Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Q: So what are we going to do about the high percentage of black victims shot by black killers?

Posted 9 months ago on July 18, 2013, 8:28 a.m. EST by bensdad (8977)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement


A: We should do the same thing about the high percentage of white victims shot by white killers.


The number for both is around 90%


SOLUTION: _end stand your ground laws _

The number of "justifiable homicide" judgments has tripled since "syg"


EX1: I'm driving down a dark country road and a pedestrian throws a rock at my car
before syg - I have a gun, but I am legally OBLIGATED to drive away
with syd - I have a gun, and I am legally allowed to claim I was scared and I can kill him.

EX2: I am a drug dealer and I see a competitor seated on a stoop eating a sandwich.
before syg - I have a gun, but I am legally OBLIGATED to walk away
with syd - I have a gun, and I am legally allowed to claim I was scared and I can kill him.

69 Comments

69 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 3 points by shooz (26667) 9 months ago

"It is the Zimmerman mindset that must be found guilty—far more than the man himself. It is a mindset that views black men and boys as nothing but a threat, good for nothing, up to no good no matter who they are or what they are doing. It is the Zimmerman mindset that has birthed a penal system unprecedented in world history, and relegated millions to a permanent undercaste."

http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/trayvon-martins-unpunished-shooting-death-among-100-extrajudicial-killings-unarmed

[-] 3 points by bensdad (8977) 8 months ago

I do not believe we can use legislation to make bigots into humans. We can get rid of the syg laws by electing anti-gun pro-99% legislators

[-] 4 points by shooz (26667) 8 months ago

All ALEC legislation should be repealed.

Every last law.

[-] 2 points by ZenDog (20543) from South Burlington, VT 8 months ago

and every single alec legislator should be made to stand before the public and apologize and beg forgiveness -

as the trap door swings down and the rope snaps tight snapping the necks of their pals, the ALEC lobbyist scum

[-] 1 points by shooz (26667) 8 months ago

They should refund all the money they took from ALEC and it's supporters too.

How long before the ALEC apologists start talking about how ALEC is equal on both "sides"?

Buncha fuckin' blind ass jerks.

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (20543) from South Burlington, VT 8 months ago

bunch of paid shills - and they did manage to instill that both sides are evil blindness into OWS from the outset - very clever.

It's really too bad. Repelicans are weak, they could easily be removed, all that is required is a group of protesters in the streets calling them on their shit - Global Warming is just one issue but it's really clear. There are hundreds of others.

Kick them fukers out and we own Congress.

We fukin own it. The nimrods here don't get that - unless they do.

[-] 1 points by shooz (26667) 8 months ago

About the time the lightbulb should go on, is when they return to being nihilists.

I suppose I wasn't supposed to notice that, but I did.

Did you catch Bernie slapping down the GOP's climate deniers....again?

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/07/23/watch-sen-bernie-sanders-demolish-gop-global-warming-deniers-in-5-minutes/

[-] 2 points by ZenDog (20543) from South Burlington, VT 8 months ago

Alice in Wonderland indeed.

And that sums up why I vote for the Senator at every opportunity.

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (20543) from South Burlington, VT 8 months ago

nope - missed it. I've been attempting to ignore everything lately. I have not had a single cigarette all month long - and it has made me just a bit mad . . . it has been an interesting experience, and I have discovered that even the smallest of inducements may at times provoke utter chaos . . . and I still haven't killed anyone.

But I suppose there is still time.

[-] 1 points by shooz (26667) 8 months ago

I feel your pain...................:)

I used E cigs, to help me get through it, and it was still one of the hardest things I've ever done..

Take heart, your lungs will thank you sooner or later.

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (20543) from South Burlington, VT 8 months ago

I doubt it - after about 41 years I think they've become quite complacent and utterly indifferent. It appears they intend to ache regardless of whether I smoke or not. Not that I care. It has now become a matter of complete defiance. It's been subtle - and there is no question, my own behavior has played a role, but I remain convinced: the level of chaos I've experienced lately has been . . . . statistically significant . . . .

fuk the bastards

I ain't smokin

[-] 1 points by shooz (26667) 8 months ago

They got enough of your damn money too!!

That's the attitude that will get you through.

Just try really hard not to kill anybody. It'll get better over time. It won't go away, but it will get better. As long as GOP can still affect things.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by shooz (26667) 8 months ago

I had to laugh at those who claimed voting didn't matter, or that attempts at voter suppression didn't matter.

Just more GOP, libe(R)tarian bullshit.

I have a feeling we'll be cleaning house in Michigan, next time around.

They are desperately enacting as much tyranny as they can, before it happens.

[-] 2 points by ZenDog (20543) from South Burlington, VT 8 months ago

the sick bastards

I hope the voters can see through the bullshit

[-] 2 points by WSmith (5271) from Cornelius, OR 8 months ago

Standing Our Ground

By CHARLES M. BLOW | Published: July 24, 2013

This is not the time for evanescent anger, which is America’s wont.

This is not the time for a few marches that soon dissipate as we drift back into the fog of faineance — watching fake reality television as our actual realities become ever more grim, gawking at the sexting life of Carlos Danger as our own lives become more dangerous, fawning over royal British babies as our own children are gunned down.

This is yet another moment when America should take stock of where the power structures are leading us, how they play on our fears — fan our fears — to feed their fortunes.

On no subject is this more clear than on the subject of guns.

While it is proper and necessary to analyze the case in which George Zimmerman shot and killed Trayvon Martin for what it says about profiling and police practices, it is possibly more important to analyze what it says about our increasingly vigilante-oriented gun culture.

The industry and its lobby have successfully pushed two fallacies: that the Second Amendment is under siege and so are law-abiding citizens.

They endlessly preach that more guns make us safer and any attempt at regulation is an injury to freedom. And while the rest of us have arguments about Constitutional intent and gun-use statistics, the streets run red with the blood of the slain, and the gun industry laughs all the way to the bank.

Gun sales have surged. And our laws are quickly being adjusted to allow people to carry those guns everywhere they go and to give legal cover to use lethal force when nonlethal options are available.

This is our America in a most frightful time.

When Illinois — which has experienced extraordinary carnage in its largest city — enacted legislation this month allowing the concealed carrying of firearms, it lost its place as the lone holdout. Now “concealed carry” is the law in all 50 states.

And as The Wall Street Journal reported this month, “concealed carry” permit applications are also surging while restrictions are being loosened. Do we really need to have our guns with us in church, or at the bar? More states are answering that question in the affirmative.

And now that more people are walking around with weapons dangling from their bodies, states have moved to make the use of those guns more justifiable.

Florida passed the first Stand Your Ground law (or “shoot first” law, as some have called it) in 2005. It allows a person to use deadly force if he or she is afraid of being killed or seriously injured. In Florida, that right to kill even extends to an initial aggressor.

After Florida’s law, other states quickly followed with the help and support of the N.R.A. and the American Legislative Exchange Council.

Ironically, the N.R.A. and other advocates pushed the laws in part as protection for women, those who were victims of domestic violence and those who might be victimized away from home.

The N.R.A.’s former president, Marion Hammer, argued in support of the bill in 2005 when she was an N.R.A. lobbyist: “You can’t expect a victim to wait and ask, ‘Excuse me, Mr. Criminal, are you going to rape me and kill me, or are you just going to beat me up and steal my television?’ ”

But, of course, the law is rarely used by women in those circumstances. The Tampa Bay Times looked at 235 cases in Florida, spanning 2005 to 2013, in which Stand Your Ground was invoked and found that only 33 of them were domestic disputes or arguments, and that in most of those cases men invoked the law, not women.

In fact, nearly as many people claimed Stand Your Ground in the “fight at bar/party” category as in domestic disputes.

And not only is the law rarely being invoked by battered women, it’s often invoked by hardened criminals. According to an article published last year by The Tampa Bay Times:

“All told, 119 people are known to have killed someone and invoked stand your ground. Those people have been arrested 327 times in incidents involving violence, property crimes, drugs, weapons or probation violations.”

And, as the paper pointed out, “more than a third of the defendants had previously been in trouble for threatening someone with a gun or illegally carrying a weapon.”

In fact, after Marissa Alexander, a battered Jacksonville wife, fired a warning shot at her abusive husband (to make him get out of the house, she said), her Stand Your Ground motion was denied. She is now facing a 20-year sentence.

Something is wrong here. We are not being made more secure, we are being made more barbaric. These laws are an abomination and an affront to morality and common sense. We can’t allow ourselves to be pawns in the gun industry’s profiteering. We are real people, and people have power.

Attorney General Eric Holder told the N.A.A.C.P. last week: “It’s time to question laws that senselessly expand the concept of self-defense and sow dangerous conflict in our neighborhoods. These laws try to fix something that was never broken.”

We must all stress this point, and fight and not get weary. We must stop thinking of politics as sport and spectacle and remember that it bends in response to pressure. These laws must be reviewed and adjusted. On this issue we, as Americans of good conscience, must stand our ground.

I invite you to join me on Facebook and follow me on Twitter, or e-mail me at chblow@nytimes.com.

And join the protest and boycott of ALEC this week: http://occupywallst.org/forum/boycott-alec-members-fight-back-against-the-1-clas/

[-] 2 points by WSmith (5271) from Cornelius, OR 9 months ago

Ban Guns!!

Allow gun clubs/bars and resorts, but the guns stay there.

Track and reward wayward guns.

Gun Nuts have proven their abject inability to control their deadly hobby.

Innocent and deserving people are being regularly, incessantly and senselessly killed.

NOT ACCEPTABLE!!!

Ban public Guns!!

Ban the ALEC-Koch Bros Stand Your Ground laws!!

For which the NRA is the chief Lobbyist!

[-] 0 points by Narley (-634) 9 months ago

In your dreams.Ban guns? That's like saying ban gangs. In the real world guns exist and they're not going away. So whatever your solution is you have to assume guns will still be legal for the foreseeable future.

I understand your passion against guns. I'm just saying a gun ban is almost impossible.

[-] 2 points by WSmith (5271) from Cornelius, OR 8 months ago

Ban/reform/update gun ownership "as we know it" (like welfare), major, long overdue, reform!

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 8 months ago

GUNS – Facts & numbers & opinion & solution


FACTS: There is little difference between a gun owner and a gun buyer
There is no difference between a gun owned and a gun bought
The constitution does give some people the right to “bear some arms”
More Americans ( in absolute numbers & per capita ) are killed by guns than in almost any other country ( USA 11,000+; England 35 )
Almost no hunters hunt with semi-automatic weapons

“Assault weapon” is a term well defined in law but not well understood
Legislatures & courts ( including SCOTUS ) have set numerous limits on the 2nd amendment’s right to “bear arms”
Just like legislatures & courts ( including SCOTUS ) have set numerous limits on the 1st amendment’s right to “free speech” [ no “fire in a crowded theatre” ]

You can buy a revolver arm but not a grenade launcher arm
A 9 year old cannot buy a shotgun
Australia & England both passed strict new gun control laws –
………and drastically cut their gun deaths
The nra uses its members to sell guns for the gun manufacturers
It is illegal to drive an un-registered car
It is illegal to drive if you are un-licensed
It is illegal to drive an un-insured car

The 1994 “assault weapons ban” did not work because it did NOT ban assault weapons – it only banned their sale or manufacture.


OPINIONS
The real problem never discussed:
It is not the gun sellers or
the gun buyers –
or even the guns –
it is the gun OWNERS

I would divide most gun deaths into five categories:
the Sandy Hook mass murderers,
drug related street crime,
non-drug related street crime,
“personal” crimes of anger,
suicide.
Consider each one - all would be reduced if we reduced the number of guns ( and legalized drugs ). The complex, conflicting state laws and the huge number of guns owned by Americans makes confiscation ( that no one is advocating ) totally unfeasible

We need a uniform federal gun law
The “mental health” issue is an nra stall – unless they agree that everyone who OWNS a gun must be psychoanalyzed and certified “safe to own guns”.
The nra’s “American culture is different” is another stall – most countries have hunters, violent movies, citizen owned guns, violent video games, drugs.

Background checks & closing the gun show loophole will help –
but ONLY with new sales –
it does nothing about OWNERS – and there are 100,000,000 of them. If just 1/10 of 1% of them are crazy, that’s 10,000 crazy gun OWNERS!


SOLUTION: Based on reducing guns, not confiscation

1►
learn as much as you can about the numbers that prove what the solutions are

2►
demand a plan:

http://www.youtube.com/user/maigcoalition

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Za8SOVuGHs&list=UUu4Q7iE0z1Jw7yUjs56dvXA&index=1

alex jones – without his straight jacket!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_XZvMwcluEg&feature=endscreen&NR=1

multi-millionaire gun manufacturer wayne lapierre who works for koch brothers & gets paid over $1,000,000 / year
to get his army of lemmings to keep buying guns.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dar6K2STVVQ

3►
DO: WRITE CONGRESS:

find your congresspeople

house:
http://www.house.gov/representatives/find/
senate:
http://www.senate.gov/reference/common/faq/How_to_contact_senators.htm
VP Joe Biden, Gun Panel, 1600 Pennsylvania Av, Washington DC 20006


[-] 0 points by PortugueseExplorer (10) 8 months ago

Banning guns is little more than the creation of a new black market. Also the reason the right to bear "arms" is stated thus is to prohibit the possession of a grenade launcher. These "arms" or those of a similar nature would have been considered "artillery." And I think the distinction is historically clear.

[-] -1 points by Narley (-634) 8 months ago

Forget about it. Odds are your congressman owns a few guns. Guns aren't going away. Just resign yourself to it.

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 8 months ago

I s there ANYTHING in my post that says "I want to ban guns" ?

[-] 0 points by Narley (-634) 8 months ago

OK then. People won't register their guns. People will also keep their 50 round magazines. The more some people want to curtail peoples gun rights, the more gun owners will resist. Legislating guns out of existence won't work. Use the drug laws as an example.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 8 months ago


Some arbitrary numbers - just a place to start:
gun registration $100/year & gun licence $100/year
over 3 guns, the fees go up
if you own an unregistered gun you are fined $1000

JUST LIKE CARS

[-] 0 points by TikiJ (-38) 8 months ago

Wonderful, more taxes. That outta help curb the violence problem in the country. Take more of the people's money and use it for your wars.

Let me guess, you like paying that $180 a year for vehicle registration so some twit can push a button that states "no change".

[-] 0 points by Narley (-634) 8 months ago

Like cars? You're kidding, right! People don't think the government want to confiscate their cars. People won't register their guns because it's the first step toward confiscation.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 8 months ago

Buying a gun is the first step

[-] 0 points by gameon (-51) 9 months ago

read the 2nd amemdment.

[-] 2 points by WSmith (5271) from Cornelius, OR 8 months ago

You read it, and check your musket with the local militia.

We ended slavery, and blacks and women Voter exclusion, time to update the long overdue archaic 2nd.

[-] -2 points by gameon (-51) 8 months ago

if you are are for getting rid of the 2nd amendment , you must be in favor of totalitarianism.

[-] 2 points by shooz (26667) 8 months ago

I'm sure you haven't noticed, as the NRA is loathe to admit it, but GUNS are the cause of totalitarianism more often that it creates freedom.

[-] -1 points by gameon (-51) 8 months ago

When the general population is armed there is small chance of a totalitarian govt. Thats why the 2nd amendment was written and put into the bill of rights. " a free people ought not only be armed and disciplined but they should have suffcient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who would attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government" George Washington. "The beauty of the 2nd amendment is that it will not be needed until they try and take it" Thomas Jefferson. "I ask sir,what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effective way to enslave them" Geroge Mason ( co-author of the 2nd amendment). "Among the many misdeeds of British rule in India, history will look upon the act of disarming a whole nation of arms as the blackest" Gandhi

[-] 2 points by shooz (26667) 8 months ago

And what placed them under tyranny in the first place??

guns.

Plain and simple.......guns did it.

If all you fucked up gun nutters were serious about your Jefferson quote?

You would be all over Michigan...NOW.

But you're not.

You won't even talk about it.

Why is that?

You have no idea what tyranny is.....unless the NRA or FLAKESnews tells you.

and they LIE with every breath.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by WSmith (5271) from Cornelius, OR 8 months ago

Number two was ratified to promote an armed militia to protect the United States from the overthrow of invaders (like the British or the South)! Now we have a military, and the militia is no longer needed. You fucking yahoo gun nuts don't even bother to read your precious #2. We should have repealed #2 sometime after the Civil War, but that war still hasn't ended in some parts of the country. Now this unfinished business has festered into an intolerable problem that kills thousands of Americans every year. You can't be OK with that!! You can't be saying that you want unfettered/unregulated gun ownership no matter how many people it kills!! Can you??

[-] 0 points by gameon (-51) 8 months ago

you do not understand the difference between a standing army ( article I , section 8) and a militia which is the whole people ( 2nd amendment)

[-] 0 points by WSmith (5271) from Cornelius, OR 8 months ago

Gotta update old and deadly out of date laws, innocent Americans are dying!

Democracy beats totalitarianism!!

Armed yahoos are no match for the United States Armed Forces, and violent overthrow of our government is the epitome of delusion!

In America we have elections.

[-] -1 points by TikiJ (-38) 9 months ago

Ban the guns while your government ships more of them around the globe than anyone else.

Ban guns while your government continues to drop bombs on people in poor African countries.

Ban guns while your government refuses to remove the very laws that help create the violence.

There is no bigger Gun Nut than the US gov. If you have a problem with guns, I suggest you start with the people who are selling them more than the entire rest of the world combined.

[-] 2 points by Narley (-634) 9 months ago

EX! - Throwing a rock at a truck is not legal justification to start shooting. You're only allowed to use deadly force if your life or serious injury is threatened. In this example you would go to jail regardless of SYG.

EX2 - You can legally claim anything. Proving it is another issue. Even without SYG you could say you had no chance to retreat.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 8 months ago

READ THE SYG LAW and the zimmerman jury instructions-
If you FEEL threatened - you can kill


Florida’s how to commit legal murder manual:
1> Find you victim in public with no witnesses
2> Kill him
3> Say “I was afraid for my life”

From your friends at the NRA & ALEC
The Florida Stand Your Ground Law: 776.012
a person is justified in the use of deadly force and
does not have a duty to retreat if:
He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to
prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another
or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony
;…


Incident date: March 27, 2006
What happened: Michael D. Frazzini, 35, went to his mother's house to investigate claims that neighbors were harassing her, specifically 22-year-old Corey Rasmussen, who, she said, had taken her car keys. Frazzini, dressed in sweat clothes and a camouflage mask, hid in the back yard. When the Rasmussens spotted someone behind the house, Corey Rasmussen jumped the fence into a utility easement where they encountered Michael Frazzini carrying something in his hand. It was a small souvenir baseball bat. Corey could have left but did not leave. Corey's father, Todd, instructed his daughter to retrieve his .357 revolver. He saw his son and the masked man (Michael) facing off, claimed that he yelled a warning and then fired one shot into Frazzini's chest, killing him.
The outcome: Not charged – stand your ground.


Incident date: June 14, 2009
What happened: Oscar Delbono shot Shane Huse, 34, in the neck and shoulder after an argument between the neighbors, the result of a long-running dispute over Huse's two pit bull terriers. Huse's two children were in his truck nearby when Huse approached the shooter's yard. A witness to the shooting said Huse was turning to leave when he was shot and bullet entry wounds supported that account. Delbono said he thought Huse was "going for something. I feared for my life."
The outcome: No charges were filed. "It is a tragic, unfortunate set of circumstances that occurred, but given the state of the law – stand your ground - there's no criminal prosecution," wrote assistant state attorney Pete Magrino.


[-] 1 points by Stormcrow5 (4) from Elizabeth, NJ 8 months ago

EX-1 you have no claim to kill someone because you are scared EX-2 You have no claim to kill someone because you are scared.

Apparently you are not familiar with just how things work when a person is being attacked.

So let me put it in perspective

Zimmerman was in his car when TM walked by it. Zimmerman told the police and they said not to follow him. Zimmerman told the police he would call them back with info where he could be reached. Zimmerman got out of his vehicle and proceeded to walk down to the other end of the complex behind the apartments. Zimmerman was walking back to his vehicle when TM "sucker punched" him Zimmerman was knocked to the ground Zimmerman was on the ground with TM on top of him Zimmermans head was being pummeled into the concrete walkway by TM Zimmerman was screaming for help with TM on top of him pummeling his head into the concrete walkway. Zimmerman didn't know who TM was Zimmerman didn't know if TM had a gun on him as it was dark Zimmerman didn't know if TM had a knife on him as it was dark Zimmerman was in fear for his life Zimmerman shot TM

TM after he passed Zimmermans vehicle, walked to the front of the complex TM walked by the front door of his apartment (verified by the conversation with his girlfriend on the phone at the time) TM walked passed his apartment door and proceeded to the rear of the apartment TM knew Zimmerman was in the rear of the apartment TM approached Zimmerman TM after a few "kind words" sucker punched Zimmerman TM knocked Zimmerman to the ground TM was on top of Zimmerman as verified by Mr. Good Tm was pummeling Zimmermans head into the concrete walkway TM didn't get off Zimmerman after he proved his point by "sucker punching him TM continued to beat on Zimmerman even though Zimmerman was screaming for help TM was shot by Zimmerman.

Now this perspective is what was presented to the jury by the witnesses and Zimmermans testimony - without an attorney present might I add.

So was it "illegal" for Zimmerman to get out of his vehicle NO Was it "illegal" for Zimmerman to walk down the sidewalk behind the apartments No Was it "illegal" for TM to approach Zimmerman - NO Was it "illegal" for TM to call Zimmerman a "Crazy whit ass cracker" - NO? Was it "illegal" for TM to "sucker punch" Zimmerman - YES Was it "illegal" for Zimmerman to shoot TM because he was in "fear for his life" NO.

[-] 0 points by Tyler2 (7) 8 months ago

Why not just execute the perpetrators?

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by JPB950 (2254) 8 months ago

Changing or eliminating stand your ground is a waste of time. Concentrate on an amendment. The only way to reduce gun violence is to alter the second amendment and eliminate the right to carry a gun.

It's unclear if there are more killings or if more simply fit into the self defense category because of stand your ground. Either way it doesn't matter. If people actually want to stop gun violence they will have to eliminate guns.

[-] 4 points by bensdad (8977) 8 months ago

SYG is ONE path - of many
An amendment is not needed


GUNS – Facts & numbers & opinion & solution


FACTS: There is little difference between a gun owner and a gun buyer
There is no difference between a gun owned and a gun bought
The constitution does give some people the right to “bear some arms”
More Americans ( in absolute numbers & per capita ) are killed by guns than in almost any other country ( USA 11,000+; England 35 )
Almost no hunters hunt with semi-automatic weapons

“Assault weapon” is a term well defined in law but not well understood
Legislatures & courts ( including SCOTUS ) have set numerous limits on the 2nd amendment’s right to “bear arms”
Just like legislatures & courts ( including SCOTUS ) have set numerous limits on the 1st amendment’s right to “free speech” [ no “fire in a crowded theatre” ]

You can buy a revolver arm but not a grenade launcher arm
A 9 year old cannot buy a shotgun
Australia & England both passed strict new gun control laws –
………and drastically cut their gun deaths
The nra uses its members to sell guns for the gun manufacturers
It is illegal to drive an un-registered car
It is illegal to drive if you are un-licensed
It is illegal to drive an un-insured car

The 1994 “assault weapons ban” did not work because it did NOT ban assault weapons – it only banned their sale or manufacture.


OPINIONS
The real problem never discussed:
It is not the gun sellers or
the gun buyers –
or even the guns –
it is the gun OWNERS

I would divide most gun deaths into five categories:
the Sandy Hook mass murderers,
drug related street crime,
non-drug related street crime,
“personal” crimes of anger,
suicide.
Consider each one - all would be reduced if we reduced the number of guns ( and legalized drugs ). The complex, conflicting state laws and the huge number of guns owned by Americans makes confiscation ( that no one is advocating ) totally unfeasible

We need a uniform federal gun law
The “mental health” issue is an nra stall – unless they agree that everyone who OWNS a gun must be psychoanalyzed and certified “safe to own guns”.
The nra’s “American culture is different” is another stall – most countries have hunters, violent movies, citizen owned guns, violent video games, drugs.

Background checks & closing the gun show loophole will help –
but ONLY with new sales –
it does nothing about OWNERS – and there are 100,000,000 of them. If just 1/10 of 1% of them are crazy, that’s 10,000 crazy gun OWNERS!


SOLUTION: Based on reducing guns, not confiscation

1►
learn as much as you can about the numbers that prove what the solutions are

2►
demand a plan:

http://www.youtube.com/user/maigcoalition

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Za8SOVuGHs&list=UUu4Q7iE0z1Jw7yUjs56dvXA&index=1

alex jones – without his straight jacket!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_XZvMwcluEg&feature=endscreen&NR=1

multi-millionaire gun manufacturer wayne lapierre who works for koch brothers & gets paid over $1,000,000 / year
to get his army of lemmings to keep buying guns.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dar6K2STVVQ

3►
DO: WRITE CONGRESS:

find your congresspeople

house:
http://www.house.gov/representatives/find/
senate:
http://www.senate.gov/reference/common/faq/How_to_contact_senators.htm
VP Joe Biden, Gun Panel, 1600 Pennsylvania Av, Washington DC 20006


╬═╬═╬═╬═╬═╬═╬═╬═╬═╬═╬═╬═╬═╬═╬═╬═╬═╬═╬═╬═╬═╬═╬


Dear ............................:

[ _ Y.O.U.R...I.N.T.R.O...H.E.R.E_ ]

While some people may want to confiscate guns, I don’t.
Here is a much more feasible approach.
It will not solve all gun problems, but it will
reduce the number of guns
and that will reduce the number of dangerous people who have access to guns -
and isn't THAT our real goal?

My proposal - for a NATIONAL gun law for all guns & owners:
My four points are SIMPLY based on seeing a logical parallel between cars & guns.

Please consider advocating these four steps below to help America with our 11,000+ gun disasters:


1►
all gun owners must be licensed & tested with all guns they own and pass a written test.

If you own a motor cycle, a dump truck, and a car - you are tested in each.
Require a written gun test - to guarantee the owner's understanding of gun laws
thus being forced to know the law - via the test – also means the police know who you are -
and you may be less likely to commit a crime or be careless when storing your guns

2►
every year, you must prove that you have gun liability insurance &
be background checked and prove that your gun is properly locked when not used.

Insurance should be at least as high as car insurance [ I would like at least $1,000,000 ]
You must prove your car insurance.
Require an annual back ground check ( with fee ) to verify your suitability to own guns.
Every gun must be locked in a gun case or have a trigger lock.

3►
as the owner of a gun, you are legally responsible for what is done with it.

You are required to report if your gun is missing within 48 hours,
The owner will be much less likely to leave a gun accessible to a family member or thief.

4►
every gun must be registered and tested & a sample fired bullet stored by the police

Knowing that your gun & its bullets are so easily traced will make you think before using it.

additionally -

Over ten bullet magazines are illegal to own { 2nd amendment has no relevance }

Gun fees [ licenses fees & registration fees & fines ] should be
high enough to create a very substantial gun buy-back program ($100-$500 / year)

Penalties must be very high in money ( equal to ten years fees ) & jail time -
especially after the first offense

No citizens ( except dealers & collectors ) need more than a small number of guns

Gun fees should be higher for more guns & for bigger guns.

But the nra may be in favor of this when the gun companies understand that gun owners
can get paid to turn in their old gun and will be able to buy a new gun -
with an INTEGRATED lock .

If we legalize drugs, we will clear out jail cells to fill with gun law breakers and
free up police "time" for real crime investigation

We WILL get higher compliance and lower opposition if we use high fees & buyback.

Take a position of reducing guns, like assault weapons such as semi-automatic rifles -
rather than punishing a gun nut who spent $10,000 on an armory.

LBJ proposed a gun plan similar to the above 4 point plan


Some real 2011 / 2012 gun statistics:

Americans own almost half of all civilian owned guns in the world.
Per 100,000:
America:.. 88,880 guns owned ; 2.97 homicides
England.…: 6,200 guns owned ; 0.07 homicides
Austrailia: 15,000 guns owned ; 0.14 homicides
Canada…: 30,800 guns owned ; 0.51 homicides
France….: 31,000 guns owned ; 0.06 homicides
Japan……..: 1,000 guns owned ; 0.08 homicides
Israel……..: 7,300 guns owned ; 0.90 homicides


http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/crime-stats/crime-statistics/period-ending-march-2012/rft-annual-trend-and-demographic-tables-2011-12.xls
The above link is to England police statistics - see table D19

The nra & its trolls are claiming that we will fail, where England & Australia succeeded in reducing gun deaths substantially by legislation.


Statistics clearly prove that the number of guns in a state or in a country
adds to the risk of homicides.

More complex is the effect of gun laws and restrictions.

When Australia had a massacre in 1996 when 35 people were killed, gun laws were substantially strengthened and a major buy-back was instituted.
There has not been an incident in Australia since then.
Of course, they did not have the benefit of the nra.

In 2011, there were 11,000+ gun homicides in America
In 2011, there were 35 gun deaths in England

For 2011, the average Murder Rate in Death Penalty States was 4.7,
while the average Murder Rate of States without the Death Penalty was 3.1

For 2011, the murder rates were highest in red state regions:
Per 100,000: South 5.5 Midwest 4.5 West 4.2 Northeast 3.9

VERY IMPORTANT:
▬► The 1994 gun "ban" did NOT ban assault weapons.
▬►It banned the MANUFACTURE & SALE of assault weapons.
▬►For $300 you can buy a legal accessory to make an AR15 fully automatic (800rpm)

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said that there are "undoubtedly" limits to a person's right to bear arms under the Second Amendment, but that future court cases will have to decide where to draw the line. That line could be between you and an AR15.


And of course if we stopped money going from advocacy groups & corporations to buy politicians, this would be a very big step in the right direction
Watch our videos: Hedges, Kucinich, Warren, Chomsky , Sanders ,
Romney, Reich, Hartmann, Maddow, Nader, Feingold, Jefferson
And read our analysis of Corporate Personhood & Citizens United & evaluate the national polls that prove the truth. See the new HJR29


……………….http://corporaionsarenotpeople.webuda.com

[-] 1 points by JPB950 (2254) 8 months ago

I've read your solution before in several other threads, I simply disagree with your approach. If you wish to end gun violence you need to get the guns out of the hands of people. While the focus is often on crime it's suicide that claims the most lives (over 60% of gun deaths). Those suicides are not going to be concerned about insurance, training, bullet samples or any other law you put into effect. I doubt many criminals would be too worried about complying with the law either.

Reducing gun violence may seem to be a more realistic goal, but the number of deaths due to assault weapons or deaths labeled justifiable homicide are a drop in the bucket. Changing "stand your ground" laws isn't likely to effect the numbers at all. Assault weapons account for such a small number of gun deaths that they don't even get their own category in the FBI statistics, they are tossed in with shotguns and rifles

Public support is currently less then 50% for gun control. Toss in arguments over legalizing drugs and you've given yourself an impossible task. If you want to try the impossible why not go all in for something like an amendment as opposed to a cosmetic ban on some weapons?

[-] 3 points by bensdad (8977) 8 months ago

"you need to get the guns out of the hands of people."
I believe in POSSIBLE goals - this is not.

Suicides- most suicides HAVE a gun long before they use it
Public support for universal background checks was around 90%
It a a start, but first WE have to vote out the nra / alec employees who voted against UBC

[-] -1 points by JPB950 (2254) 8 months ago

I have nothing against control, I'd vote for it, I just believe it's a waste of effort and largely cosmetic. The support for gun ownership has shifted back over 50% in polls, so no change is likely in the short term anyhow.

Your statistics comparing gun deaths internationally point out the solution isn't regulation and allowing guns to be in the hands of people, it's in removing them from society.

True the idea of total removal of handguns from society going no where now, probably not for generations, but it should be the ultimate goal in any effort to end gun violence.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 8 months ago

I almost always concentrate on ACHIEVEABLE solutions & ELECTABLE candidates. Banning guns in America is a pipe dream, but if we sever the nra & alec from our democracy, via HJR29, much is possible

[-] -1 points by WSmith (5271) from Cornelius, OR 8 months ago

Not sure about your motives, but SYG AND #2 need to be repealed.

1791 Number Two was ratified to promote/provide an armed militia to protect the United States from the overthrow of invaders (like the British or the South)!

2013 we have the mightiest military in the world, and the militia is no longer needed, same with #2!

The fucking yahoo gun nuts don't even bother to read their precious #2.

We have a habit of procrastinating on social legislation: We should have repealed #2 sometime after the Civil War ~ but that war still hasn't ended in some parts of the country ~ so now we have a neglected and entrenched false sense of root'n toot'n shoot'n entitlement. Which has become useful to TPTB.

Today this unfinished business has festered into an intolerable apocalypse that kills thousands of Americans every fucking year!! (I don't want to hear about any "Fast & Furious" or "Benghazi" from you gun nuts!)

Number two is obsolete: It stinks. We can't be OK with this horror!! We can't be saying that we want unfettered/unregulated gun ownership no matter how many people it kills!! The world is right for thinking we are nuts with guns. We're a century late in Amending this archaic/deadly/neglected Amendment.

SYG is insane: We can't legally grant cretinous, child molesting, racist, murdering, Zimmermans, get out of jail free cards, so they can shoot people in cold blood with complete impunity. No matter what lies and propaganda NRA gun lobbyists and GOP 1% lobbyists spew to keep the 99% armed and afraid of each other, instead of united and overthrowing 1% tyranny, democratically!

We have to fix this terrible mess! ASA-FUCKING-P! Before one more American gets needlessly killed! And then let Real Justice prevail on the perpetrators!

[-] -1 points by JPB950 (2254) 8 months ago

I agree on the second amendment. Without the gun I believe stand your ground becomes a moot point.

SYG wasn't established for the "cretinous, child molesting, racist, murdering" individuals to use to get out of jail free. If society decides to allow handguns to remain part of this culture then yes it should look at SYG and establish more specific guidelines or throw it out completely. The exact "rules" for when an individual can use deadly force vary from state to state and it might be time for a federal law to standardize the legal right of self defense.

Stand your ground wasn't an issue in Zimmerman's actual trial, it was not offered as a defense. It was more an issue in media speculation. Zimmerman said very little and followed his attorneys advice to stay silent. There would have been a hearing if Zimmerman had invoked SYG as his defense. His attorney chose not to because it would have required Zimmerman to take the stand at a SYG hearing and open him up to cross examination. They went with straight self defense. He claimed he was being attacked, there was no direct evidence to the contrary. Zimmerman got acquitted for the same reason many other defendants rightly or wrongly do. The prosecution could not prove to the jury beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman committed the crime he was charged with.

Unfortunately they don't require voters prove they can think or reason. Most of those that support the right to own a gun support what they see as the right to shoot anything that scares them. Support for gun ownership is back over 50% nationally and SYG in Florida still polls at 50% in favor and 31% opposed (If I were cynical I'd say the other 19% are afraid of being shot if they offered an honest opinion). As I said in answer to someone else, any change is likely to take generations. There are a lot of minds to change.

[-] 1 points by WSmith (5271) from Cornelius, OR 8 months ago

SYG, because it allows justifiable homicide even if you just think you're in danger, and dead men tell no tales, let's scumbags shoot and kill at will.

Jurors and documents have revealed that although SYG was not formally invoke by the defense, because it would more aptly apply to Trayvon, it did govern the jurors decision. http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/07/15/2301621/why-stand-your-ground-is-central-to-george-zimmermans-case-after-all/

http://mediamatters.org/research/2013/07/17/10-fox-figures-v-zimmerman-juror-on-whether-sta/194938

SYG was the guiding and restricting factor that allowed the cretinous, child molesting, racist, murdering, Zimmerman's erroneous acquittal, that and of course the (R) Rick Scott-ALEC-NRA appointed and owned prosecution who threw the case. Giving the unruly public a show trial, to allow them at least a modicum of reason to claim justice was served however specious. Shame not being an issue to the right.

And it was not "an issue in media speculation," except that the SYG law was not included: http://mediamatters.org/research/2013/07/16/media-neglect-that-stand-your-ground-is-centerp/194916 .

Zimmerman was guilty as sin, so like OJ, he did not take the stand because even an in the pocket, Floridian, prosecution would have to ask some questions he'd screw up on. Answering why he and not Trayvon was covered by SYG would be disastrous for the defense.

Given the truth, I'll go with the public.

My guess is that you are confident people won't get the truth, that the despicable SYG law is a good one and feel assured Number two will keep staining our constitution, just the way you like it. Motives confirmed.

[-] 1 points by JPB950 (2254) 8 months ago

My original point is eliminating guns is more important then eliminating SYG. I'd like to see handguns removed from society, it would save many more lives. We should consider how many lives are taken and look at the claims of how many lives are supposedly "saved" by guns and decide based on the entire picture, not react and make law based on anecdotes or cherry pick a heart breaking case or two. You're adding a completely different element to the discussion by talking about a single specific case.

Stand your ground laws don't legally entitle you to stalk someone, but that can be hard to prove when the only one side of the story can be told. I do agree they should be reviewed. Several studies have been done and they give conflicting or inconclusive results regarding the effectiveness of SYG. If the law is creating more problems then it's solving then SYG should be repealed. Not because of one case but because it proved to be a bad law in a majority of cases.

Whether by design or accident the prosecution failed to convince the jury of Zimmerman's guilt. My personal opinion is that he was guilty of something but I don't think it was murder and the prosecution overreached. However I didn't listen to every bit of testimony so my opinion isn't worth much in this case. Yes one juror claimed SYG entered into her decision, but it wasn't brought up by the defense. Zimmerman never made the claim and neither did his attorney.

I don't understand your comment that Trayvon wasn't covered by SYG. He was, had Zimmerman been killed in the altercation it could have been used in Trayvon's defense too. It's unfortunate that, to paraphrase from a movie, he brought fists to a gun fight. The problem isn't as simple as SYG, it's the guns we need to get rid of.

This morning I see one juror is making news on one of the morning shows by saying in her heart she thought Zimmerman was guilty, but had to put that emotional prejudice aside and look only at the evidence. She felt the state did not prove their case. Zimmerman could have spur the same story of being attacked, held down, and beaten with or without a SYG law in Florida and won an acquittal.

[-] 2 points by WSmith (5271) from Cornelius, OR 8 months ago

Your specious focus on repealing the Second Amendment is a dishonest ploy to defend the heavily (Koch Bros and ALEC friends) invested SYG disgrace of a law! SYG is another divide and conquer strategic legislation in the Class War waged by the 1% against the 99%!

GFY!!! With extreme prejudice!!!

[-] 0 points by JPB950 (2254) 8 months ago

I don't have any desire or intention to defend anyone. At present a majority are back to supporting SYG and handgun possession so it's all moot anyhow. Eliminating SYG is an emotional narcotic for people that feel a need to do something. It won't actually do much to change the number of gun deaths, there are just over 200 justifiable homicides a year using handguns (I don't know how many involve SYG). Of the 11,000 gun deaths a year most are suicides, accident, and murder, that have nothing to do with SYG.

Eliminating guns and amending the constitution are simply a personal wish. I know the majority won't ever go with it. That doesn't change the fact that it's the best solution. The second best alternative is almost as unlikely, stricter regulation. Bensdad offers up some solid statistics in his posts on the subject, but as I've said I believe at present the majority don't wish to ban or regulate.

[-] 3 points by WSmith (5271) from Cornelius, OR 8 months ago

You don't "desire" to be honest either. But at least you admit your defense of this sick and evil ALEC and Koch Bros sponsored and invested law, which is a cruel and sadistic legislative hoax on Americans! The narcotic is gun-liberty!

Rot in hell BASTARD!!!

Florida lawmakers agree to hearings on 'Stand Your Ground' law

An opponent of Florida's 'Stand Your Ground' law wears a button against handguns outside a meeting on the law in Longwood, Florida, June 12, 2012. REUTERS/David Manning

By Tom Brown

MIAMI | Fri Aug 2, 2013 10:20pm EDT

(Reuters) - Florida lawmakers will hold hearings this fall on the state's "Stand Your Ground" self-defense law, which has become a lightning rod for criticism following the acquittal of George Zimmerman in the shooting death of unarmed black teenager Trayvon Martin.

The announcement on Friday by Will Weatherford, the speaker of Florida's House of Representatives, marked the biggest concession yet by the state's Republican leaders to protesters' demands for a top-to-bottom review of the law, which allows people in fear of serious injury to use deadly force [Murder at Will] to defend themselves rather than retreat.

CONTINUED: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/03/us-usa-florida-law-idUSBRE97201220130803

[-] 0 points by JPB950 (2254) 8 months ago

You're operating under a misconception. I don't own a gun so on a personal level SYG is irrelevant to me. As an active voter I'm open to any law being reevaluated and changed once a convincing case is made. The problem is getting a majority to agree with proposed changes.

I believe that most politicians want to get reelected more then help anyone, so they will not actually make any real change as long as a majority don't support it. The fact is Florida lawmakers can hold all the hearings they want, but they are also aware of the fact that 53% of the voters in florida support SYG at present.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2013/08/05/insane-support-for-stand-your-ground-laws/

SYG has more support among Florida voters then guns have.

http://www.wptv.com/dpp/news/state/gun-control-2013-florida-poll-more-than-half-of-florida-voters-back-stricter-gun-control-laws

In my opinion the Florida legislature is playing the public. Wasting time on SYG and in the end they will do nothing because a majority don't want it changed. They could and should be working on gun control, which a Florida majority DO support. When you rant about ALEC, this is the kind of manipulation and distraction they might actually be capable of.

[-] 1 points by mideast (506) 8 months ago

repeal A#2
&
make radical religion illegal
&
make greed illegal
&
make war illegal

"And if you work hard to achieve these goals,
you will not get in our way" - david & charlie koch

[-] 1 points by JPB950 (2254) 8 months ago

Altering the second amendment is, admittedly, a daydream. I would like to see it as a long term goal though. There are many nations that provide individual liberties and do not allow their citizens to walk around armed.

Religion, greed, conflict are more tied to human nature. Laws won't help there one way or the other. You can't effectively ban thoughts and feelings the way you could ban a thing like a gun.

If I listen to the Koch brothers I'd never bother to do anything at all to try to improve the world.

[-] -2 points by TikiJ (-38) 8 months ago

Giving the people guns makes them feel free, while they steal and rob every other right they have.

Guns against this machine are meaningless.

The only reason they let them keep them is so they feel they have a shred of freedom left.

Which one of these isnt trampled on a regular basis, year after year, at all levels of government and power?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_amendments_to_the_United_States_Constitution

[-] -1 points by Narley (-634) 8 months ago

Not gonna happen. Not in the foreseeable future anyway. Probably never. Gun are so embedded in the fabric of America they are almost sacred to a lot of people. To tens of millions of people guns represent the very idea of being freedom loving Americans.

They will not disarm, they will not give up their guns. Hell, they won't even register their guns. They will ignore any laws requiring them to do so.

The only way to control guns is convincing people, over a couple of generations, that guns should be controlled. I'd say it would be a 100 year battle.

[-] 1 points by JPB950 (2254) 8 months ago

I agree, any change is going to take generations and whether it's more laws or an amendment it's likely an impossible task either way. If I am going to try to do the impossible though I'd prefer to work on the solution that will do the most good.

[-] 0 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 9 months ago

whites killed mostly by whites

because murder is usually a domestic issue

unless we're talking WAR

[-] -2 points by Moonbat (-37) 9 months ago

He uses % like they mean the same thing. 90& here is 9/10 white deaths vs 900/1000 black. The total numbers are VERY lopsided.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/national/gun-deaths/

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 9 months ago

I wrote this before reading the numbers above

it's plan proximity sense

families have the same color skin

[-] -1 points by Moonbat (-37) 9 months ago

Stop and frisk? Compare NYC to the rest of the country.

http://www.theatlanticcities.com/politics/2013/01/gun-violence-us-cities-compared-deadliest-nations-world/4412/

Remember, less gun victims means less dead young black men.

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 8 months ago

less gens means less murder

Some real 2011 / 2012 gun statistics:

Americans own almost half of all civilian owned guns in the world.
Per 100,000:
America:.. 88,880 guns owned ; 2.97 homicides
England.…: 6,200 guns owned ; 0.07 homicides
Austrailia: 15,000 guns owned ; 0.14 homicides
Canada…: 30,800 guns owned ; 0.51 homicides
France….: 31,000 guns owned ; 0.06 homicides
Japan……..: 1,000 guns owned ; 0.08 homicides
Israel……..: 7,300 guns owned ; 0.90 homicides

[Removed]

[-] -2 points by Tsler (-10) 8 months ago

Stiffer penalties for gun crimes; the loss of one's shooting hand would seem appropriate.

[-] 0 points by bensdad (8977) 8 months ago

Sounds like Islam

[Removed]

[-] -3 points by melsdrivein (-10) 8 months ago

Limp wrist liberals would rather get their ass beat, than defend themselves with a gun. Be my guest.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 8 months ago

what is a "limp wrist liberal" ?