Accept It or Change It: Senator Peterson to sponsor ban on large capacity magazines
Joanna Cabry, the chairwoman of the Progressive Democrats of Sussex County had a Delavoice column in the News Journal the other day, talking about our never ending problem of gun violence.
Here we go again. A mass shooting is followed by our elected leaders posting pictures of the victims on Facebook and telling us to reflect, pray and have a serious conversation. If we are to have another serious conversation, I’d like to suggest a few guidelines to our elected representatives. Let’s not talk about background checks or better mental health care or lifting the ban on gun violence research. Let’s not debate whether it was domestic terrorism or international terrorism or workplace violence. And let’s not blame the National Rifle Association.
Citing how many sales were stopped by background checks ignores the fact that 75 percent of guns used in mass shootings were obtained legally. Let’s face reality and accept that the NRA is the front for the weapons manufacturers who can stay in the background selling guns while the NRA is out there doing what lobbyists are paid to do.
Before focusing on improved mental health care as a solution, consider the research of Dr. Jeffrey Swanson, professor of psychiatry at Duke University School of Medicine. “If you were to back out all the risk associated with mental illness that’s contributing to the 300,000 people killed by gunshot wounds in the last ten years, you could probably reduce deaths by about 100,000 people. 95 percent of the reduction would be from suicide. Only 5 percent would be from reducing homicide. Mental illness is a strong risk factor for suicide. It’s not a strong risk factor for homicide.”
In the column, Joanne talks about assault weapon bans that were enacted in Australia after a mass shooting there. The first step we need to take is to tackle banning large capacity magazines. Because it is a solution that could at least alleviate the problem. If we can’t get the guns banned, maybe we can control the ammunition.
Senator Karen Peterson was the sponsor of the last bill to ban large capacity magazines (HB 58), and she is ready to do it again. But she needs our help. She needs us to counter the hate mail and calls legislators receive from the gun nuts. So please go to the Delaware General Assembly website and find your Senator and Representative and tell them you expect them to support House Bill 58. If you want your to be heard by your legislator, the first step is to contact your legislator and use your voice (or your fingers in an email).
And when you do contact them you can ask the legislator why any responsible gun owner needs to have a magazine holding over 100 bullets if he or she just wanted to have a gun for self defense or for hunting. The only reason for possessing a magazine holding over a 100 bullets to kill as many people as possible in the shortest amount of time possible. James Holmes, the shooter who killed 12 and injured 58 in Aurora last summer came to the movie theater prepared to harm. Using an assault weapon and a large capacity ammunition magazine that held 100 bullets, Holmes was intent upon killing as many people as possible in the shortest amount of time. Fortunately, Holmes’ magazine jammed and he wasn’t able to continue shooting — using only a fraction of his firepower. Even without the full 100 rounds, Holmes was able to commit the second largest mass shooting in American history. The seconds required to reload bullets into a gun provides the time for law enforcement to intervene and victims to escape a dangerous situation. When large capacity magazines are used, a gunman can shoot at a group of people for a longer time before someone can diffuse the situation, often resulting in more injuries and deaths.
Thank you for helping to spread the word!
Just one point of clarification. Karen Peterson was the primary Senate sponsor of HB 58. Rep. John Mitchell was the primary sponsor of the bill — and hopefully will take the lead again. Yesterday (12/29) I sent emails to all the legislators who sponsored HB 58 in GA 147 asking them to sign on to a bill this session.
So far Senator Peterson said she’s “ready to go again!”
I see no reason why this bill couldn’t, or shouldn’t become law this session if…the cops who oppose any limits on police power direct their energies instead into getting these large capacity magazines outlawed.
I mean, even with Karen sponsoring it, Sneaky Pete HAS to stand with his endangered brethren in blue–doesn’t he?
I even have the slogan: “Eight is Enough.”
I think it’s laughable for Delaware legislators to even consider a ban on inanimate objects like magazines owned by law abiding, peaceful citizens, especially while you are working to help criminals who actually break the law in this state. Under Markell, the legislature has given illegal aliens the privilege to operate motor vehicles, given drug addicts clean needles, decriminalized marijuana possession(making way for legalization), authorized police and others to administer drugs that will revive a heroin addict, and is close to repealing the death penalty, among numerous other travesties. When we coddle to those in our society who have no regard for the law, and at the same time seek to criminalize the very weapons and magazines that police and law abiding citizens use for self defense, competition shooting, recreation and possible defense of the state, (as provided for in Delaware’s Constitution), we set a very dangerous precedent on the slippery slope to tyranny.
Rich – if you can’t defend yourself with the 15 -17 bullets in an average full sized handgun magazine
you have no business at all even OWNING a gun for self defense, never mind actually SHOOTING one.
Get to the range and brush up -or next you will be asking for a bazooka because your range skills are so bad…..
This folks, is what is wrong with some gun owners – their little dicks get stiff at the thought of spraying bullets mindlessly, without actually working on the SKILL SET one should have before even owning a gun.
Large capacity magazines are designed for Law Enforcement and the Military; for use in war and extreme situations….. – NOT for home defense, unless you are a cartel member!!
Banning standard magazines to prevent crimes that never happen in DE is like banning eggs by the dozen to reduce Halloween eggings. Her logic presumes that if eggs are only sold in packs of 6 (or is it 4) that heinous egg throwing crimes will be prevented.
There has never been a “mass killing” in Delaware or Maryland. Nobody has used any rifle (.223 or 7.62 caliber) to rob a store or kill students in either state. The purpose of this bill is meaningless, when the size of a magazine has NOTHING to do with criminal intent.
There is no such thing as “gun violence.” Violent crime happens when people are mired in poverty, ignorance, and live in a ghetto where they have no future, nothing to lose. Fix the ghetto, educate the poor, give them hope and give them JOBS.
The last ‘mass killing’ was in 2007. 3 people were killed. With a handgun.
This bill will totally prevent a crime like that. Totally.
Background checks, we were told, were going to fix our gun violence problem. Newsflash: people are still getting killed.
@R “I think it’s laughable for Delaware legislators to even consider a ban on inanimate objects like magazines owned by law abiding, peaceful citizens…”
Ha!!
What’s laughable is your sentence… “law abiding, peaceful citizens”
Down here in Sussex, most gun owners appear to be rabid haters.
What so peaceful about that?
@MB “Banning standard magazines to prevent crimes that never happen in DE…”
It doesn’t matter if the crimes don’t ever happen in DE. Since Congress won’t do its job to protect the American people from assault weapons, it then must happen state by state. If every state passed this law, then we wouldn’t need congress. The USSC ruled recently that such things can be banned… that such things are not covered by 2nd amendment rights.
I can see no good reason why such violent enabling technology should be available in general. Those who really want such are precisely those who probably shouldn’t have it.
Listening to people explain how gun control laws will actually do anything to stop gun-related violence is like listening to a toddler tell you how pulling their blankets over their heads will protect them from monsters. Both are quite sincere if engaging in magical thinking.
At least the toddlers are more on the adorable side, and far less on the sanctimonious side, when they do it.
It amazes me how blind we are to history, prohibition worked great, didn’t it? And meth is illegal too so great job taking care of that with laws. Your laws only pertain to those you will beg to protect you from those who ignore them. WAKE UP!!!!
If one life is saved, the law has been successful.
@KJ “WAKE UP!!!!”
Maybe you should wake up. Take a real look at the world…
Do it. Take a few trips and see how great the rest of the world is compared to the good old USA. You’d likely be surprised (and ashamed).
With the continuing rise of murderous terrorism world wide the Delaware legislative representatives should focus on giving Delawareans greater ability to defend themselves, their families and the state by supporting law abiding citizens God given right to self defense and not putting us in further danger.
The nature of criminal attacks is that they are always unexpected, and often involve multiple suspects who have prepared for their crime, and who may have multiple weapons or standard full capacity magazines. Whatever ammo is on board the one gun you access is all you are going to be able to use. Even if you carry an extra mag when out and about, you aren’t going to have it in your pajamas. A 7 or 10 round magazine simply cannot be relied upon as sufficient to overcome a disparity of force, a surprise attack, or multiple assailants.
The proposed law would will not stop criminals from using ‘outlawed’ high capacity weapons further weakening a law abiding citizens ability to defend themselves.
When terrorist or criminals do strike and Delawareans die because their ability to defend themselves has been removed by a misguided legislature, their blood will be on the hands of those that voted to weaken our ability to defend ourselves.
We all know the police cannot be everywhere at the same time and if ever there were a coordinated large scale attack on the public the police would not be able to help everyone under attack all at once.
@w “giving Delawareans greater ability to defend themselves, their families and the state by supporting law abiding citizens God given right to self defense and not putting us in further danger.”
There’s the real problem right there. Is seems that giving people a greater opportunity to for self defense leads to MORE gun deaths and puts families in MORE danger.
— 90% of all gun deaths in the US are family and friends (i.e. NOT self defense)
— #1 gun death cause: Suicide
— #1 gun homicide in US: Spousal (and by a large margin)
— #1 cause of maternal death: getting shot by boyfriend/husband
It goes on and on…. Let’s focus on the REAL problem here and stop this nonsense talk about the “rise of murderous terrorism” blah blah blah blah…
ocus on giving Delawareans greater ability to defend themselves
How many people have “defended themselves” in a protracted gun battle requiring a large-capacity magazine?
WaPo article worth reading on gun violence research:
“1996 clash shaped the gun debate for years. Now they want to reshape it.
The former opponents, an ex-congressman and a former official at the Centers for Disease Control, are now working together to push for research into gun violence.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/their-1996-clash-shaped-the-gun-debate-for-years-now-they-want-to-reshape-it/2015/12/30/707bfed6-a8e5-11e5-bff5-905b92f5f94b_story.html?tid=pm_business_pop_b
Boy, the NRA mouthbreathers sure come out of the woodwork when anyone even DARES suggest that these large magazines serve no purpose.
Law-abiding citizens, my ass.
Your comment is of no use or logic.
I am a law abiding citizen, with a CCDW from DE and a LTCF from PA. I’ve passed the requisite background checks and have taken and continue to train on a regular basis, both in group settings, one-on-one with a nationally known trainer, and on my own at the range.
The amount of money and time I’ve spent on training, finding an accurate, reliable pistol and the holsters to hold it, and ammunition (that gives the best chance for stopping ONLY) the bad guy and NOT over-penetrating), teaching others gun safety and proper handling, etc. have all been on my own dime.
I and others like me, including numerous family and friends,have not committed any crime, and your implication of such is repugnant. I will not stand for it.
If only the Second Amendment nuts could use those vivid imaginations for good instead of paranoid evil…
Not a single word from any of them explaining why they need large-capacity magazines, you’ll notice. Too busy counting hairs on the ogres’ heads.
The original DE Voice article I wrote was too long so I edited before submitting it. I’ve sent a revised version to the local Sussex papers. The second article includes this:
On January 8, 2011 six (6) people were murdered and thirteen (13) wounded in an assassination attempt on U.S. Congresswoman Gabrielle Gifford. The gunman carried two 33 round magazines. He was tackled while he tried to reload. One of his murder victims was nine-year Christina-Taylor Green. She was killed with the 13th bullet. Would it have made a difference if the killer had to reload after 10 rounds? No one can answer that question, but if banning large capacity magazines could save a child’s life next year, we need to ban them this year.
“90% of all gun deaths in the US are family and friends (i.e. NOT self defense)”
Dubious at best, deceitful at worst. Of the 12,000 murders last year, 8000 were caused by firearms. 5100 were committed by and against family, friends, lovers, acquaintances, employees/employers. 6800 were committed among strangers and a category labeled other.
“#1 gun death cause: Suicide”
True in the US, but certainly not in gun free Japan which suffers nearly double the US suicide rate. Suicide by gun in the US accounts for about 50 percent of all successful suicide attempts (20% of all attempts be they successful or not).
“#1 gun homicide in US: Spousal (and by a large margin)”
According to the latest FBI stats, 638 total spousal homicides (by all methods)occurred in 2014 compared to 8100 total firearms related homicides.
“#1 cause of maternal death: getting shot by boyfriend/husband”
CDC reports that about 650 pregnancy related deaths occur each year or about 20 per 100,000 compared to the pregnant homicide ratio of 1.7 per 100,000 pregnancies.
It doesn’t help the cause to perpetuate falsities and half truths. We don’t need to stoop to the NRA’s methods to make our points.
That said, banning rifles of any stripe does little to alleviate the problem as the total number murdered by rifle fire last year including all mass murders was about 250.
Couple of thoughts on magazine limits:
1.The law doesn’t ban them or the parts to rebuild them and they are practically indestructible. It’s basically an add on crime after the fact.
2. The leading cause of death by gun-suicide, only consumes one bullet.
3. It takes a novice less than three seconds to unload a spent magazine and reload a new ten round one.
Not wanting to waste the time to refute that point by point, I’ll simply note that amid all those words, none of them address what harm might be done by banning large-capacity magazines. Not. One. Word.
Of course no harm, no help either. That was the point. Banning those items makes those who have no idea what they are talking about feel as if they have done something meaningful. That’s it.
@m “It doesn’t help the cause to perpetuate falsities and half truths. We don’t need to stoop to the NRA’s methods to make our points.”
You do realize that you didn’t actually refute any of my statements??
Do you need a point-by-point?
I don’t see them as half truths. This is what we’ve become as a nation.
No other (purported) 1st world nation has this problem.
“The seconds required to reload bullets into a gun provides the time for law enforcement to intervene and victims to escape a dangerous situation.”
And when seconds count, the police are minutes away. What do you do when a killer walks through a door and starts spraying bullets? Unless the police can teleport themselves to the scene, you need to either create a police state with cops in every building, or you need to allow responsible citizens to carry weapons until the police arrive.
@R “I will not stand for it.”
…and then you wonder why we call people like you “gun nuts”.
@M “And when seconds count, the police are minutes away. What do you do when a killer walks through a door and starts spraying bullets? Unless the police can teleport themselves to the scene, you need to either create a police state with cops in every building, or you need to allow responsible citizens to carry weapons until the police arrive.”
False conclusion. Wouldn’t it be far easier and safer just to make it hard for: “a killer walks through a door and starts spraying bullets”???
Yes, let’s make murder illegal.
Rich: Nothing you have said has addressed the issue. What do you lose if you can’t have extended magazines?
@Geezer:
Personal freedom for one. The ability to defend myself and my family as I SEE FIT.
The bill for the coming session is not written, so who knows how many rounds anti-gunners will “allow me”? Maybe I have a piastol that has 19 or 20 round magazines standard? Maybe I carry an AR or AK pistol as my truck gun (these have 30 round magazines. Maybe I own a PS90 which has 50 round magazines STANDARD?
Maybe I lose the investment that I put in to buying magazines, with money that was hard-earned? Maybe I lose historical value on magazines which are no longer able to be imported into this country due to previous anti-gun Presidents Executive Orders?
I can give you further examples if you’re willing to listen.
“truck gun?”
Some people don’t give their kids vaccine because they want to protect them AS THEY SEE FIT.
Gun nuts like Rich have a closely related psychosis.
The devil will be in the details, you can count on that. Regardless of what side you think you are on in this debate, the bill and its exemptions are what will make or break this bill.
IMHO if a large capacity magazine ban is introduced it should apply to everyone. End of story. If we allow exemptions for retired LEO, off duty National Guard, EMS, security guards, Animal control officers, ham radio operators, CCDW holders. We are left with only criminals. So why bother?
The original ban gave exemption to the thousands already in the state? The ban was on possession in a public place??? What mass shooting could have been prevented by a LEO intercepting said shooter on his or her way to the scene of the crime with or without this feel good legislation? The answer is with or without this bill the interception of the suspect on the way to the crime by LEO would have prolly stopped the crime.
The devil is always in the exemptions and details when bills get to leg hall.
“Most gun owners are law-abiding” is like saying “Most smokers won’t get lung cancer.”
I have had a concealed carry permit for DE since May of 1995. I also have National Carry Rights under LEOSA/HR218. I carry a Glock 19 and it was designed for a 15 rd magazine. I also carried a G19 when in police service. The State of DE gave me the privledge of carrying a weapon concealed. Now there are folks that want to tell how many rounds to carry in it. This does not make sense to me and has given my an opinion of the folks that want this magazine ban. There are terrorists and other criminals in this country that have these so called high capacity mags. These losers will not obey a magazine ban and that will put them to an advantage of the law abiding people. The active and on duty police will have there weapons equipped with magazines with 15,17,etc. rounds. The civilians will not have that option. Are police lives more important then civilians? I myself think a mag capacity ban is nonsense and will do nothing to make DE a safer place. Have you who favor this ban forgotten San Bernadino? If you folks want to be victims and depend on someone else to defend you that is your business. It is proven that we cannot depend on the Gov’t to protect us.
If you scratch a gun nut you will find a nut. Their rationalizations are rooted in a Red Dawn fantasy scenario that ends with them as the hero.
The problem here is both the end game and the status quo.
If gun control advocates are to be successful, they have to do what they generally don’t do: lay out their end game. They want Australia. Every new law, every new statute, is an incremental step toward making US gun laws look like Australian gun laws. Nobody believes sitting politicians who say they only favor “sensible gun laws,” because they are quite obviously aiming for a much more sweeping target. The debate has to be held on those terms, and some sitting politicians are going to have to take their electoral lumps in order to get closer to their real goal. The only way to get there is to win the overall argument about end game, and take away from gun rights advocates the card that you’re “secretly” coming for their guns. Then you can actually use the argument, “Tell me why you’re more afraid of the government than you are of the mentally ill basket case with a Glock who’s your next-door neighbor.” (I know most liberals here at DL are willing to say that, but I think you get my point about the general hedging.)
Right now the default status quo is wide-spread, loosely conceived gun rights You are demanding that people give up a large portion of those existing status quo rights/privileges, either in the name of greater social safety or the rights of the victims and potential victims to live free from free. They own the status quo; you don’t. They have absolutely no reason to compromise because they can only lose when they do.
It ain’t a discussion. It’s a political win/lose situation. Either there are abortion rights, or there are not. Either there is marriage equality, or there is not. Either there is birthright citizenship, or there is not. Either the gun laws in America will reflect the current status quo, or they will move toward Australia.
The number of people genuinely in the middle here is tiny. If you want Australia it’s time for you to quit any attempts at dialogue, and mobilize your troops (wow, so many martial metaphors going on here) to defeat, not convince their opponents.
I have an inalienable right to defend myself and family. A lot of the argument comes down to resisting people that believe THEY should dictate how I should do that. I have a Delaware CCDW license and choose to carry a weapon. You have the freedom NOT to, but I guarantee that criminals will be unaffected by any law you propose. Credible studies have shown that concealed carry permit holders are 1/5 as likely to commit any criminal offense and less likely to commit a violent offense than the average citizen. We are also LESS likely to injure a bystander than a police officer, in the event we deploy our weapon. Why do you think you should be able to limit my freedom on this issue?
@T “but I guarantee that criminals will be unaffected by any law you propose.”
This shows true ignorance. The reason that gun control works everywhere else in the world is that the cost of guns on the black market are so high that most ordinary criminals simply cannot afford them.
The criminals ARE affected by reasonable gun laws, whether you care to recognize the connection or not.
If large capacity magazines are banned, how many ordinary criminal are going to be willing to pay the price??? Precious few.
Now if we could get some funding for some real research on gun violence in the US, we could quantify how many lives would be saved… of course, this is information the NRA doesn’t want us to ever see.
“Credible studies have shown that concealed carry permit holders are 1/5 as likely to commit any criminal offense ”
So what? That is a non sequitur argument. CCDW is not required to own a gun, If it were we would all be safer.
Years ago I would have read Steve’s comment and disagreed, now I’m not so sure. It isn’t the guns or the 2nd Amendment that really concerns me, it’s the straight up paranoia of many gun owners and their ridiculous “someone is coming to get me” fantasies. Who lives like that? In a constant state of fear? That’s what really concerns me. That’s what’s dangerous.
“The right to protect myself…” All this dumb paranoid jibberish being spouted by people who have No interest in reason is the problem.
Are they dupes? Yes. Do they care that they are dupes? Clearly they don’t.
The end game isn’t Austrailia Steve it is an America that can be governed by rationally debated public policy. I don’t see it happening when we have such a large segment that has decided to take the Anti-American stance that debate and compeomise is off the table.
jason, take your own comments seriously: The end game isn’t Austrailia Steve it is an America that can be governed by rationally debated public policy.
No, it’s not. As you say in the very next sentence: I don’t see it happening when we have such a large segment that has decided to take the Anti-American stance that debate and compromise is off the table.
Regrettably, you’re hearkening back to a “Golden Age” that never existed, jason.
The long, torturous process toward the nationwide approval of marriage equality, with the same thing happening with marijuana legalization proves my point. Those advocates succeeded (or, are succeeding) because they openly viewed all compromises as a means to their end. And a vocal minority of them announced those ends in advance.
If you are actually serious about gun control, the end game is Australia–and it is easier to achieve than the forgotten Golden Age you’re looking for.
I do not want to live in a Australia based model, and I do not want to continue on with status quo. I believe that the solution lies in education and legislation that does not ban or prohibit law abiding folks.
Civil and criminal liabilities for the quote un quote gun accidents in the home.
Criminal penalties for the loss or theft of a gun.
Tighter controls for gun purchase and transfers that are the same nationwide, like the other federal standards we have. If individual states want to go farther than that is up to them.
civil and criminal liabilities for providing a gun to someone prohibited.
All these would be a good start, while maintaining good folks liberties.
This is where the REAL issues are…
Jalita Johnson 26 legally bought a handgun and gave the gun to her (felon) boy friend Marcus Wheeler , age 36. This was an illegal straw purchase which automatically made her a Felon. Marcus used the gun to kill a Nebraska Police officer Kerrie Orozco while she worked in her last shift before going on maternity leave.
Jalita should have received 10 years in prison and a $250,000.00 fine BUT in early November of this year Judge Eleanor L. Ross gave her a year of probation.
With over 50,000 total gun laws in this country let’s enforce the laws we already have instead of wanting just one more law to make us feel good. More people are killed by hammers than by guns. Let’s enforce existing laws!
@Rich: “Personal freedom” is not a thing; it is an idea. Virtually anything can come under its rubric. It’s limited only by your imagination, which you have demonstrated is prolific.
If you are this scared of someone with a gun doing you harm, you should move to one of those countries that bars individuals from owning them.
We already imprison more people than any other country on earth. The price to put all these accomplices in prison for 10 years would be highly prohibitive, especially considering how loathe to increased taxation most gun enthusiasts are.
As with all gun nut “thinkers,” they will spend any amount, imprison any number, all to avoid acknowledging that the problem isn’t criminal intent — that exists in every country on earth — but access to firearms.
They simply can’t see past their fear. Without their guns, they are afraid. Very afraid. Pants-pissing afraid.
It would be cheaper and better for us all if they’d just wear their diapers daily.
“More people are killed by hammers than by guns.”
Really? How about some evidence, sport? If your rant were any stupider we’d have you committed.
“I have an inalienable right to defend myself and family.”
No, you don’t. Where did you get the idea that you did? If you are a felon or mentally ill, you don’t have that right — therefore it is capable of restriction. That “inalienable” in the Declaration is not just a nonsense word, it’s an oxymoron. There is no such thing as an “inalienable” right in the real world, as the state, in every country, can take those rights from you.
I wish you dumbasses would learn how to think instead of just parroting shit you hear from other dumbasses.
Liberty News » Team Obama Gives Iran $6 Billion in …
libertynews.com/2013/11/team-obama-gives-iran-6-billion-in…
lots of nice prisons could be built for this price not including FUTURE Monies to Iran.
To Liberal Elite. Heroin and cocaine are illegal in this country but you get it in any town or city in the USA. This is a fact and it came from a DEA study. MS13 (you know the bad guys from Central America) who are now operating within this country have a plan. If assault weapons (by the way assault weapons–selective fire weapons) are already banned) MS13 plan on smuggling weapons and magazines into the country. They are experienced in bring drugs into the country so bringing in weapons and mags will be no problem. There is no problem because of the unsecure southern border that we have. The gun and magazine genie is already out of the bottle. I respect the your right to have liberal and very elite ideas. That is your right but I still have a right to be able to protect myself and nobody,not even you will take it away. If you do not want or have the nads to defense yourself that is your right and I respect that.
geezer, which branch of the military did you serve?
Comment about “nads”. Check
Question about being in the military. Check
You know, whenever people point out that you guys equate guns with macho toughness and your insecurity about your sexual prowess you guys have a fit. And yet… here you are.
“The seconds required to reload bullets into a gun provides the time for law enforcement to intervene and victims to escape a dangerous situation.”
Ha! A magazine can be dropped and a new one replaced within a second if the owner has practiced their reload skills for any amount of time. Heck, a 6-shot revolver can be reloaded in 2-3 seconds even. An active shooter, even without a 100 round magazine, can fire a lot of rounds very quickly and almost without pause when dropping and inserting a new magazine with a small amount of practice.
Also, I’m sorry but have police started use of transporters to intervene in those seconds? Unless they have been tipped off before the situation happens the victims are looking at several minutes before police arrive on scene to intervene. Perhaps, if more responsible people stood up to protect themselves and those around them by taking a course, passing a background check, get their CCDW permits there would be less violence.
Most large cap mags of 50 or more rounds are not geared towards LE or military as stated above. Many of these large cap drum mags suffer from frequent malfunctions and are not considered reliable enough for either of those rolls nor for personal defense. The theater shooter shows just how reliable they are when it failed. They are cheaply made to provide mag-dumps for a fairly small niche group. True LE and Military large cap mags are built to much higher standards and cost a whole lot more then the consumer market products. Magazines of 15-19 rounds are standard in most of today’s S/A handguns, 20-30 round mags are standard for today’s S/A rifles. These are not high cap mags but standard size.
Personally, I have zero use for 50, 100 or greater round magazines as they are too heavy, unreliable and really serve no purpose. That said, I don’t agree with laws banning them or limiting their use.
I’ll protect myself, my family and any of you if the need were to ever arise. No law is going to remove the truth in that statement nor any government going to remove that ability. As for the person (Geezer) above saying we don’t gave that right.. You might want to go read the Delaware Constitution and Laws sometime. The State of Delaware clearly gives everyone the right to defend themselves, their families and their property. Everyone has that right by whichever means is necessary to their safety. True, felons can’t legally own a firearm however they still have the legal ability to defend themselves. When it comes to Delaware and our CCDW laws it is the definitive reason given by state law as the reason to grant a CCDW permit.. “For the protection of self, family and property.”
Banning magazines with any capacity limit is feel good legislation at best, has zero affect on violent crime and at worse could easily further endanger people defending themselves or families.
My point was that the right is not inalienable. Indeed, Delaware is one of the harder states to get a concealed carry license.
What it boils down to is that I don’t trust people like you to have the judgment to do what you claim you can, and, as Pandora points out, you demonstrate this questionable judgment every time you write.
@independent: “Serve”? As in “servile”? I don’t serve anyone, least of all infantile clowns like you. Do you get a chubby when you talk tough?
“Banning magazines with any capacity limit is feel good legislation at best”
So what? What do you have against feeling good?
“has zero affect on violent crime ”
Untrue. It has an effect on mass shootings, and mass shootings only.
“at worse could easily further endanger people defending themselves or families.”
Easily? Explain how, hand job. What are the circumstances under which you have to dispense more than a dozen bullets — and what’s the problem with that anyway? Aren’t you the same assholes who claim you can do it in seconds?
Are your crippling fears of unmanliness — an inability to defend your family, which exists mostly in your imagination — really kept at bay by all your tough talk? Probably not, or you wouldn’t be here thumping your chests.
And notice how “we don’t need any restrictions” Independent is fine in restricting gun conversation, and probably ownership, depending on if you served in the military. More macho BS.
These guys see danger everywhere. EVERYWHERE! They must have their gun strapped to their side at all times, right? Can’t have it upstairs when they are downstairs in their lazy boy watching TV ’cause the bad guy could come in through the den window. No wonder so many gun owners kill their family members. This paranoid mindset sets that stage beautifully.
Folks, you are entitled to your own beliefs, but not your own facts.
There are no “inalienable” rights granted by the US or State Constitutions. The word “inalienable” appears in the Declaration of Independence, which is not by any means law. The concept does not appear in the US Constitution, including the 2nd Amendment; in point of the fact the 14th Amendment makes it clear that both the Federal government and the States have the power to deprive you of “life, liberty, or property” so long as they follow due process. If you want to argue otherwise, regarding certain “inalienable” rights, explain why, for example, the US Constitution does not even grant a national right to vote to American citizens, even today.
As for the person who cited his right to defend his family “by any means necessary,” it is good to know that Malcolm X has now reached the status of Constitutional authority.
As for the Delaware Constitution, yes, Section 20 of Article 1 does grant you the right to keep and bear arms for defense (which the US Constitution doesn’t). But there are several caveats here. The DE Constitution does not–even inferentially–prohibit the State government from restricting that right in terms of what arms you can keep or bear. Moreover, Delaware is one of the few (if not the only, at this point, I haven’t checked lately) States that allows the General Assembly to amend the State Constitution without a convention or a vote by the people. Wham. Bam. Two separate sessions and the government can take away that right or any other right–as Geezer correctly pointed out.
As for other fallacious views–despite the 2nd Amendment and even Heller, your right to defend your family inside your home is in fact limited by statute law. You may not, for example, choose to defend your family by deploying some sort of deadly automatic booby trap that will kill anyone who enters the house without your permission. Try it, succeed, and you will stand trial for 1st Degree Murder. There are other restrictions. To deny this is not to be a Constitutionalist, but an Anarchist, which is OK, but just own it and quit pretending you believe in the rule of law.
Nor is it accurate to suggest that only gun-owners are prepared to defend themselves or their families. As security experts will tell you, a sense of situational awareness and preparations to remove yourself from bad situations is statistically far more effective, especially since there is an awful lot of studies documenting the “freeze factor” and the “random fusilade” factor of even trained soldiers in abruptly violent situations. (It is also a skill that can be taught the members of your family who cannot or will not always being going around packing heat.)
As for defending your home it is also a myth that the most effective way to defend yourself within the home, statistically speaking, is with a firearm, especially if you have a family larger than two people that sleeps spread out among multiple bedrooms. The key is how you define “defense,” which generally doesn’t mean killing or maiming the bad guys, but does mean getting your loved ones out safely. But, hey, don’t let facts get in the way here.
Then there’s my question about priorities. There are generally three different priorities raised with regard to the right to bear arms: (1) to defend my home and family against home invasion; (2) to defend myself and others when out in the streets; and (3) to defend myself from an abusive/tyrannical government. I’d be thrilled if every gun owner taking part in this discussion would attribute percentages to each of these concerns. If you don’t open carry or have a CCDW then you obviously can’t put a lot of weight on item (2).
Finally, ironically, for those just stopping in here to comment, you may draw the erroneous conclusion that I am not a 2nd Amendment or gun ownership proponent, simply because I call you out on the bullshit. Regular commenters know better. I’ve also spent as much or more time in the US military as any of you have spent either there or in law enforcement (and one of the first idiotic perks for former/retired law enforcement officers that needs to go is automatic exemption from the gun laws everybody else has to put up with). So spare me the senseless questions.
So bring some real facts to the table (and some grammar/spelling wouldn’t hurt, either), and keep your nads in your pants where they belong.
And, oh, while we are talking strange things you can find in the DE Constitution (lest people put too damn much credit on anything it says about much of any subject), here’s a wonderful snippet from Article 1, Section 1 (and it doesn’t get much more to the front of the document than that):
It is the duty of all persons frequently to assemble together for the public worship of Almighty God…
Pandora, You do not know me or what my history is. Since you brought up the subject about tough. I would imagine you are the one with the problem. Remember it is not against the law not to have nads because if was there would a lot folks behind bars. This is my first time on liberal forum and it has been an education. I had always heard how you folks throw around derogatory names and other not so friendly terms to folks that disagree with your agenda. There has been terms like gun nuts hurled at posters. I have not read of someone hurling “liberal loon” at anyone on this site. I served in the USMC and had 30 yrs in law enforcement and my views on life have been earned. Yes I am into self protection because I do not want to be a victim ever. I have interviewed too many victims and have seem some on a autopsy table. I do not live in never, nerver land like some of you but in the real world. One liberal poster suggested that gun people were scared in their pants. Well I have news for this brain surgeon. I am never afraid because I can defend myself anytime and any place. I would suggest to all the “gun nuts” not to obey and just ignore any new gun control including a magazine ban. The occupant of the White House and his ilk ignore many laws (immigration,drug laws, etc.) that do not fit into their agenda. I just want to thank this “forum” the opportunity to view my opinions. I do not have any malice toward any of the rude posters because this is still America (I hope for a long time) and it is there right under the First Amendment. If some wants to be rude it is there right but is certainly reflects on their up bringing. I wish everyone on the forum and I mean everyone a HEALTHY AND HAPPY NEW YEAR. Thanks again for the education on the progressive/liberal agenda. I just forgot to mention something. A moron posted that gun people in Sussex are haters. Well the poster just admitted he is a hater also and very intolerate. I will never be back to this intolerate site again. I know that will please many of you. Bye All!!!!
Too bad knowing the difference between “there” and “their” isn’t part of the test for concealed carry.
To add to the irony, I am agnostic on gun control, though the longer this goes on the more I think Australia had the right idea.
The 2nd Amendment Fan Club is right in that this would do nothing to curtail 99.99% of gun violence. But just as gun fondlers are afraid of — well, I’m not sure what, but apparently it’s not bulletproof — most people who fear guns fear not the criminal who breaks into their homes, but the Aurora theater shooter. (Sort of the way people are more worried about terrorists than about the 1,000+ other things statistically more likely to kill them.)
So it’s a feel-good law. So what? States have to pass all sorts of pro-gun laws to mollify the paranoids. As far as I’m concerned, the biggest benefit of such a law would be the fact that it pisses off those who need it most.
Tony, I wasn’t the first one to bring up toughness. Go reread your sides comments – pay special attention to your nads comment. Now, either you spoke of “nads” in relation to toughness (you know, like “if you do not have the nads to defend yourself”) or you, for some reason, just like writing nads. To each their own.
Also, I love the way gunners always call out female commenters by name. It’s very predictable. There’s a very healthy dose of misogyny in the gun culture, which makes sense since there’s plenty of male insecurity there, as well.
I have a challenge for those here that seem to be so fixated on “gun control.”
Please answer the following questions:
Is there any proof that “large capacity” magazine bans have been successful in preventing mass killings or violent crime in any US jurisdiction where they were enacted.?
Is there any proof that “assault weapon” bans are effective?
Is there proof that “universal” background checks have worked anywhere?
Do states with very strict gun control laws have lower violent crime rates?
Do states like MD & NJ where concealed carry is more difficult have lower violent crime rates?
How about in Delaware specifically:
Have the gun control laws enacted after Sandy Hook significantly impacted the murder or violent crime rates in Wilmington or Statewide?
How many arrests & convictions have been made under these new laws?
(Hint: ZERO or no more than a small handful)
I also suggest that you take a good look at what happened during prohibition.
Many stats indicate that alcohol was more easily available & frequently less expensive. (But often of very poor quality & toxic)
Here a good link on the issue:
http://www.pbs.org/kenburns/prohibition/unintended-consequences/
If guns were totally banned in the US, why would you think that the results would turn out much differently?
Do you realize that manufacturing guns & ammunition (especially without regard to quality) is VERY easy & that selling them on the black market without the current regulatory burdens and taxes would probably result in lower cost vs. your expectation that they would become cost prohibitive for criminals to buy?
Are you aware that many illegally sold guns often sell for well below their retail cost?
I very curious if anyone here will have the courage (or the “nads”) to answer these questions.
@TF “The gun and magazine genie is already out of the bottle.”
This just is idiotic. Do I need to explain why?? The rest of your post is a confused mess. Just look at the rest of the world. Are there ANY large magazine guns in common use in Australia. Sure they are available there on the black market, but they are simply priced out or reach for the average criminal. The result is a VERY LOW death rate. There is a DIRECT and strong correlation between the ban and the result.
… and this all happened AFTER the genie was let out of the bottle.
“I respect the your right to have liberal and very elite ideas.”
I also respect your right, but I have little respect for your ignorance.
@P “Comment about “nads”. Check
Question about being in the military. Check”
Don’t forget the muted threats. Check, Check, and Check.
…and we all know who are the real bed wetters with little nads.
If they had a ounce of courage they wouldn’t need guns… and their families usually end up paying the price for their fear.
@TF “I served in the USMC and had 30 yrs in law enforcement and my views on life have been earned.”
Maybe earned, but certainly not learned.
Who are the primary victims of gun violence in America?? Have you seen it all and learned nothing?
OK urwrong, let’s play
Is there any proof that “large capacity” magazine bans have been successful in preventing mass killings or violent crime in any US jurisdiction where they were enacted.? The Federal restrictions under the assault weapons ban were so filled with loopholes that they were meaningless. Currently, only six states have any bans on magazines, and those have not turned in meaningful stats to DOJ or the FBI. Even so, there is no national data set on the usage of large capacity magazines, so the answer is unknowable, meaning there is no hard data for or against. But I really like your neat conflation of “mass killings” and “violent crime,” and your requirement that somebody prove a negative.
Is there any proof that “assault weapon” bans are effective? Absolutely not, even though you don’t say “effective at what.”
Is there proof that “universal” background checks have worked anywhere? Plenty, actually. Despite the private sales loophole, since 1994 over 2 million gun sales or transfers have been stopped by background checks.
Do states with very strict gun control laws have lower violent crime rates? A great rhetorical question, but statistically meaningless. Why? Because people who love to cite it never control for differences in urban concentrations of population, or economics, or virtually anything else but the two variables of gun laws (for which there is NO accepted definition of “strict” so researchers can and do play fast and loose with the term), and without controlling for population difference variables such studies are in fact meaningless. Which means we don’t actually know, but the fervor with which some folk do not want the CDCP to be able to conduct such studies is suggestive.
Do states like MD & NJ where concealed carry is more difficult have lower violent crime rates? Immaterial, unless you can actually come up with a study showing a causal link at best, or a correlation at least. Among other things you’d need to control for is the relative ease of acquiring handguns in bulk outside the loopholes of background checks and multiple sales in these states. Again, if you are confident what the result will be, support having formal studies of the question done.
Have the gun control laws enacted after Sandy Hook significantly impacted the murder or violent crime rates in Wilmington or Statewide? First, there is no murder/violent crime rate to speak of statistically outside Wilmington in Delaware. If you had a command of the stats, you’d already know that. Second, you’d have to control here for the absolute ineptitude of the current mayoral administration in Wilmington of doing anything–with or without new laws–to curtail shootings. So, again, it is a meaningless question because you are asserting an unproven correlation between two different stats that can’t legitimately be correlated. But nice try; it makes a great sound bite.
How many arrests & convictions have been made under these new laws? If you are asking about the requirement for background checks for private transfers, none. But, of course (and you know this), that misses the point. A better question would be whether or not any sales or transfers have been prohibited under those laws, and you don’t seem interested in that outcome.
I also suggest that you take a good look at what happened during prohibition.
Many stats indicate that alcohol was more easily available & frequently less expensive. (But often of very poor quality & toxic) Idiotic comparison, but let’s play anyway. Prohibition was not regulation, it was a total ban. I’d agree with you that they never work. But arguing that gun registration or restrictions wouldn’t work at least to some extent the way their advocates want them to is ridiculous because (a) restrictions of machine guns to Federal licensees have certainly kept M-60s and 50-cals off the market for quite a few decades; (b) registration and licensing of automobiles (to include inspection regimes) works; (c) restrictions on cigarettes certainly worked to reduce consumption; (d) abortion restrictions (when they existed) actually prevented the vast majority of abortions (not that this was a good thing), and–most importantly–(e) if you didn’t believe it would work you wouldn’t be spending your time here fighting against it. If it didn’t presumably curtail access, you wouldn’t actually give a shit, would you?
The fact of the matter is that, like it or not, government restrictions and regulations can change behavior. Not always in a good way, but that wasn’t your point, was it?
If guns were totally banned in the US, why would you think that the results would turn out much differently? When you find somebody here advocating that, it will be worth a serious answer.
Your last convoluted non-question–Do you realize that manufacturing guns & ammunition (especially without regard to quality) is VERY easy & that selling them on the black market without the current regulatory burdens and taxes would probably result in lower cost vs. your expectation that they would become cost prohibitive for criminals to buy? … is an idiotic talking point already made moot by modern technology since 3-D printing is already capable of producing the receiver group for an M-16/AR-15 and the same is becoming quickly true for ammunition. But your talking point actually founders on your complete failure to understand the whole cycle of self-interest between gun manufacturers, the US Department of State, gun export licenses, the political contributions of gun manufacturers to both pro/anti gun control legislators (they need them both) and the gun manufacturers underwriting the NRA.
Gun manufacturing concerns needs constant fear of regulation and restriction to buck up sales–try plotting their surplus ammunition stocks against media mentions of new gun control initiatives if you actually give a shit about understanding this market.
There, despite my better judgment I answered all of your questions. All you have to do now is keep your nads in your pants and answer ONE question in return:
There are generally three different priorities raised with regard to the right to bear arms: (1) to defend my home and family against home invasion; (2) to defend myself and others when out in the streets; and (3) to defend myself from an abusive/tyrannical government. Please attribute your percentages to each of these concerns. If you don’t open carry or have a CCDW then you obviously can’t put a lot of weight on item (2).
If you don’t do that first in any response, then I’m not going to bother reading anything else you write.
@ureallywrong “I very curious if anyone here will have the courage (or the “nads”) to answer these questions.”
I’ll play your silly game… Or where your questions rhetorical?
“Please answer the following questions:
Is there any proof that “large capacity” magazine bans have been successful in preventing mass killings or violent crime in any US jurisdiction where they were enacted.?”
The proof comes from foreign sources. As you know, gun research in the US has been restricted in the US, so much of what we have as “proof” (which is really just evidence — if you understand how science works).
So look to what has happened everywhere else in the world, and you’ll see a fairly clear and consistent picture.
“Is there any proof that “assault weapon” bans are effective?”
Again… ‘Proof’ is the wrong word. You mean evidence? Again, look to foreign soil for your answer. These bans have been VERY effective.
“Is there proof that “universal” background checks have worked anywhere?”
Yes. Feudal Japan. Do you know the history of the warring states period?
Again… It’s only evidence, not proof (no proof is possible).
“Do states with very strict gun control laws have lower violent crime rates?
Do states like MD & NJ where concealed carry is more difficult have lower violent crime rates?”
Yes. Lower serious violent crime rates, and fairly consistently so.
Or do you want to include all crime no matter how petty?
And be careful when you use crime rate as a marker for social success.
The crime rate is VERY low in Saudi Arabia. Is that a good thing, or a bad thing?
And as for your questions…
Your questions do not cut to the core of the problem.
Your post (and many like it) are more like a distraction campaign…
@SN “OK urwrong, let’s play”
Oh man… You beat me again. And with better answers too (for the most part).
@Liberal Elite: Lies, all lies you spout.
Here’s a link to a Harvard University study that found that
“The burden of proof rests on the proponents of the more guns equal
more death and fewer guns equal less death mantra, espe‐
cially since they argue public policy ought to be based on
that mantra. To bear that burden would at the very least
require showing that a large number of nations with more
guns have more death and that nations that have imposed
stringent gun controls have achieved substantial reductions
in criminal violence (or suicide). But those correlations are
not observed when a large number of nations are compared
across the world”
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf
@R “Here’s a link to a Harvard University study…”
Ha! That’s not a Harvard University study. That one is from the Pacific Research Institute, a right wing think tank in California, and it’s more than a dozen years old. It’s an interesting read. They are trying so hard… but they are very sloppy to the level of deceit. I loved the section on spousal murder (they had it coming).This is NOT a peer reviewed study.
“But those correlations are not observed when a large number of nations are compared across the world””
Large number of nations? Is that a euphemism for including 2nd world and 3rd world nations in your analysis?
Sure… Some off the poorest places in the world with few guns (they can’t afford them) have the highest violence rates. Is this the data you’re going to use to make your case??? Really???
The 3rd world is a mess. In fact, in many ways, the US is becoming more like a 2nd or 3rd world nation. That is largely BECAUSE of our growing gun culture (and its associated racism)… the way to make America suck.
@Liberal Elite.. Saudi Arabia? Really? You’re going to source Saudi Arabia as low crime? A country which is ruled by Sharia law and the atrocities which follow it. Beheadings and stoning are still often used as capitol punishment for relatively minor offenses. Where teen girls are raped by multiple men and they themselves are found guilty and receive prison time and lashings. Where its custom for young boys to be raped by men and used as objects only to grow up believing that’s “normal” to repeat the cycle. Spent 2 years there and its neither low crime nor a model of society we want here in any way.
Yeah.. you won there… Great example to follow.
Oh and Feudal Japan? Where the government and Emperor more often then not had less power over the land and peasants then the small minority of large land owners who fought each other to increase their land holdings and wealth as well as the government and Emperor?
Another great example of a society to embrace and follow. Oh wait.. switch land owners to corporate owners and maybe we already have!
btw.. Both examples show governments who eventually banned weapons from the peasants/people and rule(d) over them with iron fists.
Removing tools from responsible citizens and creating more laws affect criminals very little. What it does do is removes a bit more of our freedom and rights with every passing law. Criminals will still get high cap magazines if they want regardless of laws. Remember… they are criminals.. GASP!
@Geeser.. How is it that most of the folks here who are pro-gun/2A seem respectable and can communicate without tossing out disrespectful terms and words such as gun-nut, asshole, BS, etc yet you think its ok to say such things to others because they disagree with you?
I’m not paranoid nor do I have any crippling fear of anything. I choose to legally carry a sidearm to protect myself, family, property and yes.. even your rude ass if I had to. I exercise, play outdoors, camp, travel internationally (yes sometimes even without a firearm!), volunteer at my child’s school and class outings throughout the week, have hobbies that don’t include firearms, shop at malls and even take in a movie at the theater once a month or so. My sidearm is rarely thought of throughout the day due to a comfortable holster, I don’t watch over my shoulder, around every corner or shadow and I don’t think of people around me as threats. I don’t sit around polishing or fondling my firearms nor do I spend much time on them at all. For whatever reason so many of you have this crazy idea of how we are and its for the most part completely wrong. I’m a pretty happy, laid-back, social, and fun individual.
Perhaps the reason you think of us in such derogatory terms is representative of the way you act towards us.
@Liberal Elite.. “In fact, in many ways, the US is becoming more like a 2nd or 3rd world nation. That is largely BECAUSE of our growing gun culture (and its associated racism)… the way to make America suck.”
Actually.. the reason for the decline of the US is mostly due to the federal governments growing size and its entitlement handouts to people who don’t deserve. It has little to do with guns and even less with racism these days. Heck.. we have a black president in the white house! Ditch the racism bit as that’s been done for a few decades now. Oh, that’s right.. its leftist talking notes to bring it up constantly in an attempt at stirring the pot. Sorry I forgot…
Oh my, Adren. Reading comprehension is important. LE didn’t make any of the claims you’ve accused him of.
@AM “Actually.. the reason for the decline of the US is mostly due to the federal governments growing size and its entitlement handouts to people who don’t deserve.”
The entitlements you bemoan account for about 1% of the federal budget. Look to corporate welfare for where the big bucks are going. You’re falling for the old Fox News trick of “Look over there at what they are getting!!” to distract you from seeing the real thievery.
The old “federal governments growing size” canard?
This is pure BS.
Here is a football analogy for you. Do you like referees?
Liberals: They want impartial referees so the game remains fair. They want the referees to have some real power and control over the game.
The 1%: They want to get rid of the referees altogether.
Fox News: They’re busy trying to convince the average Joe that referees represent “Big Government” and just slow the game down and make it less fun.
Progressives: They want the game changed to make it safer (e.g. fewer head injuries), and they want the more referees to enforce that better.
Gun Lobby: They want football players to carry guns, so they can stand their ground. And for referees… replace flags with bullets, but they can only throw those at black players.
@AM “Saudi Arabia? Really? …blah blah blah…”
Total reading comprehension fail. Here is what I wrote:
“And be careful when you use crime rate as a marker for social success.
The crime rate is VERY low in Saudi Arabia. Is that a good thing, or a bad thing?”
For the very reasons you mention, the low crime rate in Saudi Arabia is nothing to be proud of. And when gun nuts try to use petty crime rates to justify their ridiculous positions, we should all remember this.
“Oh and Feudal Japan?”
“btw.. Both examples show governments who eventually banned weapons from the peasants/people and rule(d) over them with iron fists.”
Katanas were not banned from open carry until 1876. I was more specifically referring to the restrictions on carrying a wakizashi as a companion sword to an approved class (aka background check) instituted in the Edo period (1630s).
Tony Furlong, Well Spoken. This is my second day on this forum and I believe most of the liberals on this forum have moved to Delaware for a better life other than the State they came from….interesting… more like Jersey?
I also have lost interest in this forum.
To the Delaware Liberals…
“We have More to Fear from the Bumbling of the Incompetent than from the Planning of the Wicked”
I wish no ill to all and may God Bless!
We’re well along in this discussion, and we have yet to hear a compelling, or even coherent, argument for why large-capacity magazines should not be banned. Unless you consider “freedom” a compelling argument.
The real freedom is the freedom from liability Congress has granted gun manufacturers under the urging of the sorts of “freedom lovers” who have joined us for this discussion. That’s right, you can manufacture a defective firearm and cannot be sued for the accidental deaths that have resulted. You could look it up.
You people couldn’t be more deluded if you set out with that as your goal.
Sorry you’re so upset to be called assholes, but I’m sure you have a 2nd Amendment solution to that.
“This is my second day on this forum and I believe most of the liberals on this forum have moved to Delaware for a better life other than the State they came from”
Translation: “I got nothin’.”
This video is posted with permission by its creator, my friend, Jon Patton. He says it very well.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_vTXOrmdSQ
Is this a parody?
Everything is a joke to you, is it?
This guy lost me for good at “natural rights,” which have no standing in this country under the Constitution. Even if you believe in such a thing, self-defense is not regarded universally as among them; even if you believe self-defense is among them, self-defense with firearms is, again, not universally accepted as “natural.”
Before that, however, let’s examine the whole premise that objections to individual gun ownership are based on “feelings,” specifically fear. This is turning the reality on its head. Those who arm themselves are, by definition, concerned with being attacked; I understand why they object to having this called “fear,” yet what else is it?
Any of us might come under attack. Those of us who think about that possibility very much are the ones most likely to arm themselves, probably to keep their fear….er, concern at bay. To turn that around in order to claim that those of us who can compare the murder, suicide and accidental death rates of the US to other industrialized countries are acting not on the basis of math but rather on fear is the ultimate in projection.
And still, not a shred of evidence has been offered that this law will cause any harm.
Years ago a physics professor started a class with the following statement:
“Numbers don’t lie and if you don’t have the numbers to prove your solution, you’re either wrong or lying”
Large capacity magazine bans have been in place for several years & in several states. There has been plenty of opportunity to collect data regarding their effectiveness. But either mo data is available (you’re lying) or the data does not support your theory (you’re wrong).
Look at it this way, if you were to present your solution for mass shootings in defense of a thesis, you would have no data & be very quickly ejected from the room. Better yet, imagine presenting your solution to the FDA with no double blind studies, no analysis of unexpected consequences & no evidence of efficacy.
Again, you would be laughed out of the room.
Furthermore, your assumed results could only be possible if your proposed “ban”
was effective in totality. For this to happen, you would need to do the following:
1). End all manufacturing & sale of the banned item.
2). Seize each and every banned item in existence. (good luck)
FYI: A good estimate is that there are at least 50,000 potentially banned “large capacity” magazines within the State. Don’t expect that they will be handed in voluntarily.
3). Essentially un-invent them. (Never been done before)
4). Implement a force to search out & sieze the banned items as well as prosecute offneders.
5). Survive the ensuing civil war that would ensue as a result of the above.
(At this point you would have become the tyrannical government that many fear.)
What puzzles many of us most is why you refuse to address the issue of “gun violence” at its fundamental source. How about better ways to identify potential mass murders? Developing a better understanding of suicidal behavior? Improvements in mental health care? Breaking the cycle of violence that has infected many urban areas (eg. Wilmington, Baltimore & Chicago)?
If you had the courage to do this, you would soon find allies within the gun community and not enemies.
“Gun control” as you present is no more than a very divisive political agenda. One that unfortunately is the personal agenda of the president. So grow some “nads” & address these issues directly instead of pissing off very large number of voters with your endless bullshit.
URwrong: either you answer my question at the end or I don’t talk to you any more. That was the deal. Your post, as usual, is horseshit, and I will be glad to prove it.
Among your more idiotic assumptions is that I am not a member of a gun-owning community.
But then, continuing idiotic assumptions leads one to believe …
Steve, my apology for not previously answering your question. I have also added a category that you missed.
(1) to defend my home and family against home invasion; (25%)-Not likely to happen
but I did need to shoot a racoon once that run into an open door & refused to leave
(2) to defend myself and others when out in the streets; (50%)-Only as a last resort, my preference is to avoid confrontation however, from experience, I know that avoidance is not always possible.
(3) as part of a prudent tool box for use in the event of a natural or nan made disaster, (24%) We’re lucky in DE, not many floods or earthquakes but a well placed hurricane has the potential to cause serious havoc. We are also unlikely to directly feel the effects of a terrorist attack but are very likely to experience a period where the police have there hands full dealing with an attack, they may even need to ask for help from people like me.
(4) to defend myself from an abusive/tyrannical government. (1%)-Extremely unlikely but I’m not one of those “it can’t happen here” people.
I’m also an arms collector, just because their cool & interest me. I’d buy a Howitzer if I could-just because. It would be fun to take it out somewhere safe once a year or so & fire off a few rounds. The best prize would be a mini-gun but until machine guns are legal again, I’m out of luck.
So, start sending the data & keep in mind that for a theory to be considered valid, it must be repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.
Let’s also apply Occam’s razor to this discussion. My hypothesis makes no assumptions whatsoever & consists of the following facts:
1. what you call “large capacity” magazines exist & are actually the standard configuration for many firearms.
2. “large capacity” magazines are in widespread, legitimate use both in DE and nationwide.
3). “large capacity” magazines are sometimes abused by criminals & terrorists.
4). The actual percentage of “large capacity” magazines covered by point 3 is infinitesimally small. (I will try to venture a calculation in a few days)
Therefore, a ban of “large capacity” magazines would overwhelmingly affect legitimate users and not criminals & terrorists.
@wrong “Let’s also apply Occam’s razor to this discussion.”
Really? Occam’s razor? That’s a call for simplicity. It commonly used to explain things using Bayesian analysis.
But in your context, that would probably mean that you want to find the simplest solution that solves a problem? Right? It must be because you use the word “theory” when you mean “solution”.
I can think of a most simple solution.
“a ban of “large capacity” magazines would overwhelmingly affect legitimate users and not criminals & terrorists”
What are the legitimate uses of large capacity magazines?
I have no doubt that Obama will move forward with something. Again the devil will be in the details. The details will also have to survive a ensuing court battle. The only way to fix this is through education without emotion, and to get it through congress. Dover and DC.
UR wrong–forget apologizing to me since you have already accused me of lying.
Let’s try reading comprehension before we move on to anything else.
1. Show me any place wherein I have advocated for this particular piece of legislation before you lump me in there. I have been interested primarily in correcting the many inaccuracies you and others have been throwing around. So, to wit:
2. I guess we can now agree (since you didn’t bother to refute it) that background checks do have an impact on buying patterns, even with the existing loopholes. So it is possible for State action to impact gun-related behavior.
3. You have the same intellectual issue as most of my students. You confuse the ability to ask questions as being the same thing as providing evidence. You asked if magazine restrictions had ever reduced crime. I pointed out that (a) such restrictions within the assault weapons ban were meaningless because so poorly written; and that (b) the six states which actually have such bans have not met their overall crime reporting statistics requirement to be able to tell. Then you called me a liar? Based exactly on what? And based exactly on what evidence you had supplied that contradicted my statements?
4. If 50% of your reason for owning firearms is the safety of you and others as you move around within your day, then presumably (if you live in Delaware) you are either in possession of a CCDW or you are open carrying. Fine. Now that comes with a 99.9% certainty that you are not carrying a long gun when you are doing this. Granted that most people writing this kind of bill have their eyes set primarily on the meaningless target of “assault weapons,” and that I have yet to see a bill offered that restricts magazines to something less than the regular internal magazine of a pistol will hold, exactly how would this particular bill affect YOUR ability to move about through society with a pistol?
6. Please quit with the gun confiscation/gun prohibition argument. I have neither been having it with you nor supporting it. My initial post in this thread was a suggestion to folks arguing for such measures that they cede the point that this is their long-term aim. I have never (please feel free to go back and look) suggested that such is either desirable or my objective. You have simply assumed that anybody who corrects your talking points is necessarily an “anti-gunner.”
7. Please take a moment to explain the basic contradiction of your position that (a) such measures would severely restrict your activities; and (b) that “prohibition” never works. I provided you with multiple policy examples, including the restriction on machine guns, to suggest that–like them or not–such policies do in fact change behaviors over time. If your only answer is alcohol prohibition in a 1920s world …
One of the things that jumps out at me on the pro-gun side of this discussion is their complete misuse of scientific terminology. The ease at which they throw these terms around (incorrectly) is quite revealing. It demonstrates, to me, that they are trying to sound intelligent and by (mis)using these words they think they being objective/scientific.
But the main thing that jumps out to me is this calling for data – data that they should know does not exist due to the NRA and Congress.
So stop asking for data that your side made sure can’t exist. Makes you wonder what gunners and the NRA are so afraid of. After all, if all their claims about gun ownership are true then they should welcome the research, right?
The only “gun control” measure at issue here is a ban on large-capacity (still not quantified) magazines. Every other issue is an attempt to change the subject, because you can’t speak to this one.
Yes, the ban will effectively do nothing. So what? Demonstrate the damage to you — actual damage, which is the standard you would face if you were trying to collect in a civil case. Not a single one of you can do it, or you would have done it already.
The people asking for examples act as if Australia doesn’t exist.
Data post 1996 doesn’t support your argument that the ban had any real impact on the already downward trend.
Aussie gov data
@meatball: You’re looking at the wrong statistics. The vast majority of murders are of and by intimates — family members, mostly, which is why a spouse is always the first suspect. Nobody who calls for gun control claims it will eliminate murder.
Here’s the salient metric: Australia has not seen a mass shooting involving strangers (there have been a couple of murder-suicide family events) since 1996. That’s all you can reasonably expect to affect with military-style weapon bans and magazine limits, and those events, even in this country, are rare compared to handgun shootings.
None so blind, etc.
By the way, if you’re so into downward trends, you should acknowledge that US crime has been on a downward trend for 20 years now. Explain why we need militarized cops in light of that.
“By the way, if you’re so into downward trends, you should acknowledge that US crime has been on a downward trend for 20 years now. Explain why we need militarized cops in light of that.”
I agree, we don’t need militarized cops. And crime (including homicides) has plummeted in the US despite record gun sales.
“Here’s the salient metric: Australia has not seen a mass shooting involving strangers (there have been a couple of murder-suicide family events) since 1996. That’s all you can reasonably expect to affect with military-style weapon bans and magazine limits, and those events, even in this country, are rare compared to handgun shootings”
Acknowledged, but New Zealand with much less restrictive gun laws than Australia has experienced even fewer mass shootings.
If we go with the “it’s not the guns” argument, then that means it’s us. We, as a nation, are too immature and violent to own them. Which makes sense since there obviously isn’t any compromise we can agree upon.
Bottom Line: In the US we need to allow people with criminal intentions easy access to guns, otherwise people without criminals intentions might not have easy access to guns.
It really is that simple, and I’ve never heard a gun nut try to argue that I’ve mis-characterized their argument.
Can’t wait for this idiot to get out of office, the sooner the better!!
http://www.usworldreport.com/obama-warns-congress-cracking-terrorism-violate-iran-nuclear-deal/
New Zealand has barely more than half the population of Los Angeles County. And I personally don’t care how restrictive the gun laws are, as I don’t own any.
@Anonymous: Your link is to a wingnut site. The author of your link is “robert,” no last name.
Fuckwit.
I was trying to use the Australia/New Zealand vs. the US to more or less make jason and pandora’s points. I think it is us, us being the US. We’re No.1, we’ll always find a way to be the most murderous first world nation, guns or not.
I find myself in complete agreement with all of President Obama’s executive actions today. None of the concrete actions will make a lick of difference in homicide/suicide rates in the US, though. He mentions mental health, the one area that clearly would make a large dent in suicides and mass shootings. But this area comes close to touching the other “third rail” in US politics, no one wants to disclose that shit for a myriad of other reasons besides gun ownership.
Calling people derogatory names is not a valid argument, it a demonstration of your inability to articulate your position on the issue under discussion.
In regard to Second Amendment rights and capacity limits, those who are unfamiliar with guns simply don’t understand how self-defense works. Real life is not like the latest action movie where the bad guys shoot their guns endlessly (and miss), but the good guys fire off one or two rounds and hit their targets.
When Matthew Murray entered the New Life Church in Colorado Springs, intent on killing hundreds of people, it was Jeanne Assam (one of the worshipers there) who fired off 10 rounds before Maury was critically injured enough to halt the attack and end his own life.
Good thing there was only one attacker. If Assam had used a reduced-capacity magazine or there were multiple attackers, she would have been out of luck. As would have those New Orleans residents who, in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, discharged more than two dozen rounds during one firefight, where they fended off a roving gang in the Algiers neighborhood.
Restrictions on extremely common arms in regular use by lawful citizens is the definition of an infringement of the constitutional right to arms. Citizens own about a billion magazines that hold more than 10 rounds and the majority of widely owned firearms come standard from the factory with more than 10 round magazines. It is telling that law enforcement is typically excluded from proposed restrictions. If the larger capacity magazines have no value for self-defense, wouldn’t we prohibit them for law enforcement too?
@ william–
Citizens own about a billion magazines that hold more than 10 rounds and the majority of widely owned firearms come standard from the factory with more than 10 round magazines
The 2nd Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear arms. It does not guarantee the right to high cap mags.
That said, I agree that the police should have the same restrictions as the general population. Especially since they seem keen on killing people for no apparent reason:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2ghdM66U4Y
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nNJT8EpLBuI
@pandora
“— then that means it’s us. ”
Finally you almost get it. However, it’s not all of us as a society but a very, very small subset of “us”. The conundrum is how to identify the sociological misfits and those that suffer from mental illness that make up this small minority. A gun or any other weapon in the hands of 99.9% of “us” is totally harmless. As I have said here before, If we all worked together (including the NRA) to identify and help that 0.1%, both suicides and mass shootings would be reduced substantially. Add to that intercepting terrorists and keeping guns away from violent criminals & I suspect that the number of gun deaths would drop to nearly zero.
For this to happen, there needs to be a level of trust between gun enthusiasts and the Liberal/Progressives that are continually trying to demonize them. For example, most everyone agrees with the President that background checks can be implemented more effectively. However, due to hair brain ideas like “large capacity” magazine bans, most gun owners simply don’t trust him.
The first step in implementing common sense ideas such as more comprehensive background checks, smart guns, mandatory safety training & maybe even gun registration is to take bans & other silly restrictions off the table by codifying our right to own most any gun that we want–providing that it is used safely & responsibly. At a minimum, implementing nationwide concealed carry reciprocity would go a long way in proving that the President truly stands by his words as supporting the constitutionally guaranteed right to keep & bear arms. I would bet that a comprehensive background check bill that included these concessions would pass nearly unanimously in both houses of congress as well as being supported by the NRA.
What is stopping this from happening are not “gun nuts” or the “gun lobby” but folks like geezer, puck & jason330 who refuse to understated that many of the rest of us are proud to be gun owners & won’t give that right up without a fight.
This is a free county, I respect your right to stay away from guns & I expect the same level of your respect toward those who choose to have them. Instead what I will probably get, as usual, is a serious bashing. As long as this keeps up, there will never be any common sense progress toward significantly decreasing gun deaths.
@totalywrong “Instead what I will probably get, as usual, is a serious bashing. As long as this keeps up, there will never be any common sense progress toward significantly decreasing gun deaths.”
This is your excuse? Really??
You are actually telling us that since you perceive insults, you resist doing what you know is otherwise right. Did I read that right???
So… You promote unnecessary death because you’ve been insulted. And then you wonder why you’ve been insulted????
@Liberal Elite
nope, just very accustomed to being bashed
Each time I have mentioned cooperation between ant-gun nuts and gun hobbyists I get a tirade on how stupid I must be. What I know as fact, is that when people learn to work together, THINGS GET DONE.
Step 1, Stop the ban this that & the other thing attitude
Step 2, show respect for what others believe, guns are not evil and so aren’t 99.9%+ of gun owners
Delaware being a small State has the unique opportunity to show how cooperation can produce incredible results.
@u “Step 1, Stop the ban this that & the other thing attitude”
Propose something better. The gun nuts haven’t. They are “proud to be gun owners & won’t give that right up without a fight.”
“Step 2, show respect for what others believe, guns are not evil and so aren’t 99.9%+ of gun owners”
Not buying it. It’s the gun nuts that have demonstrated utter disrespect for human life. Why is it that those who stand around and DEMAND respect the most are the ones least willing to give respect???
…and speaking of respect, why is gun nuttery so closely tied with racism? …the utter extreme of lack of respect.
Why is it that those who are seem most frightened of potential threat seem to be those most willing to make threats?
uralmostalwayswrong:
1. You don’t get bashed, although your talking points often do. You, on the other hand, call people liars for disagreeing with you. Pot, meet kettle.
2. You don’t deal with effective arguments against your positions, you don’t even acknowledge them. You just keep moving on to new talking points, which is the primary attribute of a troll rather than somebody actually having a discussion.
3. Your “steps 1 and 2” amount to saying, “We can have a discussion when you accept my major premises, but no discussion or compromise is possible unless you start by accepting my foundational beliefs as the basis for discussion.” This is a way to posture, not a way to discuss policy.
Let’s try for a serious point: let’s accept your 99.9% of gun owners are good people who will never engage in murder, suicide, etc. I don’t think that stat holds up, but let’s accept it. The question is whether the actions of the .1% are serious enough in nature to warrant some inconvenience or restrictions to about 10% of all gun owners in order to reduce the ability of the .1% to do major harm. What’s the acceptable level of restriction on “responsible” people to erect higher barriers against the nutcases? Or do you believe that we simply have to accept the existence of a certain level of violence as part of the price we pay for a free society?
Oh no you don’t, urwrong. When I say “us” I mean all of us. You included.
And why would you be proud to be a gun owner? I thought guns were just a tool. It’s like saying, “I’m proud to be a screwdriver owner.” And why do gun owners always seem to insert fighting words into their comments – “…refuse to understated that many of the rest of us are proud to be gun owners & won’t give that right up without a fight.” What sort of fight? One with a gun?
It’s these sorts of fantasies that I can’t wrap my head around; These doomsday scenarios that figure so prominently in gun owner lingo and are very similar to the mindset of preppers. It simply isn’t reality based, and a basic understanding of risk assessment proves my point. In fact, owning a gun increases your, and your family’s, risk of being shot. That risk is always dismissed by the gun owner because “they are responsible” and, I guess, accidents don’t happen to them. And the gun owners who believe that are a threat to themselves and others.
If you guys lived in a dangerous neighborhood with lots of violent crime that at least would be a reason for owning a gun – altho I would still never own one. At least you could show the risk to your life. But the idea that you guys need to pack heat to walk on the Rehoboth boardwalk, shop at Christiana Mall, or have dinner at the Charcoal Pit boggles my mind. Gun owners who do this are the danger they claim to fear. Introducing a gun into a situation always increases the odds of someone being shot – and we see this happening every flippin’ day. Sheesh, with the number of “regular” people shooting people every day there’s obviously a significant percentage of gun owners who shouldn’t be allowed to own a gun. How do we weed them out? And they change from day to day. Losing a job, a bad break up, an argument, etc. turns gun owners from responsible to deadly in the blink of an eye. And even if you say, “that’s not me” you can’t deny it happens. A lot. Got a solution for that?
And that’s another thing I don’t understand. A responsible gun owner should understand the risks involved in owning a gun and should be the loudest voice in the gun control debate. They shouldn’t be for arming the threat they arm themselves against. Their stance on gun control reinforces their need to have a gun, because, you know, all those crazy, dangerous people can have a gun, too. It’s a self-fulfilling prophecy.
The answer to gun violence is more guns. Do you guys have any idea how crazy that sounds? Try this: The answer to car accidents is more cars. The answer to alcohol addiction is more alcohol.
And before you guys do what you love to do and say that pro-gun control people aren’t familiar with guns, don’t understand them, are afraid of guns, etc. I’ll remind everyone I grew up with a gun in the house. My father was a police officer, so drop the “if you only understood guns” argument. I understand them just fine, probably better than most of you. And every gun owner should have a healthy respect and fear of what a gun is capable of. If you don’t, if you think you’re exempt from this then you don’t deserve to own a gun. You’re an accident waiting to happen.
I am proud to be the owner of more than a dozen screwdrivers. Unfortunately, they aren’t much use for turning nuts.
Gun nuts just want to talk it out and are decent, reasonable people open to compromise. Thank you for the giggle.
What I find most striking about these latest missives is the sense of entitlement — white privilege, you might say. Look at how they dictate terms for how we are supposed to behave. Can you imagine the reaction if BLM protesters adopted that attitude?
That’s so true! Steve sums it up: “We can have a discussion when you accept my major premises, but no discussion or compromise is possible unless you start by accepting my foundational beliefs as the basis for discussion.” This is a way to posture, not a way to discuss policy. Yeah, that’s the way to have a reasonable discussion. The hypocrisy of demanding respect while not giving it is stunning. It’s a Conservative tactic – demand civility while being uncivil.
And Geezer, BLM is the reason most of them feel the need to have guns. If black and brown people and women started arming themselves in large numbers these guys would be screaming for gun control for these groups and Stand Your Ground laws would be rewritten in a heartbeat. This really is a white male phenomenon. Does anyone believe the way law enforcement is handling the Oregon situation would be the same if the people weren’t white and Christian? Does anyone believe that a woman who shot her male abuser, because she actually did fear for her life, would be praised as a good gal with a gun?
Relevant
so·ci·e·ty.
NOUN
1.the aggregate of people living together in a more or less ordered community:
You can’t ‘subset’ society. We’re all in it together.
“A gun or any other weapon in the hands of 99.9% of “us” is totally harmless.”
Wrong. Nearly 1,000 people in the US are killed each year in accidental shootings.
“This is a free county, I respect your right to stay away from guns & I expect the same level of your respect toward those who choose to have them.”
You are attempting to equate a position that can’t kill anyone with one that’s responsible for 33,000 deaths a year. False equivalence.
“This is a free county, I respect your right to stay away from guns & I expect the same level of your respect toward those who choose to have them.”
Explain how that works? How do I stay away from the gun you’re carrying in public?
The children of Newton Ct. were trying to exercise their right to not be shot. I guess they didn’t exercise it hard enough.
Three (hopefully) final observations before giving in to “gun thread fatigue”:
1. Given that the overwhelming majority of gun owners are “responsible” gun owners, and we wouldn’t want to interfere with their rights, maybe it’s simply time to codify what constitutes “responsible gun ownership” instead of going at it from the other direction.
2. I have often wondered about this: folks (including many friends of mine) who have a CCDW or who open carry do so because they believe that on a daily basis there is a statistical likelihood of violence placing them in harm’s way. Ok, accept that. Then the question becomes, “But would you prefer a society that was safe enough in public space that such a threat of violence did not exist, meaning that you (and everybody else) therefore had no logical reason to go armed?” If the answer is “yes,” then the next question follows, “How do we get there from here?” If the answer is “no,” then you’ve just admitted that fear of violence is not the reason you choose to be armed in public. Unfortunately, the answer is more likely to be an evasion: “Stupid question because that will never happen.”
3. Gun rights advocates should actually be thrilled with Obama. According to stats just published by ABC News, during Bill Clinton’s 8 years in office 40 million new firearms were introduced into the US. During Dubya’s 8 years another 40 million new firearms were introduced. During Obama’s first seven years, we’ve had 68 million new firearms introduced. If his last year merely continues the current trend, we’ll hit nearly 78 million in his two terms, meaning that nearly twice as many new guns were manufactured and sold under Obama as either Clinton or Dubya. Simply put, gun manufacturers can no longer afford to have anything but liberal Democrats in office.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/gun-background-checks-hit-record-33-million-december/story?id=36105791
The question is why so few people need so many guns. Fewer than half the households in the US have guns, yet by Steve’s figures enough were sold in just the last 23 years to arm well over half the households in the nation.
You would think the manufacturers would be all for smart-gun technology, especially if we outlawed the “dumb” ones. That’s a helluva lot of new guns sales, if only they were smart enough to figure that out.
Smart gun technology kills the illegal purchases market and profitability in gun stealing which is a huge part of gun manufacturers’ business. It’s a dirty industry.
[b]America doesn’t have a gun problem. It has a Democrat problem.[/b]
http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/2016/01/america-doesnt-have-gun-problem-it-has_4.html
“America does not have a gun problem. Its problem is in the broken culture of cities administered by Democrats. We do not need to have a conversation about gun violence. We need to have a conversation about Chicago. We need to have a conversation about what the Democrats have done to our cities.”
This is truly a great talking point, but a pile of smelly turds as a legitimate argument.
No, it is not a question that our cities have huge violence issues, and if the article were a consideration of why that has happened, it might have some potential relevance. Unfortunately, the guy quoting stats can’t go there beyond saying, “Democrats did it.” And then, gun violence comes from black men with criminal records.
There is no understanding that, historically speaking, tighter gun laws in those urban areas followed the rise in killings, not preceded them. In other words, they were an attempt to fix the problem, not the creation of the problem as this piece implies.
What did create the problem? Democrats, naturally. That’s what he’s got. How, one wonders, did our most violent cities end up being populated mostly by folks of color and people of lower educational attainment and socioeconomic status? Could it have been public policy? Could the spiraling gun violence in Chicago that started to get seriously out of hand in the later 1980s-early 1990s possibly have had anything to do with the Reagan administration’s conversion of multiple Federal programs targeted on the inner cities into block grants of significantly lesser amounts that States could choose not to send to the cities because of flexibility?
It’s a funny thing to note: during most of the 1970s and through the mid-1980s these spectacularly awful homicide rates did not exist in our major cities. Black and brown people still lived there, and they were still poor, but for whatever reason they weren’t shooting and killing each other at record rates. Could it actually be that our society made public policy decisions at the Federal during the 1980s to remove the small amounts of investments in education, job training, urban renewal, and economic development that were the difference between poverty and despair? (This was, of course, all part of “starving the beast.”)
See, the problem is not that you don’t know the history (although you don’t). The problem is that you don’t actually understand anything except the white privilege talking points that make you feel superior to poor black and brown urban people who, by definition, lack the resources to engage in white flight.
There’s a conversation to be had there, but you should quit pretending you actually want to have it.
Someone please inform Rich that Frank “I’ll make Atilla the Hun look like a faggot” Rizzo was a Democrat. Democrat is not the same thing as liberal, so when you talk about failed Democrats, you are talking about a wide range of positions (unless you’re a dumb enough dick to think there are no policy differences between Dennis Williams and Mike Purczycki).
Steve handled the rest.
Many ills beset American cities, but partisan politics is responsible for almost none of them.