Wow…chainsaws cause more injuries and death than GSWs?
I’m sure that the trauma centers in large metropolitan areas see zillions of chainsaw injuries every year.
Mercy. Somebody better tell the CDC to stop tracking GSWs and start tracking …giggle…CHAINSAW INJURIES!!!
Thanks for responding to my re-explanation.
This statement here, though, shows just how far apart you and I are. I mean, I think knowing that hundreds of children are working for low wages in sweatshops is a more immediate and compelling issue than being able to easily possess a gun so that you might be able to use it to defend yourself in the off chance that you’d ever need to. Believe me, I understand the appeal of being armed and ready–and I guess my lazy-shit self can even understand why some people would prefer it that you could get armed and ready with few regulations and laws. But it’s still a game of long odds–whereas the other boycott examples I brought up involve events/problems that are truly happening. You know, cute-n-fuzzy bunnies getting their eyes sprayed with chemicals; gays being denied employment in the name of “family values”; nursing mothers in Bangladesh having their milk dry up thanks to formula promotion; doe-eyed poppets sewing soccer balls for 12 hours a day.
Well, maybe the doctors are going offa statistics, not anecdotes.
There are approximately 30,000 Chain saw accidents per year.
There are over 120,000 gunshot wounds per year.
Because the legislation wasn’t only going after those teflon-jacketed bullets, which I specifically stated in my earlier post
(which I see another poster has also pointed out). It would have been entirely useless if changed because it would’ve banned something that was already entirely unavailable to the public. I don’t understand the motivation to make a law that has absolutely no effect on anything.
You might as well make a law against having time travel devices in your house, when it’s already impossible to have a time travel device.
And they still are unavailable to the public. Unfortunately for the NRA to ‘work with the gun-control types’, those gun-control people have to be willing to see compromise as something other than ‘You give us exactly what we want.’ It has happened that way, when the NRA wholly supported the NICS system and Project Exile, but do you see them getting widespread publicity for their support of those two programs?
Jim and Sarah Brady have said that registration is only a step, that handgun bans are only a step. The fact is, there are people, some of them running very large anti-gun lobby groups, who do want a total ban on all firearms. The fact that they are unlikely to get their way doesn’t mean they don’t exist. Not all of the gun-control types feel that way, but some do.
The firearms thing matters to me more because (and yes, I admit this is ego-centric) I will never be a 10 year-old working in a sweat shop for 12 cents a week, but I have had to defend myself in my own home from a strung out burglar. One immediately effects my world directly, and one does not. You and I have the right to disagree over which we take more personally.
Do you mean that? I don’t think you do, except when it suits you.
If you do, then you believe we should repeal the Second Amendment, written by persons who were unquestionably not expert in contemporary weapons technology, in favor of an Expert Board to decide these things.
But you can’t have it both ways.
Once again, you turn it into a “they’re taking our guns away” question, even though I don’t see a cite supporting the idea that that’s why the AMA was on the list.
Ditto.
Megaditto.
No, spare me the repeated citeless insinuations of “they’re taking our guns away”.
Pro-gun types: fighting for ignorance for as long as I’ve been involved in these debates.
Well, yeah. On both sides. So? It still doesn’t equate to “they’re coming to take our guns away.”
And I specifically responded to that part of your post in mine.
Maybe to make sure it continues to have no effect on anything? Just because something that exists in quantity isn’t currently on the market, doesn’t mean it’ll always remain off the market.
You might as well learn to make better analogies. Unlike time travel machines, armor-piercing handgun rounds exist. Unless there are laws against it, they can be possessed and sold legally. Even if nobody’s legally selling them, they can be filched from military bases and distributed in more informal arrangements without their possession being illegal, absent such laws.
I could say the same.
(1) You’d have to remind me of what NICS stands for, and (2) I don’t recall Project Exile being a liberal idea that y’all went along with. The state of the debate was more that of pro-gun types being in favor of serious laws punishing people after the fact for committing crimes with guns, while the gun-control folks were aiming (so to speak) at the front end - trying to keep guns out of the hands of felons in the first place, and trying to prevent the sale of military-style weapons that seemed to be, um, overkill in civilian life. So unless you can back that up with cites, I’m not willing to believe that Project Exile was the NRA going along with an idea of the HCI or the VPC.
Cites, please.
How many members does the NRA have? How large are these anti-gun groups (ans which groups are they) that are run by people who want to ban all firearms? And where are the cites that they want to do so?
And white supremacists are conservatives. By the same bad logic, all of conservatism is tainted by their views.
In obxerving the political wars, it seems that we liberals see the same faces in Congress on the other side, whether we’re talking about guns or sweatshops or safety standards for automobiles, or whatever else we should be caring about instead of guns.
It ain’t either-or. But it seems like the same people who say, ‘why are you upset about guns when there’s a problem with X’ are our roadblocks when we turn around and try to deal with X.
And I don’t understand what that has to do with anything. I want you to be able to have a gun that can take out that burglar. All you’re doing is dressing up a totally different argument as “they’re coming to take away our guns” without cites.
Absolutely.
But that justification has me confused–and maybe this is why some in this thread repeat the ‘they’re coming to take our gun away!’ charge.
You say this is a personal safety issue for you. Don’t you already possess a gun? Isn’t your own ability to protect yourself (with a firearm) from that possible violent burglar already in your hands? Or am I just underinformed about attempts to retroactively apply restrictions on gun purchases? Did boycotting Citigroup change that situation for you? It doesn’t seem to me that it did or could. It sounds like your efforts were succesful in changing Citigroup policy, but I can’t see how it relates to a personal, immediate sense of increased or decreased risk to yourself.
I understand why you did it (you’re promoting an overall larger cause which is compelling to you) but I can’t see the connection to your own personal safety-- unless you feel organizations who advocate for more restricted gun ownership are going to eventually take guns away from Americans who already own them. But I may be missing an angle here–wouldn’t the first time.
So your solution is to craft legislation that at present is unnecessary at the current time because in the future when technology changes it might be necessary to pass a law against the sale of certain types of ammunition?
You’d still have to prove that, even if such armor piercing ammuntion was available to the public, that there is a logical and compelling need to ban it. That need did not exist at the time, and still doesn’t.
Without the armor-piercing handgun rounds, criminals will just have to continue to shoot at a cop’s head, but better he die that way than because a bullet went through his kevlar?
So you want to make it super-duper double-illegal to steal them? The last I checked, it was already a crime to ‘filch’ ammunition from a military base, and to distribute stolen items.
National Instant Check System. Part of Brady Law II, which requires a (nearly) instant criminal background check for the purchase of any firearm from a federally licensed dealer. This is definitely the ‘front end’ approach to keeping firearms out of the hands of criminals, and an example of the NRA supporting an idea of the ‘HCI’.
Project Exile is an effort made by government to impose stiffer penalties to those who commit firearms crimes that was supported by the NRA. You are only right in that the actual terms of Project Exile law don’t have anything to do with punishing people who have never committed a crime, or restricting their right to own a firearm because it seems to, in your opinion be ‘overkill’ in ordinary civilian life.
However, despite the fact that Project Exile aims to punish criminals for the crimes they have commited, please note:
[url=http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/nyw/project_exile/html/proj_exile_exec_summ.htm]From the US DOJ website.
[/quote]
Apparently a program that punishes criminals severely for the crimes they commit does have something to do with lowering the overall crime rate and preventing crimes from taking place (36% less homicides than before Exile).
It is also supported by the ‘gun-control’ types PAVE (Partners Against Violence Everywhere). Something else on which the NRA and the ‘gun-control types’ have agreed.
Sarah Brady, 1994, Phil Donahue show: “We must get rid of all the guns.”
Jim Brady, Hartford Courant, May 21, 1994: “I just believed that what I was doing was right. I told the NRA (National Rifle Association) I would make it my life’s ambition to see you all don’t exist anymore and I will do this until I put them out of business. That keeps me going when I have to deal with rude people.”
Nelson T. Sheilds, Founding Chair of HCI: “I’m convinced that we have to have Federal legislation to build on. We’re going to have to take one step at a time, and the first step is necessarily–given the political realities–going to be very modest … Our ultimate goal–total control of handguns in the United States–is going to take time … The first problem is to slow down the increasing number of handguns being produced and sold in this country. The second problem is to get handguns registered, and the final problem is to make the possession of all handguns, and all handgun ammunition totally illegal.”
Done my best to search out any refutation of these particular statements on the web, but have yet to do so. They’re not on Snopes.
The NRA, so far as I am aware has around 8 million members.
HCI,the former name of the “Brady Campaign”, has 200,000 dues-paying members (best number I could find searching online), but claims anywhere up to 1,000,000
I have been unable to find a count of members in VPC.
[quote]
And I don’t understand what that has to do with anything. I want you to be able to have a gun that can take out that burglar.
[quote]
Any loaded firearm in working order can do that. Is this what you really meant to say?
I do think it’s that way, that every year it’s one more yard that’s asked of gun owners. It’d be nice if people would continually state, directly, that their intended goal is to some day ban all firearms, but (and you may think this makes me sound paranoid), I believe they’re mostly too shrewd to do that.
I think it’s going to continue to be ‘But we don’t want to ban them, so just give us this one more thing.’ And then a year from now, that one more thing won’t be enough. And a year after that, they’ll want another ‘one more thing’, because that’s how it’s been going.
First they wanted a background check, but it took time to complete. Hey, OK, do your check. Then the NICS system was developed, and now it’s not about the background check, it’s the waiting period. They went after ‘machine’ guns (fully automatic rifles), and now it’s semi-automatic rifles. Next will it be all rifles because the bullet might still be deadly a mile away and no ‘ordinary civilian’ needs that kind of power?
I feel sometimes as if I’ve been unfairly painted as an extremist because I do seem like I’m rejecting some stupid little thing, but after a while, those stupid little things have added up too much. So yes, feel free to say I’m just another ‘they’re trying to take my guns away’ paranoid extremist if you want.
It’s what I was called the last time the anti-gun people wanted just one more restriction, and it’s what I’ll be called the next time.
Also, I don’t see guns as only a personal safety issue. That’s one aspect of it. In totality, it’s an issue of whether or not that piece of paper in the National Archives actually means something.
Sorry for the late reply, I was out of town. The answer is yes, they dropped their AMA memberships.
Oh, forgot one thing. Beagledave, the source you cited contained data from 1982 showing 33.3K deaths. The latest CDC report, IIRC, for the year 2000 was 28.6K deaths, with suicides > 16K.
Actually, I listed TWO cites, one was the CDC.
Probing the CDC site farther we get this
It appears that (thankfully) there has been a decline in fatalities and injuries from GSWs.
However, GSWs (as of 1997) still were the second leading cause of injury related deaths, behind auto accidents. I’m going to go way out on a limb here 
and guess that the same medical groups that Mr Moto doesn’t think should be opining on GSWs are also opining on auto safety.
I’m eagerly waiting for more than anecdotal evidence from Mr Moto that chainsaws cause more injuries (and especially fatalities) than GSWs
Remember that Mr. Moto was referring only to his friends and relatives. As I alluded in an earlier post in this thread, I submit that his friends and relatives are probably not a representative sample.
What, such rounds don’t yet exist? If that’s the case, I yield the point.
If not, you’re just being incredibly obtuse.
It was fine with you if nobody had it because some other magic besides laws were keeping such ammunition out of the public’s hands, but not if (gasp) a law gets involved? Horrors!!
Well, since that was the status quo ante, I can’t imagine what your problem here is.
Yeah, but there’s a big difference between something that you might should not have because it might have been stolen, and something that you’re categorically not supposed to have because it’s illegal to possess it.
And it’s one where the HCI very definitely didn’t get its way. So it’s a compromise from both sides.
Well, sweetheart, we weren’t debating that. YOU raised the point that the NRA was bending over backwards to compromise with the HCI, and not getting credit for it, while the HCI didn’t give an inch. I’m addressing that, and that alone. Project Exile isn’t an instance of such a compromise.
First I’d heard of these guys, and I’d been following the issue up until the last couple of years.
Pardon me if I want a bit more context for this. Was there a particular type of gun being discussed that she could have been referring to? I got their mailings for many years, including that year, and they never shared with their members this desire to get rid of all the guns that you profess they shared with the world on Phil Donahue in 1994.
Ah, the NRA is a gun. Handgun, shotgun, rifle? What caliber?
I’m assuming this is the infamous 1976 quote that always gets dragged up, because there ain’t nothing better.
Ah, the return of the slippery slope. Can’t ban private ownership of nuclear weapons, because someday they’ll come for our slingshots.
It was about both, all along. Seemed like a good idea to kill two birds with one stone, y’know?
Yeah well, for years they tried to simply get the waiting period through Congress, and y’all blocked that for years. So ever since, y’all have been saying, “you should have put your whole package on the table up front.” Uhhuh. That makes a lot of sense.
OK, I’ll say it. You’re a ‘they’re trying to take my guns away’ paranoid extremist.
Hey, nobody else knows what the Second Amendment means either. The Framers jammed two clauses together, and we’ve been arguing ever since what the relationship between the two clauses is. Ultimately, it will mean what five guys/gals in robes say it means.
What I know is that nobody in 1790 could have imagined the sort of firepower available now, and if you want to go with ‘original intent’, well, there is none that applies to what we’ve got now. So who knows? Your guess is as good as mine, and vice versa.
I find it interesting, RT, that several times people have pointed out that the problem with the “cop killer bullet” ban which the NRA was reacting to was that it would effectively ban almost all rifle ammo in addition to the already banned cop killer bullets, and you’ve never even adressed that point, instead continuing to ramble on about how nobody need armor piercing bullets. Know what? I agree with that statement, so does the NRA and so do most posters in this thread ( I think, from their posts ) What I would like to see you address is how a such broadly written piece of legislation, the, pardon the pun, “shotgun” approach, if you will, is a good thing, and how it is no big deal if that legislation, in addition to it’s stated purpose of banning cop killer bullets ( nevermind that they are already illeagal ), also makes an instant criminal out of every hunter in America because they all posess ammunition that is suddenly illeagal. Shouldn’t such a poorly written law, on any subject, be opposed as a matter of course?
Fair enough - it makes sense, I was just trying to give an idea as to why some people might give priority to this issue.
**
True enough, but drunk driving accidents probably top them both by quite a huge bit, but that doesn’t make it a doctor’s business to start pestering people about their driving habits - it’s really a non-medical issue.
**
:rolleyes:
I don’t even know where to start on that one. It’s basically a total non-sequitor.
If I were to say it would be inappropriate for my baber to tell me to get rid of guns, and I said that he had no particular expert knowledge in making that determination, you could also say “Well then you agree we should repeal the second amendment!”
Doctors have no business preaching to me about a non-medical issue.
In any case, the second amendment was written by people who were experts in political philosophy, and, say, Constitution drafting, if there are any experts of the sort, and certainly understood the implications of what they were writing.
I don’t get where you can say “if you object to anyone preaching to you about guns when they have no business doing so, then obviously must favor the repeal of the second amendment!”. It’s a non-sequitor.
It’s either bizarre or totally dishonest of you to set up such an odd false dilemma.
**
No, I’m not. If the AMA is encouraging doctors to discourage personal gun ownership, then it makes quite a bit of sense that they’d make a list of anti-gun supporters, would it not?
**
I have no idea what you’re trying to say there.
No, spare me the repeated citeless insinuations of “they’re taking our guns away”.
[/quote]
**
Where have I done that, once, this thread? People asked why certain organizations might get listed on an anti-gun supporter list, and I gave those reasons. You’re being ridiculous by trying to assert I made some sort of sweeping paranoid claim.
**
Yes, we’re all a bunch of ill-spoken rednecks without a bit of common sense in our heads.
Hey, how about you point out where anyone else but you brought up the “coming to take our guns away” issue?
Do you think the KKK should be censored by the government? If so, why? I assume you’re not part of that group, and don’t plan on commiting racist hate speech - so how does it affect you?
From Senor Beef:
“Do you think the KKK should be censored by the government? If so, why? I assume you’re not part of that group, and don’t plan on commiting racist hate speech - so how does it affect you?”
You’re putting a lot of issues together awful fast here. First of all, we were discussing boycotts, not government censorship. Until the KKK starts selling cookies door to door, it’d be hard to boycott them. (Incidentally, I don’t think they should be censored). But setting that aside, I never suggested that I would have to be (a) either a person of color who would be personally wounded by the hate speech, or (b) as you ascertained, a KKK member who is itching to exercise my right to say lousy things–in order to feel invested in those issues.
The whole issue of it being “personal” was, in fact, a distinction that catsix brought up as her own standard for why she’d, say, boycott Citigroup. I had previously mentioned–in a comment that has been going nowhere, so I was probably a dumbass for ever saying it-- that the people I know who get fired up over things to the level of participating in a boycott seemed to do it over larger, dramatic, societal, or tug-at-the-heartstrings issues. I didn’t say they were necessarily personal ones.
That’s why I was pushing her on the concept of “personal”–because she said that’s what moved her to action in fighting groups/companies which advocate gun control. She’s since clarified that she also frets over the robustness of the Bill of Rights–and while I don’t regard the AMA or Citigroup as being subject to the Bill of Rights, I understand how the whole 2nd amendment gambit might make ANY gun control issue seem more compelling, important, and immediate to some.
I wish I had the good sense to combine my responses to you into one answer instead of two posts. My apologies.
I find this to be an interesting issue in itself: the medical community has taken a new interest in certain issues, presumably because they have decided that are public health matters. It’s not just with gun responsibility, or drunk driving. I certainly bump up against this at well-child check-ups–sometimes what my doctor discusses seems at first blush to be parenting decisions rather than medical matters.
At any rate, there is clearly some valid debate about what matters a doctor or group of doctors should concern themselves with. I don’t the line between medical and non-medical is a given.
Personally I think the Bradys are passionate extremists–for devastatingly personal reasons, of course, but I still see them as extremists. It’s probably no comfort to you, but the people in my family are of that breed you’re worry doesn’t exist: we accept and even advocate some forms of gun control, but do not ever want to see gun ownership fully eradicated. I’d march, write letters, and protest as loud as anyone the day they come to ransack the house for guns.
For my money, this is when you start sounding a little paranoid (sorry to level that charge against you). The Bill of Rights is a robust document, and there ought to be room for society (and those folks in the black robes) to poke around and ask what those amendments mean in modern society. It’s simplistic and damning to claim that gun control advocates think the Bill of Rights “doesn’t mean anything.” I cannot believe that there are enough anti-gun extremists out there to be able to successfully eradicate the 2nd amendment. There’d be too much opposition–not just from gun owners but also from thoughtful citizens who don’t think the bill of rights should be so utterly fucked with.
But back to the narrowly-tailored issue we were on before–I don’t comprehend how boycotting Citigroup bolsters the 2nd amendment. You put the hurt on a private company whose policies you objected to–pretty much the essence of any commerical boycott.
It does however raise an interesting point. Can the business decisions of private entities be challenged under the Bill of Rights? I’m no lawyer so please jump in and flog me where I run amiss here. It seems to me that it’s possible that if most banks adopted the same policy, shutting out all gun dealers, they would sufficiently restrict commerce in the gun market to impair our ability to exercise our 2nd amendment rights. Is that how the legal challenge would arise? Would we have to argue that banks, due to their critical role in commerce, are a quasi-governmental agency?
Goddamnit, I knew I should have taken a little constitutional law somewhere in this endless schooling. Thank god I’ve got wise people here on the SDMB to call upon.