The idea that supporting reasonable gun laws is somehow the equivalent of political suicide is totally ludicrous. I am convinced that a minority of citizens in this country actually own guns, but the gun lobby and the NRA use tactics of fear and intimidation to ensure that no reasonable gun control initiatives are even brought to the table, much less ennacted. I am not speaking of hunting rifles, but of easily purchased and concealed handguns. Many guns which are purchased for “domestic protection” end up accidentally killing and maiming children; are used to settle domestic disputes; or are stolen, ending up on the black market, or in the hands of criminals. Thousands of murders occur in this country each year as a result of handguns. If you want to see the benefits of strict gun control in a civilized, democratic society, look to Canada and Europe. If you want to see the other side of the coin, look at Afghanistan, Iraq, or any number of African countries. I just wish any politician or party had the guts to take on the gun nut lobby, and show them for what they are.

I agree, Cedar. Phil, you sound like a very arrogant, pompous “you know what” who is a know-it-all. You act like you are the righteous one and that the rest of us must not have any brains. The funny thing is, you are wrong, and it’s sad that you think you’re right.

Phil –

Have you considered running for President? Sounds like you have all the answers.

Cedar

Please note, that this whole discussion has been about the political ramifications of the Democrat’s plank on gun control. It has not been a discussion on why or why not a person should be allowed to have a semi-automatic knockoff of an AK47. Maybe you should be allowed to have one, maybe you shouldn’t. Maybe the 2nd admendment to the Constitution even forbids the goverment from telling you that you may not, maybe the 2nd admendment only applies the organized army and state militias. IT DOESN’T MATTER. For the purposes of this discussion what matters is the political ramifications which can at least be measured, not the morality of gun ownership, which is unknowable. I think the Democrats screw themselves with this one and I am unhappy because I would like another party that I can vote for. As of right now I have to hold my nose and vote for Patriot Act Bush again. I’d rather have a choice. Even Howard Dean does not support gun right enough to be a viable choice.

(if I may step in and be so bold in answering a question directly addressed to Philip)

“Isn’t gun-nuttery a vote-loser for female voters?” – Dave heasman

No. Of course not. If the Democrats laid off the guy issue do you really think they would lose the female vote? Or the black vote? Or the latino vote? No chance, all parties have a bigger stake than that in the Democrat party. They only have the rural, southern white male vote to gain back. The gun issue is an issue that the Democrats can stand to change direction on, unlike the abortion issue, gay rights issue, environmental issue, (and many more), etc. where they stand little to gain and much to lose from their existing voters.

Isn’t gun-nuttery a vote-loser for female voters? What’s Joanne Nickeled & Dimed’s e+mpowerment fantasy Phil?

I donno Phil. If it were the case that the rural heartland were so swayed by a personal liberty issue, why is it that Republicans seem to be winning on the abortion topic? That seems like another personal liberty that the Democrats are on the wrong side of, from a rural heartland perspective. Why is it that Democrats can’t come out of the closet on legalizing weed? Instead of grand theories of liberation psychology, attitudes about firearms probably have more to do with the prevailing social mores of a place. In the South, the firearm has a place as a hunting implement, trophy, anxiety-analgesic and more.

webwench tells us : -
> At least with law-enforcement-gathered crime statistics, you have some assurance of consistency and sanity.

OK. What’s the law-enforcement-gathered number of prison rapes per year?
If the number is sufficient to merit the Presidential attention it’s just got, you may have a point. If not, not.

Victim surveys are the preferred statistic for a host of reasons. The proportion of self-important over-reporting hysterics and self-deprecating under-reporting stoics in a population is more likely to be uniform than a) the clerical competence of police incentivised to under and over-report certain crimes to meet inane performance targets and b) the competence, assiduity and capability of police to investigate crime where the victims are very largely the unheard.

The problem when it comes to basing your crime statistics on victim self-reporting, as you prefer to base your conclusions on in your site, is that results from those surveys are so subjective — you’re relying not on one published definition of what constitutes a crime, but on hundreds or thousands; as many definitions as there are people represented in the survey. Self-reported victimization claims gathered this way are subject to no corroboration, no sanity checks, no level of proof whatsoever, and introduces an insane amount of skewing based on the biases or wishes of the responders. Pitfalls of this type of survey are well-known. At least with law-enforcement-gathered crime statistics, you have some assurance of consistency and sanity. I see your source data as being less reliable than the source data of the statements I quote.

Too bad you have to correct webwench’s actual claims and not just similar ones.