There isn’t that much to say. Background checks help cut down on the wrong person getting a gun. Shame on those senators who voted NO.
So close but so far away. Patricia Maisch shouted out what many folks felt when the final vote was announced :
One gun control advocate, Patricia Maisch, shouted “Shame on you!” from the Senate balcony as the vote total was announced. In 2011, Ms. Maisch helped wrestle a magazine of bullets away from the gunman who shot then-Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, R-Ariz., and 18 others in Tucson. (post-gazette.comj)
Most Americans support background checks. To say no to background checks is definitely extremism. Those who voted no cow-towed to the 7% NRA extremism. 90% of the American people supported this bill. Those who voted no will have a surrprise waiting for them at the polls.
Good people have done the wrong thing. They caved to the pressure.
Those Republicans crossing party lines to back the measure:
Hall of Fame–
Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania, Susan Collins of Maine, Mark Kirk of Illinois, and John McCain of Arizona.
Those Democrats who sided with Republicans to block it were: (Hall of Shame) Max Baucus of Montana, Mark Begich of Alaska, Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, and Mark Pryor of Arkansas.
(Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid switched his vote to a no at the last minute, but that was a procedural move to allow him to bring the measure up for again later if he wants.)
This bill was badly flawed. It weakened 2nd Amendment protections. Even one of the authors of the bill walked away from it.
And none of it would have done a thing to stop Sandy Hook.
Emotional blackmail is no way to build laws.
http://www.volokh.com/2013/04/15/the-pro-gun-provisions-of-manchin-toomey-are-actually-a-bonanza-of-gun-control/
The only “pressure” that they caved to was by their constituents. The Toomey-Manchin AMENDMENT was an attempt to save gun control. Schumer’s bill was horrible….so Toomey and Manchin tried to fix it.
Nothing prevents any politician from starting over and writing a new bill from the ground up.
All of them, even Chuck Schumer, has “good intentions.” And for me to say THAT, you know that I’m reaching for fairness. But the bills were bad….ALL the amendments offered went down…including 50 state concealed carry reciprocity. So if it was just about “pressure” from the gun lobby, that would have passed.
By the way, we already have background checks. Its not as if there are NO checks.
Want to “strengthen” them, then we have to start over, and specifically look at who is being missed and who is just ignoring background checks. Cho, Loughner, Holmes, all passed checks. Lanza could have, but he stole the guns.
Do we want to weaken HiPPAA? Do we want to make it easier for people to be institutionalized? What records need to be added to the NICS? What is needed to force states to send information? Do background checks actually work? Where’s the evidence for that? We assume that they do. What was needed for Mrs. Lanza to do what was needed in her case? Adam planned that shooting for a year or more. He was obsessed with spree killers. How did his mother miss that? Loughner was arrested, but charges were dropped to misdeanors. Holme’s doc warned people ahead of time. Cho..you know that story. Columbine….where were the parents? They were building freaking bombs in their rooms.
So, this rejection of the these amendments just allows Congress to address it more calmly. If we don’t demonize them. This allowed the political grandstanding of Feinstein and Schumer to be dealt with. Now, perhaps, Congress can address it calmly while protecting constitutional rights. Without this badly written amendment to provide a cover for politicians who could have reported to BOTH side, “LOOK! We did SOMETHING!” they will be forced to address it again.
We don’t really know what Adam was doing.
Cargo, its a starting place and the bill would have made the laws uniform.
We can’t even establish a starting place. I find fault with that.
I do think other things need to be added but…let’s get started. No everyone should be buying a gun.
Look we did something sure beats look we did nothing.
Backgrounbd checks hurt no one other than those who shouldnt be getting a gun. No, I know it wont stop everyone. If it stops one person then that’s a whole bunch of folks to don’t have to die needlessly.
Most importantly, the NRA way hasn’t worked. They are the organization of NO.
Forget Feinstein and Shumer. How about Manchin and Toomey?
Speaking of Feinstein, you are aware that many Americans support her bill? At what point to the American people have a voice rather than the 7% NRA?
Maybe now the average Joe will see the hold the NRA has over our senators and congressmen and will vote those people out of office.
The average joe is who got the senators to vote the way they did.
There were problems with the Toomey bill that actually increased the dangers of more gun control without helping solve problems. It was merely cover because Schumer’s bill had no chance of passing. Just like Feinstein’s.
Cargo, I strongly disagree. The average Joes didn’t get to the senators. The NRA and membership got to them.
You and I obviously feel differently about guns. We interpret the 2nd amendment differently. Owning and playing with guns isn’t my hobby. I don’t want what *I* call an assault weapon in my house. Feinstein doesn’t bother me all that much.
Partisan politics on an issue like this? Republicans – the party of legitimate rape and guns for criminals. Something to be proud about. This is going to be interesting to follow.
@Moon-howler
It would help if the stats being thrown around were accurate. Support for a new AWB and limits on magazines were NEVER as high as the politico’s want to throw around. The President using the 93% support (when has 93% of the US agreed on anything?). He also throws around a “40% of guns are sold without a background check”. The study he cites was from 1993, BEFORE the NCIS instacheck system was put in place, and was used as a justification to implement the system in 1994. While the precise number is not conclusively proven, studies have estimated this in the 1%-2% range.
Here’s a new statistic: According to Gallup, less than 4% of Americans surveyed believe gun control should be a priority issue. So why is it so important to the President? It’s a distraction. The weak economic recovery is showing signs of weakening. Foreign policy is a wreck, with N. Korea, Iran, threatening a war, the US now finds itself on the same side as Al Qieda in Syria, Questions regarding Ben Ghazi still lingering, and the worst news, Sen Max Bauchus one of the authors of “the affordable healthcare act” warns that it is turning into a “train wreck” (direct quote) all point to an administration facing a legacy of failure. So what’s a lame-duck President to do? Go for gun control and gay marriage. Well, it looks like he’s losing the initiative on the former, and the SCOTUS will rule on the later in June.
I doubt that stats will ever match because of the questions that were asked. I think it is safe to say that most Americans want some sort of gun control and that they also expect a uniform background check for those purchasing.
I think this is one of those issues we will never agree on, starting with how to read the 2nd amendment.
These cowards who bowed down to the mighty NRA might have more to fear next election. Most people realize what just happened, independant of the spin some try to put on it.
The GOP is now the party of guns for criminals and insane prople, control of women’s bodies by men, restricting voting rights, sending American jobs and profits overseas, and environmental anti-science. Nice platform…
@middleman
MM,
Since we’re playing the demagoge game, I’ll chose “tit for tat” for a thousand:
So I guess the Democrats are now the party of guns for Mexican Drug Cartels (Fast and Furious), Morning After Pills for minor girls (but don’t try to wash it down with a 22oz soda), Murdered Ambassadors (What difference does it make at this point?), More people on SSI disability than on SSI Retirement, skyrocketing healthcare premiums (affordable? LOL!), voter fraud (Need to show an ID to buy pseudephed, but not to vote), “Pedophillia is an orientation” (Alcee Hastings D-FL), keeping us energy dependent on countries that wish us ill, not creating jobs here at home, historically high unemployment rates for minorities and women, and sending ricin letters to government officials…Nice platform.
@middleman
Guns for criminals: source please. How is the GOP the party for guns for criminals? Since it is the GOP that tends to be law and order.
Guns for insane people: source please. The GOP isn’t the party that weakened the laws concerning institutionalization and its the ACLU that fought the law in CT that would have made institutionalizing Lanza easier.
Control of Women’s bodies by men……hmmm.. how about the women that are on the anti-abortion side….. but this isn’t for the gun thread.
Sending American jobs and profits overseas….HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Obama has done more for sending jobs overseas and keeping profits there than even Bush.
Environmental anti-science: for demanding that climate science actually prove something. http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/16/us-climate-slowdown-idUSBRE93F0AJ20130416
But I understand that you are upset and a little hysterical.
Good. I hope it happens a lot in the future.
Obama finally took a (political) blow to on the chin. That democrats voted against it was pretty significant — it was a bipartisan defeat for Obama.
Could this be a sign that he’s already a lame duck? Let’s hope so.
@cargo
4 is a bi-partisan defeat for Obama? Does that mean that the 4 brave Republicans who voted in favor of Manchin-Toomey are a defeat for the Republican party?
I think history will prove that this was not a good move for Republicans.
I think its amazing that no one here has commented on our new “fillabuster” democracy. It wasn’t defeated because it was never voted upon. Unbelievable. THAT is why they are cowards people, because they didn’t even have the gonads to vote up or down.
Moon,
the typical paranoid blather on facebook et al. The very suggestion that certain issues be studied was enough to create hysteria and accusations of government over reach even though there was NO intervention or regulation assigned to the study.
@Elena
You did not seem to have a problem with “fillabuster” democracy when the GOP was the majority in the Senate.
@Elena
This wasn’t a filibuster. This was just the amendment cloture process.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/04/17/the-gun-amendments-need-60-votes-to-pass-but-why/
excerpt:
So, why didn’t Reid try to get the unanimous consent agreement to set all amendment votes at a 51-vote threshold?
Because to do that would have opened the bill up to the very likely possibility that amendments favored by gun rights advocates would be added to it. One, for example, would allow gun owners who receive a state-issued permit to carry a concealed weapon to take that weapon into other states that issue such permits.
By agreeing to a 60-vote threshold on all the amendments, gun control advocates have made passage more difficult for the amendments that, in their view, would weaken or, more likely, kill the larger bill.
The NRA and a handful of supporters raped the democratic process.
Steve, Cargo, you can try to obfuscate and run away from the record, but the American people aren’t fooled. A tiny minority has prevented the will of the people, and I think voters will remember.
Cargo- since you’re always upset and at least a little hysterical, you would be a good judge of that…
Steve-“sending ricin letters to government officials”? Seriously?
@middleman
If by “American people” you mean “hysterical, bed-wetting lefties” I agree.
There’s always a bigger bully on the playground, in this instance it is the NRA and subsequently you gun-grabbers ended up with a black eye.
Ice can help that, and Desitin will soothe your chapped rear-end.
You are being offensive. By American people, he means the American people. Since when did you decree that lefties aren’t American?
@middleman
I don’t see me insulting people and saying idiotic things like: “The GOP is now the party of guns for criminals and insane prople,” because a badly written bill was shot down.
Non-hysterical people go write more bills to be enacted.
As for the ricin letters…it was a Democrat activist. Oops.
@Starryflights
LOOK! A SQUIRREL!
Squirrel is going to be a trigger word. I am tired of it.
EVERYone.
The Elvis impersonator was not a Democrat activist. He was a person with a long history of mental illness, specifically bi-polar disorder.
He also threatened President Obama twice and a judge who is the mother of a Democratic state representative.
@Moon-howler
He used “American people” to try and imply that it was the American people as a whole.
That is wrong.
Cato is right. A subset of the American people were the ones that supported the bills.
@Moon-howler
Sorry, not an activist…just a Democrat.
As for the “S” word….. how about addressing this: The NRA and a handful of supporters raped the democratic process. And his/her OTHER constant uncivil statements.
Raped…. that’s nice. That promotes discussion. That’s civil.
Especially since it WAS SENATOR REID THAT DECIDED ON THE PROCESS NEEDING 60 VOTES.
HE did it. From the Wall St. Journal:
ord, first, about that Senate “minority.” Majority Leader Harry Reid was free to bring the deal struck by West Virginia Democrat Joe Manchin and Pennsylvania Republican Pat Toomey to the floor for an up-or-down vote, and this background-checks amendment might have passed. It did convince 54 Senators, including four Republicans.
But under Senate rules, a simple majority vote would have opened the measure to up to 30 hours of debate, which would have meant inspecting the details. The White House demanded, and Mr. Reid agreed, that Congress should try to pass the amendment without such a debate.
Majority rules would have also opened the bill to pro-gun amendments that were likely to pass. That would have boxed Mr. Reid into the embarrassing spectacle of having to later scotch a final bill because it also contained provisions that the White House loathes. So Mr. Reid moved under “unanimous consent” to allow nine amendments, each with a 60-vote threshold.
@Cargo
Just a Democrat? So what. So he threatened Democrats and Republicans and sent them both ricin. What am I missing here? He was nuts. how do you know how he voted or even IF he voted? Surely your partisans haven’t tracked down his voting record.
Raped? Towards more picturesque speech. Its not name calling. Many people would agree with that statement. I believe alternate meanings were meant:
7.
to plunder (a place); despoil.
8.
to seize, take, or carry off by force.
I am not going to argue Senate procedure. I stand by my statements that opened the thread. Opinons are opinions. They are neither right or wrong. Many Americans, clearly a majority, felt the bill was a good starting point to make some changes in the way this country accesses guns. Everyone wants to throw out a number, depending on which poll they have recently looked at.
I have run out of patience about what kind of gun people feel they need access to. No where in that 2nd amendment is that outlined. you feel you should be able to have whatever gun you like. Many gun owners feel that they should be able to buy weapons but not those weapons that are used to gun down multiple people with the single press of the finger.
You want to blame one side…the GOP and the NRA while it was the DEMOCRATIC Senator that set up the procedure, with demands from the White House to do so.
Oh…so offensive speech about the GOP is fine…. describing them raping political process, a process DEMANDED by the Democrats, is ok because its…picturesque.
And where do you get the “majority” of Americans? From a poll that did not describe ANY bills? The bill was flawed and I gave evidence. Which, apparently you ignore. Gallup shows “gun control” as important to only 4% of the population. So, if you want to state that polls are valid…better look at that one too.
You’ve run out of patience for what kind of gun people feel they need? And?
I’ve run out of patience for people that feel that they can determine how my rights should be restricted because they find certain guns icky and have a control fetish. You are upset because you want to do SOMETHING ANYTHING, hoping that its a good “starting point.”
Starting point? For what? MORE gun control? Want a universal background check at gun shows? Then have a bill state exactly that. “All sales and transfers at gun shows must have a background check.” Want private sales to have one? Then figure out a system that does not require registration.
The 2nd protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. Those arms that are protected are those suitable for a militia, in common lawful use. The regulations that restrict criminals and mentally unstable people from owning arms and that restrict carry in sensitive places is constitutional.
Good people saw those bills and people on each side had valid reasons for voting the way they did. And if Reid had had the courage to “do the will of the people” and hadn’t been afraid of debate, then there would have been an up and down, majority wins vote. But Reid and the White House were AFRAID of the democratic process and were sure that emotional blackmail would win the day. To bad for them that people actually read the bills.
I don’t believe my rights would be restricted at all if I couldn’t buy certain types of guns. Therefore I don’t believe yours would be either. At some point we as a society have to decide exactly what kind of weapons don’t need to be in the hands of everyone.
It seems that what is constitutional is what people want to be constitutional, not what actually is. A right to keep and bear arms really isn’t defined is it?
I just simply disagree with you that there is an unlimited right. I don’t necessarily want to blame anyone. I do blame the NRA and those senators who voted NO. Yes, it is a starting point to rein in some of the violence against the people in this country.
Cato, it’s interesting that you consider 90% of the American people “hysterical, bed-wetting lefties, ” including a majority of the NRA membership, the parents of the Sandy Hook children and Gaby Gifford and her astronaut husband.
Don’t worry about me- I’m pretty sure you’re the one who’ll need Desitin in 2014- just like in 2012…
OK, the screen just got spattered on that one, Middleman.
@Cargosquid
I’ll explain it to you, Cargo- it’s pretty simple. The GOP blocked legislation that would have closed the loopholes that make it easier for criminals and the insane to buy guns, so they now have to take credit for the continued ease with which criminals and the insane can get weapons and kill people.
Badly written bill, you say? What you do with that is compromise during the mark-up process and address your concerns- something the GOP wouldn’t even allow, since they abused the filibuster rules once again.
The reason the ricin comment from Steve Thomas was ridiculous, which you obviously missed, was that I was referring to things the GOP was responsible for in their policies- I don’t think the Elvis impersonator from Corinth, Mississippi is a member of the Democratic Party leadership, but I could be wrong!
@Moon-howler
“A right to keep and bear arms really isn’t defined is it?”
Yes…it is. IN THE HELLER decision. And you keep bring up “unlimited right.” I have not argued for an unlimited right.
Pretty damn close to unlimited right.
Heller doesn’t list model by model…..
@middleman
Its really very simple Middleman. I’ll explain it to you. Senator Reid and President Obama decided to go the 60 vote route, because they were afraid of debate. Because of that, the vote failed to reach 60 votes…..BUT would have succeeded if Reid hadn’t been a coward.
It is no easier now for criminals and “then insane” to buy guns now than it was before. Using emotional arguments is a sign of the weakness of your argument.
What mark up process? Reid wanted a vote process that did not allow amendments OR debate. If you want a bill that checks private sales at gun shows…. have them write one. Want one that checks ALL private sales….have them write one without other provisions that infringe. Have them write one WELL ENOUGH that the actual language doesn’t negate their intentions like the Manchin Toomey bill did.
By the way….. what loopholes were used by Cho, Loughner, Holmes, Lanza, the Columbine killers?
Reid and Obama were NOT afraid to debate the issue of background checks. Where on earth did you get that notion from?
Its just a starting place. No one ever said that boackground checks would solve every issue.
No, I’m not saying that. What I’m saying is if you think gun control is a top issue for 90% of the people you’re either a willful liar or blissfully ignorant living inside your delusional bubble of moonbattery.
And please, please please make gun control a central issue in the 2014 midterms. I hadn’t held out any hopes of regaining the Senate but if you and the rest of the degenerate Democrats are going to continue to give us guns and gays while we want focus on jobs and the economy it just might be doable.
No one ever suggested or implied that gun control was or is a top issue. However, the more incidents of violence that occur, the more people will insist that law makers prioritize meausres that cut down on said violence. I see it as only a matter of time.
I don’t know who you mean by ‘us.’ Do you mean the degenerate moss-backs who continually make laws that restrict women’s reproductive rights? Don’t make me laugh. Those dudes had a good 8 years to fix the job situation and all they did was run up huge deficits in a bogus war that killed 3000 and maimed 10 times that many.
I would be careful about putting myself on that higher plane. You might find yourself highly vulnerable. Had your clowns not pissed away a healthy economy, there would be no need to fix anything.
@Moon-howler
Then why didn’t Reid set it up like this?
But under Senate rules, a simple majority vote would have opened the measure to up to 30 hours of debate, which would have meant inspecting the details. The White House demanded, and Mr. Reid agreed, that Congress should try to pass the amendment without such a debate.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324493704578430672176449846.html?mod=WSJ_article_MoreIn_Opinion
Mostly a crock of crap there. Its an opinion
Asking the obivious question, would the outcome be different?
Senator Reid gets to decide the procedure…..how is that opinion
Yes..the outcome would have been different. The Manchin Toomey would probably be passed in the Senate along with 50 state concealed carry reciprocity. In fact the only amendments that failed to get a plurality was Feinstein’s ban and Lautenberg’s magazine ban.
So, there was stuff in there for both pro and anti 2nd amendment people. And it all got shot down because Reid thought having an all or nothing vote without debate was better.
It was an opinion piece. I doubt seriously if the outcome would have been different.
I think you are too close to see the blind hatred people have of the NRA. They have brought it on themselves.
No…I’ve seen the “blind hatred.” Its not the NRA’s fault if people don’t know how to a) handle their emotions b) actually follow the facts instead of being overly emotional. c) are bigoted against certain rights. I’ve seen it because I’ve been subject to it merely for stating that the right to keep and bear arms IS a fundamental right. If these people had been speaking, instead of reacting online, they would have been frothing. I’ve be told that, basically, I should die in a fire…..
Hatred of the NRA is an overreaction. And, judging by the votes…. the amendments would have passed a 51 majority wins.
I hate the NRA. I don’t froth or think you should die in a fire or any other way. I also handle my emotions fairly well.
I have family members who are members. I hate other organizations also…some that would surprise you.
I simply don’t think the NRA soley represents its members.
Perhaps hate is a strong word….I just feel it is a dishonest organization whose leadership relies too heavily on sound-bytes. I have felt this distain ever since charlton Heston uttered his rather stupid words that gave ever male over the age of three a ….well never mind, I won’t be vulgar but I am sure you get my drift.
Ooh, Cato- getting a little emotional there, ain’t ya? Nice try on your effort to switch the argument, but it’s clear that I was talking about 90% of Americans in favor of background checks.
GOP focusing on jobs? I must’ve missed that while they were focusing on gays, guns, women’s bodies and zenophobia. If you keep this up, you can hold the next GOP convention in a phone booth!
Man, Cargo- all your side HAS are emotional arguments. “The government’s gonna take our guns.” “Any gun control will lead to registration.” “We gotta be able to protect ourselves from the government.” You folks (people like you and Cato) live in constant fear- of “foreigners,” gays, government, your neighbors, everyone. I refuse to live that way- I believe in our democratic system and the basic goodness of people, as demonstrated in Boston and West, Texas. Average folks actually rushed TOWARD danger to help. In Texas, first responders rushed into a burning plant about to explode to put out the fire because they knew there was a nursing home, school and apartments next door. They paid with their lives.
By the way, there’s a template for proving gun control works to stop slaughter- Australia: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/03/us-usa-guns-australia-idUSBRE9320C720130403
@middleman
Emotional?
There ARE actual confiscations without due process going on.
There ARE calls for registration.
The purpose of the 2nd IS defense of a free state.
All of these are FACTUAL.
And your generalizations are weak. Because your only argument is emotional, you are not insulting me and CATO, attempting to demonize us. We don’t live in fear. It’s not us that wants to disarm our neighbors by force of law. We all agree that Americans run towards danger.
And you template works for Australia. Different culture. Different amount of guns in private hands. Different demographics. Smaller population, 1/10th our size. AND they had less crime at the height of their gun ownership.
The article expresses an opinion without producing actual facts. Others disagree.
Crime has gone up. From the comments there:
This article didn’t show what happened after the gun ban
It is a common fantasy that gun bans make society safer. In 2002 — five years after enacting its gun ban — the Australian Bureau of Criminology acknowledged there is no correlation between gun control and the use of firearms in violent crime. In fact, the percent of murders committed with a firearm was the highest it had ever been in 2006 (16.3 percent), says the D.C. Examiner.
Even Australia’s Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research acknowledges that the gun ban had no significant impact on the amount of gun-involved crime:
•In 2006, assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.
•Sexual assault — Australia’s equivalent term for rape — increased 29.9 percent.
•Overall, Australia’s violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.
Moreover, Australia and the United States — where no gun-ban exists — both experienced similar decreases in murder rates:
•Between 1995 and 2007, Australia saw a 31.9 percent decrease; without a gun ban, America’s rate dropped 31.7 percent.
•During the same time period, all other violent crime indices increased in Australia: assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.
•Sexual assault — Australia’s equivalent term for rape — increased 29.9 percent.
•Overall, Australia’s violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.
•At the same time, U.S. violent crime decreased 31.8 percent: rape dropped 19.2 percent; robbery decreased 33.2 percent; aggravated assault dropped 32.2 percent.
•Australian women are now raped over three times as often as American women.
While this doesn’t prove that more guns would impact crime rates, it does prove that gun control is a flawed policy. Furthermore, this highlights the most important point: gun banners promote failed policy regardless of the consequences to the people who must live with them, says the Examiner.
Source: Howard Nemerov, “Australia experiencing more violent crime despite gun ban,” Free Republic, April 9, 2009.
Furthermore: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-01-14/australians-own-as-many-guns-as-in-1996/4463150
Its not the guns that cause crime.
Edit THEN publish
you are not insulting me and CATO,
Should read are insulting….
The only emotion I feel is a little bit (okay, a lot) of schadenfreude. I seem to recall you anti 2A gun grabbers crowing about how Newtown would be the end of the so-called “assault weapon” and their “high-capacity” magazines. You had everything going your way: dead bodies, the families of victims as lobbyists, and public opinion immediately following the event. You marched, made phone calls, organized and cried rivers of crocodile tears on cable TV yet you still lost.
Oddly enough, I didn’t do any of that, and my side won anyway.
That’s gotta sting.
You haven’t won and you are a sick mofo to make the suggestion that anyone on this blog has said anything like what you said.
@Moon-howler
He didn’t make a suggestion that it was anyone on this blog. It was a blanket statement about the gun control crowd, of which middleman seems to want to be a part of. And that group HAS said those things and done those things. Its a case of “if the shoe fits…..”
You, Elena, etc have not done those things. Starry…I don’t remember, but I wouldn’t be surprised.
It was a hideous thing to say unless he was real clear it was elsewhere. I don’t want those kinds of remarks here. We are going to disagree politically or there would be no point in having a blog if we all sang the same chorus.
I agree with Moon- I won’t even address Cato’s comments. He’s devolved into complete negativity since he can’t defend his party’s platform. See ya’ in 2014!
Cargo- you put out a lot of statistics that are mostly comparing apples and oranges. Here’s all you need to know about Australia’s gun laws (from the article):
“Australia had 13 gun massacres in the 18 years before the 1996 gun reforms, but has not suffered any mass shootings since.
Studies found a marked drop in gun-related homicides, down 59 percent, and a dramatic 65 percent drop in the rate of gun-related suicides, in the 10 years after the weapons crackdown.”
That kinda says it all. Of COURSE it won’t affect sexual assault or robbery or other violent crime.
Actually it does. Just like in England….private ownership drops…. violent crime goes up.
And, according to what I posted, the Australians are back to where they were on terms of gun ownership…so its CULTURE, not guns that are driving this. Something changed in their culture.
Yeah, Cargo- THAT’s gotta be it!
@middleman
Also…if you are going to worry about apples and oranges….well Australia isn’t the US…. apples to oranges.
What works there…won’t work here.
Why not and says who?
Well, why should it? The demographics, geography, cultural conditions, style of government, societal conditions, are all different.
Add to that this country has at least 200 million guns and 300+ million people vs an official total of about 3 million guns and 23 million people in Australia.
They handed in about 1 million guns…which has been estimated to have been restocked. Americans are not going to hand in their guns.
From http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/australia
There are reportedly 172,4227 handguns in civilian possession in Australia
Estimated Number of Illicit Firearms
Unlawfully held guns cannot be counted, but in Australia there are estimated to be 550,0001 to 6 million.
Now add our crime problem, gang problem, and drug problem…but I repeat myself…..
Won’t work. Our culture is more violent and crime ridden. Change THAT and we’ll get somewhere.
I don;t think you can say that our culture is more violent and crime ridden. Geez, the country was founded as a penal colony.
I think they are a good model and we can learn a lot from them.
I am not saying do what they do but we need to look at the paradigm.
@Moon-howler
Well, the statistics show that we are more violent and crime ridden.
Yes…a penal colony…which means that they are the ones that got caught and beaten down.
WE’RE the ones that told them to “sod off!”