« previous   misc   next »

Obama should now push for gun control


By tovarichpeter   Follow   Sat, 24 Nov 2012, 1:34am PST   5,084 views   39 comments
Watch (0)   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (3)  

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/24/opinion/promises-on-gun-control.html?hp&_r=0&gwh=7CF8A500E37B26482085E253679D8F53

Sent from my iPad

Comments 1-39 of 39     Last »

drew_eckhardt   Sat, 24 Nov 2012, 3:19am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (2)     Comment 1

That might not be a bad thing because the last time a Democratic president pushed gun control (Clinton refused to sign HR3355 until his gun ban was included) the Republicans got the house, senate, and presidency which came with some nice tax cuts.

We could use some Republican leadership with their tax cuts to offset stagnant real wages and negative real interest rates on savings and with the public blaming them for the recession that's not likely to happen without the Democrats offending a significant voting block.

Stepping on 80,000,000 gun owners ought to do the trick.

I'm not a woman and can afford to fly those in my family to other states and countries if the Republicans are stupid enough to ban abortion. Our kids have earned undergraduate degrees and passed where they'd be indoctrinated by school prayer or be helped much by public education. I don't care much about Social Security cuts because I'm saving at least $17,000 a year towards my retirement and think my responsibility will make me fail the inevitible means test. I think spending about as much on "defense" as the rest of the world put together is stupid but can live with that being funded at the expense of social programs I'm unlikely to use or interest payments made by future generations.

I do like my guns and will compromise in the voting booth on issues like those which affect me less and there are plenty of others who'll do the same.

I could point out that gun control doesn't have positive effects on homicide rates, that those come from economic disparity, economic disparity comes from educational attainment, and if people wanted to do something practical about the murder rate they'd work on reforming education so it's not locally controlled and funded plus do some social engineering to make school cool (in the same way that not smoking tobacco is something people just do). I won't because this is about emotions (like a child's night light so she's not scared of non-existent monsters) not facts.

That said, Democrats should ask themselves what they value more - things like social programs and reproductive rights, or a few more restrictions on guns that won't make them safer. As long as we have first-past-the-post elections we're going to have two viable political parties, as it stands these things are package deals, and there are a few issues voters feel strongly enough to accept one of those two packages that's otherwise sub-optimal. Additional restrictions on guns are one of those issues.

StillLooking   Sat, 24 Nov 2012, 3:22am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (2)     Comment 2

At the least Smith and Wesson should pay the medical costs etc for all shooting victims. Why do taxpayers foot this bill?

drew_eckhardt   Sat, 24 Nov 2012, 3:52am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike (2)     Comment 3

StillLooking says

At the least Smith and Wesson should pay the medical costs etc for all shooting victims. Why do taxpayers foot this bill?

Smith and Wesson employees don't cause the 11-12,000 annual non-self inflicted ffirearms fatalities in the same way that General Motors employees don't cause the 33,000 annual traffic fatalities and neithers' respective employers should be held liable.

If you really care about saving lives you should focus your attention on areas where there are bigger gains to be made, like fast food which contributes to the estimated 300,000 obesity related fatalities in the US each year.

Fatties might object "You can have these fries when you pry them from my cold dead fingers!" although it's for their own good.

StillLooking   Sat, 24 Nov 2012, 4:12am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike (1)     Comment 4

I don't own a gun. I have zero interest in subsidizing your gun. And further I want you to pay out of your nose if your gun shoots me.

Nobody is going to shoot me with a hamburger.

The only benefit to society of guns is population control. And if we assume population is a problem we should agree that there must be better ways.

Quigley   Sat, 24 Nov 2012, 5:12am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (3)   Dislike (1)     Comment 5

There's always a freshly minted liberal (oxymoron) with visions of gun control solving problems in America. They are always idealistic and naive to a ridiculous degree. It's sometimes fun to swat them down with facts, but today I find it boring and repetitive. If these yahoos want to debate gun control they should do their own research. Back before guns, there was control over who could own a bow. And before that it was the sword. Pikes, quarterstaves, maces, kukri, all the way back to a good chunk of rock. "If we criminalize rocks for cavemen, then only criminal cavemen will have rocks!"
Get a clue: humans can be violent. Poison kills just as dead as a bullet from a .338 Springfield.
The difference with guns is ease of use. It doesn't take that much skill to use one, and the smallest person can overcome the largest person with a gun. So one sense, guns are an equality agent. To ban guns is to reinforce thuggery of the largest and meanest guys.
Then again, maybe you are a large brutish fellow who is getting tired of the little girls fighting back with guns?
Take your pedophile ways and leave, you gun-hating baby raper!

Suburban Gal   Sat, 24 Nov 2012, 5:30am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike (1)     Comment 6

StillLooking says

I have zero interest in subsidizing your gun.

Ditto.

Peter P   Sat, 24 Nov 2012, 6:50am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (2)   Dislike     Comment 7

Gun control is as effective as big government. Either one is an expensive exercise of great waste.

Taxing babies is probably more effective in fighting crime.

HEY YOU   Sat, 24 Nov 2012, 6:57am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)     Comment 8

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Anyone who wants to carry an "Arms" and is required to give any info. & then carries a piece of paper that allows them to carry that "Arms" have they been Infringed and have they willingly accepted the Infringement?

If one is a member("people") of a Militia, & required to carry a permit to carry that "Arms", Have they been Infringed?

It may take a while for me to list all the restrictions to "keep and bear Arms" in the 2nd Amendment. When I have a completed list I'll post it.

elliemae   Sun, 25 Nov 2012, 11:07am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike     Comment 9

StillLooking says

Nobody is going to shoot me with a hamburger.

Leading causes of death in the US in 2000 (in order most to least): Cardiovascular disease, Cancer, Respiratory Diseases, Diabetes, Flu/Pneumonia, Alzheimer's Disease, Motor Vehicle Accidents, Septicemia, Firearms. Notice that Firearms are last on that list. The list was was prepared by the Firearms assn, not that it matters.

I'm a gun owner. Proud to be. I don't believe that banning my ability to own one will decrease the death rate, no matter how the death occurred.

StillLooking says

And further I want you to pay out of your nose if your gun shoots me.

My gun has no desire to shoot you - or anyone. Unless you are attacking my livestock, in which case I promise I will shoot you and I will not miss.

mmmarvel   Sun, 25 Nov 2012, 12:22pm PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (4)   Dislike     Comment 10

StillLooking says

I don't own a gun. I have zero interest in subsidizing your gun. And further I want you to pay out of your nose if your gun shoots me.

Nobody is going to shoot me with a hamburger.

The only benefit to society of guns is population control. And if we assume population is a problem we should agree that there must be better ways.

I think this picture says it well.

mmmarvel   Sun, 25 Nov 2012, 12:26pm PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike     Comment 11

StillLooking says

The only benefit to society of guns is population control. And if we assume population is a problem we should agree that there must be better ways.

Yeah crooks like people like you

Dan8267   Sun, 25 Nov 2012, 4:17pm PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (2)     Comment 12

What we need are smart guns that have

- GPS and transmitter that sends location at all times
- Camera and microphones that must be running for at least 60 seconds before the gun fires. Gun owners can keep the camera running 24/7 if they feel they need quick access.
- Video streamed in real time to public servers.
- As soon as the safety is taken off, a notification is sent to law enforcement and the public servers along with a link to the streaming video.

That way, if a gun is used, there will be a very public record of what occurred before and after it was fired. And given the current state of technology, we could easily create tamper-proof guns with these features. And to make all other guns unusable, just change the ammo size to something incompatible with dumb guns. Ban ammo production for dumb guns and eventually the dumb ammo expires -- yes, I'm thinking long term (50 years +).

This will allow for defense without letting guns be used for crimes. Of course, this won't do anything to stop the crazies, but it would stop the vast majority of gun crime.

I'm all for the Second Amendment if it means people shooting government officials who break the law and threaten our lives, our bodies, and our liberty. But the pro-gun people are the last people who would actually rise against tyranny. Hell, they vote for it.

Dan8267   Sun, 25 Nov 2012, 4:20pm PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)     Comment 13

HEY YOU says

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Of course, this means that we can have nukes, otherwise, our right to bear arms is being infringed. More importantly, without nukes one could not possibly overthrow our government, which is the entire purpose of the Second Amendment. The founding fathers just overthrew a government, and they wanted to make sure that could happen again should America fall into tyranny. Without nukes, ICBMs, fighter planes, and bombers, one cannot seriously take on our government no matter how many "well regulated militias" you have.

BobbyS   Sun, 25 Nov 2012, 5:53pm PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike (1)     Comment 14

Allow any gun to be sold to anyone. If you are very serious about "2nd amendment rights" and stick strictly with the fact that it's the person not the tool that causes injury or death. Taking this argument to its logical conclusion, every type of weapon should be legal, from daggers to bazookas to nukes. Furthermore, It's not lead, mercury and cadmium in toys and food porducts that kills peoples, it's their stupidity. Let's abolish the USDA and FDA. If you're too stupid to use toothpaste laced with toxic chemicals, you should die. it's survival of the fittest. People should drive as fast and as recklessly as they want, since driving laws infringe on people's right to drive as they see fit. The government dictating safe driving behavior is communism. If a car traveling 200 mph rams into you, it's your fault for not driving out of the way.

APOCALYPSEFUCKisShostikovitch   Sun, 25 Nov 2012, 7:59pm PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (3)   Dislike (1)     Comment 15

Obama knows if he makes any noise about gun anything, he'll have armies of howling psychopaths on the White House lawn with Gatling guns and RPGs shrieking about Freedom.

David Losh   Sun, 25 Nov 2012, 11:51pm PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)     Comment 16

I think Democrats will concentrate efforts on taking control of the House.

Guns are a very popular topic, but any proposed legislation would kill (pun intended) any chance of Democrats gaining seats in Congress.

mmmarvel   Mon, 26 Nov 2012, 8:32am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike     Comment 17

RobertaX   Wed, 12 Dec 2012, 10:06am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 18

BobbyS wrote: "If you're too stupid to use toothpaste laced with toxic chemicals, you should die. it's survival of the fittest."

...And death to those who cannot parse their own sentences?

Roberta X   Wed, 12 Dec 2012, 10:21am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike     Comment 19

BobbyS wrote: "If you're too stupid to use toothpaste laced with toxic chemicals, you should die. it's survival of the fittest."

...And death to those who cannot parse their own sentences?

Call it Crazy   Wed, 12 Dec 2012, 10:51am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike (1)     Comment 20

StillLooking says

At the least Smith and Wesson should pay the medical costs etc for all shooting victims. Why do taxpayers foot this bill?

I can kill you with a hammer or a baseball bat..

Should we have Craftsman or Louisville Slugger pay your medical bills??

Call it Crazy   Wed, 12 Dec 2012, 10:56am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike (1)     Comment 21

robertoaribas says

New York City has some of the tuffest gun control laws in the entire country. It must feel really good living in NYC, knowing that you don't have to worry about being killed!

Nice try, but I don't see any reference to New York City in your chart... I also don't see any reference to guns/shootings....

Although, I think you should stay away from gay sex and needles... it looks like a true killer....

APOCALYPSEFUCKisShostikovitch   Wed, 12 Dec 2012, 12:02pm PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (3)   Dislike (1)     Comment 22

The Democrats don't have guts to advocate everyone be required to carry an RPG after kindergarten. They hate freedom.

mdovell   Wed, 12 Dec 2012, 12:13pm PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)     Comment 23

Dan8267 says

What we need are smart guns that have

- GPS and transmitter that sends location at all times
- Camera and microphones that must be running for at least 60 seconds before the gun fires. Gun owners can keep the camera running 24/7 if they feel they need quick access.
- Video streamed in real time to public servers.
- As soon as the safety is taken off, a notification is sent to law enforcement and the public servers along with a link to the streaming video.

Technically I think we have that on the macro rather than micro.

Shot Stopper has been installed in many cities in the country
http://sc6.blogspot.com/2011/04/numbers-dont-lie-shot-stopper-works.html

So basically with triangulation you can find out where there were gunshots. Now one might say it might create some moral hazard to use a silencer but frankly everyone agrees silencers are illegal and mere possession of them let alone using them is illegal.

Guns aren't really a left or right issue anymore. Vermont for example has next to no gun laws. Yes the population is low there but there are some urban areas. Crime is more of a social ill that cannot really be eliminated on the basis of getting a weapon out of someones hands. Otherwise we'd have to go after knives...knives don't have a sound and I should know because I was almost stabbed as a kid. Then there's brass nuckles, steel toe boots and the list goes on and on.

Gun control proved that one political side could drop an issue and have not really impact an election. Likewise it might give encouragement for the other side to drop abortion or same sex marriage or maybe both to end the war on drugs.

APOCALYPSEFUCKisShostikovitch   Wed, 12 Dec 2012, 12:56pm PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (5)   Dislike (1)     Comment 24

Silencers are a form of expression and therefore protected under the 1st Amendment.

Call it Crazy   Wed, 12 Dec 2012, 1:06pm PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike (1)     Comment 25

Call it Crazy   Thu, 13 Dec 2012, 11:00pm PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike (1)     Comment 26

Oh Crap, now what do I do???

*

coriacci1   Thu, 13 Dec 2012, 11:29pm PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike (1)     Comment 27

here’s my partial list santa,

gun cntrol, empire control, drone control, weapons manufacture control, fracking control, gmo control, pharma control, cop control, real estate developer control, bankster control (jail em), military industrial complex control, etc etc. care to add anything?

Call it Crazy   Thu, 13 Dec 2012, 11:36pm PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike (1)     Comment 28

coriacci1 says

here’s my partial list santa,

gun cntrol, empire control, drone control, weapons manufacture control, fracking control, gmo control, pharma control, cop control, real estate developer control, bankster control (jail em), military industrial complex control, etc etc. care to add anything?

You need to stop drinking this early in the morning.... :)

APOCALYPSEFUCKisShostikovitch   Thu, 13 Dec 2012, 11:45pm PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike (1)     Comment 29

Why can't I buy a Predator drone and 10,000 sidewinder rockets to protect me and my family? You know muggers and burglars have them.

lostand confused   Thu, 13 Dec 2012, 11:59pm PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike (1)     Comment 30

Obama and the democrats should focus on legalization of drugs and ending the prison industrial complex.

Call it Crazy   Fri, 14 Dec 2012, 12:02am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike (1)     Comment 31

lostand confused says

Obama and the democrats should focus on legalization of drugs

Just what we need.... a bunch of stoned people with weapons...

...that will end well.....

lostand confused   Fri, 14 Dec 2012, 12:11am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike (1)     Comment 32

Call it Crazy says

Just what we need.... a bunch of stoned people with weapons...
...that will end well.....

In case you haven't noticed, the war on drugs is a massive failure. Drgus are easily availble and used and there is a massive criminal enterprise that exists to supply the banned substances. the only thing you have is countless lives ruined by jails sentences and records that follow them for life.

Dan8267   Fri, 14 Dec 2012, 12:31am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)     Comment 33

mdovell says

Shot Stopper has been installed in many cities in the country
http://sc6.blogspot.com/2011/04/numbers-dont-lie-shot-stopper-works.html

That's pretty damn cool. Who was the asshole that disliked you reporting about it?

Dan8267   Fri, 14 Dec 2012, 12:34am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)     Comment 34

APOCALYPSEFUCK is Shostakovich says

Silencers are a form of expression and therefore protected under the 1st Amendment.

Only if they are bought from a corporation and money exchanges hands, because money is speech. Homemade silencers should still be illegal because they are free.

Dan8267   Fri, 14 Dec 2012, 12:35am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike (1)     Comment 35

Call it Crazy says

lostand confused says

Obama and the democrats should focus on legalization of drugs

Just what we need.... a bunch of stoned people with weapons...

...that will end well.....

If you outlaw drugs, only outlaws will have drugs.

Call it Crazy   Fri, 14 Dec 2012, 12:54am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike (1)     Comment 36

lostand confused says

In case you haven't noticed, the war on drugs is a massive failure. Drgus are easily availble and used and there is a massive criminal enterprise that exists to supply the banned substances. the only thing you have is countless lives ruined by jails sentences and records that follow them for life.

...and pushing for gun control in the general public will change that how???

lostand confused   Fri, 14 Dec 2012, 1:07am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)     Comment 37

Call it Crazy says

...and pushing for gun control in the general public will change that how???

It won't. It will drive it underground like the war on drugs initiated by the republicans and embraced by the democrats.

The last three Presidents have all been drug users. Well Clinton claimed he didn't inhale-but possession laws don't care wether you inhale or not. Of course Clinton claimed he did not have sex with that woman. But the message we are sending is -do drugs , get caught and go to jail and if you are not caught, you can become the President of the United States.

All I am saying is that instead of worrying about gun control, the dems should try and end the war on drugs.

Call it Crazy   Fri, 14 Dec 2012, 1:14am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike (1)     Comment 38

lostand confused says

All I am saying is that instead of worrying about gun control, the dems should try and end the war on drugs.

*

lostand confused   Fri, 14 Dec 2012, 1:33am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)     Comment 39

Call it Crazy says

lostand confused says



All I am saying is that instead of worrying about gun control, the dems should try and end the war on drugs.


*

Isn't that what freedom should be? The right to choose ?? Or you want govt to control what you eat, do for recreation and pretty much every aspect of your life?? Alcohol is legal and we still have DUI laws-which is fine, but nothing like this.

tovarichpeter is moderator of this thread.

Email

Username

Watch comments by email

home   top   questions or suggestions? write p@patrick.net