harms way to protect the rest of us. And guess what? They still can't protect everyone.

I have served in the military. I learned from a young age how to clean, care for and safely handle a firearm. I learned to respect guns for the tools that they are. Even before the Army issued me my first rifle I knew how to treat a firearm. Not because I was born knowing, but because I was taught. I have procured a Concealed Carry Permit from my local government so I can carry my legally licensed firearm. I have only pulled my pistol out once, to stop a violent assault that was happening to someone I'd never met. I have never had to shoot anyone with it, and I hope I never will. But if I see a gunman shooting to kill innocent people... I know what I will do.

All too often people try to paint gun owners as "nuts", violent sociopaths or militant extremists. I'll admit, a small portion of gun owners ARE like that. And anti-gun advocates point to them and try to say that they we are all like that. The truth is a lot less exciting. Mostly we like to go hunting. Or head down to the firing range, shoot up some paper targets and keep our aim steady. And if need be we are willing and able to defend ourselves, our loved ones and those around us. Because... someone has to.
46
39

How is a factually accurate discussion of gun violence, including demographic data, racist?

Please explain.
47
these folks are so stupid.

in fact, according to the CDC, 20% of practicing gun owners have shot them self.

fucking. retards.
48
34

You'd lose that bet.
Moron.
Kids wander into pools and drown.
Often they do not even live on the property where the pool is located.
Pay up.
49
7

so what does it say about people who, while engaged in a really fun activity, manage to give their partner a fatal disease?

ooops.....

and when 20% of the people engaged in this 'fun' activity have gotten infected (and in turn infected others...) is it time for the adults to step in and provide some supervision?

like, how fucking stupid do you have to be to turn sex into a lethal disaster?
50
@44/45 summarized: Yes, there are some boobs out there with guns. Why y'all coming fer my guns?

A: We're trying to get the guns away from the boobs - not everyone. We want to see gun ownership restricted to very well-trained persons, who are responsible to their communities and not shootout fantasy fools. Why don't you start engaging in that discussion - reasonable and improved gun management - what should it be? - rather than worrying so much about how you're going to keep your shooter?
51
@34
"The difference is that the overwhelming majority of Americans recognize and acknowledge that cars are a necessary and (unfortunately, in many of our opinions) indispensable component of every day life."

Kind of.
More people would be inconvenienced if private cars were banned or further restricted.
So despite the higher incidence of property damage, injuries and deaths there are fewer people who do not use cars and would call for limiting their availability.

It's a basic double standard.
52
Randoma (@whatever numbers you posted at).

You're utterly, utterly missing the point. I'll spell it out very, very simply for you. Please read this slowly, I'll wait.

Society makes all sorts of laws and rules in order to mitigate the danger of all the things we have and do. Things like swimming pools. And cars. And industrial presses.

And generally nobody complains too much. Certainly nobody goes around threatening senators and representatives with death when they pass a law designed to make industrial presses safer.

In the big picture, yes, other things kill more people per-capita than guns do. Yet we deal with those things, and pass what laws we can to make them safer where we can.

But the 'Yay Guns' crowd goes absolutely bonkers- apeshit screaming red-faced spittle-spewing bonkers-- when we even TRY to suggest that we could make guns safer by thoughtfully working out laws and codes.

This point has been made, by me, and by many others here on Slog.

You are being a 'concern troll' to use the lingo the kids are using these days. That means you are trying to push attention away from the problem of gun violence by pointing at someone elses problem and saying "Looky, because there's something worse over there, y'all need to shut up about this here problem."

That is a silly and stupid counter when us reasonable people are suggesting that we may be able to reduce gun violence by adjusting the laws and codes of the society we live in.

Here's a ridiculous example for you, just to show you how ridiculous you are: You go to the doctor with a broken leg, and the doctor replies that he isn't interested in fixing it, because you aren't actually dying, like from say, a heart attack. And he sends you on your way.

Stupid, huh? Just like your responses. Us adults are having a conversation about making guns safer. And you can be a part of the conversation, and participate in it. Or you can continue your stonewalling and concern trolling, and you can watch from the sidelines as we effect the laws and changes we need to reduce gun violence. We would prefer an inclusive solution but with or without your participation we will come to a solution.
53
As for the cars/guns ratio. You shouldn't just look at the raw numbers, rather the amount of usage. I doubt the average gun owner uses their gun everyday, whereas most people drive everyday. I'm not sure how one could calculate it, but a time spent:people killed ratio would probably be a better indicator of what's more dangerous.
@51 regulating =/= banning.
54
Why liberals SHOULD support more guns : more conservatives with guns = fewer conservatives after the guns are fired! Same reason conservatives should support more abortions! More liberals having abortions=fewer liberals after abortions!
55
@52, Here's the problem, "thoughtfully working out laws and codes". For the most part, laws are not being thoughtfully worked out. The AWB is a kneejerk reaction to a very rare occurrence that will do, as proven by the last one, very little to reduce overall firearm violence.

Which makes your example of going to the Doctor with a broken leg very apt. Because the AWB is exactly like that. 70% of firearm fatalities are with handguns (your broken leg), 1-4% of firearm fatalities are with longguns (your heart attack). So instead of fixing your broken leg, the Doctor gives you some aspirins to help with your heart attack.

And there is the root of the problem. And why, while I hate the NRA and think the world would be a better place without them, I can understand their stance in saying no to any attempts at gun control. Because what is going to happen is you get an AWB, and your 10 round mag cap and that doesn't help, so then you come back with a 7 round mag cap and more restrictions on rifles and that doesn't help and then you say say okay, no rifles whatsoever and that doesn't help, so you start banning other firearms and so on.

You are not interested in having a conversation, you are not actually interested in other viewpoints. You just want the 'gun-nuts' to say, "Of course! You are so smart, why couldn't I see that!" Here's a ladder to help you with your horse.
56
@42 - my opinion, dead is dead, really.

@43 - See above. Also, many, many firearms laws are not enforced as they should be. Also, the laws being proposed for/by Congress have little to do with the root problem.

You all want to start talking about how to get the guns out of the hands of gang bangers and other youths, let's talk. There are already programs that have been successful. Some of them lack funding, some of them could be better. You want to talk about requiring more education for gun owners, sounds great. You want to talk about better enforcement for illegal gun sellers, great!

But the reality is you don't really want to talk about any of those. You want to to make fun of some stupid ass gun owners that had negligent discharges (but other accidents caused by stupid-ass people are apparently off limits). You want to talk about banning 'scary' looking rifles. You want to talk about the lunatic fringe of gun-nuts. And the more you go on with your insults and refusal to hear alternate views, the less likely you are to ever accomplish anything. Many of the 'gun-nuts' posting here have had meaningful contributions, but you, as a whole, are more interesting in insults than listening.
57
@51

The incidents of injury and death from cars is a thousand times smaller than guns. The reason the total deaths from cars is on par with guns is that there are so many more of them, and they are used daily by so many people.

If as many people spent two hours a day using guns as spend two hours a day using cars, the number of deaths would be in the tens of millions.

You are so losing this debate. It's funny to contrast how fanatically right you think you are with how weak your evidence is
58
Randoma, you haven't been paying attention.

Yes, I am personally full of snark and rather insulting. Yet I've also noted that "gun control" is in fact a hugely complex issue, one that will not be solved by merely banning one certain type of gun for cosmetic issues. Nowhere have I mentioned an assault-weapon ban.

I think an assault weapons ban is rather pointless too, and does little to reduce gun violence.

I have been reading and watching all the other viewpoints here on Slog, and on many other internet places.

Gun safety is, simply, a safety problem exactly like automobile safety, industrial safety, coffee-maker safety, or any number of other things. And some very good ideas have burbled up, amongst the chatter and hysteria (from both sides).

And some very thoughtful suggestions for laws and codes have burbled forth. Here's the rub: The NRA which you claim to hate will rile up their base, and load their lobbyists' pockets with cash, and even the reasonable laws and codes will be nipped in the bud, long before they ever have a chance of passing. And all the 'Yay-Guns!' folks will cheer.

So what that means is when the small incremental steps are blocked, the 'Nay Guns' crowd will start pushing for more draconian measures against the 'Yay Guns' crowd.

The 'Yay Guns!' crowd is being their own worst enemy right now, by militantly and angrily denying there's a problem, by suggesting really stupid solutions, and by refusing to participate in the discussions.

For evidence, see the recent stories about the NRA eliminating funding for Seattle's own Dr. Fred Rivara's study of gun violence. And the NRA effecting the passage of laws preventing doctors from even asking people if they have guns in their house.

You note in a different response that programs exist to get guns out of the hands of 'gang-bangers'. Gun buyback programs? These same programs that other 'Yay-Guns!' people have ridiculed as useless? That's the status of the debate right now. For what it's worth I believe that buyback programs work as well. But most of the 'Yay-Guns!' crowd doesn't, and they get all riled up when such programs are even discussed.

Here's another interesting point, Randoma, that you've probably missed. Commie-Pinko-Liberal as I am, between my GF and I we own enough guns to count as "Many". Many guns.

Others on Slog have noted that they are liberal, but they also own and enjoy shooting guns.

And we gun-owning-liberals are participating in the conversation, the conversation you say we aren't interested in having. We are interested in solutions to reduce gun violence. Solutions beyond "BAN ALL DEM GUNS!". Except for Fnarf, nobody believes that to be a workable solution.

So get bent, Randoma. We're having the discussion. Be a part of it, and you can help shape it so the solutions are at least equitable to you.

But if you aren't a part of it you risk solutions that you really may not be happy with.
59
@58, Being a (not many) gun-owning-liberal myself, I am trying to have a discussion, and your response is to "get bent" and other insults. That is not a discussion, that is you and your concerns about your metaphorical penis. Of course the 'gun-nuts' refuse to "participate in the discussion" - who wants to participate in being insulted and belittled. (Well, I'm still here...)

And, sorry, you're still not participating in a discussion - you're saying that ideas exist, what are they?

No, I do not think gun buyback programs work. I think they're a waste of resources and serve as a way for people to feel good about themselves. Florida has an excellent bounty program for illegal weapons - not a buyback program, but effective in getting illegal firearms off the street. The successful gang-banger programs have been patterned after Boston's Operation Ceasefire, which was absolutely not a gun buy-back program.
60
@53
"regulating =/= banning."

And what I had posted was:
More people would be inconvenienced if private cars were banned or further restricted.
Notice the word "or" in there?
Do you need a dictionary to look up what "or" means?

"You shouldn't just look at the raw numbers, rather the amount of usage."

It's a basic double standard.
More people would be inconvenienced if private cars were banned or further restricted.
So because the cars benefit them directly, they do not want cars banned or further restricted.
There are lots of dictionaries available online.
61
@57:
If as many people spent two hours a day using guns as spend two hours a day using cars, the number of deaths would be in the tens of millions
Absolutely true.
62
@60

There are many, many cars that are banned. All sorts of race cars: alcohol fueled funny cars, cars that can go 400 mph. Cars without a couple hundred very specific safety features are banned. There are many cheap cars made in South America that are without air bags, antilock brakes, even decent seatbelts. All banned. Rocket cars are banned. SUVs that tip over easily are banned.

The only double standard is that we allow fanatics to define the limits of the Second Amendment while practical people define the limits of the First Amendment, and the rest of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Why the double standard for the Second Amendment? Fuckhead gun loons enlisted in the service of arms manufacturing corporate profits to hijack democracy.
63
@62: we don't have reasonable discussions on the first ammendment- ask a conservative about pornography or prayer in school. We just have a stasis point with which you are comfortable. The stasis point on the second ammendment is yes on semi-autos and no on full autos, rpgs, landmines, etc. The reason that the NRA gets so much play is because many people want the stasis point to be no guns in private hands.
64
Ps- just to be clear, I support the president's proposals. I don't find the "no guns" crowd a threat to my fundamental right to defend my family as I see fit, so I don't see the need to take an equivalently extremist counterposition.
65
@ Randoma:

Jebus Keerist, what do you freakin' want? You also claim to be a gun-owning liberal. You also claim to be 'trying to have a discussion'. You note that
the 'gun-nuts' refuse to "participate in the discussion"


So help me out here, man. Because you're all over the fuckin' map now and your floundering is getting tiresome. I cannot tell where you stand and what fuckin' point you are trying to make.

Remember that our discussion started when you asserted that because swimming pools and automobile crashes kill far more people per year than guns do, that it is therefore stupid to try to reduce firearm-caused fatalities without first eliminating all other, more significant causes of fatalities?

Here's your exact quote:
Now, how about some links to industrial accidents, subway accidents, boating accidents, car accidents, hiking accidents, swimming pool accidents..etc. Oh wait! Those things aren't "designed to kill people". Therefore there shouldn't be any accidents, right? Anyone have any figures on percentage of firearms accidents per number of firearms, compared to percentage of swimming pool/car/whatever, accidents per number of pools/cars/whatever owned?


So, Randoma, here's the discussion we've been having.

You: "Lotsa other shit kills people, let's look at that too!"

Me: "We have looked at other things that are statistically significant, and we have effected laws that mitigate the hazards. We can easily do the same with guns and firearm violence, if only the NRA kooks will allow us."

You: "Whoa there, you're not discussing things."

Me: "Really? Okay, seriously, what-the-fuck man. Now you say that gun buyback programs don't work, but you hint that there are programs that reduce inner-city/gang violence? We're all ears. Let's hear your great ideas for solving inner-city gun violence."

Then you attempt to smear me by assuming my gun ownership is evidence of my deficient manhood? Finally you also assert that we are 'not having a discussion'.

Get bent, you twat. I don't care if you're a liberal or a conservative. I don't give a fuck if you own a gun or not. You are not making any sense in any way. I pointed out the stupidity of your original argument, the one where you attempted to prove that swimming pools deserve way more attention than guns do, and you've been floundering ever since.

I see, Randoma, where you refer to "gun bounty" programs such as used in Florida, rather than gun buyback programs. You could have linked to an example, rather than obtusely referring to them. Regardless, I don't give a shit any more, Randoma.

I am clicking that check-box that says "Hide Commenters" next to your name. Because you have nothing constructive to add to this discussion or any other and I am done with you.
66
Woah! Now you are putting words in my mouth. I NEVER EVER said, "because swimming pools and automobile crashes kill far more people per year than guns do, that it is therefore stupid to try to reduce firearm-caused fatalities without first eliminating all other, more significant causes of fatalities?"

My point is that you need to look at injuries in context. We are looking at spending millions of dollars, probably billions, on a problem - I think it is extremely important to put that in context. I'm sorry that you feel that firearms related injuries are the only ones that matter. People keep saying, "If we save one life it will be worth it." So, let's say it costs $1,000 to save one life from firearms and it costs $100 to save one life from hiking accidents (or whatever), I think it is worth it to spend the $100 and we still have money left over, sure! Let's spend the $1k. But we don't know.

And you know what, your assertion that there are lots of laws regulating swimming pools is utter bullshit. Yes, there are likely lots of laws regulating public pools, but almost zero regulating private pools. And remember your tirade about airbags? Airbags were made a 'legal-requirement' AFTER most cars had them! It isn't like someone made a law and then found the technology for it. All you said was, "blah blah all these things are regulated." But the fact is they're not nearly as regulated as you think they are.

Incidentally, before I made my comment about how there are other dangerous things, I actually thought that gun accidents would be higher. I was actually surprised that swimming pool accidents are higher than firearms accidents. Which is exactly my point. Everyone is running around, "Blah blah blah, GUNS!" Without having any sort of perspective.

I also NEVER EVER said anything about Gun Buyback programs (except to respond to you) - you read that out of thin air. And, so far you haven't linked to a single thing supporting any of your points, but it is a requirement for me?

Programs for inner city/gang violence - see @59.

Also, the point about your manhood has to do with your inability to communicate without insults, not your gun ownership - unlike a lot of commenters around here, I don't equate firearms with manhood... I think the real problem is you can't read, but whatever - as you clearly state with your "hide commenters" we're not having a discussion.
67
I call fair point on #5. I'm gay and I get nervous when the government wants to ban things that are bad for you.
68
I realize I am late to the party, but as I read an article a few weeks ago that might be marginally pertinent, I decided to join in. I realize that gun violence is the main issue, but if the problem is people and not guns (and really, isn't the problem the awful things people do to other people, that guns make easier and faster?), it might be better to go to the source:

http://m.motherjones.com/environment/201…

I just don't understand why this is not more publicized in the media. No, never mind, I understand, but I don't have to like it.
69
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_p…
I'm stunned by the Yay-Guns crowd's lack of willingness to come to the table to discuss. Stunned!
153
This is great! It really shows me where to expand my blog. I think that sometime in the future I might try to write a book to go along with my blog, but we will see.Good post with useful tips and ideas.Structured Cabling Installation