Tipping point.

[mog75]

I think the tipping point has been officially reached.

http://www.ijreview.com/2016/01/523779-new-legislation-makes-gun-free-zones-the-target/

And it's about time. Let’s hope other states follow their lead. It's certainly a step in the right direction.

A friend told me about this at work, so the link is just from a quick Google search. Sorry if it doesn't work. I'll check in after work.

[Human101948]

1. Great! How about liability on the part of any gun owner whose weapon is used to harm others?

Seems that would equitable.

[Human101948]

2. How about liability for the police and their employers who lose guns that are then used in crimes?

A year after a bullet from a federal agent’s stolen gun killed 32-year-old Kate Steinle on a San Francisco pier, this news organization surveyed more than 240 local, state and federal law enforcement agencies and discovered an alarming disregard for the way many officers — from police chiefs to cadets to FBI agents — safeguard their weapons.

Their guns have been stolen from behind car seats and glove boxes, swiped from gym bags, dresser drawers and under beds. They have been left on tailgates, car roofs and even atop a toilet paper dispenser in a car dealership’s bathroom. One officer forgot a high-powered assault rifle in the trunk of a taxi.

http://extras.mercurynews.com/policeguns/

[oneshooter]

3. There is already liability for using a firearm to illegaly harm others.

It is called the LAW. And it applies to all.

[Human101948]

6. yeah, yeah, what about the thousands of owners who don't lock up their guns

that are then used by others to commit crimes. That's the liability that should exist.

[oneshooter]

20. If they are not locked up, and then stolen and used illegaly

Then the person who stole them and used them to harm others is to blame, and should be held liable.


if your vehicle is stolen and used to harm others are you to blame?

[Human101948]

22. A car is not a gun...

the analogy doesn't work.

[oneshooter]

23. So you are claimimg that a car can not be used to injure or kill? n/t

[Katashi_itto]

26. A car is not designed for the sole purpose of killing. A gun is.

[oneshooter]

28. If they are designed for transportation only

Then how come they kill, wound, and maim so many people.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

29. preconceptions & prejudice >> logic and/or facts n/t

[Eleanors38]

5. If someone harms another who is not an attacker, I would prefer jail.

[Eleanors38]

4. Worst thing about gun-free zones is the advertising. Sheesh.

[Human101948]

7. The gun free zone is a gun nut myth...

Conservative media figures often claim that mass shootings tend to happen in so-called "gun-free zones" in order to advocate for less restrictive gun laws. In reality, most mass shootings occur where firearms are allowed, and a Mother Jones review of mass public shootings over a 30-year period concluded, "In not a single case was the killing stopped by a civilian using a gun. And in other recent (but less lethal) rampages in which armed civilians attempted to intervene, those civilians not only failed to stop the shooter but also were gravely wounded or killed."
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/10/08/report-conservative-medias-gun-free-zone-myth-i/206037

After Orlando Shooting, The Fact-Free Firearm Fanatics Are Out In Full Force

But study after study (after study after study) has shown that where there are more guns, there is more death. I could refer to this Harvard study as evidence, but it would be insulting to the hundreds of other studies that show the same findings.

Whether it’s a country or a state or a household, a higher concentration of firearms almost always means an elevated level of gun-related deaths. If someone tells you otherwise, they’re not telling the truth.

http://www.politicususa.com/2016/06/13/segment-america-fact-free-firearm-fanatics.html

[Human101948]

8. Oh yeah, and there was an armed guard at the Orlando shooting...

Orlando Club Had Armed Security
www.factcheck.org/2016/06/orlando-club-had-armed-security/

[gejohnston]

9. bullshit

First, the Harvard studies are done by an economist whose department is funded by the same people who astro turfs VPC and the Brady Campaign. They are also never peer reviewed, they are simply churned out in an in-house publications and press releases for media. He has also won awards for his gun control activism. IOW, the studies are bullshit.

"In not a single case was the killing stopped by a civilian using a gun. And in other recent (but less lethal) rampages in which armed civilians attempted to intervene, those civilians not only failed to stop the shooter but also were gravely wounded or killed."

Also false.

Do you have a source that isn't biased? Mother Jones and MM are not exactly the paragons of objectivity or intellectual honesty any more than Fox or Breitbart.
The armed security didn't engage, he retreated and called the on duty police.
http://www.activeresponsetraining.net/new-rapid-mass-murder-research-from-ron-borsch

[Human101948]

10. You protestations are duly noted...

and deemed bullshit.

[gejohnston]

12. yes, but I provided a source not tied to any ideology

[Human101948]

14. Your source is a fountain of gun propaganda..

"More practice?" How would this have helped if the cop didn't shoot?

"More head shots?" The writer promotes this as a solution and then admits that there was no body armor.

[gejohnston]

15. no body armor in that specific case

The point is, he teaches tactics to police. You look at what happened and learned from it. The references to body armor is a lesson learned. Like he said, the asshole in Orlando tried to get level three body armor and a gun from the first gun shop. The clerk told him to buzz off and called the FBI and cops. The point was, there is a chance the next terrorist will have that type of armor, which will resist a rifle round and cops have to train for that possibility.
More practice because most cops are poor shots, often less proficient than a rural teenager.

This is the reality, violence is rarely the answer. When it is, it is the only answer.

[Eleanors38]

11. Hard fact, Human: More guns in circulation, murder rates are down.

This very hard fact is what gives the controllers mental hernias as they role out another war-on-drugs type "study." One of the true myths in this debate is that the control/ban side has some big edge in intellectual/academic analysis.

It doesn't.

What it does have is an MSM which has been dutifully committed to gun bans/controls for decades, just as it was for the war on drugs, and will pass throgh whatever "research" it is fed. And after Michael Bellesiles' massive loss of academic bowel control, I don't think even academia is givng the controllers a free ride anymore.

[Human101948]

13. Hard fact, if you have a gun in the home you are more likely to die a violent death...

Data from a US mortality follow-back survey were analyzed to determine whether having a firearm in the home increases the risk of a violent death in the home and whether risk varies by storage practice, type of gun, or number of guns in the home. Those persons with guns in the home were at greater risk than those without guns in the home of dying from a homicide in the home (adjusted odds ratio = 1.9, 95% confidence interval: 1.1, 3.4). They were also at greater risk of dying from a firearm homicide, but risk varied by age and whether the person was living with others at the time of death. The risk of dying from a suicide in the home was greater for males in homes with guns than for males without guns in the home (adjusted odds ratio = 10.4, 95% confidence interval: 5.8, 18.9). Persons with guns in the home were also more likely to have died from suicide committed with a firearm than from one committed by using a different method (adjusted odds ratio = 31.1, 95% confidence interval: 19.5, 49.6). Results show that regardless of storage practice, type of gun, or number of firearms in the home, having a gun in the home was associated with an increased risk of firearm homicide and firearm suicide in the home.
http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/160/10/929.full

[gejohnston]

16. critical thinking hint,

why are people who aren't trained in statistics or criminology doing studies that require those skills, and publishing them in unrelated publications?
I would like to see the study be peer reviewed by those who are.
If you read the long discredited Kellerman study, which this cites twice, it said drinking alcohol, smoking pot, renting, and living in a poor neighborhood are higher risk factors than guns.
All it really says is that if you own a gun, you are more likely to use it instead of a rope to off yourself. It doesn't say that you won't off yourself.

These models were adjusted for demographic characteristics but not psychological and behavioral characteristics of the decedent because there were no significant differences between those who used a firearm and those who used some other means in terms of their psychological or behavioral characteristics. These models were also adjusted for significant interaction terms, where applicable.

What the "study" says is that if you own a gun and are suicidal, you are more likely to use it instead of a rope. What it doesn't say is that you are less likely to off yourself.

[Human101948]

17. You won't like this one as well!

Now, Stanford law professor John Donohue and his colleagues have added another full decade to the analysis, extending it through 2010, and have concluded that the opposite of Lott and Mustard's original conclusion is true: more guns equal more crime.

"The totality of the evidence based on educated judgments about the best statistical models suggests that right-to-carry laws are associated with substantially higher rates" of aggravated assault, robbery, rape and murder, Donohue said in an interview with the Stanford Report. The evidence suggests that right-to-carry laws are associated with an 8 percent increase in the incidence of aggravated assault, according to Donohue. He says this number is likely a floor, and that some statistical methods show an increase of 33 percent in aggravated assaults involving a firearm after the passage of right-to-carry laws.

These findings build on and strengthen the conclusions of Donohue's earlier research, which only used data through 2006. In addition to having nearly two decades' worth of additional data to work with, Donohue's findings also improve upon Lott and Mustard's research by using a variety of different statistical models, as well as controlling for a number of confounding factors, like the crack epidemic of the early 1990s.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/11/14/more-guns-more-crime-new-research-debunks-a-central-thesis-of-the-gun-rights-movement/

[gejohnston]

18. there are three outlooks in criminology circles

which do not include Donohue nor Lott. since they not criminologists. There is also no link to the study, and Donohue's past work on the issue isn't that great either. BTW, what peer reviewed criminology journal did he submit it to? I'm guessing he didn't.
The plurality of criminologists who study it share Gary Kleck's view that gun laws or the existence of guns make no difference. Next is Lott and those who agree with him. Donohue and Hemenway is close to close to the percentage of climatologists who think nothing is changing.

If more guns means more crime, why does Norway and Iceland have much lower crime and murder rates than UK, Mexico, and Brazil? In terms of percentage of people who own guns, Iceland rivals us, with Norway not too far behind. There are also parts of Norway where owning and carrying is actually mandated by law.

[Eleanors38]

32. Straw colossus. Few in the pro-2A group here buy into Lott's theory. Note CDC findings.

[Straw Man]

33. Here's the thing about correlation ...

Last edited Fri Jul 1, 2016, 03:50 PM - Edit history (2)

It may or may not indicate causation, and what one person may identity as an effect, another may call a cause. From your link:

Donohue notes that "different statistical models can yield different estimated effects, and our ability to ascertain the best model is imperfect." Teasing out cause from effect in social science research is often a fraught proposition.

It would be just as easy to say that rising crime rates prompt an increase in the motivation to carry for self-defense.

[Eleanors38]

27. If you are in a home equipped with electricity, you are more likely to be electrocuted.

[mog75]

19. back on topic

Does everyone agree, this is the definitive tipping point we've all been talking about?

If I knew this was going to turn into more bickering between us progressives and the abolishionists I wouldn't have posted it.

[DonP]

21. No, not even close

Last edited Fri Jul 1, 2016, 10:16 AM - Edit history (1)

We've heard this song at least 30 times in the past few years on DU, sometimes it's "The tide is turning", but words to the same effect. It's become a punch line, as each time the new poster declares; "This time it's real!!!"

It's still been over 20 years since the last piece of national legislation was passed. Since then, all 50 states now have concealed carry laws on the books, most states have loosened their gun laws and 10 states have done away with their required carry permit system for residents and gone to constitutional carry. Not one state has even considered repealing their concealed carry laws.

With 31 GOP Governors now, versus only 18 Dems in the states (1 Indie), there is going continue to be limited opportunity for any action there as well.

Gun control minded folk are so eager to find some desperate way to declare any kind of victory in the culture wars, they grasp at every "back bencher" that issues a press release and "introduces" a bill for anything even vaguely resembling gun control, no matter how dismal the prospects of it passing or how obvious a stunt as an appeal for donations.

Gun control, in spite of claims to the contrary, is still a top down effort, run and funded by a handful of 1%ers in the Joyce Foundation and the racist Bloomberg.

It has no grass roots base, no dues paying membership, no infrastructure to respond and lobby with actual votes they can sway. In general the supporters are big shots at spouting online, but fade into obscurity when called on to get off the couch and actually do anything in the real world. Certainly not reach for their own checkbooks.

The last NRA meeting had over 80,000 attendees and maybe 20 protestors, most bused in by Bloomberg with his employee Shannon Watts for a pathetic little press event. Gun Control as a "movement" is so short sighted they don't even know the other organizations like the SAF or all the state level organizations TSRA, ISRA, VCDL, etc., so all they can do is keep blaming the NRA, when it was actually the SAF that whipped their ass in court. That's some serious stupid, right there.

How about all those other industry conferences where there are protest opportunities like the S.H.O.T. Show and others. Hell, they don't even show up at local gun shows right down the street to protest. How many have you gone to protest at?

Tipping Point? Feh!

[Kang Colby]

34. Did you read the article?

It's pretty clear the OP is mocking the "tipping point" nonsense. The article is about a law that will help facilitate lawsuits against "gun free zones". I'm all for it.

Hope all is well.

[DonP]

36. Sorry, after two weeks of getting the crap kicked out of me I missed that

But Ill save my post for the next BS post we get from the control minded folks. Should be along in about 5 minutes or so.

[Kang Colby]

37. You were probably doing a lot of the kicking.

The futile pleas for more gun control are delicate morsels intended for enjoyment by folks like myself. I don't really care how nasty they get. If anything I appreciate it, because it only makes pro-rights advocacy easier.

By year's end, we will have a few more states honoring constitutional carry...gun controllers will have toons!

[Eleanors38]

31. "harshes my vibe." Heh-Heh.

[Eleanors38]

30. No. But the issue will persist as it is culture war by proxy...

The worst which can come of this is the GOP will concede the Democrats a presidential win, then devote intense resources to Further expanding and Itensifying state GOPer control and hence Congressional control. Guns will figure Yugely in this endeavor, but not in the way the tipsters figure.

As an aside, it seems the GOPers in the long range may have less interest in the presidency since they can wrecking-ball anything at the state and probably at the Congressional level. This is readly assisted by a Democratic Party which has junked any FDR/LBJ pretenses at ideology or programmatical change and are comfortable, it seems, with abandoning whole swaths of the country -- but have no problem with offering more gun control (enjoy! enjoy!) to them.

[pablo_marmol]

38. "This is readly assisted by a Democratic Party which has junked any FDR/LBJ pretenses......"

Worst of all worlds -- and what has me so depressed. Pursuing stupid, pointless policies while ignoring the important issues. Keeps our owners happy though.

[Eleanors38]

41. If I can avoid a "hide," the Party pretty much gave up on a sound ideology for change...

...after the McGovern fiasco, and has not only stayed silent about the aims and goals of our past leaders, but indeed about the very notion of a line-item list of specific goals. It is high-fructose technocratic jargon-jive which is the odor of the day. Trouble is, the Republicans have not remained silent about their daily, yearly, generational pounding of the anvil. Bad as it is, the GOP has an outlook readily understood by voters; the Democrats do not, which readily breeds distrust. It seems the only time Party "leaders" start emitting hormones and peculiar body smells is over a few social issues, like abortion and guns. A sound party progam can absorb the dog fight over a woman's right to choose and avoid the slippage that right has suffered. But it cannot gain anything (only lose) over gun control, where the constituency is a rather small, elitist group sprinkled over Party operatives, a declining MSM, and a shrinking academic "activism." That is why the Party's technocratic approach is high fructose: All Cokes, no meat & potato.

[pablo_marmol]

43. **Very** well said, E38.

It is high-fructose technocratic jargon-jive which is the odor of the day.

Stealing this line for sure!

What has me pretty nervous right now is that the nonsense laws that have just passed in my home state of CA will serve as proof to gun owners across the nation that we're lying about 'not wanting to take guns away' from the citizenry. Seriously damaging our brand.......though restriction supporters will never comprehend this. We're playing the gun violence issue with such intense stupidity that I've begun to believe that it's intentional. Doing our part, so to speak, of keeping the culture war stoked so as to distract from the truly serious issues........while the GOP does its part by shrieking about abortion etc. Both sides know that our owners are pleased with this state of affairs. Disgusting.

[Puha Ekapi]

24. Yup, it's a tipping point alright...

...gun control as a movement is keeling over and gasping for air. It may not survive.

[Kang Colby]

35. This is clearly the tipping point.

Now, it's not what gun control advocates expected, but it is good news indeed. Gun free zones are a public safety threat and should be abolished. I'm glad Tennessee is taking steps in that direction.

[pablo_marmol]

39. Great idea. Strip citizens of the right to self-defense - pay any consequences.

Thought I was responding to a Controller with previous (deleted) post. Thanks for posting this!

[ileus]

40. I hope you're right...self defense should be #1 priority.

[Eleanors38]

42. I appreciate this post, as it strongly suggest a larger issue than gun control...

that of mass perception or the lack thereof. What constitutes mass perception, naional mythology and agenda-setting, and common values any longer? Our country was founded with the virtually integrated assistance of mass media, the ability to replcate myths and messages quickly and by the thousands. Succeeding technologies (wire services, radio, T.V., even the Top 40), and a strengthened foundation of legitimacy, only enhanced a true communal notion of what "we" are about. In the short span of 25 years, the mass media model is in a state of collapse. The "commons" of even a "market place of ideas" is restricted, ironically, to just another roadside attraction. "You think polio vaccinations work? Hah! I got a hit-following of 10,000,000 who say bull shit to you! LOL!". Not only has the idea of national agendae been savaged, but so has been the notion of legitimacy.

With guns, I believe MSM is trying hard to reclaim that power of Ed Sullivan and Cronkite; perhaps deluding themselves with a patched together web/socal presence (look, Ma, we're HiTek, too!). But that "tipping point" refrained so often by MSM is a nostalgic grasp more instructive of where mass media is than where the instant issue of gun control stands. Frankly, the lack of activist presence supporting the gun control outlook suggests that the entire "issue" is miscast: Unclear goals, solutions looking for a problem, the gross reliance on prohibitions all point to a social construct with little bearing on vaguely explained societal problems.

Again, the whole blow up about Gunz is, in the words of a DUer years ago: A culture war by proxy.