CO-04 (Special Election) See Full Big Line

(R) Greg Lopez

(R) Trisha Calvarese

90%

10%

President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Biden*

(R) Donald Trump

80%

20%↓

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

90%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

90%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd

(R) Ron Hanks

40%

30%

20%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert

(R) Deborah Flora

(R) J. Sonnenberg

30%↑

15%↑

10%↓

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Dave Williams

(R) Jeff Crank

50%↓

50%↑

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

90%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) Brittany Pettersen

85%↑

 

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

(R) Janak Joshi

60%↑

35%↓

30%↑

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
December 04, 2015 01:51 PM UTC

The Sad Truth About Gun Violence in America

  • 103 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols
Outside of the United States, you are more likely to be killed by a falling object than by gun violence.
Outside of the United States, you are more likely to be killed by a falling object than being a victim of gun violence.

No country does gun violence quite like the United States.

As the New York Times reports — with some amazingly-specific statistics — people outside of the United States are more likely to be killed by a falling object than a gun:

In Germany, for example, about two out of every million people are fatally shot by another person each year — making such events as uncommon there as the campers’ deaths in Yosemite. Gun homicides are just as rare in several other European countries, including the Netherlands and Austria. In the United States, two per million is roughly the death rate for hypothermia or plane crashes.

In Poland and England, only about one out of every million people die in gun homicides each year — about as often as an American dies in an agricultural accident or falling from a ladder. In Japan, where gun homicides are even rarer, the likelihood of dying this way is about the same as an American’s chance of being killed by lightning — roughly one in 10 million.

In the United States, the death rate from gun homicides is about 31 per million people, which is similar to the rate at which Americans die in car accidents (not including van, truck, bus or motorcycle accidents). The homicides include losses from mass shootings, like those Wednesday in San Bernardino, Calif., and the week before in Colorado Springs. And of course, they also include the country’s vastly more common single-victim killings.

These comparisons help highlight how exceptional the United States is. Here, where the right to bear arms is cherished by much of the population, gun homicides are a significant public health concern. [Pols emphasis]

Check out the full graphic available at the New York Times to see just how insanely rare it would be to die from gun violence in another country.

Remember this the next time you hear someone say that America would be safer if more people carried guns around with them.

Tweet
Share

Comments

103 thoughts on “The Sad Truth About Gun Violence in America”

  1. That's because God bestowed upon us American Exceptionalism which makes us better than and unique in comparison to the rest of the world. At least that's what some folks would like to believe…….

  4. Another truth for you to ponder: Dudley Brown really does not care what any of you think about gun violence. For him and his RMGO, the more guns, the better.  

  5. What is unfortunate is that legislation presented to curb gun violence historically boosts gun sales. The mere suggestion of a perceived restriction, warranted or not, increases the total volume of guns in the marketplace and is counterproductive to the original intent. 

    While gun nuts tout Obama as "Gun salesman of the century", the gun control advocates point to the NRA – each provide one another with adequate raw material for creative manipulation. The net result is always the same: more gun sales. 

        1. So if you despise gun restrictions, what's your solution to the "vicious cycle"? Why are the European countries with rigorous gun restrictions so much safer?( as far as murders by gun)?

           

          1. I don't despise gun restrictions, I just see that they do not do anything to decrease the volume of guns, and, in fact, increase the number of guns in circulation.

            I don't have a solution. But if the current solution is to inject a huge influx of firearms into an already saturated population, its working.

    2. Yeah, that's a pretty cowardly example of false equivalency.

      Obama is the "gun salesman of the century" because the NRA spreads lies, spurring people to go buy more guns in fear that they'll be outlawed. 

      What exactly has Obama done to "provide material for creative manipulation"?  

  6. Obama has provided the NRA reasonable fodder to spread lies that guns will be outlawed. Its just that simple. It can be lies, fear mongering and manipulation from the NRA, but really, blame whoever or whatever you want, the result is always more guns. 

        1. So, in your mind, a reasonable plan to try and curb gun violence is "just as bad" as spreading lies and disinformation? 

          So, what's your solution, as a responsible gun owner?

          1. Nevermind. I just saw that you're not about solutions, just the standard "But-But-But both sides are contributing to the problem!" deflection…which is, in fact…a goddamned lie. 

          2. No. I question, based on the data, that the current effort to curb gun violence is a reasonable plan. 

            The only solution is to eliminate all guns, ammo and magazines completely. No grandfather clause, no manufacturing, possession or transfer. Confiscate, seize and destroy all firearms. 

            Which confirms the gun nuts assumptions all along. 

             

            https://docs.google.com/file/d/1-kispbj31jpD1LvnFSDevryH2RmVvoLw1slOBZTe-suuy96Qq69nF9BhTmcw/edit?pli=1

            1. So, you are saying the only solution is to repeal the Second Amendment?  

              Or, are you saying (without actually having to say it) that the horrific losses of life are an acceptable cost of reasonable gun ownership in this country, and that the only way to reduce those losses is to confiscate all guns?

              1. The horrific losses are unacceptable. Your not stopping them with background checks and magazine restrictions – that has been proven over decades of death. Do you have a better idea?

                1. There haven't been restrictions over decades….nice try.

                  As for a better idea, sure. Just a little responsibility. Registration, Licensing, Insurance, and Liability…just like for cars. There will still be deaths, of course. Just like there are with cars.  But at least there will be SOME steps to try to reduce the deaths. Like we've done with cars. Strange that we take so many more precautions with things that aren't specifically designed to KILL PEOPLE.

                  I don't care if you have a military style weapon. Whatever need that fulfills in your life, that's your business. But I'd like to know that you at least had to pass a damn test to get it. Like the average person in a car.    

                  1. Registration, licensing, insurance and liability does not save lives. It punishes and pays…. little comfort when a dead perp gets 20 to life punitive. 

                     

                    1934 National Firearms act

                    1938 Federal Firearms act

                    1968 Gun Control Act

                    1984 Law Enforcement Protection act

                    1989 assault weapon importation ban

                    1990 Crime control act

                    1994 Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act1994 assault weapon domestic ban/10 round nationwide magazine restriction.

                    2013 Obama (attempt) Gun Control act

                    2013 Colorado gun law enactment. 

                     

                     

                    1. A well defined assault weapon ban with objective specific definitions would make it harder for such mass murder weapons to be obtained. So would universal background check, something you can't say has failed to reduce casualties because it's something we've never had. And it has to be federal. It does no good in one state if a person can simply go to the state next door.  

                      There are many measures we could take to make things harder rather than easier for mass murderers. The argument that nothing will completely prevent the possibility of getting around it is spurious as that's the case with all laws, bans and regulations of everything and anything.

                      We don't, for instance, say let's dispense with all police since crime happens anyway.We don't say let's dispense with all background checks on immigrants because it doesn't work a hundred percent of the time. We don't say let's not have any immigration controls at all because some people will sneak in anyway. We don't say let's not have any food safety laws because they don't prevent very case of e coli contamination.

                      This type of argument is only posed by gun rights absolutists and only in reference to gun control, nothing else.

                    2. Ummmm . . . you kinda' failed to show that the 1994 legislation was allowed to expire in 2004.  Probably just an oversight and not some kind of willful ignorance or selective messaging, right?

                2. Background checks work. Magazine restrictions, probably only work to limit deaths in the rare instances of mass murders. The evidence on the effectiveness is empirical data:

                  When background checks are required, they are extremely effective at keeping guns out of the hands of prohibited persons. Since the federal background check requirement was adopted in 1994, over two million prohibited persons have been denied a firearm transfer or permit.17  In 2010 alone, more than 117,000 gun transfers were denied using the federal background check system.18

                  Researchers confirm that universal background check laws effectively improve public safety and save lives. Research has found that states with universal background check laws experience 48 percent less gun trafficking, 38 percent fewer deaths of women shot by intimate partners, and 17 percent fewer firearms involved in aggravated assaults.19 States with universal background check requirements also have a 53 percent lower gun suicide rate, and 31 percent fewer suicides per capita than states without these laws.20 This correlation is unchanged even after controlling for the effects of poverty, population density, age, education, and race/ethnicity.21

                  While the effectiveness of magazine restrictions is largely theoretical. We've had this conversation before, and I've reluctantly come around to the view that magazine restriction is not the hill to die on (so to speak), but background checks, 72 hour delays,  domestic violence offender prohibitions are in fact boundaries which we will not allow to be erased.

                  In addition, I want to see neglect charges against any parent who allows children free gun access, (which would require more money for social services staffing).  I want to see "smart guns" chipped to the owner. This is not about taking your kid to the shooting range. This is about leaving your loaded gun in the sofa, the glove compartment, etc, which results in an unknown, but tragic number of child deaths each year. The reason we don't know is that GOP congressmembers block any studies into this aspect of gun violence.

    2. Obama has provided the NRA with reasonable fodder to spread lies

      Reasonable fodder? How irrational is that? Are the NRA members that stupid that they buy this crap?

      The height of Obama's political power was between 2009 and 2011. Everything since then has been holding on to what was achieved during those two years.

      That's when he got the Affordable care Act passed. If there was ever going to be a serious attempt by the Democratic Party to enact meaningful gun control, it would have happened when they had 60 Senate seats and a majority in the House.

      Assume for the sake of argument that Obama wants to take everyone's guns (I can see Moddy is experiencing the vapors and muttering about his "cold dead hands" as he reads this), how the hell is that even possible with GOP majority in even one house of Congress let alone both……

      1. "Are the NRA members that stupid that they buy this crap?"

        Yes. Yes they are.

        And its not possible to take everyone's guns – but the current feel good measures don't stop the violence. In fact the more the antis push, the more the nuts buy. Perhaps stop pushing? (I see the smoke coming out your ears)

        1. Negev, your reasoning is specious.  Every time there's a mass murder, gun sales go up because ammosexuals fear in a totally irrational way that someone's going to take their personal arsenal away.  One of my former employees told me Obama was personally, all by himself, going to try to seize her guns, so she bought even more.  When I told her I doubt Obama even knows that Parker, Colorado exists, or where it is, much less her home address, she screamed at me, "You don't know that, you don't know that!!!  When the tanks are in the streets, I'll have the guns!!"  So I asked her if she had tank armor piercing weaponry.  That almost shut her up.  Then I said, Obama's more likely to send a drone after her guns than a tank and she'd be dead before she even knew it was there.  That did shut her up.  Luckily she quit recently to move to Missouri or some such place, where she'll probably fit right in.

          And your suggestion is that we just be gentle and not say anything to the ammosexuals, and then they'll stop buying guns.  Some of these people believe the tanks are coming for them early next week.  Their beliefs are irrational, are happening inside their own heads, and they, like Dudley, don't care what we say.  So staying silent isn't going to work either.

          2. Well, at least you will feel as if you did something.

            Make no mistake, I agree with what you say, that "ammosexuals" (careful there may be a sexual orientation protection ahead) fear that someones going to take their personal arsenal away.

            Calling it irrational at this point, after legislation is proposed every single mass shooting, is in and of itself irrational. Call it what you will but the bottom line is that every effort to promote reasonable restriction has resulted in MASS gun sales spikes.

            I'm not saying be gentle. Go ape shit man. Just realize that gun sales have increased 180% since Newtown, more than ever before in history. Is that the intended result of "common sense" legislation?

            1. What common sense legislation woud that be? I don't recall anything getting past congress since Sandy Hook but I do remember the assault weapon import ban expiring in 2004. Once again, you're making your case on the basis of something that doesn't exist….. gun control legislation passed into law by congress.

              And granted, mass murders make up a small portion of gun deaths but the impact is much greater in terms of public awareness so measures that would decrease those would be very much in the public eye if a diminution is achieved.

              The real problem, of course, is that we're so awash in guns and that's what raises our gun violence stats to such dizzying heights compared to every other comparable society. Of course reducing mass murder won't solve that problem but we have to start somewhere and it should be somewhere with a sufficiently high public profile. 

              As a writer to the Post noted, records are kept of how much Sudafed we purchase to prevent the kind of large accumulations used by illicit drug producers. I have to get Sudafed from the pharmancy, though it's otc, and sign for it.  And it's a network. I can't get little bits at several stores. It goes into a shared sytem. An inconvenience, hving to go to the desk nd sign instead of jus grabbing it off the shelf but there's nothing in the constitution demanding the right to bear arms not entail any inconvenience. So another sensible measure to prevent the accumulationof large arsenals would be a similar system for buying ammo.

              Once again, yes most gun deaths are the result of crime by common criminals and gang members with Saturday night specials, other ordinary small weapons and no particularly large arsenals but you have to start somewhere and show some success.

              Mass murders are the ones that have the greatest psychological effect on middle class suburbanites who don't live surrounded by gun violence, are untouched by the violence in our inner cities but identify with the middle class men and women who get killed going to work, the movies, school, etc. That's where the  shift needs to start occurring, just as a shift against seeing the protesters in the Vietnam era as a bunch of dirty hippy commies and the authorities as just doing their patriotic duty started occuring when evey middle class parent in suburban Chicago either had a kid or knew a kid (or a nun or a priest) beaten in the '68 Dem Convention police riot even if they were only trying to get home from classes at th U of I Circle Campus or one of the many Catholic schools and institutions downtown.  

              Their kids were mainly not being sent out as cannon fodder. Their kids mainly had student and other deferments or went because they wanted to. They were  largely insulated from the mainly lower income and small town kids with fewer options who were the ones do the fighting and dying.  It took something closer to home to get their attention.

              Change starts with the middle class and they are mainly insulated from and don't care about the neighborhoods where the majority of our regular every day shootings take place. They do care about feeling safe themselves when they go to work or a damn movie. That gets their attention.

              Increased gun sales is one response but so is, as reflected in polls, a willingness to accept some degree of gun control legislation. If pols were paying attention to those polls instead of groveling before the NRA we could actually get some measures passed and then we could see if they did any good or not. Your contention that they don't is unfounded as we haven't had any measures passed in congress for over a decade to be put to the test.

              If you mean a patchwork of state and local doesn't work, of course not. It has to be nationwide and only congress can do that.

                

              1. I am speaking of proposed "common sense" legislation fueling panic spree purchasing. The mere mention of further erosion of perceived rights. The fact that they don't pass congress guarantees the cycle to continue. Each and every time. I'm starting to think gun manufacturers support anti-gun politicians – its good for business.

                The 1994 assault weapon ban expired because it  "did not reveal any clear impacts on gun violence outcomes." This is your nationwide legislation, passed into law by congress, and if failed to show "some success".

                So a repackaging and regurgitation of the same so called "common sense" measures in the current environment does not seam reasonable, to me, and apparently congress is not buying it either.

                And the general public sees it as offensive and buys, in bulk. Again. Still.

                The mere statement you made "So another sensible measure to prevent the accumulation of large arsenals would be a similar system for buying ammo" convinced me to buy another 1,000 rounds of .223 – its on sale for $.32 a round:

                http://www.natchezss.com/checkout/cart/

                Same ammo was $750 after Sandy Hook. You know your failing at gun control when 14 people are shot less than a week ago and the price of ammo goes down.…

                 

                 

                 

                 

                 

                 

                1. Excuse me but you were also making claims about gun control measures that don't work which, of course, can't be known until they go beyond being proposals and are actually passed into law, after which and after a certain amount of time there would be some basis for making a judgement as to effectiveness.

                  If you're suggesting that no proposals be explored bcause they induce panic then what you are saying is that no potential solutions or means of mitigation can ever be explored.  If we can't study something, as congress has decided we must not do where the  public health impact of guns are concerned, then how do you propose we do anything at all about the situation?

                  And please remember that while panic gun buying exists, so does strong public will to address the problem through regulatory legislation, even among gun owners. Your don't dare speak at all about the problem attitude is hardly likely to lead to any constructive exploration of it. Problems have to be explored to be solved. The panic buying and the polls that show support for gun control legislation are all parts of the picture and ignoring the problem for fear of upsetting people reminds my of what conservatives were advising where civil rights were concerned back in the fifties and sixties. 

                  1. Agreed on that Bluecat. Proposals not passed into law would need to clear before judgement of effectiveness. And I do accept your position of focusing on mass shooting as it is high visibility. In doing so however we can already see top tier legislation flaws. For instance, universal background checks. Not passed but proposed. Which mass shooter did not pass a background check? Gun show loophole. Not passed. Which mass shooter got his gun at a gun show?.

                    So while this legislation has not passed, the fact that it does very little, in a hindsight historical perspective, to convince me, or congress apparently, that the solution fits the problem. 

                    That being said, most mass shooters are legal gun owners, until they are not, and no laws were broken, no proposed law would have stopped, and no law in general would prevent the killing from being stopped.

                    We therefore revert to comparison to other civilized nations that have banned and confiscated guns and see a sharp decline, or elimination of gun deaths altogether, and wonder why we can't do that as well.

                    We can. And any idiot with a trigger finger and a .22 can see that all this bullshit feel good "common sense" legislation is futile, ineffective, and failed policy, therefore supporting the conclusion that it is a systematic progression to full confiscation.

                    I have no doubt you will win this battle, over time. Guns will be banned in America. Pussy footing to your end game is only going to make it more difficult, and while you can call me irrational, paranoid, or afraid that they are coming to take my guns, anyone with a pulse should see its the only answer. As long as there is a projectile shooting instrument available, someone will use it for ill will. . 

                      

                    1. I think you're wrong. I don't think a total ban on guns is foreseeable. And you're wrong, at least about me and many Colorado gun owning gun control advocates, as far as pussy footing as if a total ban is what we really want. 

                      We have guns. I grew up in a house with guns. My grandpa, dad, uncles, husband all are or were combat vets and gun owners. My brother owned guns. All  also are or were advocates of gun control but not advocates of giving up all their guns. 

                      We've got a totally adorable pic of my now grown son holding his nice pattern in one hand and 22 in the other with his ear protectors on when he was about 9. It would be great for an NRA calendar.

                      And I'm not even very concerned if some of my neighbors buy "panic" guns. I can't think of a shooting anywhere near my block since we've lived here so it's not as if they seem to present much of a danger. Can't even think of one of their kids accidentally blowing himself or somebody else away as I expect they're as careful about keeping the kids away from the guns unattended as they are about seat belts and bike helmets. No. Neighbors with guns have not been a problem.

                      I agree with you on the fact that background checks  wouldn't have helped in any of our recent mass murders but some mass murderers, including Holmes, could have been flagged for mental health issues if we had the legislation to allow it and if we could loosen up the strict laws on patient privacy.

                      I know that used to be one of the NRA's fave arguments. That we really need to focus on mental health. But patient privacy protections are now so stringent that there's not much a mental health professional can do to protect the public without getting sued. 

                      I think we've over-corrected from the days when it was pretty easy to get inconvenient relatives committed. In order for sytems meant to catch those among the mentally ill who raise serious concerns about potential for violence to work(certainly most mentally ill people do not represent any danger to others) you have to have a means of getting them on a no sale list before they commit a crime. And those lists have to be universal for every gun sale…. in a store, at a gun show, on line, all of it.

                      As for the main source of gun violence, ordinary crime on the street in a society awash with guns, we have to make addressing the black market a top priority. The average Chicago gang kid with a gun doesn't have an AK-47 and didn't purchase the gun in a store but on the street. 

                      Too bad all the time and money we've wasted on the war on black market drugs (legal drugs from the doctor, the main source of drug addiction, having been pretty much ignored) couldn't have been spent on a war on black market guns. But the gun manufacturers and importers and their NRA muscle and the pols they control wouldn't have liked that much.

                      And let me say it's certainly nice to have someone on the other side of the debate here who isn't a moron with whom any attempt at intelligent discussion is pointless.

              1. There you have it. I thought you guys considered yourselves the sane and reasonable people. Why are you promoting the sale of guns at record breaking levels is beyond me.

  7. Here is my question:  are we that stupid, pig-headed and blindly stubborn as a country that we cannot learn from other people in the world?

    Western Europe has freedom (not free-dumb which is something indigenous to our country), gun control and a fraction of the mass killings that we have.

    In fact, when they have had mass killings, it's usually from foreign religious nuts (i.e., London 7/7 attacks, the Madrid train bombings, the Paris attacks last month) bringing their holy war to western countries. And they react to it and address the root cause. The British Parliament, for example, voted earlier this week to authorize the use of force against ISIL. 

    Here, the mass killings are simply chalked up to the cost of free-dumb and discussion of the root cause is considered “politicizing” a tragedy.

     

    1. Mass shootings account for less than 1% of gun deaths in America. 

       

       

      Thats a Bloomberg study by the way. Stop mass shootings 100% and you will see a decline in deaths of 1%. 

    1. I am glad to see you coming around to correlating gun rights and abortion rights. I remember you being opposed to the similarities when I first got here. I like your style mama! 

        1. I think guns should be treated like cars.  Take lessons, pass a test, be required to have insurance on the gun, in case you accidentally kill your sister-in-law or something, get re-tested periodically.  Pass a vision test so you know what who you're aiming at.

          Oh, and have cadres of lawyers filling the airways with ads, if your husband accidentally shoots your dog, we can help you sue him!!

          1. exlurker, the "treat gun buyers like car buyers" analogy is really much sounder than the facetious "treat 'em like women who want abortions" meme.

            From what others have posted on here, this is how other countries with low gun violence rates treat gun buyers. Prove that you have a sound reason for requiring a weapon, show that you have been trained in its use, show that you are of sound mind and health, and a responsible person.

            I did bring in the abortion access = gun access meme, just because it seemed appropriate in the wake of the Planned Parenthood terrorist attack.

            I'm sure Negev will beg to differ, but my own experiences with men who compile home arsenals is that these guys are paranoid, personally violent and abusive. They have a lot to feel guilty about, and so projecting sin onto women who "kill babies" is a way to feel less guilty for their own sins.

             

              1. You do understand the difference between a woman's body, and a car, or a gun, right? One is not a possession.  

                Or the difference between a clump of cells the size of a thumbnail, and a human being?  Or do you always shoot so wide that the 10 ring on your target has to be the size of a Volkswagen? 

                    1. Nice bait. One is NOT a right. Thumb through your pocket Constitution and reference the right to drive…. I'll wait….double check to make sure I'm not lying again….those pesky facts keep getting in the way of a good fabrication.

                    2. Oh, relax..no one expects you to answer a question directly.  That'd be stretching optimism to the point of delusion.  

                       

                  2. Well, Negev, in Roe v Wade the Supremes ruled that a woman's right to control her own automous body without intereference came under the right to privacy. Nothing about the right being connected with the maintenance of militias, though.wink

                    1. Well, BlueCat, in District of Clolumbia v. Heller the Supremes ruled that the language and history of the Second Amendment showed that it protects a private right of individuals to have arms for their own defense, not a right of the states to maintain a militia. cheeky

                    2. Agreed. But they've never ruled that the right can't be subject to any regulation and it fact it has been subject to regulation. Since rights have an annoying habit of bumping up against each other there is no such thing as absolute right. Shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater yadaydayda. And I did include a winky face.

                      Anyhoo, it's getting close to first night candle lighting time so, even though he's a rightie he still wrote the best Hanukkah song ever. I give you…

                      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KX5Z-HpHH9g

                    3. Sandler cracks me up!

                      Thank you for the civil debate. I wish you, and all of you here a happy holiday season. Best wishes and peace on earth!

                    5. Yeah, yeah, Negev…

                      "Both sides are bad, so vote Republican"

                      So that nothing will ever change.

        2. Well, I would agree to the "right of a woman to be in control of her own reproduction decisions shall not be infringed"smiley

          Other than that you see most of those measures already in place somewhere across the country.

          1. So, Negev, you're OK with the "note from the doctor" provision for gun buyers – it would have prevented Holmes, Loughner, Hasan, Cho, Lanza from buying guns from legal sources. Many of the most tragic US mass shootings could have been prevented, or at least made less convenient, with that simple provision.

            Closing all but one gun shop in each state,making purchasers travel hundreds of miles, and run through a gauntlet of protesters – you're all right with those provsions, as well, I assume.

            Some of the unkinder Facebook re-posts of that meme suggested that gun buyers also have to face a mandatory anal ultrasound – "just because". But I think it unnecessary.angel

            1. The "note from the doctor" used in abortion is confirmation you are pregnant, not that you are physically or psychologically qualified to get an abortion, so there is a difference. The question would be are you OK with your medical procedure being available to the public?

              I am not sure of every states but CO has 21 Planned Parenthoods so while the meme is useful for your argument it does contain equal amounts of rhetoric as the gun argument.

              It is currently legal to protest outside an abortion clinic. It is equally legal to protest outside a gun store. While I wholeheartedly disagree with protesting a woman's right to choose, I do respect a persons right to free speech. Have at it. Line up outside the gun store if you like. 

              I appreciate the exclusion of anal ultrasound….

              Here's a question – if they banned abortion would it stop you from getting one? If you were provided safe services from an alternative, reliable source would the law change your convictions?

               

              1. No…the "note from the doctor" is confirmation that bearing a child endangers the mother's health or well-being. It is a humiliating requirement which enforces sexist roles, since the woman's word alone isn't good enough.

                In the wishful-thinking Negev-chain-jerking world of the gun buyer needing a doctor's note to buy a gun, it would be confirmation that he or she is not a sociopath with a death wish.

                And since I don't have a death wish, I will not be picketing my friendly neighborhood gun store anytime soon. They've made it pretty clear that their second amendment rights trump mine, or anyone else's rights to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.'

                1. That is a disturbing law. Can you show me where this note from doctor law exists? I agree it is a humiliating requirement.

                  I have never heard of a protester being killed picketing a gun store. Your fear is unwarranted and empty rhetoric and paints with a very broad brush. 

                    

                  1. 33 states publicly fund abortion for Medicaid recipients only when the woman's life is in danger. 17 states allow use of state funds.

                    How would this be accomplished without a doctor's report or written permission?

                    Mandatory ultrasounds are required in 20 states, with public funding or not.

                    Lucky you, if your  bubble doesn't include GOP candidates babbling about "second amendment remedies",  that Obama will have to pry a gun from their "cold dead fingers", or people with plans for armed insurrection against the Federal government.

                    I live right in the heart of gun-worshipper country. Don't tell me that these guys would respect my free speech rights if they felt that their 2nd amendment rights were threatened. I'm not paranoid – I just live around paranoids.

                    1. Well let me be clear I would be more than happy to go through any medical exam to buy guns with public money. No doubt about it. 

                      That does not mean you cannot get an abortion without a doctors note. It means you can't get a free abortion without a doctors note. 

                      The paranoia seems to cut both ways….

                  2. Tell you what, Negev..since you're now playing the financial responsibility card in this thread…

                    We'll pay for Planned Parenthood every year ( about 528 million )  http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/08/05/429641062/fact-check-how-does-planned-parenthood-spend-that-government-money

                    If you, the NRA, and the rest of the Ammo-American party foot the bill for gun violence in America:   (about 229 BILLION). 

                    http://www.businessinsider.com/gun-violence-costs-america-more-than-229-billion-every-year-2015-4

                    Sound fair? Since you're all about personal responsibility. 

                    Your guns, your choice.

                     

                    1. Bringing to light the hyperbole similarities between the abortion and gun issues does not equate to participation in said hyperbole. So while your rush to judgement is expected, it is in error. How bout we limit abortions to 2 per woman, since your all about reasonable restriction? Seriously, who NEEDS more than 2 abortions?  

                    2. I never proposed a limit on number of weapons owned, and you are the one who dragged abortion into it.  But keep lying, it seems to be a thing with you.    

                    3. Curmudgeon I am responding to your post below, as there is no reply button below it –

                      I was referring to the magazine capacity restrictions you support. Mama dragged abortion into it (see meme)(that's the big blue picture).

                      What lies? You have accused me of it more than once in this thread, its beginning to sound a bit more like…. uh… projection? If you're having doubts about your own convictions, its ok. I'll be glad to be your outlet. If that's not the case, please expose my lies, as it would be something I can work on as well. 

  9. A good friend of mine; a strong common sense conservative; is an avid hunter. He owns a couple rifles, a shotgun, but no hand guns. He opined to me a while back that guys who acquire lots of guns do so to cover their feelings of personal inadequacy & insecurity due to the short length of the male "appendage." 

      1. Lots of people have good reasons for having big trucks and a number of guns. It's when people make a big deal about having them, and how it must "piss off liberulz" that they have them, that makes you think there's some kind of compensation at play.

          1. We liberals will look for your return to these pages once again, the next time there's another senseless shooting tragedy, endemic to America, that no one could have predicted, and that no laws could have prevented …

            … probably sooner rather than later, unfortunately. (Not that I or anyone else could ever predict that.)

            1. I think you mistake me for a conservative…. I can predict that combating senseless tragedies with common sense and criminals with laws, you will see my return, sooner than later…. until then I wish you all well. 

            2. So, he's like Batman, in a way.

              If Batman only appeared after horrible crimes had happened, argued that both sides were at fault, proclaimed that all solutions proposed were useless, and expressed some kind of weird pleasure in the fact that the problem will never go away. 

              Then, he happily bids us adieu until next time.

              Come to think of it, maybe he is the hero we deserve. 

               

            2. Rut-Ro – am I seeing old #5 in action? Attack the messenger when you don't have the intellect to counter the message? Really? Classic. 

              You're named after a sourpuss/whiner – I really had higher expectations for our debate.  

              1. Guess we've got our answer, now, don't we?  

                Seriously, no one's attacking you. You're doing that quite well on your own.  You don't have a message. Your message is, "nothing works, so leave it be".  You named yourself after a BIG gun, you make a big deal about not being committed to either side of the gun debate, yet you parrot the GOP talking points like a good little (pretend) soldier,. You claim to have a sense of humor, yet you’re so thin-skinned, you make Donald Trump look like Mahatma Ghandi.

                C'mon, if you're going to go around making quacking noises, smugly thinking that all the liberals are going be threatened by your clams that you can fly, don't get all annoyed when someone says you sound just like a goddamned duck.  

  11. I like Negev; he usually reasons logically, and politely, even if there are gaping holes in the logic.   But when did "gun rights" become synonymous with conservative ideology, anyway? Does it really go back to How the West was Won Lost? guess I wasn't paying attention.

    But you are right, Curm – Negev usually shows up when there has been a mass shooting incident which threatens to get the gun law conversation going again. Ahd has everyone noticed that we are no longer talking about the white Christian terrorist who killed three people at Planned Parenthood?

     

     

    2. I think once the NRA began dictating policy, instead of just lobbying for it, the NeoCons knew they had to defend themselves by making it a "Freedom" issue.

      http://www.newsweek.com/why-there-lack-gun-violence-research-unites-states-400912

      My heart is as bloody as the next Liberal's, and I don't have a problem with guns. I've owned them, and I carried them on duty for for more than a decade. I taught my sons to shoot. Guns are tools. But they're tools built for one specific purpose. To kill. Most often, they are designed to kill people.  And we have far too many of them in our country. The NRA and their lackeys in the GOP made guns a Left/Right issue, because there was money to be made. 

      On a side note, your fondness for reaching across ideological lines to acknowledge a poster's humanity is well known and admirable, as always.  I don't think Negev, or any others you would be willing to share a cup of coffee with are inhuman. I'm sure they love their children as much as any parent. But I'm definitely not as generous as you are…I find the logical holes in their arguments to be disingenuous, if not downright dishonest, and often, the things they are defending are downright inhumane.  

       

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

108 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!