Gun Control pt.3

2004. wonkers2 - 9/12/2005 5:27:16 AM

Shooting to Kill Here.

2005. jayackroyd - 9/12/2005 5:57:45 AM

Toys?

2006. iiibbb - 9/19/2005 8:27:07 AM

Insurer Not Required to Defend Homeowner Who Shot Intruder

A man who killed an intruder in his home in self-defense is not entitled to insurance defense in a wrongful death action, a divided Albany appellate panel ruled Thursday in a case of first impression.
---------------------------------
Roche said the ruling establishes a nonsensical distinction between holders of commercial policies and homeowner's policies. He said that as a result of this decision, a shopkeeper who shoots a thief is covered because he helped prevent a crime on the property. But a homeowner, Roche said, is not similarly covered.

"A commercial policy allows the holder to protect either his employees from being assault or to prevent the commission of a crime upon his property by using force up to and including deathly physical force, and he is covered," Roche said. "But a homeowner is not. Here is a man who stood trial and 12 of his peers said 'not guilty.' He acted properly and in a manner dictated by circumstances over which he had no control."

It is my feeling that if you are aquited of any/all criminal charges then you should be protected from civil cases anyway. This would remove the issue altogether.

2007. Marc-Albert - 9/19/2005 10:48:11 AM

a divided Albany appellate panel ruled Thursday

The split by New York's Appellate Division...illustrates a debate that has divided courts across the country.

What "split"?

Once you read the article you realize the ruling by the "divided" Albany appelate panel was 4 to 1.

2008. arkymalarky - 9/19/2005 10:49:55 AM

It is my feeling that if you are aquited of any/all criminal charges then you should be protected from civil cases anyway.

Even OJ?

2009. Ms. No - 9/19/2005 11:11:57 AM

I'd have to agree with that. It's not technically double jeopardy, but at the same time, it's an accusation that must be faced twice and if you're aquitted and get to keep your life, it shouldn't be possible for people to say "Well, we're really pissed off and we think you're guilty anyway but since we can't put you in jail we're just going to take your money."

I mean, yeah, we all think O.J. did it, but our courts failed to prove it. That should be the end of it. Every time a person is aquitted somebody still thinks he's guilty. Do we just keep sending someone back to court to defend himself until folks aren't pissed off at him anymore?

2010. iiibbb - 9/19/2005 11:12:35 AM

In a self defense-shooting...

... and perhaps yes... even OJ. I'd rather have 100 people treated right even if one louse gets off, rather than the other way around.

2011. iiibbb - 9/19/2005 11:19:54 AM

Carjacking story.

I don't know why the cops didn't just stop all of this. Why didn't she just call the police?

2012. jayackroyd - 9/19/2005 11:47:00 AM

It is my feeling that if you are aquited of any/all criminal charges then you should be protected from civil cases anyway

There are plenty of things that create torts that aren't criminal. It's criminal to bend someone's fender, but you're still liable for the damage.

Burdens of proof are different as well.

2013. jayackroyd - 9/19/2005 11:47:37 AM

It's NOT criminal.

2014. arkymalarky - 9/19/2005 11:57:22 AM

Actually, I agree, 3i3b. I wondered if you would. I can see charging at different levels--state vs federal, for instance, but not criminal vs civil.

2015. iiibbb - 9/19/2005 12:24:16 PM

Message # 20133

I agree with your example jay.. but someone committing a willfully criminal act takes all responsbilities for the outcome of that act, their own death, other's deaths.

I would put it under the same blanket as the good Samaritan laws. People can't sue you for breaking their ribs while you administer CPR to save their life. Likewise, if you are aquitted on the grounds of self-defense, then you should not be responsble for the outcome.

It shouldn't even go to court.

2016. Ms. No - 9/19/2005 12:27:54 PM

What's the point of a Not Guilty verdict if all it really means is "Not guilty on this try, but just you wait 'til next week when we get another go at you."

2017. iiibbb - 9/19/2005 12:31:54 PM

Message # 2012

Also... same example. Say you make a right on red and hit someone who's driving while intoxicated. I think it's a safe bet you won't get a ticket, and you won't pay for their repairs.

2018. wonkers2 - 9/19/2005 2:59:07 PM

I don't disagree, but the DUI driver isn't without an argument. Who's at fault?

2019. iiibbb - 9/19/2005 4:53:23 PM

Tragic yes...

...if only he weren't popping a 0.17 BAC.

Not quite my example... but I don't think he'll get off easy. Drunk is drunk.

2020. wonkers2 - 9/19/2005 6:09:03 PM

I don't think he will either. But when I was in the Army many years ago one of my jobs was to make summaries and recommendations on loss of funds cases for an appeals board. The Army Regulation read that in order to hold the enlisted man or officer responsible for the loss (and collect it back by payroll deduction), the conduct or misconduct or dereliction by the soldier had to be found to be the PROXIMATE CAUSE of the loss. For example, forgetting to lock the safe at the end of the day resulting in a theft that night, or getting drunk and wrecking an Army vehicle. But we kept getting cases where, for example, the soldier had violated various procedures or regulations on PREVIOUS occasions and had been held responsible for the loss. Army discipline boards had difficulty grasping the concept of proximate cause. I don't know much about criminal law, but consider a case where a driver A (DUI) was sitting at a red light and was plowed into by a another driver (sober) who was speeding or not paying attention to what he was doing. Or a DUI driver who was proceeding through an intersection on a green light and was hit by a sober driver who ran a red light. In my opinion it would be wrong to hold the DUI driver responsible for injury to the sober driver. Of course he would appropriately be charged with DUI, but not manslaughter. The Michigan case is not nearly as favorable to the DUI driver, even though the police driver apparently contributed greatly to his own demise.

2021. iiibbb - 9/19/2005 7:19:10 PM

I see...

... however can you think of an example where it would apply to a self-defense shooting. I suppose if someone shot and missed and the stray bullet struck an innocent... but that's an accident. You'd think that'd be covered by insurance.

But shooting a person attacking you wouldn't be.

2022. wonkers2 - 9/20/2005 5:07:45 PM

No jury set in DUI/murder trial Jury selection.

2023. iiibbb - 9/21/2005 7:11:47 AM

A long while ago I posted something the large number of defensive gun uses by Kleck and Gertz on the high side, but others as well. Someone challenged these estimates 0.8-2.0 million per year.

In response someone posted something by Hemenway that said the methods of high estimates are bogus.

Well... I finally came across Kleck and Gertz's rebutal to that argument.... and someone in-between who still puts the number around a million a year.

Anyway... it still remains that the number is big... not small, relative to the number of gun deaths and accidents in this country.

2024. iiibbb - 9/21/2005 7:13:07 AM

This estimate is 800,000

still big.

2025. iiibbb - 9/22/2005 10:41:08 AM

Woman calls 911 before her own murder.

2026. jayackroyd - 9/22/2005 12:09:53 PM

My comments were at 1424-1426.

Marc-Albert cites Hemenway, but I just looked at the studies.

They were a mess. The inferences made from them were a mess. People who said they'd used a gun in self-defense once in their lives were treated as using a gun in defense annually.

There's no support for the order of magnitude you're talking about in the studies you cited.

That the guys who made the same half-baked inferences about the same set of studies have come up with more verbiage about how they were right after all is hardly persuasive.

2027. Ulgine Barrows - 9/22/2005 10:15:35 PM

Facts just don't do what what you want them to do, sometimes.

2028. jayackroyd - 9/23/2005 12:23:49 AM

Tom Tom Club?

2029. Ulgine Barrows - 9/23/2005 12:40:13 AM

Talking Heads.

Better Half and I don't agree on the violence factor.

There are guns about the house, BH thinks nothing about it. He grew up in house with a stay-home mom and people were always around, guns in a central location.

I'm here by myself with neighborhood kids dropping by and it could only take 5 seconds for them to kill one another.

2030. Ulgine Barrows - 9/23/2005 12:44:05 AM

bwah, OF COURSE we have purchased a gun safe and no child knows the entry method.

Move on.

2031. Ulgine Barrows - 9/23/2005 1:02:31 AM

Because I can't....I'm delighted at your reply

2028. Tom Tom Club?

Cutehead. I like them too, name their hit and take this thread off another track.... or not.

2032. Ulgine Barrows - 9/23/2005 1:20:08 AM

The tyrant's face is red


6032. jayackroyd - 9/22/2005 8:26:27 PM

And I should copyrighted the link title, or something. Salon stole it from me.


Can you explain this to me, jayackroyd ?

2033. Macnas - 9/23/2005 1:24:31 AM

Wordy rapping hood!

2034. jayackroyd - 9/23/2005 1:47:54 AM

Yeah, that's where I thought the "Facts are simple, facts are great, facts are lazy, facts are straight. Facts all come with points of view. Facts won't do what you want them to." came from. But I'll take the talking heads (Tom Tom Club IS most of the talking heads)--have to, because in my head, it's David Byrne.

Salon used "desperately seeking bianca" as the link to the same piece of the Bush press conference in their warroom column.

2035. alistairconnor - 9/23/2005 5:33:50 AM

Erudite references!
And the winner is...
Yes, it's not Tom Tom Club, it's Byrne, it's Talking Heads.

... Facts just twist the truth around
Facts are living turned inside out
Facts are getting the best of them
Facts are nothing on the face of things
Facts don't stain the furniture
Facts go out and slam the door
Facts are written all over your face
Facts continue to change their shape

I'm still waiting...I'm still waiting...I'm still waiting...

Cross-eyed and painless, from Remain in Light.

(yes I looked it up... that LP is still on my all-time top 10)

2036. alistairconnor - 9/23/2005 5:39:45 AM

Oddly topical lyrics

Listening Wind :

Mojique sees his village from a nearby hill
Mojique thinks of days before Americans came
[...]
The dust in my head
The wind in my heart
(Come to) Drive them away
Drive them away.
Mojique buys equipment in the market place
Mojique plants devices in the free trade zone

2037. Ulgine Barrows - 9/24/2005 9:12:23 PM

Well, I'm always right on the lyrics. It's my gift.

Thanks for the "Erudite", word of the day for me.

2038. Ulgine Barrows - 9/24/2005 9:15:00 PM

And if you could all post a screed here why BH shouldn't buy more guns, I wish you would, thanks.

2039. Ulgine Barrows - 9/24/2005 10:40:03 PM

And tell me your fave Led Zep while you're at it.
Stairway to Heaven doesn't count.

2040. Ulgine Barrows - 9/24/2005 11:04:12 PM

Get your goose some other place

2041. alistairConnor - 9/25/2005 2:34:40 PM

Off the top of my head : the Immigrant song.
But I haven't listened to any of that stuff for 20 years. Well ok, 25.

2042. Macnas - 9/26/2005 1:36:35 AM

Ulgine's better half: In the many years that I have spent using guns, I have come to one conclusion, and that is that for all practicle purposes, you can only shoot one gun at a time.

Fav Zep: Communication Breakdown.

2043. Ms. No - 9/26/2005 10:00:09 AM

But what if there's an apocolypse? Or a Zombie infestation? I might need to arm the rag-tag survivors of the local watering hole or something.


Zepplin: It'd have to be Black Dog or Kasmir

2044. Macnas - 9/26/2005 10:09:55 AM

You know, I've always felt that land mines were the perfect anti-zombie weapon. Or a combine harvester, one or the other.

2045. Ms. No - 9/26/2005 12:49:50 PM

Mmmm...yes, land mines. The harvester is an excellent idea if one must travel, but it depends on whether you're facing the traditional slow, lumbering zombie or the new-fangled faster than most humans zombie.

A gun is only really good if you're adept enough to hit them in the brains reliably.

2046. alistairConnor - 9/26/2005 1:28:04 PM

for all practicle purposes, you can only shoot one gun at a time.

Yes, but people own multiple vehicles. A Ferrari for breaking speed limits, a 4x4 for parking on footpaths, a motorbike for annoying rurals on sunday mornings, and so on.

I suppose the same reasoning might apply.

2047. alistairconnor - 9/27/2005 4:52:59 AM

Here's a cute gun-control story.

The arsenal

650 Kalashnikov assault rifles

40 Armalite assault rifles, smuggled from America, often stolen from US army stores

50 heavy and general purpose machine guns

60 Webley revolvers

2 Barret high-powered American sniper rifles

40 rocket launchers

6 flame throwers

1 SAM-7 surface-to-air missile

600 bomb detonators

3 tonnes of Semtex plastic explosive, the undetectable variety

An unknown number of mortars

Hundreds of thousands of rounds of ammunition

The arms were now "permanently unusable", but he could not reveal how they had been destroyed.

How do you think they did it, Macnas?

Did you feel the earth move?

2048. Macnas - 9/27/2005 6:09:44 AM

Any number of ways really alistair.

Put the heavy stuff into a rock crusher, or a plate stamper/press, it would be made shit in a few minutes. The smaller stuff could be cut up or melted down in any suitably sized furnace.

The explosives can be made inert chemically, or could have been burned. Semtex, in small amounts at a time, burns fiercely, but not explosively.
Ammunition was probably dumped at sea, maybe mixed into concrete cubes first.

I'm confidant that the very most of the heavy weapons and explosives has been destroyed. I'm pretty sure that there are more AK's around as well as a lot of handguns, but that is small beer in the scheme of things.

2049. jayackroyd - 9/27/2005 6:27:50 AM

Maybe using a device like this?

(I have a pps of this device in use, including a mishap involving a bulldozer. Email me if you want the whole document. jay@ackroyd.org)

2050. jayackroyd - 9/27/2005 6:32:40 AM

smaller




Maybe using a device like this?

(I have a pps of this device in use, including a mishap involving a bulldozer. Email me if you want the whole document. jay@ackroyd.org)

[I cannot tell a lie. This time, I ruined the margins on purpose. iiibbb, feel free to delete the oversized picture. I just thought the majesty of the device deserved a large stage.

2051. iiibbb - 9/27/2005 6:37:19 AM

It's not even posting... but I think I know the device you're talking about. Is it the thing with the huge flail on the front of it?

2052. iiibbb - 9/27/2005 6:37:42 AM

Oh wait... there it goes.

Fits my margins anyway.

2053. jayackroyd - 9/27/2005 6:46:19 AM

Was that the thing you were thinking of?

2054. Macnas - 9/27/2005 7:21:45 AM

Jay, that is a full scale mining machine! I think there are 2 in germany, maybe another in Poland, all used for strip mining.

Rock crushers are often conical in design, and vary in size, but none so big as a house or anything, looking like an old fashioned wash tub if you cared to look into one. A centre pillar with webbed spokes radiating outwards. Rocks go in big, come out very small.

2055. jayackroyd - 9/27/2005 8:09:22 AM

This one is German, built by Krupp.

Yes, I know it is no mere rock crusher. It's a strip miner in a box.

2056. wonkers2 - 10/7/2005 2:21:11 PM

iiibbb, just to close the loop the drunk driver who killed a cop when the cop cut across in front of him was acquitted of murder (but convicted of drunk driving). The jury found that the cop was negligent for crossing the Interstate highway without looking. Here

2057. iiibbb - 10/10/2005 8:25:02 AM

It will always be funny how some of you consider them more disserving of trust than me.

2058. iiibbb - 10/13/2005 7:55:03 AM

Bring a gun to work? What's the NRA thinking?

Howard Goodman's column, "Bring a gun to work? What's the NRA thinking?" (Sunday), was breathtaking in its hysterical hyperbole.

Goodman, in supporting his thesis, blew the dust off four incidents where someone used a gun to assault or murder people in a workplace.

Whether these particular employers had in place anti-gun policies is not revealed.

If Mr. Goodman can muster evidence on these anecdotes, I would love to know more. I will even make a challenge. I'll wager a $10 contribution to Handgun Control Inc. that none of the perpetrators in his anecdotes had a valid concealed-carry permit. Criminals and psychos do not care one flyspeck about laws against murder, or of carrying guns, or of "safe workplace" policies, which misguidedly intimidate employees from carrying their own self-defense weapons.
-------------------------------------
Mr. Goodman concedes that "not every gun owner is going to use the firearm in the glove compartment." Wow, that's right up there with a concession that "not every" cop is corrupt, and "not every" African-American is a criminal

2059. wonkers2 - 10/13/2005 8:23:26 AM

Is the NRA advocating that employers should not be allowed to prohibit employees from bringing guns to work? If so, that's the dumbest idea I've heard in a long time. Most employers don't even allow their own security guards to carry weapons out of fear that they may shoot someone accidentally or without justification or shoot themselves. And they don't believe that the expense of training security guards in the proper use and care of weapons would be worthwhile. So, why on earth would they allow employees to bring weapons to work?

2060. iiibbb - 10/13/2005 2:38:55 PM

Boy suspended for defending friend from bully

This Hardy boy, as you may recall, violated Henrico County school policy 10 days ago by pushing a seventh-grader attempting to give Rhodes' much-smaller pal, also a sixth-grader, a knuckle sandwich
--------------------------------------
I asked Mychael Dickerson, spokesman for the Henrico school system, when it would be OK for a student to intervene in a fight situation. When blood is spilled? When bone is sticking out?

His response: "We encourage the students to find an adult not to get involved."

Which would seem to indicate that Henrico would've preferred that passengers aboard Flight 93 stayed in their seats, called for help and then watched the plane fly into the White House.

But then, some of you were livid that I would suggest that violence is an answer to anything.

2061. iiibbb - 10/14/2005 1:36:29 PM

People here have frequently said how they'd prefer if people carry in the open...

Apparently that's what you prefer until someone does it.

Two deputies were called to "protect" the board from someone who obviously is law-abiding when they could have been out doing something about real criminals.

"He might 'snap'". Again... people say law-abiding people with guns are the ones who are paranoid.

2062. wonkers2 - 10/14/2005 4:57:31 PM

Somebody who comes to a school board meeting carrying a .45 certainly isn't "obviously law abiding." He MAY be law abiding but wearing a .45 to a school board meeting clearly puts him in an "outlier" category, to put it politely. (Translation: lunatic fringe.)

2063. wonkers2 - 10/14/2005 4:59:22 PM

He was violating a societal norm. Why would anyone conclude he was "obviously law abiding" after all the recent cases of nutballs shooting up schools, other drivers and fellow employees in the workplace?

2064. wonkers2 - 10/14/2005 5:01:05 PM

What he did was comparable to a woman wearing hot pants to Sunday worship services at a southern Baptist church.

2065. alistairConnor - 10/14/2005 5:16:28 PM

Frankly, iii, why is it legitimate to wear a gun in a school board meeting?

Does this guy feel the need to protect himself from the other participants in the meeting?

Imagine yourself as a concerned parent at a school board meeting. Or any other sort of meeting, when concerned strangers have gathered to discuss issues that they feel strongly about. Does it change the way people discuss things, if one of the participants is visibly bearing a gun?

Frankly, I would be rather surprised to see another concerned parent with a gun. I would be very careful not to say anything that might offend that person in any way.

2066. iiibbb - 10/14/2005 5:31:25 PM

2062. wonkers2 - 10/14/2005 11:57:31 PM

Somebody who comes to a school board meeting carrying a .45 certainly isn't "obviously law abiding." He MAY be law abiding but wearing a .45 to a school board meeting clearly puts him in an "outlier" category, to put it politely. (Translation: lunatic fringe.)

Absolutely rediculous to say that he is not law-abiding... or imply that he might be criminal. The fact he went through the bother of contacting the sheriff ahead of time shows that he's a lot more law-abiding that almost anyone.

Frankly, iii, why is it legitimate to wear a gun in a school board meeting?

Does this guy feel the need to protect himself from the other participants in the meeting?

He stated his weapon was for travel to and from the meeting... as he stated in the article. As of yet I am unfamiliar with technology that can materialize a gun only when absolutely needed.

I've often stated... that concealed carry is infinitely more polite. Many of you say you're rather someone carry in the open. This is what open carry does... it is disruptive.

In Florida, open carry is outright illegal for this reason.

2067. iiibbb - 10/14/2005 5:35:37 PM

You guys need to get off this fundamental assumption that

Guy with gun = Badguy out to do wrong.


I thought you liberal types were supposed to be all about fighting stereotypes and prejudice.

Apparently not.

2068. alistairConnor - 10/14/2005 5:56:00 PM

I'm asking you, iii, to put yourself in the position of a non-gun-carrying parent in such a meeting.

It's not that I would assume that a guy openly carrying a gun in such an inappropriate setting, is necessarily a bad guy. I would certainly be wondering why the hell he thought it appropriate to bring it. It might occur to me that he might be upset because his kid got a bad grade or something... I would be very wary about contradicting him if he expressed a strong opinion, and I would be eyeing the door.

I would feel much the same if he were carrying a visible knife or brass knuckles.

2069. iiibbb - 10/14/2005 9:22:21 PM

Well... apparently he feels the need for the gun on his way to or from the meeting.

But who cares... if they're so worried about a holstered gun... why did they invite two sheriff's deputies and their guns to the meeting. They could as easily 'snap' as it seems this guy.

Once again... the point is that there are people that would demand that any carry be open carry... yet they would freak out if someone with an openly carried weapon were to pass them by.

This is the basic advantage of concealed carry... it is non-disruptive. Someone who's carrying for defense will never bother you, and you wouldn't be in any danger...

A whacko who's going to shoot up a meeting in public is going to do it anyhow. You might be lucky enough that a CCW person would be there too.

2070. arkymalarky - 10/14/2005 9:29:18 PM

Hey, 3i3b, what's your take on the police beating in NO?

I'm one of the open carry people--my view is that at least seeing the weapon would give me the option of bolting for the door in a panic before the owner put his/her hands on it and yanked it out of a vest pocket or whatever.

2071. wonkers2 - 10/15/2005 7:16:59 AM

Then, why didn't he leave the gun in his car, locked in the trunk? Anybody who feels a need to carry a gun on the way to a school board meeting is more than a little bit nuts, IMHO. Akin to people who can't ride in elevators, drive cars over bridges or fly in airplanes.

2072. jayackroyd - 10/15/2005 8:15:56 AM

You know, iiibbb, I wish you'd attibute these "some people" remarks.

I'm probably the one who said that. I probably said it thinking of characters in Neal Stephenson's Cryptonomicon who carry rifles around, legally, in part to illustrate how stupid and inconsistent the gun laws are.

In this case, I agree with you in one sense. Yes, if it's legal to carry a gun, then people should be able to legally carry guns in all public fora--17 year-olds at school, legislators in session, people attending school board meetings, little league games in public parks etc.

I think you'll find that people who own private venues where people gather, like bars and day care centers will take a dim view of this and will prohibit guns from being carried in those settings. The free market side of your personality might want to consider why that is.

But I agree that the people trying to get a specific ban in a specific setting are wrong. In fact, if I lived in York, I might well get a permit to carry, and walk around as much as possible with a gun strapped to my hip, and a tshirt saying "Yup. It's legal. Makes sense, right?" I'd be sure to attend, armed, local meetings held by my elected officials, and to visit my state legislator in his office with my gun on my hip.

And when the guy at the front of the building at the metal detector made me take it off, I'd point out that the people in that building are the ones who have said that this is a perfectly reasonable, perfectly safe practice, that my right to bear this gun is supported by the Constitution and by state law, and I'd go find my local ACLU rep to get a lawsuit started to allow me to carry an Uzi when visiting my state rep.

So, no, I think these local folks are wrong. They shouldn't be trying to keep this guy from attending school board meetings with his 45. They also shouldn't presume his carrying is illegal, anymore than they should presume that some other citizen has a joint in among his Marlboros.

The more people who carry openly, the quicker there will be restrictions on carrying at all, open and concealed. So I say, go for it. And fight those stupid bans on guns in schools. Kids deserve protection too.

2073. jayackroyd - 10/15/2005 9:12:58 AM

I just reread the article, and I feel even more strongly that if there is one venue where guns, if they can be legally carried at all, should be welcome is in meetings with elected officials. There should be no metal detectors in front of legislative offices, no barriers to weapons brought into the white house.

After all, if there's nothing for ordinary citizens to fear, and, in fact, their safety is greatly enhanced by an armed populace, then our elected officials should be overjoyed to benefit from this bounty.

2074. jayackroyd - 10/15/2005 9:29:53 AM

BTW, iiibbb (or anyone, FTM), I found this amusing enough a story to post it with similar comments at DailyKos.

Please feel free to add something if you think I've misstated the story or if you can add to the humor.

2075. wonkers2 - 10/15/2005 10:00:40 AM

Your logic is unassailable! I await iiibbb's response with bated and baited breath. And the vision of Arky packing in her classroom made my day.

2076. arkymalarky - 10/15/2005 11:07:51 AM

Not to throw cold water on all this, but my read of what 3i3b said was not a defense of carrying in public (which he does support, and I don't), but why he thinks if there is a right to carry, it should be concealed carry rather than open. I think it should be open rather than concealed, and if you're caught hiding a weapon in any public place you're illegal, period. No one has to wait for you to produce a permit. If you're carrying openly, anyone should be able to ask to see your permit and you're violating the law if you don't have it ready to show.

2077. arkymalarky - 10/15/2005 11:09:10 AM

I figure the cap'n would be the one with baited breath.

2078. arkymalarky - 10/15/2005 11:10:25 AM

And there should be strict regulations on what types of guns could be carried and in what way.

2079. iiibbb - 10/16/2005 7:25:55 PM

2070. arkymalarky - 10/15/2005 4:29:18 AM

Hey, 3i3b, what's your take on the police beating in NO?


Not sure if I have one. It's always hard to tell from tapes like that what led up to it. However... I think a lot of cops get off on the power and use more force than they ought to to subdue it... they're supposed to be the professionals after all.

I always think it kind of odd that 'people' have expectations for joe-average to maek impecable decisions about using force... while seem to give the cops a free pass.

I know Jay likes me to cite which people... but I can't really... its a sum of memes. There are people that feel this way... if you don't feel the way I am directing my comments... feel free to consider them not directed at you.

I'm one of the open carry people--my view is that at least seeing the weapon would give me the option of bolting for the door in a panic before the owner put his/her hands on it and yanked it out of a vest pocket or whatever.

Obviously just a difference of opinion. The main point of this post is that people respond unreasonably to open carry... to the point of pulling two sheriffs deputies off real crime fighting as a response to someone who called ahead and told the law he was going to do this.

2080. iiibbb - 10/16/2005 7:30:56 PM

Message # 2071

Keeping a gun in a car is reasonable... except it isn't under control in a car. Cars are easily broken into. If a lunatic happens to know you carry (like because you carry openly) then they also know they can break into your car and aquire a gun.

Another issue is there are companies like Weyerhaeuser that fire people for leaving guns in their cars... basically people have no provision for moving between places they can and can't have them. It's perfectly legitimate to carry a gun once you're off company property, but they don't allow a means for you to not bring it in a building.

2081. iiibbb - 10/16/2005 7:44:35 PM

Message # 2074

Perhaps, but having people arrested for wearing fanny packs isn't going to win you votes either.

The actually do as you suggest... they frequently challenge gun bans they think violate citizen rights. They've won more than they've lost doing what you suggest, and gun rights in VA just keep expanding.

2082. iiibbb - 10/16/2005 7:53:24 PM

To me I guess it's more odd to insist people carry in the open and that anyone be able to demand to see their permit. Like any of you are going to go up to some potential nutjob and ask to see their permit... that's very funny.

Better to say "you can do it, but nobody better no about it... if it becomes a disruption, then you're going to hear from the cops whether you're legal or not." Basically it allows the cops to respond to any observed gun the same. They can assume it's criminal. Open carry, they have to figure out intent.... they wind up being distracted by the people who aren't the problem. They become desensitized to guns.

In fact Jay... as much as you'd like to think it would cause some sort of revolution to see guns in public.... more than likely people would just start to not care because they'd see them every day and nothing would happen.

You can't ban a constitutional right just for shits and giggles... they'd have to pass an ammendment, and I beleive you yourself doubt that such a thing could be passed in this country right now.

The NRA would have a field day using the indiscretions of the gov't in New Orleans and it would die.

2083. wonkers2 - 10/21/2005 8:08:44 AM

While the U.S. votes to sheild gun makers from legal liability Brazil votes on gun ban. Here.

2084. jayackroyd - 10/21/2005 9:09:49 AM

I know Jay likes me to cite which people... but I can't really... its a sum of memes. There are people that feel this way... if you don't feel the way I am directing my comments... feel free to consider them not directed at you.


The reason I say that is because I've noticed that "some people" tend to have much stronger and easier to refute views than actual people. It happened that the most recent one was something much like I'd said.

2085. jayackroyd - 10/21/2005 9:19:26 AM

Better to say "you can do it, but nobody better no about it... if it becomes a disruption, then you're going to hear from the cops whether you're legal or not." Basically it allows the cops to respond to any observed gun the same. They can assume it's criminal. Open carry, they have to figure out intent.... they wind up being distracted by the people who aren't the problem. They become desensitized to guns.

In fact Jay... as much as you'd like to think it would cause some sort of revolution to see guns in public.... more than likely people would just start to not care because they'd see them every day and nothing would happen.

You can't ban a constitutional right just for shits and giggles... they'd have to pass an ammendment, and I beleive you yourself doubt that such a thing could be passed in this country right now.

I didn't say any of this. I hadn't read down this far when I posted my previous message, but this illustrates why I want to know who said what you're replying to. You're answering some other objection here--not one that I made.

What I said is that I'd like to see legislative offices treated as places where gun rights are expressed to their fullest extent. I would like to see public officials operate in the same environment (concealed carry, open carry whatever) that they expect the public to operate within.

In fact, I did say that you can't expect cops to presume illegal activity when someone has a gun that is putatively legal anymore than you can ask cops to presume that every Marlboro box has a joint in it.

All I'm saying is that if you're gonna let guns be carried, let guns be carried. No bans on school property, no bans in the county courthouse, no restrictions in legislative offices, no restrictions in the White House.

If my neighborhood is safer because my neighbors carry guns, why is the President's house presumed to be less safe? If the President believes that guns are a right and they enhance the safety of the Republic, then they shouldn't make him so goddamned nervous.

But I'll take the legislature. All I ask is that a bill be proposed in states that permit guns to be carried that the same carry permissions apply in the legislative offices and on the legislative floor. You'd support such a bill, wouldn't you iiibbb? The NRA would, wouldn't it?

2086. wonkers2 - 10/21/2005 9:49:52 AM

That would make a lot of people very nervous.

2087. jexster - 10/21/2005 10:05:52 AM

Hello I3b3,

I am writing today to talk to you about an issue that is very dear to me – gun safety. My life was changed forever on December 7, 1993, when my husband Dennis was shot and killed, and our son Kevin critically wounded when a crazed gunman opened fire on a Long Island Rail Road commuter train returning from New York City at the height of the evening rush hour. The incident was called the "Long Island Rail Road Massacre."

During the two years I spent nursing Kevin back to health, I made a promise to fight to prevent other families from experiencing similar tragedies. During my fight, Congress passed the Assault Weapons Ban in 1994, which outlawed and sale and use of military style weapons to the public. In 1996, an attempt was made by the Republican majority to repeal the ban. The majority of Congress shared my view that these rapid fire weapons have no purpose on America's streets. There was, however, the vote of one particular Congressman that struck a sour note. Just months after the Long Island Rail Road Massacre, my own Congressman had voted to repeal the ban.

I was outraged, and for the first time, recognized the extent of the stronghold the National Rifle Association held on Members of Congress. I vowed to make a change and began a grassroots campaign to take that seat in Congress. On November 5, I won my first election to Congress. But my fight against gun violence was just beginning.

For too long, the National Rifle Association has controlled the debate over gun safety in America. That's why I'm inviting you to join a new organization I've formed – the Carolyn McCarthy Center on Gun Violence and Harm Reduction – that's committed to taking on the NRA and fighting for a mainstream, common-sense legislative and political agenda.

The CMC Center is a nationwide network of concerned Americans united in the belief that we must do more to end the cycle of gun violence that grips our nation. I established the CMC Center as a special project of my campaign committee to mobilize public support for new gun safety legislation and to help elect candidates at the state and federal levels who will work with me to make progress on the issue. In addition, the CMC Center will serve as a forum for victims of gun violence, educate the public about the real motives of the gun lobby and work to stamp out the extremism of the NRA.

Until we stand behind our principles with political action that will make our nation safer from the threat of gun violence, our proponents will not be stopped. That is what the CMC Center is all about. If you are as committed as I am, please visit the CMC Center website at www.cmccenter.org and click here to subscribe to our email newsletter.

The NRA has worn out their welcome, and together we CAN make a difference.


Rep.Carolyn McCarthy


Paid for by Friends of Carolyn McCarthy
Box 190 * Mineola, NY 11501

2088. iiibbb - 10/21/2005 10:07:20 AM

All I'm saying is that if you're gonna let guns be carried, let guns be carried. No bans on school property, no bans in the county courthouse, no restrictions in legislative offices, no restrictions in the White House.

If my neighborhood is safer because my neighbors carry guns, why is the President's house presumed to be less safe? If the President believes that guns are a right and they enhance the safety of the Republic, then they shouldn't make him so goddamned nervous.

But I'll take the legislature. All I ask is that a bill be proposed in states that permit guns to be carried that the same carry permissions apply in the legislative offices and on the legislative floor. You'd support such a bill, wouldn't you iiibbb? The NRA would, wouldn't it?

Fine questions... you do a fine job of doing exactly what you describe in Message # 2084. I don't know what the NRA would support. I don't pay all that much attention to the NRA, but I'd say they consider other gun rights issues more pressing than carrying in courthouses and at the White House or in congress. You do know it's illegal to have guns pretty much anywhere in DC don't you?

But along those lines, if some entity chooses to ban guns on their premises that they provide a means for checking guns, and that the proprietor be financially liable for what occurs during the transfer of the weapon to their custody as well as the safety of all people on the premises.

Back in reality all I care about is consistancy. My only concern is that laws and regulations not be set up as to be a minefield for the law abiding. I worry about breaking laws that I may not be aware of just because I'm travelling.

2089. jayackroyd - 10/21/2005 10:14:22 AM

Good point. I'll drop the NRA question. Would you support consistency within state lines--that gun legislation should include the provision that they apply inside legislative office buildings?

2090. jayackroyd - 10/21/2005 10:15:41 AM

On DC not permitting carrying, yes, I am aware of that. That's why my post specified state legislatures.

And of course my larger point is that state legislators don't really believe their rhetoric if they insist on metal detectors at their office buildings. And you might consider why that would be.

2091. iiibbb - 10/21/2005 10:17:03 AM

House Roll Call - Gun Lawsuit Shield Bill

The 283-144 roll call Thursday by which the House passed a bill protecting the firearms industry from massive crime-victim lawsuits.

A "yes" vote is a vote to pass the bill.

Voting yes were 223 Republicans, 59 Democrats and one independent.

Voting no were 140 Democrats, four Republicans and no independents.


Ahhh... it's nice to see some actual common-sense gun laws passed.

Other news

"This legislation will make the unregulated gun industry the most pampered industry in America," said Kristin Rand of the Violence Policy Center.

A few Democratic members of Congress who spoke out said the bill would empower the relative handful of "bad apple" gun dealers to be reckless while "shutting the courthouse door" on victims of violence.

What tripe... if there is a bad apple gun dealer there is nothing preventing them from being criminally charged. Municipalities weren't suing so-called bad-apples... they were suing major manufacturers... the deep-pockets.

The legislation would provide gun makers, dealers and distributors with broad immunity from civil lawsuits filed by dozens of cities and municipalities that have sought to hold the industry responsible for gun violence. Many of those suits have been dismissed.

It will also make it harder for individuals harmed by gun violence to file civil lawsuits. Critics said it would create one standard of negligence for the gun industry and a different standard for everyone else.

They apparently need a different standard because those filing the lawsuits are trying to hold the gun industry to a different standard of liability than everyone else.

2092. jexster - 10/21/2005 10:18:38 AM

Not to worrry I3...I smote the bitch.

Dear Cong Commuhnisss Beeyatch,

Perhaps you heard the news today OH BOY!

Speaking of course of the bizarre and brutal murder of Pamela Vitale - beaten to death with a piece of crown molding.

If you want to take crown molding away, you'll have to pry it out of my cold dead hands BITCH.

Crown molding doesn't kill people. People kill people


Warmest personal regards asshole...

2093. jexster - 10/21/2005 10:20:31 AM

Ahhh... it's nice to see some actual common-sense gun laws passed.


And the Crown Molding Manufacturers of America wish to make a contribution to your PAC

2094. iiibbb - 10/21/2005 10:33:24 AM

You illustrate the point perfectly Jex... no one is going to sue the CMMA for her murder...

2095. jayackroyd - 10/21/2005 10:34:25 AM

What I find amusing about the liability waiver is that these are the same folks who believe that courts adjudicating torts rather than regulatory agencies would be the preferred venue for solving social problems. (Not talking about iiibbb here, just harking back to discussions with libertarians past.)

2096. jayackroyd - 10/21/2005 10:37:49 AM

They apparently need a different standard because those filing the lawsuits are trying to hold the gun industry to a different standard of liability than everyone else.

What does this legislation say? Do you know?

2097. jexster - 10/21/2005 11:22:34 AM

Please be specific I3...I don't play one on TV, and didn't sleep at Holiday Inn Express last

I am a lawyer

That's news to me.


Tell me more

2098. jexster - 10/21/2005 11:25:04 AM

Do you Second Amendment legislators bother with 10th amendment at all???

The Crown Molding Mfg ASSN wants to know

2099. wonkers2 - 10/21/2005 1:29:24 PM

Just another example of what's wrong with American government--all that money sloshing around in Washington, not to mention the state capitols around our land.

2100. iiibbb - 10/21/2005 2:06:07 PM

Message # 2096
The law has 3 main points
(1) The legislation bans frivolous lawsuits,
(2) Requires the sale of locks with guns,
(3) Wants to study the issue of armor piercing ammunition.

Regarding whether the purpose of the law is to counter the higher standard the lawsuits wish to impose... which I think is what your comment is directed toward.


(3) Lawsuits have been commenced against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and importers of firearms that operate as designed and intended, which seek money damages and other relief for the harm caused by the misuse of firearms by third parties, including criminals.

(6) The possibility of imposing liability on an entire industry for harm that is solely caused by others is an abuse of the legal system, erodes public confidence in our Nation's laws, threatens the diminution of a basic constitutional right and civil liberty, invites the disassembly and destabilization of other industries and economic sectors lawfully competing in the free enterprise system of the United States, and constitutes an unreasonable burden on interstate and foreign commerce of the United States.

(7) The liability actions commenced or contemplated by the Federal Government, States, municipalities, and private interest groups and others are based on theories without foundation in hundreds of years of the common law and jurisprudence of the United States and do not represent a bona fide expansion of the common law. The possible sustaining of these actions by a maverick judicial officer or petit jury would expand civil liability in a manner never contemplated by the framers of the Constitution, by Congress, or by the legislatures of the several States. Such an expansion of liability would constitute a deprivation of the rights, privileges, and immunities guaranteed to a citizen of the United States under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

(8) The liability actions commenced or contemplated by the Federal Government, States, municipalities, private interest groups and others attempt to use the judicial branch to circumvent the Legislative branch of government to regulate interstate and foreign commerce through judgments and judicial decrees thereby threatening the Separation of Powers doctrine and weakening and undermining important principles of federalism, State sovereignty and comity between the sister States.

(b) Purposes- The purposes of this Act are as follows:

(1) To prohibit causes of action against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and importers of firearms or ammunition products, and their trade associations, for the harm solely caused by the criminal or unlawful misuse of firearm products or ammunition products by others when the product functioned as designed and intended.

So... the purpose of the law is not to give firearms companies a blank check as is implied by many... but to protect them from this specific type of lawsuit. If their product is faulty, they are still liable. So there is no different standard. This is a fairly narrow piece of legislation.

The only thing that seems half-assed is the armor piercing deal. Not because I think armor piercing is a good thing... but because most hunting ammunition is capable of defeating most body armor. So I don't know what the study will accomplish. I have questions about that clause.

2101. jayackroyd - 10/21/2005 2:19:44 PM

Yeah, that's what the news reports seemed to be saying--that the legislation was to prevent lawsuits against manufacturers for criminal use guns.

In fact, I can't think of a product where anybody can be sued for misuse. If you made a Hummer bullet-proof and then used it in a robbery, you couldn't sue the dealer or the manufacturer, or even the guy who did customization.

2102. wonkers2 - 10/24/2005 8:32:59 AM

Brazilians' Death-wish

2103. ronski - 10/24/2005 9:36:24 AM

Smart Brazilians.

2104. alistairconnor - 10/24/2005 9:43:12 AM

Yeah smart. The price of liberty.

The arms amnesty alone saved 3000 lives, comparing gun deaths 2003-2004...

But it's clear that Brazil has a huge public order problem, that needs to be addressed by an adequately-resourced federal police force. The current indigent system, run at state level, is outgunned and riddled with corruption. So the "no" campaign got a lot of traction out of the iiibbb argument : the cops aren't there to defend you, and even if they were, would you trust them?

33000 deaths a year...

A model of freedom. I sometimes claim that the US is unique in its approach to gun issues... not so, it seems. Brazil is an ally. How about Venezuela?

2105. iiibbb - 10/24/2005 10:55:58 AM

- Finland, although licensing is their, not all guns are licensed.... and full-auto is allowed with no special regs as in the US. 50% of households have weapons.

- Switzerland - fairly formal civilian military, but there's a full auto weapon in almost every household

- Canada (despite their inept registration system and some of their bans of certain oddball guns). Rate of ownership (in terms of % households is almost as high as the US. 20-25% vs 30%

.............................

Also, half of those 30K deaths in the US are suicides. I won't count them as part of a specific 'gun' problem.

2106. jayackroyd - 10/24/2005 11:02:55 AM

And you can list off countries where guns are banned, as well, and see that crime is low.

According to wikipedia, though, finland is not a land of firearms freedom:

Firearms can only be obtained with a license, which can be obtained from the local police for €32. A separate license is required for each individual firearm and family members can have a parallel licenses to use the same firearm. According to law, the firearms must be stored in a locked cupboard or with vital parts removed and hidden.They can be carried only when they are transported from their place of storage to the place of use (shooting range, hunting area or such). Even then they must be concealed or kept in carrying pouches. Only security guards with special training and a permit are allowed to carry a gun in public places. The ownership of air-rifles is not regulated but carrying or firing them in public places is not permitted.

To obtain a firearms license, an individual must declare a valid reason to own a gun. Acceptable reasons include: hunting, sports or hobby, profession related, show or promotion or exhibition, collection or museum, souvenir, and signalling. Collectors can have licenses for firearms not permitted to be owned by civilians. This is usually shown by a long gun ownership, but ultimately the issuing of licenses is at the local police's discretion. Conversely, a license for a pistol or a rifle is easy to obtain, requiring only an (often nominal) membership to a marksmanship association, although the police usually require that the first gun is suitable for a beginner.

2107. jayackroyd - 10/24/2005 11:12:55 AM

And while it's true that those Swiss have guns, those guns get inspected by the government regularly, during the terms of service of the militia members. See, they have what you'd call a "well-regulated militia". I've never understood why people who support widespread access to guns in the US cite the Swiss. It undercuts their claim that "a well-regulated militia" is a clause without content:

The Swiss army has long been a militia trained and structured to rapidly respond against foreign aggression. Swiss males grow up expecting to undergo basic military training and a mandatory period of service in the Auszug (the active-duty field army), after which Swiss men still remain part of the militia either in a home guard (Landwehr) or reserve capacity (Landsturm) until age 42 (age 52 for officers). Each such individual keeps his army-issued personal weapon (the Sig 550 5.6 mm assault rifle for enlisted men, the SIG-Sauer P220 9mm semi-automatic pistol for officers medical and postal personnel) at home with a specified quantity of government-issued ammunition, sealed and inspected regularly to insure that no unlawful usage takes place.

When relieved of duty, militiamen have the choice of keeping their personal weapon and other selected items of their equipment. The government sponsors training with rifles and shooting in competitions for interested adolescents.

The sale of ordnance ammunition - including Gw Pat.90 rounds for army-issue assault rifles - is subsidised by the Swiss government and made available at the many shooting ranges patronised by both private citizens and members of the militia. There is a regulatory requirement that ammunition sold at ranges must be used there. Indeed, while the sale of all ammunition is registered at the dealer if purchased at a private store, ammunition purchased at a shooting range is not.

In addition to the general tendency of self-discipline running strongly throughout the Swiss national character, the Swiss Army maintains tight adherence to high standards of proper military conduct. In 2005, for example, the Swiss prosecuted Auszug recruits who had reenacted the torture scenes of Abu Ghraib, one of the charges having been improper manipulation of service weapons

(Note that not merely are guns registered, but ammo sales are too.)

2108. jayackroyd - 10/24/2005 11:13:21 AM

That was wiki again.

2109. iiibbb - 10/24/2005 11:31:11 AM

I like how the Finns think that carrying concealed is the proper manner of storage and transport.

2110. iiibbb - 10/24/2005 11:32:23 AM

Paging Dr. Darwin

I hate that people such as this exist.

2111. iiibbb - 10/24/2005 11:39:54 AM

I guess there are 2 levels of 'freedom'

Those where gun the general ownership in and of itself is not banned, specifically, guns are not restricted to only certain classes of citizen... which I would include those I list, such as Finland, Switzerland, Isreal, etc.

And those places where guns may be freely carried without restriction... of which there are relatively few. I'm not even sure that's true even in the US.

2112. iiibbb - 10/24/2005 11:42:22 AM

I also find it interesting that the only requirement in Finland storage-wise is that it be "hidden".... the way that's written is it is left up to the owner to decide... not dictated to them.

2113. jayackroyd - 10/24/2005 12:04:50 PM

vital parts removed and hidden or locked.

But I think you'd find the Brady people perfectly happy to implement the Finnish system. And the NRA strongly opposed. Are you down with the Finnish system for America?

2114. jayackroyd - 10/24/2005 12:06:27 PM

carrying concealed is the proper manner of storage and transport.

On the way to place of use. You can't carry concealed in your local coffee shop.

2115. PelleNilsson - 10/24/2005 12:41:43 PM

The thing is that because Americans are so immature in their relation to guns, stronger regulation is required there than in places like Finland or Switzerland.

2116. iiibbb - 10/24/2005 12:50:06 PM

Nice way to stereotype Pelle... "Americans are so imamature in relation to their guns"

I love liberal hypocracy. It's ok to be prejudiced when it serves your purposes. Swedes are pretty racist though... so it's not a surprise.

2117. jayackroyd - 10/24/2005 12:57:43 PM

Actually, Pelle, regulation like Finland in Switerland would be an increase in the level of gun control advocate by groups like those show support the Brady bill. (If a neo-con is a liberal who got mugged, a gun control is a conservative who got shot.)

If the NRA turned around and advocated the Finnish system nationwide, I think they would find widespread support among everybody except their contributors.

The contributors would say that in particular local police have no right to any information about who does and doesn't own guns. And as for permitting frequent inspections like the Swiss do, that would be a fundamental violation of American rights.

2118. jayackroyd - 10/24/2005 12:58:42 PM

Sorry, that wasn't clear. Nationwide implementation of the Finnish system would significantly increase the degree of gun regulation in this country.

2119. PelleNilsson - 10/24/2005 1:19:06 PM

Swedes are racist? More than average? Can you support that statement? And what does it have to do with gun control? Or with my views on it? You need to get your shit together, iiibbb, and not branch out into side issues every chance you get.

2120. iiibbb - 10/24/2005 3:42:21 PM

Americans are too imature? More than average? Can you support that statement...

blah blah blah.

2121. iiibbb - 10/24/2005 3:59:38 PM

Message # 2117

I wouldn't strictly go with the Finnish system...
I have said before that with certain concesions I would be open to the idea of licensing and registration. So I do not follow the NRA's major line. However... licensing and registration as a 'deterent to crime' I'm going to resist for reasons I've stated enough times before..

As far as the manner the Finns issue licenses I don't necessarily like it being the 'discretion' of the local police. That basically makes a system that is subject to change and is likely to be very inconsistantly applied. That's the origen of 'shall-issue' language.

And counter to the Finns, I consider self defense to be a legitmate use.

But in the Finn's defense, at least they recognize the basic right in some manifestation as opposed to ... say... Washington DC, San Francisco, etc. At least they don't pick out bogus reasons to ban certain types of weapons based on aesthetics.

2122. jayackroyd - 10/24/2005 5:22:40 PM

Right ho. But don't be throwing those Finns and Swiss around as examples to support your position. They support the position of the gun control people--that guns should be registered, the police should know who owns them, their use should be restricted to certain places, and only specially trained people should be permitted to have them in public for specific purposes.

The Swiss do exactly as you castigated Alistair for wanting to do, periodically going into individual citizen's houses, check to make sure the guns are safely stored and HAVEN'T been used.

The Swiss and Finnish experience support the gun regulators.

2123. jayackroyd - 10/24/2005 5:24:19 PM

As far as the manner the Finns issue licenses I don't necessarily like it being the 'discretion' of the local police.

And I have to say as this discussion goes on, your position increasingly becomes "I want to have guns to use in self-defense in the way I see fit, and any policy that interferes with that assessment is wrong, and unconstitutional."

2124. wonkers2 - 10/24/2005 8:07:44 PM

i.e., bullshit.

2125. iiibbb - 10/24/2005 10:01:50 PM

Message # 2123

"I want to have guns to use in self-defense in the way I see fit, and any policy that interferes with that assessment is wrong, and unconstitutional."

That almost sums it up... although I feel that in your mind you think it means that I feel people have a right to go around blasting people for no good reason.

Do you think it's right that the police might apply their discretion unevenly? Before shall-issue came around the only people who could get a gun for personal protection were famous or knew the sheriff personally. That's hardly an equitable system.

Licensing and registration for the purpose of making sure people who qualify will carry safely, but gives those people less red tape I'm for. Licensing and registration as a means to prevent crime, I am not for. If I honestly thought it would provide a mechanism for preventing crime I would be for it... but I don't beleive it.

2126. alistairconnor - 10/25/2005 3:29:42 AM

I heard on the radio this morning, some stuff about the Brazilian referendum :

Public opinion was running strongly in favour of the ban on arms sales to the general public. Then the "No" campaign kicked in. It was led by the Brazilian manufacturer of the cheap .38 calibre guns that dominate the market. Backed by the principal ammunition manufacturer.

Fair enough. Legitimate business expense.

There was also a million dollar contribution to the "No" campaign from ... the NRA.

iiibbb, I know you don't generally comment on foreign stuff unless you believe it supports your own views. But I have a direct question for you : Yes or no, is the NRA's financial contribution to the Brazilian referendum campaign, a legitimate use of contributors' money? Is evangelism part of the organisation's charter?

2127. iiibbb - 10/25/2005 8:41:35 AM

Once again, I am not a fan of the NRA. I give the NRA $10/yr only because membership is required at the shooting range I use. I chose the chinchiest one I could find... It is a membership level they don't even tell you about.

The NRA is not my favorite group but at least the million was spent to fight a gun law somewhere. I am more offended by the fact that dues money goes to pay for overhead instead of programs. I joined for full membership the first year I owned a gun, and the first year I joined my shooting range...

The NRA basically bungled my mempership twice charging my credit card and not actually giving me my membership. Then they made me 'prove' I'd paid. That and their incessant mail campaigns just asking for more money.

The NRA is a lot of fluff for what they actually accomplish. They only thing they have going for them is the fact they are the largest "gun-rights" organization. I'd bet half their membership are people like me... members more because the need it to get something else... or because of the gun safety and education side of the NRA's activities.


It may be the only reason they're involved is because of the company Taurus who is a major manufacturer in US sales. They are basically a poor-man's Smith and Wesson; quality but not particularly refined. I think I heard they even bought a lot of Smith and Wessons old tooling when they started up (which is why they share model numbers and frame sizes).

2128. jayackroyd - 10/25/2005 9:12:55 AM

That almost sums it up... although I feel that in your mind you think it means that I feel people have a right to go around blasting people for no good reason

No, I mean that there is no underlying principle, no basic logic, no concern for public policy any deeper than this.

This projection of others thinking you want to you go around blasting people comes from you, and nowhere else.

Do you think it's right that the police might apply their discretion unevenly?

So do you see that you're pointing to Finnish and Swedish examples has nothing to do with your position? Your position is that you don't trust any government agency regulating your bearing arms.

Licensing and registration for the purpose of making sure people who qualify will carry safely, but gives those people less red tape I'm for. Licensing and registration as a means to prevent crime, I am not for. If I honestly thought it would provide a mechanism for preventing crime I would be for it... but I don't beleive it.

Note first that the issue here is still whether it suits you, personally. Second, there is no registration regime that would meet this standard. No red tape, no inspections,no standards --> no system.

2129. jayackroyd - 10/25/2005 9:14:44 AM

AC--

The vote was 64-36 against. If the NRA turned the tide to that degree, then democratic systems are doomed anyway.

64-36.

2130. alistairconnor - 10/25/2005 9:37:56 AM

There were a number of factors, as I understand it, in the turnaround of public opinion. I simplified somewhat in Message # 2126.

* One is that Lula and his government have, inevitably, not delivered much in terms of the huge hopes of social transformation they aroused, and as the referendum approached, it acquired an element of plebiscite against the government (much like the EU constitution referendum in France).

* The other is that the local arms industry, with a contribution of funds and, presumably, advice from the NRA, ran a highly effective campaign, and in the end, fears for personal security trumped the desire for a less-violent society.

* It's true that a democratic system that allows million-dollar contributions from foreign advocacy organisations has some important issues...
hey iii, you seem to think that's OK... so you would have no problem with the Hezbollah, or the Chinese Communist party, for example, making a million-dollar campaign contribution in the USA?

2131. alistairconnor - 10/25/2005 9:39:11 AM

by the way, iii, it's good to see you distancing yourself further from the NRA, and implicitly acknowledging that it functions primarily as a lobby group for the US arms industry.

2132. jayackroyd - 10/25/2005 9:43:15 AM

in the end, fears for personal security trumped the desire for a less-violent society.


At those numbers, I'd have to say that the voters didn't believe that the measure would be successful at creating a less violent society.

2133. alistairconnor - 10/25/2005 10:44:54 AM

Well, here are a couple of articles discussing the issue
Opendemocracy.net
Financial times

2134. iiibbb - 10/25/2005 10:45:22 AM

Message # 2128

So do you see that you're pointing to Finnish and Swedish examples has nothing to do with your position? Your position is that you don't trust any government agency regulating your bearing arms.

You're right that it's not totally congruous.

But it's not that I don't trust the agency... it's that I don't trust the people who "represent" the gov't. Ever been frustrated with the the DMV; the IRS? Ever been in the army or worked for the government? Ever been in a situation where you know the regs better than the person in front of you, but they decide whether you accomplish what you came to do?

Incompetance occurs at all levels in gov't... just look at FEMA.

So maybe what I'm saying is that with something like this... I'm not thrilled with the idea of subjecting myself to the whims and biases of a gov't representative when it comes to my personal protection.

I suspect that in Finland it is far less 'charged' a topic as it is here.

Maybe that's an issue. Is it possible that alot of Americans see gov't as an instrument of subjugation rather than organization? I mean this from both ends... not only me seeing gov't as a burden on my private activities.... but also those busybodies out there who's classic invocation would be whenever anyone says "they should make a law about that"... and the proceed to go out and try to make laws that force behavior. I often find that I really dislike people like that.

Perhaps in some other places things are handled a lot more reasonably; more homogeneous attitudes?

Just a thought. I've never lived outside the country.

2135. jayackroyd - 10/25/2005 10:55:14 AM

Is it possible that alot of Americans see gov't as an instrument of subjugation rather than organization?

That Americans see regulation of gun ownership as an instrument of subjugation is, I think, an idea that Europeans would find foreign, at best, bizarre at worst.

You see, or I should say, you used to see, a more armed state when you travelled as a tourist to Europe. I used to find the guys with automatic rifles who were everywhere in European airports disconcerting and depressing.

2136. iiibbb - 10/25/2005 10:56:49 AM

Note first that the issue here is still whether it suits you, personally. Second, there is no registration regime that would meet this standard. No red tape, no inspections,no standards --> no system.

Not quite right...

The 'system' I seem to be for would be organized as one of education, certification, and basic qualifications... under the assumption that educated and certified people would generally follow through on correct storage and handling. Gross infractions and you pull their certification. This is a system built on trust...

Rather than one merely organized as a inspection, tracking, and so-called crime prevention. I feel that those systems would evolve into harassing people that aren't the problem. I've given examples in news items from both MA and IL that such systems are used more for harassment than solving crimes. These are systems built on mistrust...


Of course many gun owners like me have been poisoned by the actions of the gun-control crowd in the past decade. Passing laws like the AWB are born of mistrust and ignorance... and as long as that's the fare being offered, I'm going to resist.

At least in this country.

2137. jayackroyd - 10/25/2005 11:30:46 AM

This is a system built on trust...

But not one involving the local police.

If I take the intersection of all of your definitions, I'm left with a regulatory null set.

2138. iiibbb - 10/25/2005 11:42:00 AM

But not one involving the local police.

If I take the intersection of all of your definitions, I'm left with a regulatory null set.

The police aren't involved? I get a background check every time I purchase a gun. I get thorough background check when I apply for a concealed handgun permit.

What I object to is the old system where local police would make a decision on your 'need'... which is usually unfairly applied... in NY city... how many non-famous, non-wealthy, non-cops do you think manage to get a permit who might be in far graver danger from an abusive spouse, stalker, or rapist?

The elimination of personal bias does not equate to a regulatory null set. The standard is background checks and education, not subjective interpretations of 'need'.

2139. jayackroyd - 10/25/2005 1:03:39 PM

On New York, my knowledge exceeds yours, and you're misinformed. Or, rather, speaking rhetorically rather than on the basis of any real information.

On the regulatory null set, it seems to me you've objected to every element of an effective regulatory regime, at one time or another. Most recently, you've posted examples in support of your position that reflect unacceptable implementations of a regulatory regime.

2140. iiibbb - 10/25/2005 2:25:13 PM

On the regulatory null set, it seems to me you've objected to every element of an effective regulatory regime, at one time or another. Most recently, you've posted examples in support of your position that reflect unacceptable implementations of a regulatory regime.

I've not objected to every element of regulation... most of the time I object I ask "what is the mechanism for preventing crime or accidents?"... I've always said that I would accept certain elements of regulation given certain other concession. The most important of which is that if I'm going to go through the trouble of getting checked, and certified, and maintaining competency I want it to mean something. Otherwise how is it different for me now other than creating potholes for me to screw up over and be branded a criminal? I don't need that.

It's true that I have always rejected a lot of proposals because they're offerred without ceding anything. Was it Alistar who proposed Byzantine punishments for failure to keep an up to date registration? What proportion of basically honest people do you think that catches relative to actual criminals who actually comit violence on others?

If that's the case, why would I accpet them? Especially if I don't think they'll do what's promised (i.e. reduce crime).

On New York, my knowledge exceeds yours, and you're misinformed. Or, rather, speaking rhetorically rather than on the basis of any real information.

So what's the deal with New York then? I've read the requirements and regs at packing.org (which I doubt your knowledge exceeds)... as I have contemplated moving there... My portrayal is not innaccurate. New York City is pretty much a hopeless case getting a permit, unless you're "somebody". The ability to get a carry permit in the rest of the state is quite unevenly applied. The more rural you are, the easier it is. If you're in Onondaga Co. you'll have a much harder time.

So in New York state your ability to get a permit depends more on what county you're in or who you are... than on your risk to society. Neighbors who draw different judges may have entirely different gun rights. Not fair, and not a system I'd support.

2141. iiibbb - 10/25/2005 2:27:29 PM

In Florida on the other hand... unless there is a specific reason to disqualify you, you may get a permit... no matter who you are (assuming you can pay the fees).

Then there's Vermont which pretty much allows you to do as you wish.

2142. jayackroyd - 10/25/2005 2:33:16 PM

My portrayal is not innaccurate. New York City is pretty much a hopeless case getting a permit, unless you're "somebody".

Except for the guy on the third floor of my building, or the retired pathologist who does photocopies of the NYTimes Crossword everyday.

iiibbb, you need to consider the possibility that your sources are biased.

2143. iiibbb - 10/25/2005 2:33:41 PM

In florida you must take a class, demonstrate competancy, subject yourself to a background check, provide fingerprints and you cannot "print" the gun in public or else the worst will be assumed.

You all claim you want people to subject themselves to these types of things, but in the end what it really comes down to is you want people to subject themselves to these things but don't want people to actually excercise their rights.

I'll tell you what... someone who's interested in self-defense and actually jumps through all those hoops is going to be pretty disinclined to do something to jeopardize that right.... but you all are still paranoid that these people are going to go "crazy" and shoot up everything.

2144. jayackroyd - 10/25/2005 2:34:00 PM

And with this, I'm done. Please do provide us with a regulatory regime that you would support. I won't comment; you can have the last word.

2145. jayackroyd - 10/25/2005 2:37:43 PM

And one reason I'm done is I'm getting really tired of being called paranoid whenever you find that your line of argument is either internally inconsistent or not supported by the evidence you cite.

Or that I say a legal gun owner is going to go crazy and shoot up everything--you put quotes around "crazy" but you're the only one who ever talks that way.

2146. iiibbb - 10/25/2005 2:38:23 PM

Here's a challenge for you Jay... go out and get a permit yourself... just to experience the process.

The fact you have a pathologist friend with a permit proves nothing. Who does he know?

The packing.org is not biased... it is a grassroots service to aid people in learning the laws for their area and aquiring permits. If there were a way to "grease the rails", it would certainly outline it.

2147. iiibbb - 10/25/2005 2:40:13 PM

You're tired of being called paranoid...

ha...

at least you know how it feels now.

2148. iiibbb - 10/25/2005 2:40:44 PM

I got tired of it the day I joined the mote...

2149. iiibbb - 10/25/2005 2:42:28 PM

I've told you over and over and over the regulatory system that I'd personally accept... and it is a sight more strict than most gun nuts and the NRA would support.

2150. jayackroyd - 10/25/2005 2:58:10 PM

New York City is pretty much a hopeless case getting a permit, unless you're "somebody".

And so, once again, I go traipsing off to one of your links, and once again, I find no support for your assertion.

Yes, packing.org is just a compendium of carrying regs.

No, it does not say New York City is pretty much a hopeless case unless you're "somebody."

Which is nonsensical on its face.

2151. iiibbb - 10/25/2005 3:52:42 PM

Message # 39

Message # 82

Message # 109

Message # 114

Message # 319

Message # 504

Message # 698

Message # 776

Message # 793

Message # 869

Message # 1095

Message # 1152

Message # 1950

Message # 1955

Tired of looking... one could also go search through the gun debates from current events since 2000. I have vivid memories of being called vigilante and other names.

2152. iiibbb - 10/25/2005 3:59:40 PM

Message # 2150

Date updated: Aug 25, 2005 @ 8:36 pm

NYC Permit Holders

Handgun licenses issued elsewhere in New York State are not valid in New York City. New York City licenses are valid throughout New York State. However, a New York State License to carry or possess will be valid in New York City in the absence of a New York City license provided that the handguns are transported by the licensee in a locked container and the trip through New York City is continuous and uninterrupted. Residents of NYC find it almost impossible to get a permit, except for the very rich or very well politically connected.

2153. jayackroyd - 10/25/2005 5:39:46 PM

That reference is to one class of license, concealed carry at any time. And the guy needs to do more research. It can't be both almost impossible, and happen twice with two blocks of my apartment. Not counting ex-law enforcement people that I know. Speaking with a cop I know, just now, he says there are thousands of such permits issued, but not 10s of thousands, and that they are not easy to get.

All other permits issued by NYC, "Carry Business License", Limited Carry Business License", "Special Carry License" and "Carry Guard License" may be issued to Non Residents of NYC and NYS.

is the next paragraph.

However.

I could not get a concealed carry, all times hand gun here. I couldn't justify doing so, either in the letter of justification required by the regs nor would the interviewer give me an upcheck. There's no reason for me to carry a gun in New York.

FTM, I couldn't get a license in Finland, where you have to show proficiency.

2154. iiibbb - 10/25/2005 7:55:17 PM

Are you talking about concealed carry permits or possession permits. NY is in the minority on a permit requirement for simple possession.

2155. wonkers2 - 10/30/2005 5:00:53 PM

iiibbb and the missus Here.

2156. iiibbb - 10/31/2005 10:04:39 AM

You mean here

Real funny... :/

2157. iiibbb - 10/31/2005 10:07:54 AM

More tales of open carry

2158. iiibbb - 11/2/2005 11:11:09 AM

Stat of the day...

...over 70% of American murders take place in just 3.5% of counties -- these being the inner-city areas where drug dealers are concentrated.

2159. iiibbb - 11/3/2005 11:32:07 AM

Save your life or go to prison

2160. iiibbb - 11/4/2005 11:53:29 AM

So-called "reasonable gun control"

This is why gun control advocates have not credibility. Instead of having consitent regulations across the state... they've allowed a morass of laws designed to entrap, criminalize, and harass people who are law-abiding by any other standard.

SPRINGFIELD, Ill. State lawmakers gave gun control advocates a victory today on a measure that would determine how guns must be transported statewide.
The House voted 67-to-44 for an attempt to override Blagojevich's veto on the measure that would pre-empt local ordinances on gun transportation.

The measure had already passed the Senate and needed 71 votes in the House to become law.

The gun lobby pushed hard for the override. It argued different local laws on gun transportation create confusion for hunters and law-abiding gun users.

But Blagojevich, law enforcement and gun control advocates contended communities should have the authority to set regulations stricter than state law.

They have fought hard this week against overrides on this measure and two other gun lobby bills Blagojevich vetoed this summer.

2161. iiibbb - 11/4/2005 11:54:18 AM

This is why I know there's no such thing as "common sense" gun laws.

2162. iiibbb - 11/4/2005 12:47:43 PM

Why trust a gov't that can't even keep someone they've already got custody of?.

Let's see... murderers escape... laws are designed to confuse the law-abiding... New Orleans floods... cops beat up regular people...

~~~the gov't will protect us~~~

... I don't beleive it.

2163. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 11/4/2005 1:53:44 PM

Don't take away my guns because when you do, I feel vulnerable and when I feel vulnerable, it scares me and when it scares me, I get crazy and when I get crazy I want to shoot something and I know that other people who want to shoot something that that "thing" they want to shoot is me and you just can't take away my guns. I'll kill you if you try--or before that, I'll vote for people who are just as fearful as me, people who think they can take over the world for our own safety . . . and what's wrong with that if it will keep me from feelin' vulnerable even though we're all on this spinnin' ball of diminishing things to exploit rather than cultivate . . . and besides, everybody is going to die--so death to freedom and the future!

2164. wonkers2 - 11/6/2005 1:37:11 PM

iiibbb, Here's a movie recommendation for you and all fans of the 2nd Amendment: "Runaway Jury" with John Cusak, Dustin Hoffman, Gene Hackman and Rachel Weisz. I'm sure you'll love it!

2165. iiibbb - 11/9/2005 9:16:32 AM

San Fansisco bans handguns making them one of three cities in the US.

Which way will crime rates go do you think?

2166. iiibbb - 11/9/2005 9:18:32 AM

Got to like the way they voted to suppress military recruiting... except where they loose federal funding...

That's a principled stand.

2167. wonkers2 - 11/9/2005 9:23:53 AM

The gun vote proves San Franciscans are smarter than Brazilians.

2168. iiibbb - 11/9/2005 9:57:24 AM

We'll see if they fair better than Chicago and Washington DC. We know how violent-crime-free they are.

2169. jexster - 11/9/2005 12:41:56 PM

SAN FRANCISCO
MEASURES: Voters take stand against guns, recruiting at schools


Got lots of guns here in Texas. Got signs warning against entering churches with concealed weapons and signs in restaurants warning against carrying unlicensed concealed weapons

Yee haw!

The right to arm bears

2170. iiibbb - 11/10/2005 11:58:28 AM

I'll bet the vast preponderance of CCW permit holders respect those signs.

As to the criminals or people who won't get a permit anyway... I doubt the signs you mock, or the SF law, deters them one iota.

Pick 100 random people. Say you know that 2 of them have CCW permits. Well, of those two you know those people have gotten training, gone through an extensive criminal background check, and have been signed off by the local sheriff and judge. What do you know about any of the other 98?

2171. Max Macks - 11/10/2005 2:45:33 PM

Is is that people are allowed to
own ak-47's and similiar machine guns
that I dont understand.

I thought there was a law again machine guns
that went way back to the time Dillinger and Ma Baker

And lovers of violence in movies cannot make
me believe that all those weapons being fired
at people right and left has no affect on
those who was this stuff.

It is hard to avoid and I have watched
some of those movies .

2172. iiibbb - 11/10/2005 3:00:36 PM

There is a law against owning automatic weapons. At least people are not allowed to own ak-47s without a cost prohibative class-III license.

The AK-47's, SKS's, M16s that the public generally buys are semi-auto look-alikes. They are essentially no different than a hunting rifle except they shoot a medium power, rather than a high power, round.

Ammunition is about 1/2 to 1/4 the cost of standard hunting ammunition. The rifles themselves are 1/2 to 1/4 the cost of semi-auto hunting cousins.

Basically, if you like to target shoot (plink as it's called)... the look-alikes are a good option. For self defense, these calibers are far more appropriate than more powerfull hunting ammunition.

Ironically... ever since I got a gun and started thinking seriously about defense... I don't like to watch violent movies.

2173. iiibbb - 11/11/2005 2:39:53 PM

So many other ways this could have gone down.

What do you think he would've done if she hadn't been armed?

Oh... and notice that the badguy didn't just take her gun away from her and use it against her.


Think about the headlines in San Francisco... "Woman shoots man in leg with an illegal handgun!!!" That woman doesn't look like she could handle a rifle very well if you ask me.

Or in Michigan... "Woman jailed for shooting intruder after failing to retreat."

2174. Magoseph - 11/11/2005 3:40:04 PM

Listening to the clip, you get the idea she knew just how to use the gun. Apparently, she was taught how to use it. Here where I live, she would be a heroine by now.

2175. iiibbb - 11/21/2005 7:54:40 AM

6 wounded in Tacoma Mall kidnapping

Court records show he has an extensive juvenile criminal history dating back to 1998. He has been convicted of burglary, theft and possession of burglary tools and he had been ordered not to possess any weapons, the Times reported.

He didn't obey court orders; criminals don't obey gun laws either.

I'll be willing to bet they determine the gun was previously stolen.

Now... if you were at this mall and you were kidnapped... do you really think you're more secure waiting for the cops? These victims were lucky... not wise.

If open carry were the only legal means the pwerson openly carrying in this store they would likely be shot first by the criminal (who would be concealed carry) and then the criminal would have 2 guns. Or they might not have even had a gun in the first place... but after a knifing or clubbing they now do.

If public carry is allowed... concealed carry is generally far more sensible.

In a country where people with long records such as this are allowed to roam the streets... trained, law-abiding people should have the option to carry a gun if they see fit.

2176. alistairconnor - 11/21/2005 9:41:16 AM

In a country where people with long records such as this are allowed to roam the streets...

so according to you, iii, this guy, with his extensive juvenile record of burglary, theft, and possessing burglary tools, should have been locked up pre-emptively?

For how long? Life? Just in case he ever tried to harm someone? or because juvenile burglars deserve life sentences?

The USA has the highest incarceration rate, by far, in the developed world. It's not high enough for iii.

It seems remarkably easy for an angry young man with a record to obtain an assault rifle. Maybe that needs addressing.

Oh wait...

2177. Marc-Albert - 11/21/2005 9:59:01 AM

A low incarceration rate is not necessarily something to brag about.

The experience of European countries suggests a link between high crime and low rates of imprisonment. Britain and Sweden are both high crime countries with low rates of imprisonment. Conversely Ireland, Spain and Portugal are low crime countries with high rates of imprisonment. (British Crime Survey, 2003)

Incarceration rate:

Sweden: 4.7 per 1000
Ireland: 33 per 1000
Spain: 48 p. 1000


England and Wales. Fall of crime rate and increased incarceration rate:

2178. iiibbb - 11/21/2005 10:08:47 AM

Locked up pre-emptively... pre-emptive means that he's never done anything wrong before. Why isn't there better screening or better decisions made on who gets extra chances?

If society is willing to accept the risk giving people who have proven themselves to be a risk second chances upon third chances upon fourth chances.... then what's the big deal with me having any chance? I've never broken a single law (pretty much save speeding).

You talk about being pre-emptive. I should be barred from carrying a gun because I 'might' do something bad with it despite the evidence to a the contrary... but he should be allowed enough freedom to somehow aquire a so-called "assault rifle".

Most of the "common sense" gun control proposals put the clamps on me... not on our shooter in this story.

Makes perfect sense...

2179. alistairconnor - 11/21/2005 10:14:09 AM

So the answer is yes, you (and probably Marc Albert) would want to see this particluar guy locked up for his previous property crimes (burglary) committed as a juvenile.

Myself, I believe in individual liberties.

2180. wonkers2 - 11/21/2005 11:04:36 AM

You remind me of "Minority Report" based on a P.K. Dick sci-fi novel in which "pre-cogs" enabled a technology which could detect crimes in advance of their occurence. A "Pre-Crime Department" was established and people were locked up without trial in a "Hall of Containment." Max Von Sydow played the heavy. Also starred Tom Cruise.

2181. alistairconnor - 11/21/2005 11:05:43 AM

Perhaps I should spell that out a bit.

iii and M-A seem to be advocating a statistical approach to crime prevention : lock up the problem population. In the case iii cites : several counts of burglary and possession of a crow bar etc... locking him up for 20 years would have avoided this mall shooting business.

A high incarceration rate costs money, but might be a net economic positive if it really does reduce crime. It also reduces unemployment.

The problem I have with it, is the question of human rights and individual liberties. The punishment has to be proportional to the crime. Otherwise it's not justice, but social engineering, in fact a sort of eugenics.

2182. alistairconnor - 11/21/2005 11:06:47 AM

Haven't seen the film Wonk... but it's pretty much what we're talking about.

2183. wonkers2 - 11/21/2005 11:09:25 AM

Yeah. Scary!

2184. alistairconnor - 11/21/2005 11:10:13 AM

On a related note, I saw some statistics about the death penalty in the US recently.

Executions are on a downward trend, less than 100 last year I think. Death sentencing is also trending downwards, about 300 per year or something. But there is about a 60-year stock in death row, at the current execution rate.

Which leads me to wonder how many Death Row inmates die of natural causes every year. It's pretty clear that most of them will.

Do they have geriatric wards in Death Row?

2185. Marc-Albert - 11/21/2005 11:18:47 AM

I'm not really advocating anything Alistair.

It's just that yesterday, I was reading an article in the Guardian (I confess I sometime read leftist sheets) about the high crime rate in Scotland as compared to the rest of the UK. Alcohol was mentioned as the big factor. Then, from one link to another, I ended up on that British Crime Survey article about the relationship between high crime rate and low incarceration rate.

I tend to be opportunistic, so when I saw "incarceration rate" in your article...It was all fresh in my memory.

2186. PelleNilsson - 11/21/2005 11:25:30 AM

Please provide a link to your source, MA.

2187. Marc-Albert - 11/21/2005 11:59:15 AM

This is the entry link. You may also click on International comparisons, etc. for other figures.

http://www.reform.co.uk/website/crime/abetterway/imprisonmentandthecrimerate.aspx

2188. PelleNilsson - 11/21/2005 12:58:41 PM

All I can say is that any set of statistics showing Sweden as the leading country for crime in the EU must be seriously flawed. It probably has to do with the definition of crime and how data are collected.

2189. Marc-Albert - 11/21/2005 1:14:36 PM

It's quite possible. For instance in France, I read that the apparent steep increase in the crime rate since 2000 was in fact due in good part to new reporting methods used by the Gendarmerie nationale.

2190. jayackroyd - 11/21/2005 1:34:20 PM

Swedes dutifully report every little transgression to the authorities, while the Irish take care of their own business.

2191. Marc-Albert - 11/21/2005 1:43:51 PM

Don't go West young man

Overall crime rate (2004)


In Canada, the criminal code is of exclusive federal jurisdiction and is the same throughout the country so there is no problem as to the definition of this and that crime.

Here, variation in the crime rate is largely geographical. The East is relatively crime-free, while the West, overall the most dynamic and prosperous part of Canada during the last few decades, has much higher crime rates (homicide and other violent crimes, crimes against property).

Except for areas inhabited by aboriginals and inuits, economically-depressed areas are not more crime prone. Au contraire.


Regina, Winnipeg, Edmonton, Vancouver, Calgary have higher crime rates than Toronto, Montreal and other cities and towns east.

Curiouser and curiouser: the "frenchier" a city is, the less dangerous it seems to be.

Of the 27 Canadian metropolitan areas listed in the 2003 federal statistics, only 3 cities, all in Quebec (Sherbrooke, Trois-Rivières, Saguenay), with a franco population around 95-99%, didn't register a single murder.

Of the 3 cities with 100,000 population and more with no homicide in 2004, two were "French" (Sudbury, Ont; Sherbrooke, Que)

Violent crime (incl. homicide) in urban areas over 500,00 pop (2004):

Quebec City 0.8 per 100,000

Ottawa 1.1

Hamilton 1.3

Montreal 1.7

Toronto 1.8

Vancouver 2.6

Edmonton 3.4

Winnipeg 4.9


http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/050721/d050721a.htm

2192. Marc-Albert - 11/21/2005 1:47:04 PM

Quebec has the lowest “Violent Crime” rate of all provinces, including quaint, picturesque Prince Edward Island. Go figure.

This is funny because, when I was a kid, the Anglos liked to call Montreal, the Murder Capital of Canada, the Hold-Up Capital of Canada, the Prostitution Capital of Canada, etc. Now, year after year, federal statistics show that the crime rate in Quebec is among the lowest in Canada, and the lowest in some categories. I think Quebec also had the lowest juvenile delinquency rate of all provinces.

Can’t be because we’re catholic since statistics show that Québécois have the lowest church attendance rate in Canada.

2193. alistairconnor - 11/22/2005 6:42:48 AM

Le Bien être?

2194. alistairconnor - 11/22/2005 6:43:03 AM

Le code Napoléon?

2195. alistairconnor - 11/22/2005 6:43:54 AM

To bring this back on topic, M-A : do you have comparable statistics for gun ownership?

2196. alistairconnor - 11/22/2005 6:53:18 AM

Québécois have the lowest church attendance rate in Canada.

Being catholic isn't about going to church. It isn't even about believing in Jesus and Mary. It's not really a matter of choice either. It's a cultural element among others.

2197. iiibbb - 11/22/2005 10:14:27 AM

Message # 2184

Perhaps you will think it ironic.... but I am pretty much against the death penalty. The only people I think are worthy of killing are mass murderers, terrorists, and treason.

But there are too many instances where the authorities have gotten the wrong guy for me to be comfortable with the death penalty as a common practice.

2198. alistairconnor - 11/22/2005 10:20:18 AM

I was surprised at the steady downward trend, both in sentencing and in executions, despite the apparent rightward shift in US politics in the last decade. This leads me to believe that it's a long-term sociological trend, which, if it continues, will lead to the extinction of the death penalty, in functional terms, in a decade or two.

2199. arkymalarky - 11/22/2005 6:12:43 PM

Not as long as Texas is in the Union.

2200. Macnas - 11/23/2005 3:56:50 AM

I think alistair means in the rest of the real world.

2201. alistairconnor - 11/23/2005 5:55:02 AM

Well, why is Texas the outlier? More than half the executions I think. And what would it take to change that? Who appoints the hanging judges?

2202. alistairconnor - 11/23/2005 6:02:39 AM

The rate of robbery incidents fell 4% in 2004. Police reported more than 27,000 robberies, half of which were committed without a weapon of any kind. The rate of robberies committed with a firearm continued to decline, down 3% in 2004, accounting for one in seven robberies. The remaining 35% of robberies were committed with other weapons such as knives.

Gee those Canucks are dumb. They don't even know that when you commit a robbery, you're supposed to use a gun.

2203. iiibbb - 11/23/2005 10:28:43 AM

The cannucks also seem dumb enough to surrender stuff to unarmed burglars.

2204. arkymalarky - 11/23/2005 11:49:01 AM

Texas. It's like a whole 'nother country.

Or so their tourism ads say. It would take them being something other than themselves to change it.

2205. alistairconnor - 11/23/2005 12:09:51 PM

iii : the statistic references robberies, not burglaries, but I see your point.

It would be interesting to compare :
- Canadian and US robbery rates
- comparative rates of injury or death in robberies.

2206. alistairconnor - 11/23/2005 12:52:07 PM

But I'm intrigued by that statistic. Half of all Canadian robberies involve no weapon! What's the robbery scenario in a sensitive, caring society?

Guy walks into a liquor store : "Give me all your money or I'll, or I'll cry."

2207. robertjayb - 11/23/2005 2:11:40 PM

Most Texas death sentences come out of Harris County (Houston, the largest city) where there really is a hang-em-high district attorney.

But the case being mentioned as possibly tilting the scales a bit comes out of San Antonio where it seems an innocent kid was executed. This is pretty big because it is common for death advocates to claim that this doesn't happen.

The Richard Cantu case is written about here by Houston Chronicle columnist Rick Casey, formerly of San Antonio.

2208. alistairconnor - 11/24/2005 4:23:48 AM

The district attourney is an elected position, is that correct?

And the popular jury convicts, and who hands down the death sentence? Is he elected too?

But in the final instance, the governor can stay execution?

I'm just musing as to when routine executions will end in Texas. That would be a turning point.

2209. robertjayb - 11/24/2005 1:06:46 PM

DA's and judges are elected. Some progress is seen in recent legislation that gives juries in certain capital cases the option of imposing life imprisonment without parole rather than death.

I'm not clear on the governor's role. There is a lot of bureaucratic
rigamrole determining what he can and cannot do.

Sentiment against the death penalty is increasing, albeit with glacial speed. It will take a couple of election cycles before anything is done.

There is hope that the Richard Cantu case will get a lot of embarrassing national publicity. Texas politicos, unmoved by the moral issue, will respond to threats to corporate recruitment and tourism.

2210. robertjayb - 11/24/2005 2:37:30 PM

Texas Moratorium Network

The Robert Cantu case and more...

2211. robertjayb - 11/24/2005 3:38:18 PM

U.S. nearing 1,000th execution since 1977...(AP)
..................................................

After a 10-year moratorium, Gary Gilmore in 1977 became the first person to be executed following a 1976 U.S. Supreme Court decision that validated state laws to reform the capital punishment system. Since then, 997 prisoners have been executed, and next week, the 998th, 999th and 1,000th are scheduled to die.

2212. Jenerator - 11/24/2005 7:31:00 PM

I hope that those of you who are against the death penalty are also against abortion.

Some progress is seen in recent legislation that gives juries in certain capital cases the option of imposing life imprisonment without parole rather than death.

How recent is recent? I testified in a cap. murder trial seven eight years ago and that was an option then,

2213. robertjayb - 11/24/2005 7:54:22 PM

Governor Perry signed the bill in June of this year.

2214. Jenerator - 11/24/2005 8:26:08 PM

That's right. The option we had then was life with the possibility of parole - all depending on when the crime was committed. The jury wasn't privy to that, though. So, if a person got life imprisonment, the jury wasn't allowed to know that the criminal could be released in 32 years.

2215. alistairconnor - 11/25/2005 6:37:16 AM

I hope that those of you who are against the death penalty are also against abortion.

Well, you can hope, Jen. It's not germane to the discussion though.

I take it you are OK with both?

2216. Macnas - 11/25/2005 7:35:01 AM

Oh you're mean you are.

2217. Jenerator - 11/26/2005 7:41:50 PM

Alistair,

I just think it's interesting that you all are so concerned about convicted murderers but not about truly innocent lives. But you're right, that's not 'germane' to the discussion.

2218. alistairConnor - 11/27/2005 5:52:45 PM

Well, since you raised the question, Jen, I assume you expect people to have a consistent position over the two questions. So I might ask you : since you're happy with actual people being killed in your name, what's the big deal about embryos?

Also, you've made an assumption about my position on abortion. As it happens, your assumption is mistaken, I am concerned about it. Because a line has to be drawn arbitrarily, I'm ok with abortions in the first four months, and not thereafter, except for extreme danger to the mother.

But it's not relevent to capital punishment. There is no reason why anyone should cede to your arbitrary bracketing of two very different issues, especially when your own positions are not "consistent" (you are both "pro-life" and "pro-death", as you would probably say about me).

2219. Macnas - 11/28/2005 3:56:04 AM

Jen, and I know this is off the thread topic, but anyways, I think the death penalty is flawed, if only because it has killed so many innocent people.

Granted, not the innocence of the little baby or unborn child, but innocent of the crime for which they are being killed. Every few months I read of people being released from prison after years of being falsely banged up for crimes they did not commit, found after DNA evidence or somesuch had proven they were innocent.

Albert Pierrepoint, the English executioner/hangman ( he was unofficial executioner for Ireland as well) said that in all the 450 odd people he had hanged he could not see that the death penalty was a deterrent, rather a measure of primitive revenge.

Of course, if you feel all Old Testament about the matter and see it as a just punishment, then, I suppose, fine.

2220. alistairconnor - 11/28/2005 4:12:51 AM

How could he be "unofficial" executioner for Ireland?

Did he do it on his days off? Keep his hand in while on holiday?

or did you mean "extrajudicial"? The mind fair boggles.

2221. PelleNilsson - 11/28/2005 5:09:54 AM

Maybe he was contracted on a case-by-case basis?

2222. Macnas - 11/28/2005 5:16:35 AM

Pelle is right.

Pierrepoint was paid circa £15 per hanging, and as he, or his father (it was a family trade) was the executioner for the U.K., when the Brits left Ireland in the 20's he just kept doing his job on, as Pelle says, a contractual basis.

It was the kind of job that would be very unhealthy for an Irishman at the time, he wouldn't have lasted long before someone put a bullet in him.

2223. iiibbb - 11/28/2005 9:03:18 AM

I'm with Mancas... I said I was against the death penalty becuase it is flawed... not because I think guilty people don't deserve to die. In fact I would still have the death penalty for special cases. However, in my world it would seriously scaled back because the courts get it wrong with enough frequency for me to be uncomfortable with it.

It is not from love of criminals. I think life in prison is a worse punishment anyhow.


Abortion is stickier than gun control, but I defer to my libertarian senses for this. Think of it this way. I am for relatively open gun laws because I think although the freedom results in a number of undesirable outcomes, the freedom of self protection is more important than preventing every single bad thing from happening.

With abortion... although there are people who use abortion in a wrong and improper way... people do have a right to self determination. I am against abortions after 3 months. I wish the FDA would approve the "morning after (aka second chance) pill". It's only a double dose of birth control pills anyway. In most cases it works by prevents ovulation to begin with... so it isn't abortive (although it can be).

It seems to me if the pro-life group were really against abortions they would promote birth control options, but they fight them too. Most pro-lifer's are anti-sexers.


I keep my gun in my holster.

I keep my dick in my pants.


Just because people make decisions I wouldn't make doesn't mean I think government should be butting into people's personal business.


The only unreconcilable issue is the question of when life begins. Obviously people beleive all sorts of things... some conception... some birth. They usualy believe this on religious or areligious grounds. I don't know when life begins. I suspect it's at conception, and that's why I will never be party to an abortion.

Again... it seems to me that if the pro-lifers were really against abortions themselves they would be more supportive of birth-control, sex education, and family planning.

2224. robertjayb - 11/29/2005 5:21:03 PM

Va. governor commutes death sentence...

RICHMOND, Va. (AP) - Gov. Mark R. Warner granted clemency Tuesday to a convicted killer who would have been the 1,000th person executed in the United States since the Supreme Court allowed capital punishment to resume in 1976.

Robin Lovitt's death sentence was commuted to life in prison.


Lovitt, 42, was set to be executed by injection Wednesday night for stabbing a man to death with a pair of scissors during a pool-hall robbery in 1998.

2225. jayackroyd - 12/2/2005 10:49:45 AM

Brad Delong checks in the with Stupidest Man Alive (TM).

2226. Ms. No - 12/2/2005 11:03:07 AM

Again... it seems to me that if the pro-lifers were really against abortions themselves they would be more supportive of birth-control, sex education, and family planning.

Or adopt more unwanted children.

2227. Ms. No - 12/2/2005 11:10:40 AM

I think although the freedom results in a number of undesirable outcomes, the freedom of self protection is more important than preventing every single bad thing from happening.

This is pretty much where I stand on it as well, but I'm not all that concerned with the self-protection issue. I'd support private gun ownership even if there were no need for it as a protective measure. If I owned a gun, it would be for sport and recreational shooting.

It's a pretty consistent rule for me that I don't want to sacrifice freedoms for a dubious promise of safety.

2228. jayackroyd - 12/2/2005 11:16:04 AM

iiibbb--

They'd also be against IVF and fertility drugs. As you say, it's not about abortion. It's about something else.

2229. wonkers2 - 12/4/2005 9:44:24 AM

Here's one we all can agree on.

2230. iiibbb - 12/6/2005 8:49:59 AM

Except New Jersey perhaps...

2231. wonkers2 - 12/6/2005 10:31:10 AM

How about dog control? 91-year-old woman killed by her pet bull mastiff.

2232. wonkers2 - 12/7/2005 8:35:25 AM

How many times? They may as well be in Baghdad! Kids Fear as Gunfire Again Hits School

2233. iiibbb - 12/7/2005 9:13:51 AM

Don't you have laws about firing guns around schools? Why aren't those pesky criminals following them?

I know I'm not allowed to carry a firearm within a certain distance of the school.

2234. iiibbb - 12/8/2005 9:55:25 AM

Registration leads to confiscation

OTTAWA -- Prime Minister Paul Martin will venture into a violence-plagued area of Toronto on Thursday to announce a sweeping ban on handguns, The Canadian Press has learned.

Martin was scheduled to visit Toronto's troubled Jane-Finch area to make a "safer communities announcement." Liberal sources have confirmed the announcement includes an "outright" ban on handguns.

However, there will be exceptions for competitive target shooters, gun collectors and peace officers, a Liberal insider said on condition of anonymity. The source would not explain any more details of the policy proposal.

Handguns are already severely restricted in Canada and a handgun registry has been in force for more than 60 years.

Registration leads to confiscation... maybe not next year... but sometime.

2235. alistairconnor - 12/8/2005 10:01:20 AM

Registration leads to taxation too. Make sure never to give your address to the inland revenue service.

Don't register for a driver's license either, because they might forbid you to drive.

2236. iiibbb - 12/8/2005 10:27:48 AM

Air Marshalls defend shooting

Now here we have a potentially interesting double standard. Most people that are against self-defense shootings expect the shooter to have perfect knowledge about the intent of the alleged attacker. Many people have voiced issues with Florida's 'stand-ground' laws... particularly the allowance that a shooter only need to feel their life was threatened, rather than an overt attack.

Now... how do you feel about a Marshall that shoots a guy acting wild and claiming to have a bomb?

If you say they should have acted less aggressively, do you acknowledge that such lack of aggression would be something a real terrorist could exploit?

If you think the Marshalls acted prudently, why should less-trained citizens be held to a higher standard?

2237. jayackroyd - 12/8/2005 1:09:03 PM

It is an incredibly stupid idea to put a gun on a plane. This shooting was inevitable--and security is not enhanced in the least by putting a guy on a plane with a gun. It just changes the nature of the attack. Step 1: Identify the Marshall. Step 2: Get his gun from him.

The use of force as a deterrent doesn't work on people who don't care if they're gonna die.

Oh, and I think policemen and air marshalls should be held to a higher standard.

2238. wonkers2 - 12/10/2005 11:15:51 AM

If only the pistol had been locked!

2239. iiibbb - 12/10/2005 4:02:53 PM

Message # 2238

Yup... that sucks.

2240. iiibbb - 12/10/2005 4:03:32 PM

No wonder Wonkers worries so... being from MI and all.

2241. iiibbb - 12/14/2005 3:38:05 PM

Hollowed bullet easy to get & hard to survive

"Our mission is to stop violent felons," said Patrolmen's Benevolent Association President Patrick Lynch. "There is no reason for anyone else to have that ability."

No reason for anyone else to have the ability to stop a violent felon... that seems kind-of a strange idea.

Note... Cops favor using the hollow-point bullets because they are less likely to pass through a target and ricochet into a fellow cop or bystander.

But they want their public sale banned to keep them out of the hands of thugs...

So they don't want civilians to have access to bullets that are less likely to harm bystanders?

More "sensible gun control"...

2242. wonkers2 - 12/15/2005 9:21:39 AM

Gun Glut Blamed for Philadelphia Killings Here.

2243. iiibbb - 12/15/2005 9:33:16 AM

Interesting article. Did you find it racist since it blames mostly Black men too?

I also like how they sneak in the people licensed to conceal carry as if it were related to unlicensed people murdering each other.

See if you can find out how many of the licensed people were involved in the actual crimes they're talking about.

2244. wonkers2 - 12/21/2005 8:16:25 AM

Retired cop would be alive if he hadn't pulled his gun. Better to go with the flow.

2245. iiibbb - 12/21/2005 8:28:54 AM

Message # 2244

Going with the flow sometimes works... sometimes doesn't. There is no way to tell going into a situation.

It is a stretch however to say with such certainty that he'd be alive. The robber would also be alive if he'd not threatened someone with a gun to begin with.

The 9-11 victims went with the flow... as they were told... as do innumerable murder victims no doubt.

2246. iiibbb - 12/21/2005 8:48:07 AM

Would she be alive if she went with the flow and her brother in law didn't show up with a gun?

Go with the flow as you're hit on the head with a hammer... it'll be all right... really.

2 armed robbers thwarted by armed store clerk (female) - The National Association of Convenience Stores recommends against clerks with guns.

The group said clerks should not resist a robber because that could lead to violence.

They said many times workers aren't trained properly on how to use guns.

If they have a permit then they have received more training and protection than the NACS provides them.

The advice not to resist is about as helpful to victims as asking criminals not to rob - Do what you want... but let me live my own life thanks.

Note: when you rob a gun store - you don't need to a) register the gun or b) go through a background check.

Some criminals will kill you if they think you can identify them - but go ahead and go with the flow. That works for tons of rape victims... sit back... enjoy.

Only in California... gunman threatens clerk with firearm (registered I'm sure)... clerk shoots gunman... police investigate clerk.

2247. iiibbb - 12/21/2005 8:50:53 AM

Go with the flow if you like... but when you are attacked... you have no idea what your attacker intends to do.

I don't care if you decide a gun isn't right for you... but I do resent it if you think the gov't has a right to decide for me.

When the murder rate goes to zero... then we can talk. Until then... leave us to evaluate our own risk.

2248. iiibbb - 12/22/2005 3:24:50 PM

Much ado about nothing

December 21, 2005

In the evening hours of Tuesday, Dec. 6, 2005, the Wisconsin Senate, by a margin of 23-10, passed SB 403 - a measure also known as the carrying of concealed weapons (CCW) bill. The vote ended years of debate and will also likely end Wisconsin's status of one of four remaining states that does not have some sort of concealed-carry law.
----------------------------------------
It's time to strip away the grandstanding and look at facts. Despite concealed-carry laws across the country, people are still murdered by guns, robberies still occur, and rape and kidnappings are a continuous problem; on the other side, despite concealed-carry laws across the country, there are no "Wild West" shoot-outs at intersections. Criminals are not cowering in corners, and there are no groups of "cowboys" running around with guns on their hips looking for criminals to shoot. The only things flying around like ricocheting bullets are poorly-aimed statistics and hastily-fired rhetoric, both of which have blinded the public to the larger issue of determining why there is so much violent crime in this country in the first place.

If history is any guide, despite what pro- and anti-concealed carry advocates would have you believe, SB 403 will have very little effect on the majority of Wisconsin's population. Look to our neighbors to the west to see how easily a CCW bill can be rendered impotent.

The second part is quite observant... and not much different than what I've been saying. People who take the time to get permits are not the ones you should worry about. Guns may or may not help you, and certainly there is a whole spectrum of things you should do before you try and use a gun, but ultimately you should decide your own risk.

2249. iiibbb - 12/22/2005 3:25:05 PM

toys

2250. iiibbb - 12/22/2005 3:25:14 PM

toys

2251. jexster - 12/28/2005 1:56:51 PM

The SU-152 was a Soviet heavy self-propelled gun used during World War II.

It was a self-propelled 152-mm gun-howitzer, on the chassis of a KV-1S heavy tank. Because of its ability to take out German Tigers, Panthers, and Elefants, it was nicknamed Zveroboy—"animal killer".

I want

It's my constitution right!

2252. iiibbb - 1/13/2006 4:42:31 PM

The cops are here to protect you... criminals don't want to hurt you... guns are bad...

Ban bats.

2253. OhioSTOPAS - 1/14/2006 9:16:01 AM

iiibbb, #2247:

"I don't care if you decide a gun isn't right for you... but I do resent it if you think the gov't has a right to decide for me."

In the United States "the government" is the majority of the people. Why shouldn't the majority be able to decide this issue?

"[L]eave us [gun owners] to evaluate our own risk."

Of course, it's not just YOUR risk.

I'm opposed to a ban on personal gun ownership, but I don't see why "majority rules" shouldn't be allowed to decide the issue.

2254. iiibbb - 1/14/2006 11:51:54 AM

There is a difference between simple majority... and the majority required to change the constitution.

If we had [simple] majority rule... we'd ban gay marriage... we'd probably ban abortion... we'd likely ban smoking... and we'd probably quit using taxes to support welfare.

Are you really sure you want simple majority rule?

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!"
Benjamin Franklin


I'm sorry, but it is my risk. The government isn't there to protect me 24/7. What would you have me do if I were attacked tonight? Sit there and take it? You honestly feel that lowers your overall risk?

I contend both of our net risk is lower because I have a gun.


Truthfully... if society really wants to ban guns or whatever... the do it the right way... the way the constitution intended, by making an new ammendment. Which requires a 2/3rds majority, and 2/3rds of the states to ratify it.

Then I'd go along.

2255. iiibbb - 1/14/2006 11:53:32 AM

Risk.

2256. iiibbb - 1/14/2006 11:59:13 AM

You trust other drivers.

You trust teachers with your children.

You trust people who prepare your food.

You trust the people that built your home.

You trust people to do many things that directly affect your personal safety every single day.


But you consider a certified citizen who happens to carry a gun because they might have a legitimate concern about criminals to be an abnormal risk to you.

Look around.

2257. iiibbb - 1/14/2006 12:00:39 PM

Doctors accidentally kill more people than per capita than gun owners.

2258. iiibbb - 1/14/2006 12:10:14 PM

http://www.the-eggman.com/writings/death_stats.html

Accidetnal deaths in 2002

Complications from Medical/Surgery care = 3,059
Firearms = 776

thats a 776/300,000,000 chance you'll be accidentally shot.


Total firearms deaths = 28,663 but include "Gang Warfare, Self Defense Shootings, and Criminals Killed by Police".

2259. iiibbb - 1/14/2006 12:32:22 PM

Every two and a half minutes, somewhere in America, someone is sexually assaulted.

One in six American women has been the victim of an attempted or completed rape, and 10% of sexual assault victims are men.

In 2003-2004, there were an average annual 204,370 victims of rape, attempted rape or sexual assault.

2260. iiibbb - 1/14/2006 12:38:38 PM

history of Concealled carry

Revocation is rare and usually well under 1% for any reason. There are lots of ways to lose a permit that don't involve misuse of a firearm.

2261. iiibbb - 1/14/2006 12:39:05 PM

Since 1994 violent crime has dropped dramatically.

Between 1987 and today, states have adopted concealled carry laws that allow citizens who go through training and background checks to carry a firearm on their person. States have begun reciprocity programs that allow permits of one state to be accepted in another.

history of Concealled carry

Revocation is rare and usually well under 1% for any reason. There are lots of ways to lose a permit that don't involve misuse of a firearm.

2262. jayackroyd - 1/14/2006 7:07:39 PM

In the United States "the government" is the majority of the people.

You know, Ohio, I'm gonna disagree with you here. The constitution is constructed, pretty carefully, to protect people from the majority of people. I think iiibbb is entirely wrong in policy terms--there's no earthly reason that I can see for Americans in this society to be carrying guns. But the constitution is constructed to preserve rights of the minority. It also, in my view, says pretty clearly that people can bear arms. That principle--that we should respect the constitution and the process specified to amend it--seems to me something that we should not be quick to subjugate to a particular policy result.

My feelings in this regard have been redoubled as I watch the current administration dismiss the limits placed on the executive. Constitutional principles are, in my view, much more important than any particular policy result. We're at a crucial moment right now, imo. The president is asserting powers that the Constitution clearly denies him. We need to stand up for the nation's fabric.

2263. wonkers2 - 1/14/2006 7:33:27 PM

Okay, but there's plenty of room for more effective regulation and for defining "arms" much more narrowly all of which are supported by a majority of Americans whose wishes are foiled by NRA.

2264. arkymalarky - 1/14/2006 9:15:38 PM

I agree with 3i3b. If Americans really want it, state to state, they'll have it. Nothing--not even money (at least not yet)--is as influential on state legislators as their constituents letting them know, loudly and repeatedly and in significant numbers, what they want and that they will run and elect new people if they don't get it.

And I don't believe the federal government should take too much autonomy away from the states to decide what works best for them within the Constitution. A case in point is the federal attempt to parentally determine whether or not states can allow medical use of marijuana. It's one area where liberal nannies lose a lot of people, and I'm glad to see that people like Barak Obama seem to finally be getting it.

The one thing I agree with in principle that Republicans abandoned long ago, though they still give it lip service, is preserving enough local and state control to allow the system to meet the needs of everyone more efficiently.

2265. arkymalarky - 1/14/2006 9:16:48 PM

Jay may not need a gun in his home. We do. I may not feel a need to carry a weapon with me, but if I worked in the log woods I would.

2266. wonkers2 - 1/14/2006 9:26:18 PM

How come? What lurks in the log woods?

2267. iiibbb - 1/14/2006 11:23:37 PM

(1) the people growing pot... and don't take kindly to stumblers-on.

(2) The woods is also the only place I've ever been robbed.

(3) It's not that I think the risk is greater, it's just that the help is a lot further away.

2268. judithathome - 1/14/2006 11:41:47 PM

I don't care how many people think guns are needed....they aren't.

2269. arkymalarky - 1/14/2006 11:49:16 PM

We've killed two rabid skunks in our yard with shotguns, and that's the best way to deal with them.

In our area there are wild animals that a gun would be the best defense against for people who work in the woods. It would be rare to need one, and it wouldn't be practical for a snake, but it does happen. People who know what they're doing with a gun are a whole lot safer than the typical idiot who's given a driver's license. And I don't count myself among them, but I trust my husband's ability to use one in an emergency.

2270. arkymalarky - 1/14/2006 11:50:42 PM

It's interesting that people who live in the city automatically assume anyone who owns a gun would intend it for people. In rural areas that's the last thing people think about wanting a gun for.

2271. judithathome - 1/15/2006 12:03:43 AM

Our neighbor has a cage that he traps "wild" animals in...he takes them out to the woods and releases them. I realise that you live in an area where this man would release these animals, Arky....it depends on where one lives.

If this guy were to own a gun and shoot these animals, it wouldn't be the same as releasing them to live another day...I understand the diffeence.

2272. judithathome - 1/15/2006 12:06:56 AM

difference....whatever.

Arky, you know how I feel about animals and their right to life.

2273. arkymalarky - 1/15/2006 6:55:33 AM

That surely doesn't apply to rabid ones. The dogs keep sane ones away. And it doesn't apply to us in particular, as we don't hunt. But I did eat some wonderful deer stew Jim made last week.

We don't carry guns around out here, but if I worked every day in the woods I would prefer to have one.

When the ice storm left us out of power for 11 days the electric company freed the lines with a shotgun, shooting limbs off of the wires.

2274. OhioSTOPAS - 1/15/2006 7:11:16 AM

Jay: I strongly agree with you (Message # 2262) that the principle “majority rules” should have exceptions. Our Constitution rightly provides two (as I see it) classes of exceptions. The majority can’t dictate individual, personal matters that are none of their business (e.g., what one reads, where one worships, whether to bear a child), and the majority can’t use its numbers to unfairly mistreat powerless minorities (discrimination against minority ethnic groups, unfair searches and proceedings against persons accused of crimes).

However, I question why the issue of personal gun ownership SHOULD enjoy an exception. (I’d like to put aside for the moment the question of whether it already DOES enjoy an exception under the terms of the Second Amendment.)

I don’t see this as being a “none of your business” privacy matter; possession of a deadly instrumentality is not just the possessor’s business. No one argues that there should be an unconditional right to own an automobile, a pit bull, or even a swimming pool; why a gun?

Nor is this a matter of picking on a politically powerless minority. Gun owners have great numbers, maybe even a majority, and even enjoy disproportionate political power beyond their numbers because of the single-mindedness of many gun owners.

If we were to draft a new Constitution from scratch, should gun ownership be included as a personal right, free from majority legislation, like speech, exercise of religion, and other matters of personal autonomy and privacy that are not rightly the concern of the majority? I don’t see why.

2275. OhioSTOPAS - 1/15/2006 7:50:25 AM

Further to Jay: I also agree that our laws should conform to the prohibitions of the Second Amendment (whatever they exactly may be) and state constitutions, most of which confer some kind of individual right to weapons ownership. (For example, the Ohio Constitution confers such a right but expressly - and sensibly - connects and limits the right to the extent of personal self-defense.)

However, I question whether the federal Second Amendment would ever be grounds for invalidating any STATE law. As we all know, the amendment puts the right to bear arms in the context of a state militia. ("A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.") If a state decides that its militia doesn’t need sawed-off shotguns and bans their possession, is the state violating any federal constitutional provision? Or if it decides that the interests of a “well-regulated” militia are furthered by the registering of gun and ammunition sales, how does this violate the Second Amendment?

Debates on gun control are usually driven into a swamp by the gun-rights advocate invoking “Second Amendment!” and diverting the discussion from what ought to be to instead what the Constitution DOES require. This is an argument that can only be fought to an inconclusive draw, since nobody can conclusively establish whether any proposed legislation is permitted or prohibited by the amendment. However, it seems to me that any contention that proposed gun regulation by a STATE (or a political subdivision thereof) is prohibited by the federal Second Amendment is at best questionable.

2276. arkymalarky - 1/15/2006 9:01:46 AM

No one argues that there should be an unconditional right to own an automobile, a pit bull, or even a swimming pool; why a gun?

Most gun owners don't support an unconditional right to own a gun, and in most states felons are permanently banned from owning guns. Very few gun control advocates support outright bans on personal gun ownership, as well. The problem with the gun control debate (and maybe this is what Ohio is saying, and if so, forgive me for being redundant) is that gun lobbies have succeeded in driving it into an "all or nothing" argument.

2277. arkymalarky - 1/15/2006 9:08:56 AM

Another point wrt animals' right to life is that hunting, especially of deer in many states, is very important to thinning the population, which is way out of control. Hunting is also far more humane than any of the processes for raising in mass for food. (and no, I don't insist on eating only free range chickens)

2278. arkymalarky - 1/15/2006 9:09:42 AM

If I stopped to think about it, which I don't, I'd feel far more guilty eating a hamburger than deer stew.

2279. iiibbb - 1/15/2006 9:23:32 AM

If a state decides that its militia doesn’t need sawed-off shotguns and bans their possession, is the state violating any federal constitutional provision? Or if it decides that the interests of a “well-regulated” militia are furthered by the registering of gun and ammunition sales, how does this violate the Second Amendment?

You already outline the way it is. Every state has it's own regulations. Some maintain the AWB, some don't; some have registration, some don't; some have permitting, some don't.

You should be happy for the compromises you've got.

Wht I don't understand is why you involuntarily accept a myriad of other more substantial risks... yet you consider guns as needing special treatment.

If a driver' license is sufficient (and it isn't), why the beef about people that get licenses and permission to carry?




The reason the debate goes into the swamp is because gun control advocates ideas of 'reasonable' gun control aren't. Because they can't help themselves but paint gun owners as violent troglodyes. Most 'reasonable' gun laws would have little or no impact on crime, and would in fact probably harm the law-abiding more by creating criminals out of law-abiding, non-violent people by virtue of failure to abide by some administrative requirement rather than actually committing a real crime. This stuff has happened in IL. becasue they won't process their permit renuals in a timely fashion. It has happened in MA.

The backlash to the gun control camp's fervor to get any kind of gun legislation passed, whether it does something about crime or not, whether it harms a law-abiding citizen or not, is a problem of their own making.

2280. iiibbb - 1/15/2006 9:40:02 AM

Message # 2272

Before I start let me paraphrase that I don't beleive in trophy hunting.

Second, let me ask if you a vegetarian?

Third, undertanding that I am not, one must thing holistically. Deer are the most hunted species, but the pricnicples can/do apply to other species. In my area deer are over populated. This is a risk to the entire population. They are at the point they are denuding the forest regeneration so the forest isn't actually growing back correcty. You need a certain number of small trees in the ranks as the older ones die off. Deer eat anything they can reach.

In some places the deer are starving.

In some places the deer are suffering chronic wasting disease which is exacerbated by overpopulation.

So do you want one live animal, which may suffer death due to starvation, or do you want a healthy population with some hunting pressure to make up for the fact humans don't want to deal with natural preditors occasionally eating their pets?

(4) Deer are free range, and therefore the meat is free of hormones, free of drugs, and free of other side effects of meat processing. It's healthier. Not only that, the energy and resources that go into producing beef, don't go into producing deer. Deer are not on a production line waiting for slaughter, and actually have a fighting chance to get away. Deer mate... beef cows are inseminated.

Shooting deer is actually environmentally friendly.


Now... you are right... wild animals should not be harrassed, and that's quite illegal in most states. There are a few pest species, but for the most part you're not allowed to even trap and relocate an animal and your good-hearted friend is actually likely breaking the law (at least he would be in my state).

2281. arkymalarky - 1/15/2006 1:57:34 PM

I really don't understand why G&F doesn't increase deer hunting in states like ours, both the length of the season (or have several in a year) and the # of does you can kill.

My husband has shot one nuisance animal since I've known him, and he still feels horrible about it, though it was years ago, when he was working graveyard and couldn't sleep. He wouldn't shoot an animal unless it was an imminent threat. He has also shot one dog we had, who had come up a stray and had been a great pet for years, but who was mortified of the vet. Bob cried over it, but he knew it was far less traumatic for Sparky for him to talk to him and love on him in his own yard than to take him fifteen miles to the vet to be euthanized.

Now he or I would both kill a mouse with our bare hands in a heartbeat if we found one in the house, and we don't use live traps. Nothing like the sounds of a snapping mouse trap in the morning. I used to think they were cute (in fact I had two as pets when I was a kid) and I hated Bob setting traps until I moved out here and got to know them personally. They're furry cockroaches--but much worse.

2282. wonkers2 - 1/15/2006 3:11:21 PM

Venison is quite tasty. So is pheasant. Squirrel isn't bad either.

2283. arkymalarky - 1/15/2006 4:47:02 PM

I used to think I didn't like venison, because the first I ever had tasted "gamey" and was very tough and dry. A lot of hunters take their kill to butchers and make hamburger and sausage out of it, and I've liked all the deer chili and stew I've ever had.

I only had squirrel once and it was ok. Never had a wild bird. I've tasted rattle snake long ago and I may have had a dove when I was little, come to think of it. Dad used to hunt them.

Bob--in his wilder youth--had roadkill rabbit once. It sounds awful, but he and friends were driving along and either barely hit it or it died of fright (they do that) and it didn't have a mark on it, so they took it straight home and cooked it up. Bob still swears it's the best stew he ever ate.

2284. arkymalarky - 1/15/2006 4:50:14 PM

I used to have a principal who was such an avid deer hunter that he'd change into his hunting clothes in the teachers' bathroom as soon as school let out and drove his "hunting car" to work during deer season. He had a smokehouse and cooked us up great chili and barbecue. I miss that guy.

2285. iiibbb - 1/15/2006 5:41:01 PM

Actually... how good of a shot you take will affect the taste of the deer. The adrenaline dump and lactic acid build up for a deer that you have to chase will affect the flavor.

So there's a payoff for being ethical.

2286. wonkers2 - 1/23/2006 9:09:51 AM

Gun Mahem in Suburban, Law-abiding Dearborn. Here.

2287. iiibbb - 1/24/2006 8:06:08 AM

You'd prefer she'd been bludgeoned and stabbed?

2288. iiibbb - 1/24/2006 8:24:33 AM

What would you do with 4 armed home invaders?

What would you do if you were trapped in your own home?

Imagine you're the brother, but unarmed. Will you make a good witness, or save your sister?

Gun registration sure worked in NY (not). Would you let your abusive husband kill a cop?

When you're 79. Would you rather fight a 19 and 25 yr old intruders with your fists... or a .357?

2289. alistairconnor - 1/24/2006 9:02:40 AM

Four-armed home invaders?

Sound more like space invaders.

2290. alistairconnor - 1/24/2006 9:16:47 AM

I would say, "Take me to your leaders. Please."

2291. wonkers2 - 1/24/2006 10:32:32 AM

Albanian-American killers rampant with AK-47s in Oakland County. Here.

2292. wonkers2 - 1/29/2006 2:05:45 PM

More gun mischief--Off Duty Officer Shot by Police Here.

2293. iiibbb - 1/29/2006 7:14:39 PM

I'm amazed that such a tragedy can happen with all the gun laws in New York. And the police seem so well trained too.

2294. iiibbb - 1/31/2006 1:52:49 PM

Gone postal

I'm sure the postal workes at this location feel safer knowing that the post office has an anti-gun policy.

I also don't know why any of the people who were killed didn't just call the police.

2295. iiibbb - 1/31/2006 2:20:37 PM

These are the only guys that should have guns?

2296. jexster - 1/31/2006 3:00:09 PM

Gone postal i3?


More guns, younger gunmen spur jump in S.F. homicides

I know one thing...Guns kill people..lots of people

And the cops are the only people who should have em

Keep your's at ahooting range.

2297. iiibbb - 1/31/2006 3:44:09 PM

With all those gun laws... how are the younger gunmen getting guns in the first place. I thought gun control was supposed to make you safer.

Why can't the cops in San Fran prevent these crimes? Their gun doesn't help you if it's at a donut shop.

Have fun in a place where only the young trigger happy felons are armed...

2298. wonkers2 - 2/1/2006 10:51:47 AM

Speaking of weapons control, what about pit bulls?

2299. iiibbb - 2/1/2006 11:51:11 AM

I've always said I'm a punitive sort. Once someone (or their dog) screws up. Throw the book at them... until then, leave them alone. It's the consequences of a fuck-up that keep most people in line.

It's like DUI's. I think there'd be a lot less if you lost your licesnse for 5 or 10 years and those punishments really stuck.

If your dog attacks someone... prepare to pay dearly. If you trained your dog to be that way... triply-so.

2300. wonkers2 - 2/1/2006 12:08:01 PM

Me too, but here's an excerpt from a strong contrary view from today's New Yorker entitled "Troublemakers":

"Pit bulls, descendents of the bulldogs used for bull baiting and dogfighting, have been bred for 'gameness,' and thus a lowered inhibition for aggression. Most dogs fight as a last resort, when staring and growling fail. A pit bull is willing to fight with little or no provocation. Pit bulls seem to have a high tolerance for pain, making it possible for the m to fight to the point of exhaustion. Whereas guard dogs like German shepherds usually attempt to restrain those they perceive to be threats by biting and holding, pit bulls try to inflict the maximum amount of damage on an opponent. They bite, hold, shake and tear. They don't growl or assume and aggressive facial expression as warning. They just attack. 'They are often insensitive to behaviors that usually stop agression,' one scientific review of the breed states. 'For example, dogs not bred for fighting ususally display defeat in combat by rolling over and exposing a light underside. On several occasions, pit bulls have been reported to disembowel dogs offering this symbol of submission.' In epidemiological studies of dog bites, the pit bull is overrepresented among dogs known to have seriously injured or killed human beings, and, as a result, pit bulls have been banned or restricted in several Western European countries, China and numerous cities and municpalities across North America. Pit bulls are dangerous.

"Of course, not all pit bulls are dangerous. Most don't bite anyone...."

Interesting, provocative article by Malcolm Gladwell.

2301. wonkers2 - 2/1/2006 12:30:35 PM

Here's a link to Gladwell's article on pit bulls.

2302. iiibbb - 2/1/2006 12:53:46 PM

That is a pretty good article. I must confess I don't know much about pitbulls or whether generalizations about them are true.

The ones I have known were very friendly... annoyingly friendly. They wanted to be petted constantly, and if you weren't they were leaning on you. I got the impression they wouldn't take kindly to someone intimidating their owner.

Really it seems like no dog is really deserving of trust. I have a recolection of articles I've read about dog attacks and that none of the breeds one attributes to being vicious stand out... and some of the ones most consider benign are capable of bad behavior.

Dogs make me nervous to begin with since I was attacked by one when I was a kid. It took me a long time to learn about projecting dominance with unfamiliar dogs.

As my brother says... "A trained/disciplined dog is a happy dog".

2303. iiibbb - 2/1/2006 12:59:19 PM

I'll tell you... the first paragraph of that article is just another reason to carry a gun with you.

2304. iiibbb - 2/1/2006 1:55:35 PM

More cops shootin' people for no good reason.

Why are they more trustworthy than me?

2305. arkymalarky - 2/1/2006 11:19:27 PM

That incident with the veteran being shot by a policeman that CNN has been studying the video of so closely is just awful.

2306. iiibbb - 2/1/2006 11:47:57 PM

my link dsappeared...

More cops shootin' people for no good reason.

2307. wonkers2 - 2/5/2006 12:42:10 PM

More handgun mayhem: Two shot, one killed at Super Bowl festivities. Here.

2308. iiibbb - 2/6/2006 3:27:00 PM

More violent cops

2309. iiibbb - 2/6/2006 3:30:12 PM

Message # 2307

My prediction if they manage to find the murderer is that they are not (a) particularly law abiding, (b) they weren't carrying the gun legally.

Cities suck IMHO.

2310. wonkers2 - 2/6/2006 5:02:13 PM

You're probably correct. Moral, in Detroit stay out of arguments in lines outside bars. The other guy might be packing. Or, better still, stay out of lines outside bars in Detroit (or anywhere else.) Better yet, stay out of bars. Get drunk at home.

2311. iiibbb - 2/9/2006 7:54:34 AM

Police will check 87-year-old woman's story in shooting and here

I hope they catch this vile "Ambush Granny"... I hope they nail her because her permit is not in order

2312. wonkers2 - 2/9/2006 8:18:25 AM

Ha! A dead bolt lock might have been a better investment.

2313. iiibbb - 2/9/2006 9:20:49 AM

He was dismatling the door in the middle of the night.

Her house had been broken into and she had been beat up before.

2314. iiibbb - 2/9/2006 9:22:14 AM

Always... blame the victim. It's like saying [Women who don't want to get raped should just get married and stay at home].

2315. wonkers2 - 2/12/2006 8:58:43 AM

Violent Crime Rising Sharply in Some Cities--An Increase in Killings Over Petty Disputes

Milwaukee--One woman here killed a friend after they argued over a brown silk dress. A man killed a neighbor whose 10-year-old son used his dish soap. Two men argued over a cellphone, and pulling out their guns, the police say, killed a 13-year-old girl in the cross-fire....

Suspects tell the police they killed someone who "disrespected" them or a family member, or someone who was "mean mugging" them, which the police loosely translate as giving a dirty look. AND MORE WEAPONS ARE ON THE STREETS, GIVING PEOPLE A WAY TO ACT ON THEIR ANGER....

We're seeing a very angry population, and they don't go to fists anymore, they go right to guns....

Here in Milwaukee, where homicides jumpped from 88 in 2004 to 122 last year, the number classified as agruments rose to 45 from 17, makeing up by far the largest category of killings, as gang murders declined.

In Houston, where homicides rose 24 percent last year disputes were by far the largest category, 113 out of 336 killings....

In Philadelphis, where 380 homicides made 2005 the dedliest year since 1967, 208 were disputes...drug disputes accounted for just 13 percent...
"It's not like they're riding around doing drive-by shootings. It's arguments--stupid arguments over stupid things."....

"Now it's an automatic default to a firearm."

In roberies, Milwaukee's Chief Hegerty said "even after the person gives up, the guy with the gun shoots him anyway. We didn't have as much of that before..."

A LARGE PART OF THE PROBLEM, THE POLICE SAY, IS SIMPLY MORE GUNS ON THE STREETS AS GUN LAWS HAVE LOOSENED AROUND THE COUNTRY. IN PHILADELPHIA, COMMISSIONER JOHNSON SAID, SINCE THE STATE MADE IT EASIER TO GET A GUN PERMIT IN 1985, THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE AUTHORIZED TO CARRY A GUN IN THE CITY HAS RISEN FROM 700 TO 38,000. (Insane!)

"We have people who have done two, three, four, five shootings who are back on the streets," said Kathleen M. O'Toole, Boston's police commissioner. "Unless we have bail reform, multiple gun arrests are kept off the streets, we won't reverse this problem..." Full story.

2316. arkymalarky - 2/12/2006 11:22:09 AM

The key phrase there is "back on the streets," and our prisons are overloaded.

A large part of the problem is that people are allowed from the time they're children--in the schools and at home and in their communities--to act like they're entitled to whatever they want. Blame guns if you like, and I don't disagree that something needs to be done to get guns out of the hands of people who have never been required to exercise any self-control. But you're ignoring the far larger problem of the lack of any kind of real guidance and emphasis on the responsibility of the individual, especially in the poorest communities where parents are often no example to children (and where they are, they're quickly trumped by peers and a sense of the need for survival) and schools have become breeding grounds, recruiting centers and training camps for the mentality that's driving this trend.

From personal observation over 20 years, I think it is the most important reason to support small, community-oriented schools in poor communities that are autonomous enough to give people a feeling of ownership and control, but with stiff standards--and the qualified staff to meet them--that hold everyone from the kids to the community leaders responsible for what goes on there.

If you want to know what the problem is, listen to the music that comes from it--not with a critical eye, but with an open one. Right, wrong, or indifferent, it's what is. The belonging comes from getting in with people who will do the job of protecting you that the parents and schools have abandoned--and to be the hunter rather than the hunted.

2317. arkymalarky - 2/12/2006 11:23:42 AM

25 years

2318. wonkers2 - 2/12/2006 11:48:32 AM

We aren't far apart on anything you said. But I'm afraid you may have to give up your right to carry a pistol around to protect yourself from copperheads, rabid skunks and racoons and the like. A shotgun works better, anyway. We've got too many quick draw artists walking around who've been raised on violent TV and video games. The problem isn't in small towns and rural areas. It's mainly in our cities. But I don't know how to control handguns only in the cities and not the rest of the country.

2319. arkymalarky - 2/12/2006 12:01:50 PM

I don't have to give up my rights to anything--including having a private conversation on my telephone--because of what the government says it's doing to control criminal activity, whether it's terrorism or inner-city gang violence. When I talk about community schools, I mean in the cities. People need to feel much more in control of their community children's school environment than they currently do. That does not mean curriculum or other academic requirements and standards--it literally means the environment.

And I don't own a pistol, but no one's close to going that far with gun control, so you'd best spend time on things that have a prayer of getting done. People--poor people--have given up the right to feel secure in their communities because society, which is controlled by people with more money and power than they, will not deal with what's causing the community problem to begin with. Because when it comes down to it, it really isn't their problem, no matter how much lip service they give to it.

Blaming violent tv, video games, and guns is a cheap cop-out for people of means who've refused to deal with the lowest classes in this country, whose numbers are increasing by the millions under the current administration.

But whatever eases your conscience.

2320. arkymalarky - 2/12/2006 12:07:36 PM

If I could do one thing that I believe would most help the most disadvantaged people in the US and raise the entire nation up in the process, I would not try to make a single law more strict--not gun laws, not drug laws--nothing. I'd really remake inner-city schools, using whatever amount of money it took.

Instead of saying "just do it" with a national concealer like NCLB (which has become yet another unfunded mandate with which to punish poor communities), I'd restructure schools and pay whatever it took to staff them well and pull in the community around each school. That's why rural schools do far more to mitigate crime and poverty. Our people are just as poor and just as disadvantaged, but they feel they belong to the community and the school is their responsibility. There's a great deal of pride in poor, rural schools.

2321. arkymalarky - 2/12/2006 12:09:00 PM

I have seen with my own eyes children who've graduated college who grew up in houses we wouldn't put a dog in--with no running water.

2322. wonkers2 - 2/12/2006 12:11:05 PM

We'll see about handgun control. Eventually it will come. Reason will prevail.

I don't blame only violent TV, video games, rap music, etc. But they are a small factor among many, including, of course the ones you have repeatedly mentioned. Rap music and video games do seem to glorify violence. I don't believe mentioning them is a cop out. I just finished reading Barbara Ehrenrich's "Nickel and Dimed." She doesn't deal with education but she paints a vivid picture of the everyday struggles of the forgotten bottom of the workforce in this country.

2323. wonkers2 - 2/12/2006 12:12:17 PM

And whatever I said had nothing to do with "easing my conscience." My conscience is clear on such matters.

2324. arkymalarky - 2/12/2006 12:19:57 PM

If reason prevails, people will quit looking for bandaids and do what's necessary to make the communities of underclass functional. Poverty and crime do not have to go hand in hand, and trying to restrict things you can't control anyway is meaningless to impoverished communities. Most of what's eating away at the social structure of poor communities is already illegal. And once they're convicted, they're further alienated by having their right to vote and reenter society with any means of standing on their own permanently taken from them. Want to help with a change in the laws? Change those laws, so that once people have served their time they are readmitted with full citizenship rights.

You're convoluting cause and effect, which is common and it's also why liberals are being tuned out by both sides on the community level. Conservative older people believe it needs to go back to conservative values, and young people aren't paying attention--they're just living what they're up to their necks in already.

2325. wonkers2 - 2/12/2006 12:46:35 PM

I'm not "convoluting" anything. I am merely saying that's it's about time we do something about reducing the gun mayhem. That would be more than a bandaid although I completely agree with you that there are much more fundamental problems. I agree with your position voting rights for felons. I would go one step farther and let them vote while they are serving their sentences. I also support more money for education and education reform. Ditto a minimum living wage, etc., etc. But this is supposed to be the gun control thread.

2326. arkymalarky - 2/12/2006 12:57:10 PM

You will not do that unless you change the environment that creates it. Pass all the laws you want. The gun violence is an effect caused by the circumstances that perpetuate the environment that breeds it. Passing gun control laws will make you feel better. It will do nothing to reduce violence--including gun violence--where the problem exists.

As it is the gun control thread, I'm disagreeing with you about the potential efficacy of a gun control law on the communities that suffer most from gun violence. Frankly, 3i3b's argument that his gun ownership--and mine--have nothing to do with this issue is exactly right. Liberal Americans need to fine-tune their message to reflect that fact, and to keep from losing moderates on such hot-button issues like gun control and abortion.

And, fwiw, I do agree that violent felons who are released should not have the right to ever own a firearm. So I don't completely stand by what I said wrt full citizenship rights. I also think convicted pedophiles should be monitored until they die.

2327. arkymalarky - 2/12/2006 12:58:47 PM

That should read: You will not reduce "gun mayhem"....

2328. wonkers2 - 2/12/2006 1:48:06 PM

Part of the environment to which you refer is the perversion of our democratic political system by the gun lobby, the manufacturers and the National Rifle Association, because their political contributions and support have gone disproportionately to candidates who have little interest in improving inner city conditions.

iiibb's and your? (you said you don't own a hand gun??) oposition to handgun control are part of the problem because, as I pointed out, handguns can't be readily controlled only in the cities and not the rural areas. So, unnecessarily and perhaps selfishly you are opposing effective handgun control. It's a free country!

2329. arkymalarky - 2/12/2006 2:50:22 PM

I have the right. I don't have one because I don't need one. We have guns, but not pistols.

I don't oppose handgun control, but people who support handgun control need to at least be realistic about what it will and will not do. "Effective" is the key word. Inner-city people who are likely to use a handgun or any other type of gun aren't on the radar of the debate, because whatever is done will have no impact on them. So again, if it makes you feel better, go ahead, but it won't affect that problem at all.

Enforce background checks and close gun show loopholes and you'll see results from other types of people who may be likely to be dangerous with guns, but people aren't paying attention to that. They'd rather put all their focus on something they won't achieve instead of working where they could really do some good and get broad support. Clinton's political genius comes from his understanding of that basic reality.

2330. wonkers2 - 2/12/2006 3:42:52 PM

I'm not suggesting that it will be easy to effectuate handgun control. It might take a couple of generations, but it won't be as hard as eliminating prejudice and discrimination or teen sex. Canada and most other countries control the manufacture and sale and possession of handguns. It can be done. Some day, perhaps not in my lifetime, it will be done. Why? Because it's the rational thing to do.

2331. jexster - 2/12/2006 3:50:58 PM

Guns don't kill people Criminals Do

2332. wonkers2 - 2/12/2006 4:07:12 PM

I've felt for a long time watching him on TV that Cheney has lost it due to his many serious health problems. That's giving him the benefit of the doubt that he ever "had it." What I mean is that he started out bad and has gotten worse.

2333. arkymalarky - 2/12/2006 5:26:07 PM

How about providing all communities, no matter how poor or "dangerous" they are, with quality care and education, cultural and social enrichment, and a good public environment for their children? And you wouldn't have to wait a couple of generations for the effects to begin to show.

Stating that something will eventually be done "because it is the rational thing to do" carries zero weight in an argument, especially in light of the dramatic regression we've made from one administration to the next. Besides, you haven't given anything to support why it's the rational thing to do. The rational thing to do is to deal with the problems that create huge inner-city zones in the middle of the richest country in the world where the law of the jungle rules rather than those of the elected governing bodies.

Exactly what improvements do you expect to see with a change in handgun legislation and why? And when?

I agree that Cheney should be disarmed.

2334. wonkers2 - 2/12/2006 6:35:35 PM

Arky, apparently you haven't been reading the articles I've been posting for a year or so about needless gun violence.

I'm not prepared to layout a comprehensive program for handgun control. Such a program might include, controls on the type of guns that may be manufactured and sold, better records of guns made and sold, mandatory safety devices, and much tighter rules on who may buy and carry handguns, stricter enforcement of those rules, and payments for handguns voluntarily turned in to local police departments, churches, schools, etc. As I said, above getting all the handguns out of circulation would take a long time. There is no instant solution, any more than there is to the problems you have mentioned. But it's worth a try.

2335. arkymalarky - 2/12/2006 6:53:35 PM

I've been reading about gun violence since I could read. That's irrelevant to why you think a law on handgun control would be effective where handgun violence is most a problem. None of the possible parts of a gun law you list has any effect on where guns are most prevalently and violently abused except the buy-back, and anyone who's actually making good money from gang activity and the violence they use to maintain control of their drug areas would laugh at such a program.

People can pass a law that does nothing and costs nothing, but makes them feel they've done a good thing toward addressing a problem that mostly affects those in poverty, not the people who promote the bandaid laws in the first place.

Or they can spend money where they know it's effective, roll their sleeves up, and actually see results. The question is where you can do the most good, and the answer is obvious, but not what people want to hear because it requires time, effort, and money, and most importantly a lot of competent, well educated, and brave people willing to work in these places who simply don't exist in the numbers needed to have any real impact. It would require a Kennedy-type program of providing new college graduates with support to work in those areas for a set amount of time, and that's a non-occurrence in this atmosphere, from either Republicans or Democrats.

Instead they pass "just do it" meaningless education reforms which set standards and don't supply the money, teachers, or equipment to meet them, and then punish the poor districts and the kids and the people who do have the cojones to work in those districts for not doing a good job.

And it's the reason gun control laws won't work where they're most needed. Who's going to bell the cat? You? Me? The city police? The military?

2336. wonkers2 - 2/12/2006 7:05:22 PM

You are taking an unrealistically defeatist position. We have yet to try effective gun control. I'm not saying it's going to be easy. I think we've pretty well exhausted the subject. Why you should have such a bug up your ass against gun control mystifies me. You make a lot of sense most of the time. Perhaps you got your pessimism from reading too much T.S. Eliot!!

2337. wonkers2 - 2/12/2006 7:06:21 PM

Other countries have effective gun control and universal health care. We can too!

2338. arkymalarky - 2/12/2006 8:08:41 PM

Defeatist? This problem has been around for decades and what real effort has any administration put into fixing it since Lyndon Johnson?

I do not have any problem with gun control except that it is a non-solution to a major problem that doesn't affect the vast majority of people who promote it. Universal health care comes far closer to having broad, positive, tangible, and immediate results than gun control. I won't protest passage of a gun control law.

The bottoom line isn't defeatism, it's simply pointing out that Americans aren't willing to spend any significant amount of their own money to help the growing underclass in this country, and the thankless ones who work in the trenches for less pay, longer hours, and unpleasant working conditions have to deal with constant chidings from the NCLB government about how they're not doing their jobs and are shown rich, successful districts that they're supposed to somehow emulate. The only reason I'm not totally defeatist is that I work in a poor rural community, not a poor urban one.

2339. wonkers2 - 2/12/2006 8:31:24 PM

Dear Arky, I'm giving you the last word. (I'm used to doing this at home!)

2340. arkymalarky - 2/12/2006 8:33:29 PM

Hahaha!

And I'm used to winning wars of attrition at home. ;-)

2341. iiibbb - 2/12/2006 10:29:43 PM

Apparently Cheney was practicing poor trigger control this weekend and was involved in a hunting accident.

2342. iiibbb - 2/12/2006 10:41:53 PM

A fine discussion between Arky and Wonkers.

I have little to add.

The guns I own really have nothing to do with crime anywhere. Laws should punish criminal behavior. Pre-emptive laws should have a clear, demonstratable mechanism to prevvent crime. I agree with Arky that more can/should be done to lift the disadvantaged (this is what makes me not a republican). I'll give up my guns when crime is under control... not before. I've had enough close calls to accept the alternatives.

I just applied to a job in New York State. If I go there I will have to license and register my handguns. The saving grace of that state is that although it takes a while to get approved, the permits are good for life. The downside is there is no legal way for me to move the guns there before I go through the 6 month process to get permission. Luckily where I am now there is no issue with me dropping them off at my parents or friends to hold them.

The annoying thing about NY is that it is that there are four levels (1) premisis only (2) huntung and target (3-4) two levels of concealed carry. The level you may get approved for varies from county to county... but the rights your permit are statewide. So depending on the county you're in, your rights will vary depending on the judge you encounter... and apparently it can be quite a crapshoot.

Nice job of equal protection.

2343. jexster - 2/12/2006 11:30:04 PM

U can't fool a coon ass I3B3
Cross post

Blaming the victim....The Texas Liars are claiming that Cheney's 78 year old victim was at fault - that the party had located a covey, got out of their truck(!), that the victim "lost" sight of the quarry, was behind the attempted murderer, who turned and shot the victim who was hidden in the glare of the sun...

You can't fool this coon ass with that Texas cow shit.

You don't hunt quail from a fucking truck

You hunt with a dog, silent, sleathily, nerves set for the kill, until the dog holds his point, then you signal the dog to flush the covey...they explode with a WHOOSH into the air and the hunters let loose with the bird shot

Ain't no old fart lost in the fucking sun

2344. jexster - 2/12/2006 11:34:10 PM

I was killin the little fuckers when I was 9

2345. jexster - 2/12/2006 11:34:32 PM

And I never came close to shooting my grandfather

2346. iiibbb - 2/12/2006 11:42:21 PM

Message # 2344

Who's blaming the victim here? I remarked on Cheney's trigger discipline.

As far as hunting with a truck goes... who knows how these politicians hunt with secret service running around. It's not like Kerry's duck hunt was the paragon of duckhunting.

2347. iiibbb - 2/12/2006 11:45:42 PM

You'd think if people were really rallying around Cheney, the Ted Nugent Board woudl be among them...

but they're trashing his poor gun safety there.

2348. concerned - 2/13/2006 1:26:25 AM

I'm steeling myself for a barrage of Cheney gun jokes. Who knows - maybe ubertwit Juan Cole will write an anti-2nd Amendment screed based on Cheney's accident. And of course, if he does, jexster will let us know all about it.

2349. alistairconnor - 2/13/2006 3:06:26 AM

Well. What about the nuclear button. He's only a heartbeat away from that.

World War I was caused, they say, by railway timetables. World War III ? "Er uh the sun was in my eyes"

2350. Macnas - 2/13/2006 3:54:34 AM

Of course Cheney is being thrashed, he swung on a member of his party and peppered him. And from what I can surmise from the report, he swung around beyond his 180 degree frontal arc, so he might as well have been shooting over his damn shoulder.

The guy he blasted is lucky Cheney was using a light gauge gun, if it was a 16 or a 12 bore, he'd be tore up 10 times worse, blind and perhaps dead.

2351. OhioSTOPAS - 2/13/2006 5:03:57 AM

And I thought when people called the Bush administration "The Gang That Couldn't Shoot Straight," it was just a metaphor . . .

2352. PelleNilsson - 2/13/2006 7:54:23 AM

That's funny, Ohio.

2353. jayackroyd - 2/13/2006 12:17:44 PM

ReddHedd on shotguns and shotgun etiquette. (Shooting your companions is geterally frowned upon.)

2354. jayackroyd - 2/13/2006 12:17:55 PM

geBerally

2355. jayackroyd - 2/13/2006 12:25:53 PM

geNerally.

Yeah, mac there's really nothing to be said in defense of shooting someonen thirty yardsn away.

I dunno. I just find this whole idea of raising, keeping captive and then shooting game just disgusting. It astounds me that politicians, expecially those liable to the chickenhawk designation can do it, and don't suffer for it in the public eye.

2356. jayackroyd - 2/13/2006 12:29:12 PM

One of the things ReddHedd mentions is a question of what Texas law says in such a situation. Does anyone know what happens when somebody gets shot in a hunting accident, in Texas? I would think there'd at least be a police investigation.

2357. jayackroyd - 2/13/2006 1:55:32 PM

The line at the blog I linked to above from commenters is that these kinds of accidents are very rare--that, echoing what iiibbb says here, hunters are careful, and follow safety rules. OTOH, I used to do work in a rural Pennsylvania county that had a very active hunting season. At night, at least, going hunting with your buddies also entailed drinking a heckuva lot.

It's kinda a lose-lose for Bush-supporting gun nuts. I mean, do you laugh it off and say guys end up in the ICU all the time when they go quail hunting with their buds? Or do they say that Cheney acted extremely irresponsibly?

2358. jexster - 2/13/2006 2:04:33 PM

i3b3..was talking about the Gang That Couldn't Shoot straight and their Texas sized lies

The latest - Why did it take so long for them to notify the media?

Oh they were too busy tending to the victim

Sheesh

They were to fucking busy getting their lies straight.

Quail hunting from a truck ...who ever heard of such a thing!

Nothing they've said has turned out to be true. Why should I believe them now? John Murtha

2359. jexster - 2/13/2006 2:05:37 PM

Gimme my Remington semi-auto 12 gauge and some OO...I'll take care of our Texas problem alright

Just kidding Alberto you friggin wetback

2360. iiibbb - 2/13/2006 2:18:41 PM

Message # 2356

From the stories I have heard, for a real "accident" people have usually gotten some kind of community service and lose their hunting license for a few years.

2361. thoughtful - 2/13/2006 2:24:30 PM

well hunting from a truck is quite believable to me as they were on a farm, not hunting wild game...this farm hunting stuff is all such a setup it's barely above paint ball.

how he ends up shooting a guy tho is beyond me. one version i heard was that the guy came up on cheney from behind, he turned and fired, supposedly at the birds...but his growing paranoia leads one to wonder.

Of course it's one thing for dick to go around shooting his mouth off...entirely another to shoot someone else's mouth off.

He's just freakin' lucky that this guy wasn't a lawyer!

and then they were saying how fortunate it was that all of cheney's guys were there...such concern about the vp's health that his entourage is almost like having his own M*A*S*H unit.

None, absolutely none of this speaks well for the vp.

2362. jexster - 2/13/2006 2:53:53 PM

I wonder if someone gave DickHead a breath test

2363. jexster - 2/13/2006 2:56:13 PM

Thoughtful...you some kinda city girl

You obviously have never hunted quail...they are commonly found on farms..especially fallow corn fields...they also like brush (old berries) but they are very skittish


You do not hunt from a truck..You may use the truck to get the area you want to hunt..you may hunt from a horse or on foot..but not a truck

2364. jexster - 2/13/2006 2:58:12 PM

Like my old dog Sport



See..he is probably within a yard or two of the covey if the point is hot that is.

He's tippy toed his way here...one little jump and the birds fly

You don't use a truck

2365. jexster - 2/13/2006 2:59:15 PM

Now if guns were deadly like cars. the asshole would be licensed no more

2366. thoughtful - 2/13/2006 3:17:59 PM

jex, i agree with you regarding hunting wild quail, but I suspect these jamokes were hunting pen-raised quail which means that they know ahead of time where they are. One story I heard was this 78-yr old fellow (my bad, he IS a lawyer) was flushing the birds himself and that's how he got shot.

and here's how they quail hunt in tx:

2367. jexster - 2/13/2006 3:24:29 PM

Domesticated quail?
Shit never thought of that.

Fuckin Texans - The Home of the Wussies

2368. jexster - 2/13/2006 3:27:00 PM

I'm steeling myself for a barrage of Cheney gun jokes. Who knows - maybe ubertwit Juan Cole will write an anti-2nd Amendment screed based on Cheney's accident. And of course, if he does, jexster will let us know all about it

Thou hast only to ask and the Obe One shall answer thy prayer



The Gang that couldn't shoot straight

2369. jexster - 2/13/2006 9:18:13 PM

VP Cheney, You're Lucky Those Reporters Aren't Hunters
By Paul Begala | bio

As a guy whose been hunting in South Texas for 30 years, and who's been hunting three times in the past six weeks, I cringe at the Washington Post's use of the benign verb "sprayed" in the lede of the Cheney hunting accident story.

When you hit a man with a 28 gauge (likely 7 and a half shot) and land him in intensive care, you have not "sprayed" him. You've shot him.

I realize reporters were reliant wholly on Katharine Armstrong, Mr. Cheney's host, who laid the whole thing at Whittington's feet, but let me offer a few observations.



On the notion that a 28 gauge "shoots fewer pellets and has a smaller shot pattern than a 12 gauge," as the Washington Post reports: That's true. But no one hunts quail with a 12 gauge. A 12 gauge is used for high-flying, large birds like geese, ducks and pheasants. If you brought a 12 gauge to a quail hunt you'd be laughed off the ranch...and if you hit a bird there'd be nothing left but feathers and feet.

Second, was Mr. Whittington 30 yards away - as the Post reports - or 30 feet, as the Times reports? The difference is important.

Third: It is not best practice - in fact it's unsafe - to send 3 guns into the field and to chase 2 coveys at once. I would never - ever - go chasing a second covey while someone else was occupied with a first covey. My experience is that safe quail hunters generally hunt no more than 2 guns in the field at a time, and chase one covey at a time. To do otherwise is reckless

Ms. Armstrong says Whittington should have announced himself upon approaching Cheney. That is right. At the same time, Cheney, as a shooter, has an obligation to be aware at all times of the whereabouts of the dogs (who don't announce themselves) his fellow hunters, the guides, dog handlers, etc. I've been on hunting parties of ten men, and it's the obligation of the shooters to know where each of them is, and to be sure they are safe. Cheney knew Whittington was chasing a bird. If he could not see Whittington, if he was not 100 percent sure of his whereabouts, he should not have taken a shot. No bird is worth it.

In sum, even from Ms. Armstrong's whitewashed account, it sounds to me like Cheney was not being safe.

To quote Mary Matalin to vouch for Cheney's safety, as the Post does, is absurd. I love Mary - she's married to my best friend. But she was 1500 miles away, drinking a fine Rhone, no doubt. And I daresay she's never been hunting in her life. And yet the Post quotes her reassuring us that Cheney "was not careless or incautious.". Baloney. That's like quoting me on Mrs. Bush's inaugural ball gown. I didn't attend the event, and I don't know squat about the subject.

While hunting accidents do happen, this one may have been avoidable - if Mr. Cheney and his companions had been less trigger-happy and more prudent.

>But I guess we already knew that.

2370. wonkers2 - 2/14/2006 11:16:42 AM

Gun accidents happen easily. When I was in high school I shot a hole in the floor of the back seat of a buddy's parents' brand new Oldsmobile. I knew better than to carry a loaded gun in a car. I cocked the hammer (.20 gauge single shot) on the gun as I was hurrying to get out of the car and accidentally pulled the trigger or let the hammer slip. No injuries but very embarrassing. And I'm embarrassed when I think of the birds and animals I shot, first with a Daisy BB gun, then a .22 rifle and shotgun--from turtles to cedar waxwings and everything in between. Luckily, I never shot another person or myself!

2371. Macnas - 2/14/2006 11:37:46 AM

Wonk, I never knew you were such a predator.
Not happy with everything that walked, crawled or flew, you had to add an Oldsmobile to your trophy collection.

But on reared game:

Game is reared and released all over the world. As we sit here posting, people are getting ready for the next game season by cleaning out rearing pens, preparing feeders and waterers, putting down cover crops and all the other odds and ends that go into rearing game.

The birds are bought as eggs or hatchlings. Then incubated and let out into a large pen. This pen is usually on grass, is about 8ft high and can be as large or larger than a tennis court. Here they are feed and treated if found to have worms, and after they are old enough to start to fly they are released into an area nearby, usually called a covert.

Here they have access to grain feeders and water, cover from the elements and predators, in as much as is possible.

After a time they spread out into the surrounding countryside and do their own thing. Depending on how well the job was done, they are as wild as any other bird by the time the season comes around again. Some of them will get taken by hunters, some will not. Those that survive will go on to breed as naturally as any other bird.

I'm not a great fan of it, I shoot wild birds myself, but now and then I'll take a bird that has a tell-tale tag on its wing, that marks it as an originally reared bird.

So, usually, reared game is not a case of battery style cages being upended in a field whereupon the contents are summarily shot.

2372. wonkers2 - 2/14/2006 11:54:12 AM

Ha! Permit me one more story that I was reminded of at a family funeral last fall in Nebraska. Years ago in my summers on my grandfather's cattle ranch my older cousin used to take me coyote hunting at night with dogs (whippets, greyhounds, and various mixtures of speed and ferocity) in an old pickup truck with a stock rack on the back with a trap door for releasing the dogs. We would prowl the hay meadows in the truck using a spotlight to find the coyotes which would come down out of the hills to hunt jack rabbits at night. When we shined a coyote's eyes we would turn off all lights and approach slowly. When we got as close as we could we would release the dogs, turn on the lights and step on the gas. The dogs would follow the light and chase the coyote, hopefully catching him before he got into territory where we couldn't follow. We would try to keep up in the truck. Talking about a wild ride! Anyway, one night a neighboring rancher came with us and brought his .270 deer rifle. He spotted what he thought was a coyote and cut loose with his rifle. Turned out the coyote was a neighbor's cow. But the cow was only wounded, not dead. So we chased the cow in an effort to put it out of it's misery to be butchered the next day. But the cow got away in the dark, and the shooter didn't catch up with it until the next day when he finally killed it and wrote a check to the cow's owner. The shooter was at the funeral, and we had some fun reminding him of the incident. Come to think of it he is a big Nebraska Republican and bears an uncanny resemblance to Cheney!

2373. iiibbb - 2/14/2006 11:59:32 AM

Message # 2370

So tell me wonkers... if licensing and registration had been in effect when you had your negligent discahrge... how exactly would it have prevented it? How would current "smart gun" technology prevent an accident like that?

I agree that gun accidents happen easily. There are many rules, and people only get hurt when several of the rules are broken at the same time.

Finally given that there are a vast number of people who never have a problem with these rules, why should they be penalized for the small number that do?

A gun has only gone off in my hands once when I didn't intend it to. It was at a range, I had a malfunction, in the course of clearing the malfunction it cylced and went off. I may or may not have tripped the light trigger, but of course, I was following enough of the other rules that it didn't result in anything... specifically I was only handling it while the range was 'hot' and I kept the muzzle pointed in a safe direction.

I am usually at a loss why I should suffer because of someone else's incompetence.

2374. wonkers2 - 2/14/2006 1:01:46 PM

Obviously, licensing and/or registration wouldn't have prevented my accident. Do they license shotguns and rifles?
My bag is handgun control and prohibition of weapons of war--machine guns, automatic rifles with large magazines, hand grenades, poison gas, mortars, and those hand held jobbies that can shoot down low flying planes.

2375. jayackroyd - 2/14/2006 1:12:06 PM

Another note from Firedoglake:

One of our commenters asked yesterday how, if Cheney couldn't see Whittington because of the sun in his eyes (you know, the sun at right before sunset...), how it was that he felt comfortable firing off a round at a "bird"? I mean, quail are very small, if he couldn't see a six foot tall man, how the hell was he going to be tracking a quail? The whole story stinks. Period.

This business of hunting at sunset is also weird. Wildlife ARE active then, but it makes a whole lot more sense to hunt at dawn, with the light getting better, than to hunt at sunset with the light getting worse.

2376. wonkers2 - 2/14/2006 1:16:14 PM

As I already mentioned, I wonder whether or not Cheney and Whittington had had a few libations before the accident? Does anybody know anything about Cheney's drinking habits? Actually, with his health problems, I would think he would have been told to stay away from alcohol long ago???

2377. wonkers2 - 2/14/2006 1:18:24 PM

I think alcohol may have been a suspected factor in the duck blind shooting of GM Veep Harry Anderson by his friend, GM president Harlow Curtice in the late 1950s.

2378. thoughtful - 2/14/2006 1:24:25 PM

Well, it is suspicious that the sheriff showed up and was told to come back the next day...it wasn't until the next day that cheney was interviewed by them...

and the whole thing really does stink. I wonder what the scatter pattern was on this fellow who got hit...how close together the shot was as that would be an indication of how far he was from cheney at the time he got shot.

And of course, the most disgusting thing is the fact that they're already trying to blame the victim saying he didn't announce himself as he should've and that cheney did nothing wrong.

Ah yes, this administration of responsibility and accountability immediately sheds the most primary the most fundamental responsibility of all...the one that rests with the guy with his finger on the trigger.

I'm just dying to find out how they're going to tie questioning this shooting with aiding al aqaeda...I mean the vp in a time of war shouldn't be questioned about his ability to wheel a gun, right? I mean doing so is aiding and abetting the enemy, right? And certainly we can't divert the vp from his critical role in fighting the war on terror with such nonsense as a silly vacation accident, right?

2379. jayackroyd - 2/14/2006 1:28:55 PM

The story doesn't hold up well at all, no. From what I've seen, the severity of injury isn't consistent with the 30 yards away using bird shot story. But there had to have been a lot of people there--secret service, the guys with the paddles to restart Cheney's heart and so forth. You'd think the story would come out.

2380. iiibbb - 2/14/2006 1:47:44 PM

Message # 2374

They do in Illinois.
They also do in other countries.

Obviously, licensing and/or registration wouldn't have prevented my accident. Do they license shotguns and rifles?
My bag is handgun control and prohibition of weapons of war--machine guns, automatic rifles with large magazines, hand grenades, poison gas, mortars, and those hand held jobbies that can shoot down low flying planes.

Everything on your list is already illegal (or a class-3) with the exception of handguns and .50 cal BMG.

Handguns have their place. As I've said many times, not everyone can handle a rifle. Handguns are a practical defense weapon. That's why cops carry them. I believe that I should have access to anything a regular patrolman has access to.

.50cal is borderline, but it is a a bit of a boondoggle the way most of the proposed bans are being persued. Specifically, they seek to ban the caliber, rather than some kind of energy and range limitation.

2381. iiibbb - 2/14/2006 2:00:57 PM

Well... whatever the facts are I do happen to believe it's an accident, and I don't care that it took them a day to notify the press.

I think Cheney should suffer what any hunter would suffer. He should lose his hunting license, and whatever other sentence typically happens. The stuff I've read is people often wind up doing public service.

They can explain the accident in whatever detail they care to. The guy was in the brush chasing other birds, the sun got in his eyes. I don't care. The salient point is that Cheney pulled the trigger... he is responsible.

I think it is stupid to try to spin it into no big deal.

I think it is stupid to try to spin it into a witch-hunt. The speculation about drinking before the hunting is a little over the top.



I am also a little bit disgusted with some of the jokes being bantied about. A person was shot. Might as well make fun of a inner city shooting.

2382. Jexster - 2/14/2006 2:01:21 PM

Corpus Christi Police Blotter: Cheney Victim Suffers Irregular Heart Beat

2383. wonkers2 - 2/14/2006 2:02:09 PM

Well, I'm not in favor of licensing hunting rifles or shotguns.

We differ on handguns. Which is a major difference because they are the main problem because they are easily concealed and are involved in crime, accidents, dust-ups, spur of the moment suicides and the like. And because they play no necessary hunting function. (I do recall years ago reading in Outdoor Liffe recommendations that Kodiak bear hunters carry heavy-duty pistols as well as rifles in case of close up encounters.)

2384. Jexster - 2/14/2006 2:04:19 PM

If Vice President Dick Cheney had followed the protocols taught 12-year-olds in hunter education programs, he never would have shot his pal last weekend while quail hunting, according to hunting safety experts.

"That's true," said Il Ling New, the nation's top female firearms instructor. "If they're taught the right things at early ages, then it can become second nature to a kid that's growing up."

Cheney shot Austin lawyer Harry Whittington Saturday on a ranch near Corpus Christi, Texas. Whittington was hit in the face and chest by pellets from Cheney's shotgun when the vice president fired at birds without knowing where his hunting companion was.

New, a former national skeet champion from San Francisco who has taught hunters how to hunt birds for 10 years, said Cheney's accident would have been avoided if any of the four primary rules of hunting safety had been followed.

Rule No 5 - Don't drink while hunting
Rule No 6 - Don't lie after you shoot someone

I3Be's right. Cheney didn't "spray" the guy.

He shot him.

Even if he was using a 28 ga girlie gun

2385. Jexster - 2/14/2006 2:05:14 PM

2386. jayackroyd - 2/14/2006 2:37:49 PM

I think it is stupid to try to spin it into no big deal.

I think it is stupid to try to spin it into a witch-hunt.

Right ho. But the former--the spin--is feeding the latter, creating speculation that there is something beyond just an ordinary hunting accident. If he'd behaved and been treated like an ordinary citizen, the story would have died down. His not doing so feeds the story.

2387. iiibbb - 2/14/2006 2:39:11 PM

I carry a pistol when I hunt. It is for protection though (dogs, coyotes, large cats). I find it to be particularly necessary when I am muzzle-loading since follow-up shots are not viable.

No rules should really apply to the Alaskan wilderness. I think people who go unarmed into the woods up there are nuts. I really think it's true in much of the rocky mountains with the mountain lion attacks.

Handguns have their legitimate uses... and as long as they do I think it's silly to propose a ban on them.

2388. jayackroyd - 2/14/2006 2:40:38 PM

Thanks, jex. So this is actually quite a rare event. This supports the gun nut meme that hunters are careful and well-trained. It messes with the republican meme that this wa no big deal.

It's also interesting that accidents correlate to size of the target. Getting a person in your line of fire when shooting at deer is much more likely than when shooting quail.

2389. iiibbb - 2/14/2006 2:41:14 PM

I like the phrase in the chart "the weapon most commonly used in hunting accidents"

...must be a USA Today chart.

What is "shooter swinging on game"?

2390. jayackroyd - 2/14/2006 2:48:21 PM

It's what they claim happened when Cheney shot the guy. He was supposedly tracking elements of a covey, swung his gun 180 degrees and shot the old man, not knowing he was there.

It still surprises me that they haven't gotten way in front of this story. Accidents happen. Trying to minimize it makes it worse, because the details will dribble out.

2391. wonkers2 - 2/14/2006 3:05:12 PM

iiibbb, coyotes? For shame! I've never heard of a coyote attack on an adult or virtually on anything else. They are cowardly animals who survive and adapt by hiding, running and generally avoiding contact. They eat prairie dogs, rabbits and other defenseless critters. A hungry coyote might eat a chihuahua or dachshund or pussy cat.

2392. wonkers2 - 2/14/2006 3:06:11 PM

I'll buy mountain lions. But dogs? I've never encountered a dog in the woods.

2393. jexster - 2/14/2006 3:46:26 PM

width=430
From These Cold Dead Fingers

2394. jexster - 2/14/2006 3:48:12 PM

2395. PelleNilsson - 2/14/2006 4:50:24 PM

And muzzle-loading? A clear case of gun fetishism.

2396. Ms. No - 2/14/2006 5:43:08 PM

Wonkers,

Rabid animals will certainly attack and animals that eat rodents are vulnerable to rabies. Particularly carrion eaters that may ingest tainted carcasses. Also, feral dogs aren't unknown in wilderness areas depending on how far out in the wilds one gets.

And why are you not in favor of licensing hunting guns?

2397. wonkers2 - 2/14/2006 6:41:37 PM

No principle is involved. I just don't see the need. The vast majority of gun violence is caused by handguns, not rifles or shotguns. And, I'm basically in favor of virtually prohibiting the private ownership or possession of handguns, with very few exceptions. I like the British system where even the cops don't ordinarily carry guns. [I recognize that my preference is not likely to be realized in my lifetime. Realistically, all I hope for is much stricter regulation and enforcement of the manufacture, sale and licensing of handguns. Widspread public support for this has been frustrated by the gun lobby and in the process corrupted the entire political process.]

2398. jexster - 2/14/2006 6:49:56 PM

must be a USA Today chart.

Must need glasses. Hope you don't own a gun



Chart by AP

2399. jexster - 2/14/2006 6:51:09 PM

We demand a moderator who knows something about guns instead of just NRA talking points

2400. jexster - 2/14/2006 6:58:22 PM

SUI - Shooting Under the Influence

2401. Ms. No - 2/14/2006 7:00:14 PM

The vast majority of gun violence is caused by handguns, not rifles or shotguns.

It's my understanding that vast majority of gun violence is caused by unlicensed and illegal handguns so I'm not sure why licensing would have any affect on the levels of gun violence with the exception of accidental shootings and suicides which really aren't the problem.

2402. iiibbb - 2/14/2006 7:31:20 PM

Message # 2931

A) I have no intention of killing an animal just to do it.

B) Because you've never encountered a dog in the woods doesn't mean they don't exist. I work in the woods. I know what I encounter.

As far as Coyotes ... rabies, whatever. They do attack people. Any predator that has grown accostomed to humans is a risk. Mt Lions have also been seen in my area.

I encounter dogs in the woods frequently enough. Usually postering is sufficient to deter them if they are aggressive, but I've seen enough stories about dog attacks to know better than rely on this. I was attacked by a dog when I was a kid.

2403. iiibbb - 2/14/2006 7:33:57 PM

Message # 2935

Muzzle loading firearms are the law for part of the season. The idea is that it reduces hunting pressure.

Nice how you just throw in a personal slur.

P.S. you are an ass.

Message # 2399

you are an ass too Jex. As if the content of your posts are the paragon of level thinking.

2404. iiibbb - 2/14/2006 7:36:52 PM

Message # 2401

Besides that if we successfully banned handguns, then criminals would use rifles and shotguns... after the incredible rise in rifle/shotgun violence that would inevitably follow, would you then demand banning those?

Hanguns have a use. I don't want to carry a rifle everywhere. It is clearly more firepower than is necessary for most defensive uses. Do you really want guns that are capable of greater range, and greater damage to be used instead?

2405. iiibbb - 2/14/2006 7:38:13 PM

not you specifically Ms No... I mean a non-specific collective 'you'...

2406. iiibbb - 2/14/2006 7:38:25 PM

poor grammar I know.

2407. iiibbb - 2/14/2006 7:51:54 PM

Some of you also discount the 2-legged predators of the backcountry.

I have known a few young women I knew who did research in the back woods. I am certain one packed, and the other probably did... even though it was specifically forbiden by the employer. You think I'm going to tell them not to. Fat chance.

Plus when you're carrying 30 lbs of research gear with you, you're disinclined to carry another 7 lbs of rifle over a l-lb handgun.

2408. wonkers2 - 2/14/2006 7:52:00 PM

Well, 21 injuries in California in ten years due to coyotes sounds insignificant to me. I never heard of a single one in the state of Nebraska where there are plenty of coyotes. Occasionally they will kill a new born calf or possibly a cat. Mostly they eat rabbits and prairie dogs. And I've never heard of anybody carrying a pistol to protect themself against coyotes or for any other reason for that matter. They stopped carrying guns in Nebraska around a hundred years ago.

2409. iiibbb - 2/14/2006 7:52:49 PM

One of my co-workers showed up at his research site one time to find a police line and a murder investigation.

2410. wonkers2 - 2/14/2006 7:56:06 PM

Coyotes basically hide during the day and slink around at night. And they run like hell when they see a human. I've read that they are moving into suburban areas. There I don't doubt that they pose a danger to pets, babies and small children. Beyond that I'm very doubtful. What ever miniscule danger there might be certainly wouldn't make it worth the trouble to carry a handgun. I would worry much more about pet pit bulls, dobermans, which can be much more ferocious than coyotes. However, again the danger would hardly be sufficient to justify carrying a handgun.

2411. jexster - 2/14/2006 7:58:51 PM

#2 With a Bullet


He was "peppered"
He was "sprayed"

It took 14 hours for the Sheriff to see the DickHead. The Sheriff assures us that Dick wasn't drunk.

If you believe that...






Price - $100,000 SALE

2412. wonkers2 - 2/14/2006 8:02:20 PM

Ms. No, I don't have statistics on the percentage of shootings with registered versus un-registered handguns. Perhaps iiibbb could help us out on that. It makes sense to me that more violence is done with unregistered, illegal guns, but one reason for this is that we don't have effective laws to prevent the sale of illegal handguns and we aren't enforcing the laws we do have. There are too many leaks in the system that allow criminals to get their hands on handguns--ineffective background checks and records, sales at gun shows, etc. Some of the manufacturers have turned a blind eye to or encouraged these sales. That's why there are so many guns on the street. Another problem is thefts of registered guns by criminals. So, whatever the record is today is based on a quite ineffective control and registration system. Once effective laws are passed, the slow process of getting unregistered guns off the street can begin.

2413. iiibbb - 2/14/2006 8:04:13 PM

I can't predict what I will encounter. I have encountered wild pigs, dogs, and people.

You are not in a position to judge when I am justified in carrying a handgun. You have no concept. You discount the encounters I have had.

Do what you want. Leave me alone.

2414. wonkers2 - 2/14/2006 8:14:02 PM

Everybody has to make that kind of judgment based on their own experience. I've also encountered "wild pigs, dogs and people," but I've never been attacked or felt endangered, except for being mugged once on a main intersection in Sao Paulo at 6:30pm in broad daylight surrounded by plenty of people. I've seen plenty of coyotes and invariably it was hard to get within a hundred yards of them, we've had skunks and racoons in our back yard and in a friend's attic. And I've seen javelinas in Arizona, and even a rattlesnake or two. But I've never felt a need for a gun to protect myself.

2415. iiibbb - 2/14/2006 8:20:09 PM

Good for you.

It's never gotten to the point where I would've used one if I had one...

...but it certainly has been to the point that I sought to get myself out of the situation. Not that having a gun would make me less inclinded to get out of a situation without using it.

I am not trigger happy. I am non-violent. However, I am not a pacifist. I find it wierd that you acknowledge these risks exist, but since you have never felt threatened you don't think anyone else need worry.

There are people who smoked for 70 years and never got cancer too. Doesn't mean I'll start smoking.

2416. wonkers2 - 2/14/2006 8:23:42 PM

John Dickerson on Cheney, NRA, GOP and Shooting QuailHere.

2417. wonkers2 - 2/14/2006 9:50:31 PM

The latest from Slate on CheneyHere.

2418. jexster - 2/14/2006 11:12:39 PM

Rob Cordray..Daily Show....

Cheney stands by decision to shoot man in face

Thoughtful is right...these yahoos were hunting pen-raised wing-challenged birds.

Good God...that's a crime against nature

Big boys with girlie guns

sheesh

2419. iiibbb - 2/14/2006 11:35:51 PM

Message # 2414

How much of that did you make up? I gave a stat a while ago about the percentage of guns used in crime that were illegally obtained. I don't have time to find it again for you.

we don't have effective laws to prevent the sale of illegal handguns and we aren't enforcing the laws we do have.

How is registration of legal guns going to curtail the illegal sales?

There are too many leaks in the system that allow criminals to get their hands on handguns--ineffective background checks and records, sales at gun shows, etc. Some of the manufacturers have turned a blind eye to or encouraged these sales.

Proof.

That's why there are so many guns on the street. Another problem is thefts of registered guns by criminals. So, whatever the record is today is based on a quite ineffective control and registration system. Once effective laws are passed, the slow process of getting unregistered guns off the street can begin.

Every new gun laws includes a promise that this is going to do it... then it doesn't. The reason why it doesn't is because people aren't addressing the real issues. The people committing the crime. I'm much more open to Arky's suggestions than more ineffective laws.

We know large bans and registration are a farse... just look to canada who's crime industry is booming.

2420. jexster - 2/14/2006 11:39:32 PM

DickHead Hunts Pheasant.pen raised?


JR. WALKER AND THE ALL STARS lyrics - "Shotgun"


www.OldieLyrics.com



I said,Shotgun shoot em for he runs now
Do the jerk baby
Do the jerk now
Hey!

Put on your red dress
And then you go downtown now
I said buy yourself a shotgun now
We're gonna break it down baby now
We're gonna load it up baby now
And then you shoot him for he runs now

I said,Shotgun shoot em for he runs now
Do the jerk baby
Do the jerk now
Hey!

[Instrumental sax]

I said,Shotgun shoot em for he runs now
Do the jerk baby
Do the jerk now
Hey!

Put on your high heels shoes
I said we're goin' down here listen to em play blues
We're gonna dig potatoes
We're gonna pick tomatoes

I said,Shotgun shoot em for he runs now
Do the jerk baby
Do the jerk now
Hey!

I said it's Twine Time
I said it's Twine Time
I said it's Twine Time
Hey!

2421. Macnas - 2/15/2006 3:37:16 AM

Reared birds, big deal. See my previous post.

Shooting at dusk, so what? early morning and late evening are the best times to hunt.

Drinking and hunting, no details on this to support it, just a load of bullshit I'd say.

The bare facts are bad enough in my opinion.

2422. concerned - 2/15/2006 3:44:40 AM

Re. 2414 -

Once while running, I passed within 15 feet or so of a darn big coyote, almost wolf sized, standing right in somebody's front lawn.

2423. iiibbb - 2/15/2006 8:03:03 AM

Message # 2421

Honestly, the way the press is trying to spin this into some sort of uber scandal makes me want to root for the dick. I don't give a rats ass about how it took less than a day to alert the press.

Like you say... the fact is that Cheney gets a failing grade in gun and hunting safety. That alone is bad enough as it is... but it is what it is. Cheney should only be punished as much as any other hunter would suffer in the same circumstances.

2424. thoughtful - 2/15/2006 8:35:53 AM

IsBs, it's not just that they failed to notify the press, and they failed to even tell the pres that vp did the shooting, (I don't know about you, but I think my boss would want to know if I shot someone, esp if I were in politics, esp at the white house) but it was cheney's blame the victim stance on this that is especially disgusting.

White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan tried to absolve Cheney of blame for shooting wealthy Austin lawyer Harry Whittington, saying that hunting "protocol was not followed by Mr. Whittington when it came to notifying others that he was there. And so, you know, unfortunately, these types of hunting accidents happen from time to time."
------------------------
Cheney adviser Mary Matalin said of her boss, 'He was not careless or incautious [and did not] violate of any of the [rules]. He didn’t do anything he wasn’t supposed to do.'

Of course cheney did something he wasn't supposed to do...he shot someone! How stupid does Mary think the amer people are????

2425. iiibbb - 2/15/2006 8:51:36 AM

Scott McClellan is an idiot.

Cheney pulled the trigger... that is the most serious hunting 'protocol' that was violated. Whittington contributed to his plight, but the guy that pulls the trigger is ultimately responsible.

The fact they're trying to push blame away is stupid. They should just own up to it. Maybe it's just part of the nature of staff to automatically go into deflection/damage control. That's only going to hurt credibility with something like this.

I have no problem with them waiting a day. It's better to wait and get the facts strait than jump the gun. I don't think waiting until the next morning is bad... unless they wait until the next morning to obfuscate the story rather than just report it.

2426. wonkers2 - 2/15/2006 9:01:00 AM

Danger from rabid coyotes, racoons, snakes, wild pigs, feral dogs, etc., may be real but miniscule, not, in my humble opinion, sufficient to require carrying a handgun for self-protection. That's really a side issue. But the danger from other people carrying handguns is all too real, one that cries out for more effective handgun regulations so that the slow process of disarming the citizenry of handguns may begin. This article outlines the real problem as opposed to the imaginary one of threats from coyotes, wild pigs and Rocky Racoon. Here.

2427. wonkers2 - 2/15/2006 9:40:46 AM

The real problem is not with outdoorsmen carrying handguns for whatever reason. Rather, it's with a system supported by gun manufacturers and the NRA which the industry to keep making guns and pipelining them into urban areas. Maybe a solution would be possible to solve the real problem without affecting the use of handguns by outdoorsmen and target shooters.

2428. iiibbb - 2/15/2006 9:46:02 AM

Message # 2426

Not in your opinion, huh? Like I said... who are you to judge my risk?

Why is there a risk from me carrying a handgun? You say this risk is "all too real". Doesn't that mean I am even more justified to be prepared to defend myself?

As long as the police consider a side arm as the most appropriate defenseive weapon for a cop... I'll consider it the most appropriate defensive weapon for myself.

Your link just justifies my reasons for carrying more... not less.

2429. iiibbb - 2/15/2006 9:52:15 AM

Message # 2427

First I would suggest that we drop the ineffective "war" on drugs. I think we should concentrate on those that commit violent crimes, and that we actually punish them in a meaningful way.

Second, I would adopt Arky's suggestions of trying to address the things that society can affect. Poverty, education... etc.

Those that prey on others... gangs, rapists, murderers, etc. Lock them away. Once we clear the prisons of the drug war victims there should be plenty of room for the violent types.


Third... you complain about crooked gun dealers and manufacturers. If they are breaking laws then sting them and prosecute them. I suspect that we don't hear about gun busts because the gun supply line from the manufacturers is largely legit. If there is a black market for guns... then sick these guys that are busting lame pot growers on them.

2430. iiibbb - 2/15/2006 10:35:02 AM

A number of interesting points about gun dealer abuses as well as ATF abuses. The ATF apparently has an investigation abuse rate of 75% (imagine if that were the IRS).

Actually there is a congressional hearing about the ATF coming up because of an operation in Richmond, VA were they were going to the homes (and neighbors) of people trying to make gun purchases at a gun show, and asking if the wife (or neighbors) knew that the subject was purchasing a gun that day. In addition, they were apparently harrassing concealed permit holders who were carrying legally, even confiscating their weapons.

2431. jexster - 2/15/2006 11:04:30 AM

Smackwater Dick he bought a shotgun
Cause he was in the mood of a little confrontation
He just let it all hang loose
He didn't think about the noose
He couldn't take no more abuse,
So he shot down the congregation
....

2432. iiibbb - 2/15/2006 11:06:17 AM

Here Jex ...here Jex!!! Go get it boy. Good Boy!!

2433. wonkers2 - 2/15/2006 11:12:14 AM

A Congressional hearing called, no doubt, by the NRA, at the behest of gun manufacturers.

2434. iiibbb - 2/15/2006 11:53:51 AM

Give me a break... if the ATF is violating right to privacy you're not concerned?

You can hate the NRA as much as you care to, but something like that is as bad (or worse) as the wire-tapping.

2435. iiibbb - 2/15/2006 11:54:51 AM

I like being a civil libertarian... it keeps me from getting confused about double-standards.

2436. Macnas - 2/15/2006 11:55:44 AM

Regarding carrying a handgun while hunting, even in the UK where handguns are illegal, some hunters have permission to carry them in order to finish wounded deer.

Deer can go for some ways whith heart and lungs shot through, and fallen deer may need require a follow up shot. A large calibre handgun is best for this.

In any case, whether you think hunters should or should not carry them, it's just a matter of opinion, as it is legal in most states, as far as I know, to do so.

2437. jexster - 2/15/2006 12:14:10 PM

What does THAT have to do with Gun Control?
Iraqis have more gun rights than you do!

Back at Ya


I'm gonna git Pelle your ass if UR not careful

2438. iiibbb - 2/15/2006 1:07:25 PM

Who said it had anything to do with gun control... I just thought it'd be more up your alley.

2439. jexster - 2/15/2006 1:09:48 PM

Smackwater Dick he bought a shotgun
Cause he was in the mood of a little confrontation
He just let it all hang loose
He didn't think about the noose
He couldn't take no more abuse,
So he shot down the congregation
You can't talk to a man with a shotgun in his hand
Bulldog Fitzgerald stood for law and order
He called for the guard to come and surround the border
Now fron his bulldog mouth
As he led the posse south
Came the cry "We got to ride to clean up the street
For our wives and our daughters!"
You can't talk to a man when he don't want to understand
The account of the capture wasn't in the papers
But you know, they hanged ole Smack right then (instead of
later)
You know, the people where quite pleased
Cause the outlaw had been sized
And on the whole, it was a very good year for the undertaker
You can't talk to a man with a shotgun in his hand

2440. iiibbb - 2/15/2006 7:54:24 PM

Cheney's interview. He takes full responsibility. No qualifications.

I still don't care that it took a day to notify the press.

2441. wonkers2 - 2/15/2006 8:38:43 PM

First he was "peppered" but four days later we are told a pellet had "traveled" into his heart and finally tonight we learn that Whittington was shot in the heart, lung and liver. The pellets penetrated his hunting jacket, his shirt, his chest and partly into his heart muscle. Call it the travelling pellet mystery! We are being spun by Cheney and company just as we've been spun by the Bush admin on WMD, Katrina, etc. ad nauseam.

2442. iiibbb - 2/15/2006 8:55:42 PM

Actually a surgen was being interviewed on NPR and he said that the pellets could migrate (the interviewer was asking why they didn't do surgery to remove the pellets). The body would eventually wall them off, but until that happened there was a possibility that they would work their way to the heart. That is/was apparently one of the biggest concerns the first few days after the accident.

2443. iiibbb - 2/15/2006 8:59:20 PM

Weren't you one of the people bring up drinking without any evidence? You're also the one who's got not problem with the ATF violating civil liberties, but abhor the adminstration for violating civil liberties.

Spin, spin, spin, both ways.

Cynicism by the left ad nauseam.

If the left isn't careful they're going to come off as hysterical.

2444. jayackroyd - 2/15/2006 9:22:23 PM

I still don't care that it took a day to notify the press

Really? Why not?

2445. iiibbb - 2/15/2006 9:53:37 PM

Because it's just a day and it wouldn't change anything.

It's not like Katrina where they didn't show up for a week.

I believe him when he says it was the worst day of his life. I believe that in circumstances like these things like making sure the guy lives through the night takes precident over notifying the Washington press corps.

Now... if he didn't notify the guys wife until the next day, you might have something.

2446. wonkers2 - 2/15/2006 9:56:30 PM

I don't recall saying I have no problem with ATF violating civil liberties. Actually, I'm concerned with any violation of civil liberties. My problem is with the inadequacy of our gun control laws and our apparent inability to enforce the ones we have. I confess I didn't pay much attention to your or NRA's claim of ATF violations. I'll go back and look at it again.

And the MD on Hardball was a former head of a U.S. medical agency was quite clear on the point that it was very unlikely or impossible tht a pellet has travelled into the heart, liver or lungs. She was quite certain that they had penetrated these organs when Whittington was shot. I guess you pay your money and take your choice. And we still haven't heard a credible explanation for the delay in Cheney's interview with the police. Are you surprised that such a delay would cause questions such as the possible role of alcohol to arise. I doubt that Brit Hume asked him about that.

2447. wonkers2 - 2/15/2006 10:06:51 PM

This isn't the first hunting "incident" involving Cheney. I heard about another on the radio today dating back to when Cheney was a young congressman. Apparently, in his zeal to win a contest at a Governors conference to see who was first to kill an antelope, he blasted away at an antelope that was obviously out of range for a clean kill. He wounded the antelope and spent the next few hours chasing the antelope to kill it and win the contest. The report didn't say whether or not Cheney ultimately killed tha antelope and won the contest or whether the antelope was wild or released from a pen for the contest.

2448. iiibbb - 2/15/2006 10:15:08 PM

Message # 2447

A 'report' huh? You do whatever it takes to believe a spin conspiracy, but you're willing to give whatever credence to 'reports' about activities years ago.

Besides, that is not an "incident". People fail to kill animals within 50 yrds and spend the day chasing them. No one likes to do it, but animals get away.

Keep grasping...

2449. iiibbb - 2/15/2006 10:18:03 PM

Message # 2446

You claimed in Message # 2433 (blindly you claim now) that the congressional investigation was because the NRA and the industry made it happen... rather than considering for a moment that the ATF was abusing it's powers.

2450. iiibbb - 2/15/2006 10:19:53 PM

here's a report of the ATF gun show shenanigans.

2451. iiibbb - 2/15/2006 10:22:47 PM

here's the website of the gun show organizer. Apparently the ATF has already been thumped over their behavior.

But it's the NRA and manufacturers that are in the wrong.

2452. wonkers2 - 2/15/2006 10:25:12 PM

Where I come from it's considered poor sportsmanship to take a shot at a deer or antelope or other animal that's too far away for a likely clean kill. (Full disclosure, I've never hunted deer or antelope.)

2453. iiibbb - 2/15/2006 10:29:13 PM

Of course it is desireable to kill it clean... but you're putting a lot of faith in that 'report'. What was the actual range? Some people might describe a 2-300 yrd shot as "obviously out of range" when their are plenty of guns and shooters plenty capable of it. If he hit it, then it obviously wasn't that out of range.

2454. wonkers2 - 2/15/2006 10:30:50 PM

That was a pretty one-sided, inconclusive report about the ATF. Nevertheless, I didn't see any proof of violations of anybody's civil rights. Sounds like to me that ATF was trying to do its job. Let me know if any conclusions are reached on the matter. I have read lots of reports indicating that gun shows are a significant source of unregistered guns. Where do you think they come from?

2455. wonkers2 - 2/15/2006 10:33:54 PM

How does a shotgun pellet migrate? Here.

2456. iiibbb - 2/15/2006 10:35:16 PM

Geeze... you are a piece of work today.

ATF was violating people rights. How is it at all their job to go to the homes of people who are not being investigated for a crime to basically snoop.

Give me a break. At least the wire taps were for people that had actually talked to a terrorist. The ATF was investigaging people who weren't doing anything but a legal purchase.

That isn't in any way, shape, or form the ATF's job.

2457. wonkers2 - 2/15/2006 10:36:33 PM

Any idea why Cheney didn't go to the hospital with his victim instead of going back to the ranch for dinner? I like to think if I were in Cheney's shoes I would have skipped dinner at the ranch and gone to the hospital to be with my friend. How about you?

2458. wonkers2 - 2/15/2006 10:40:52 PM

More on the Shooter.

2459. iiibbb - 2/15/2006 10:53:26 PM

There are apparently all kinds of things "you'd like to think" today.

2460. wonkers2 - 2/15/2006 10:56:59 PM

Complete transcript of Cheney interview with Brit Hume. Here.

2461. wonkers2 - 2/15/2006 10:59:09 PM

Contrary to speculation by several commentators, the quail Cheney was hunting were wild, not penned.

According to Cheney's testimony, nobody in the party was under the influence of alcohol. He had one beer with lunch.

2462. wonkers2 - 2/15/2006 11:02:25 PM

"At least the wire taps were for people who had actually talked to a terrorist." WRONG. Where did you get that? Not even the Al Gonzales went that far.

2463. iiibbb - 2/15/2006 11:03:53 PM

but they're just doing their job fighting terrorists... like the ATF trying to stop gun crime....

2464. iiibbb - 2/15/2006 11:05:30 PM

Let's clarify... I think BOTH activites are WRONG. You apparently only think one is. Or you certainly seem willing to give the ATF the benefit of the doubt, but not the NSA?

I don't get it.

2465. wonkers2 - 2/15/2006 11:07:32 PM

Both sides in the gun lobby need to re-think their program Here.

2466. iiibbb - 2/15/2006 11:22:12 PM

It's amazing how many points are made in that article that I have made in here and I have been ridiculed for.

Namely

those made about the Assault Weapons Ban, the Liability Lawsuits, and the Polarization of the fight.

2467. wonkers2 - 2/15/2006 11:41:27 PM

Well, one point that I noticed was the line that said that Virginia gives out concealed carry permits like drivers licenses but without any safety training, etc. Maybe that's why the ATF was investigating the gun shows???

Also, were you aware that according to the Texas sheriff's report they were told by somebody that there had been no drinking? Also, Anne Armstrong stated that no alcohol had been served for the hunting party. Now Cheney admits to "one beer at lunch." One of the talking heads on TV just asserted that Cheney has a bit of a drinking history or a history of a drinking problem. Seems to me that the story we have gotten has changed quite a few times. Why should we believe we now have the full story. I assume you agree that hunting after drinking is not advisable. My experience is that we always waited until AFTER the hunt and the guns were unloaded before breaking out the booze. Apparently it's different in Texas.

2468. iiibbb - 2/16/2006 12:12:25 AM

RE: Va permits... No that's not why they were conducting that operation. Please explain the link to visiting peoples' homes, permits, certifcation standards, and illegal gun transfers are related.

They were investigating legal purchases. There is no justifcation for what the ATF did... none. Your position is indefensible.

Re drinking: Do you drink? Have you driven home 4 hours after 1 beer or a glass of wine and food before? That's the time differential we're aparently dealing with.

I'm not going to make excuses for him though. Cheney fucked up. But you are grasping. It's pretty amazing your selectivity today.

2469. Macnas - 2/16/2006 4:33:22 AM

I think, that some people are making the mistake of looking for more blame than there already is.

As I said before, the bare facts are damning enough, and stand alone.

Trying to put lots of extra spin on this incident only gives those who are blindly defending Cheney more purchase on a slippery slope. They can disprove or refute easily and thereby go someway to discredit those who are kicking up about it.

2470. jayackroyd - 2/16/2006 8:09:52 AM

I'm with you there, mac. The bare facts are damning enough.

2471. jayackroyd - 2/16/2006 8:16:24 AM

OTOH, digby summarizes the situation this way:

Now if Cheney had received fellatio and hidden it from his wife instead of drinking beer while on medication, shooting a man at close range and hiding it from the public, the story might not fade

The standards have certainly shifted.

2472. wonkers2 - 2/16/2006 8:19:39 AM

Well, when a story changes time after time it begins to look like a cover-up. The NYT reported this morning that Ann Armstrong said several times that nobody had been drinking; she didn't drink and the no alcohol was served, only Dr. Peppers for lunch. The last night we find that Cheney had "just one beer under the old oak tree at lunch." Moreover the police report stated that drinking was not involved. I don't believe that drinking cause the accident, but I don't like the changing story, the delay in the police interview and the changing versions of the injury. It stinks. And, as I mentioned, if it had been me instead of Cheney, I would have gone with Whittington to the hospital or followed him there or at least visited him the next morning. Cheney apparently did none of the above. His behavior in this incident is consistent with his prevarications on WMD and a number of other issues.

2473. jayackroyd - 2/16/2006 8:34:01 AM

If it had been you, there would have been cops involved very early on. While I think Macnas is correct in saying that Cheney was clearly negligent on the basic facts, it's nonetheless the case that he's been trying to manage this story. And he's done a bad job of it.

2474. iiibbb - 2/16/2006 8:58:20 AM

Yes, I think managing the story was the key mistake. I can see spinning some stories... but you can't spin everything, and some things just shouldn't be spun at all.

2475. iiibbb - 2/16/2006 9:03:42 AM

Message # 2467

By the way. Virginia does require safety training. The author of the article you posted had hunter safety training.

What Virginia does not require is a practical shoot... specifically, can you hit a target within the kill zone at 7 yrds. I don't know how many states require practicals, but Virginia is hardly alone.

Permitting is not as easy as a drivers license. You have to go through a court to get approved, and you have to submit to a more extensive background check than it takes to buy a gun.


Now... if you want to go after a state, try Vermont. There you may carry open or concealed without any type of permit or training or anything. Period.


It's discussions like I've had with wonkers yesterday that make me understand far more clearly why the NRA and other gun rights organization have become so rigid. It certainly makes me more rigid.

2476. thoughtful - 2/16/2006 9:08:02 AM

Well even cheney's own story yesterday had holes in it, no pun intended. He said he's been friends with whittington for 30 years and then he said they weren't friends, just acquaintances.

2477. thoughtful - 2/16/2006 9:17:20 AM

Just going over the cheney transcript from yesterday.

Q Will it affect your attitude toward this pastime you so love in the future?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: I can't say that. You know, we canceled the Sunday hunt. I said, look I'm not -- we were scheduled to go out again on Sunday and I said I'm not going to go on Sunday, I want to focus on Harry. I'll have to think about it.

How touching to have gone so far out of his way after shooting someone to cancel the next day's hunt!

2478. iiibbb - 2/16/2006 9:36:30 AM

What does a politician mean when they say "friend" anyway?



This is like WMD's in miniature. A lot of you are grasping at the tiniest shreds of evidence because you hate the guy so much. I suspect the war hawks did the same thing when it came to Saddam.

2479. jayackroyd - 2/16/2006 9:53:57 AM

He shot a guy in the face, iiibbb.

And he hasn't come clean. You wouldn't do that, I'm sure. You'd talk to the cops, you'd take the breathalyzer, you'd feel terrible. You might even cop to the criminal charge, because this is a really, really awful thing to do. Even by mistake. Even if sober. The point that you've repeatedly made here is that gun owners are by and large careful. They respect the weapons. The numbers wonkers posted supports that position--millions of gun owners and 850 accidental shootings. Cheney fucked up, big time. When you fuck up, big time, you have to fess up, and do all you can to fix it

The reason people are looking at shreds of evidence, or even worse, engaging in outright fantastic speculation, is because the guy hasn't come clean.

2480. jayackroyd - 2/16/2006 10:03:52 AM

Sorry. the 850 hunting accident number came from jexster.

2481. Macnas - 2/16/2006 10:04:35 AM

Sad really, even the shooting boards and forums for the most part said that he should just cop clean to it, admit his maistake and go some way to hammering home the basic rules of hunting safely.

But everything seems to come out crooked. This guy can't lie straight in bed I reckon.

2482. iiibbb - 2/16/2006 10:43:06 AM

Message # 2479

Let's be clear I'm not defending Cheney...

Condeming wild wild speculation, reaching, and double standards is not defending Cheney. I do get irritated with wild speculation, reaching, and double standards... especially if the purpose of those is to score political points in gun control debates, or scandal hunting.

Let's be clear again. Cheney fucked up. He is the one responsible. Period. People can speculate all they want, and if any of these speculations prove true, then fine, pile onto Cheney.

per your scenario...

Let's review the timeline

4 p.m.: Vice President Cheney begins an afternoon quail hunt with four other hunters on the private Armstrong Ranch in south Texas. They had been hunting earlier in the day, but took a break for lunch.

6:30 p.m.: Cheney accidentally shoots fellow hunter Harry Whittington while aiming for a bird. Secret Service agents and medical personnel with Cheney tend to wounds on Whittington’s face, neck and chest.

7:20 p.m.: An ambulance takes Whittington to Christus Spohn Hospital Kleburg.

7:30 p.m.: White House chief of staff Andrew Card tells President Bush there was an accident, but Card is unaware Cheney was involved.

7:50 p.m.: The head of the Secret Service office in McAllen, Texas, calls the Kenedy County sheriff to report the accident. The sheriff asks to speak to Cheney, and they schedule an interview for 9 a.m. Sunday. At the White House, presidential aide Karl Rove tells Bush that Cheney was the shooter, after talking to ranch owner Katharine Armstrong.

So within an hour he's on the way to the hospital, and within a half-hour after that they contact the Sheriff and make whatever arrangements. If you think the Sheriff should've gone out right then, then criticize the Sherrif.

I don't know the protocols of breathalizers after hunting accidents. I would suspect they are unusual. I don't know why the Sherrif didn't go right out there. I don't know if that was Cheney's decision, the sheriff's decision, or the secret service's decision.

Cheney has already said it was the worst day of his life. If you don't believe him or cincically think that's just a prepared position then that's your problem.

I don't care that the press corps in Washington weren't notified until the next day.

I don't think a day is too long to notify the press. How long did it take the New York Times for instance to admit they had a crooked reported. How long did it take Dan Rather to admit he fucked up. Give me a break. Everyone in the public eye does damage control.

How long did it take Kennedy to apologize for Chappaquiddick. Cheney at least hasn't killed anyone yet.

2483. iiibbb - 2/16/2006 10:49:28 AM

Kennedy's timeline

When the time neared 11:15 p.m., Kennedy left the party with Mary Jo Kopechne, a 28-year-old, former secretary for Sen. Robert Kennedy of New York (Teddy 1979). Kennedy wanted to catch the ferry, which only ran from 7:30 a.m. to midnight, in order to get a ride to his hotel in Edgartown (Blackwell & Hardwood 1969). He claimed that he intended to leave the party alone; however, Kopechne asked to accompany him so that she could also catch the ferry (Teddy 1979). Kennedy’s chauffeur was at the party, but for some unknown reason Kennedy did not employ his services (Chappaquiddick 2005).

In route, Kennedy apparently made a wrong turn and came to Dyke Bridge (Teddy 1979). In his inquest, he stated that he was only traveling 20 miles per hour when his car went off the bridge and landed on its top into the six to eight-foot-deep Poucha Pond (Excerpts 1970). It was reported that Dyke Bridge was only 10 and a half feet wide with no railing. Kennedy said he had no memory as to how he escaped the sinking car, and he claimed that he was unsuccessful in his several attempts to rescue Kopechne (Kennedy’s Statement 1969).

After arriving to the shore, Kennedy made his way back to the cottage where he then entered the back seat of a parked car (Kennedy’s Statement 1969). At some point after his arrival he spoke with two men at the party: Joseph Gargan, Kennedy’s cousin and lawyer, and Paul Markham, lawyer and former U.S. Attorney for Massachusetts (Chappaquiddick 2005). The men accompanied Kennedy to the site of the accident and were also unsuccessful in their attempts to dive for Kopechne (Excerpts 1970). An interesting fact was the location of the fire station on the island, just 179 steps from the cottage, yet none of the involved parties ran to the station for help (Jones & Yuenger 1969).

The men remained with Kennedy throughout the night until Kennedy reported the accident 10 hours after it occurred (The Kennedy 1969). In the inquest, Kennedy claimed that the 10 hour delay was due to his state of shock and his belief that he willed for Kopechne to remain alive (Excerpts 1970). In addition, he waited to contact her mother, because he dreaded reporting such terrible news to her (Excerpts 1970).

Later, John N. Farrar, the diver at the scene, expressed that if the authorities had been contacted immediately, there was a possibility that they could have saved Kopechne (Diver 1969). He revealed that in similar circumstances, people have discovered air bubbles that enabled them to survive for up to 5 hours (Diver 1969).


Kennedy apparently wrote the book on restoration stategies after events like this.

1-denial
2-evasion of responsibility
3-reduction of offensiveness
4-corrective action
5-mortification

2484. iiibbb - 2/16/2006 10:50:19 AM

Note: Kennedy waited 10 hours to call for any kind of help.

2485. thoughtful - 2/16/2006 11:12:13 AM

isbs, my understanding is, the sheriff did go out right away and was turned away at the gate. it wasn't until the next day that they were allowed in.

2486. iiibbb - 2/16/2006 11:51:26 AM

According to the MSNBC article, somebody called him at 7:50. That's all I know. They don't mention him going out and being turned away. I would think MSNBC would report something like that.

2487. jayackroyd - 2/16/2006 12:01:52 PM

And now you're doing it.

I simply do not understand this wingnut argument. They make it all the time. "Little Johnny did it too. So there."

Ted Kennedy behaved reprehensibly. He got propped up by an MA political machine that kept him out of jail. That was wrong, and a shameful moment for this country.

That doesn't fucking have any bearing on the question of whether Cheney behaved reprehenibly. It's entirely irrelevant. I cannot understand what this line of argument is meant to show. It's so completely tied up with a tendentious rather than moral world view that it leaves me flabbergasted.

2488. Wombat - 2/16/2006 12:20:14 PM

Better to go hunting with Cheney than to be Laura Bush's ex-boyfriend...

2489. jayackroyd - 2/16/2006 12:21:18 PM

This (very partisan, very anti-Bush) lawyer says breathalyzers are routine in these matters.

It is all the media's fault that you got no breathalyzer and no blood sample for alcohol or prescription medication levels testing, against almost every police protocol that I've ever seen after a hunting incident. Why didn't you immediately go to the scene and observe the shooter yourself -- or send a deputy? Because he was the Vice President and he and his friends and your sheriff predecessor told you not to worry your pretty little head about it?

2490. jayackroyd - 2/16/2006 12:23:46 PM

Better to go hunting with Cheney than to be Laura Bush's ex-boyfriend...

You don't hear much about that, do you?

2491. jayackroyd - 2/16/2006 12:24:52 PM

iiibbb, coyotes? For shame!

The fastest I've ever seen my dog run was one time in upstate New York when she a coyote behind her.

2492. jayackroyd - 2/16/2006 12:32:43 PM

Just one more thing on speculation on what really happened.

These guys (and Cheney in particular) lie on a dime. It is completely natural, at this point, to wonder wtf really happened.

There are too many details that don't add up.

2493. wonkers2 - 2/16/2006 12:41:04 PM

Here's one NYT article. Here.

2494. iiibbb - 2/16/2006 12:44:46 PM

Again... jay... I am not defending Cheney... what I am upset about is the behavior of the people clamoring to lynch him...

That is the distinction.

Cheney's actions were wrong... whatever. We're never going to find out the truth now because of the clamor.

2495. thoughtful - 2/16/2006 12:46:52 PM

there seems to be some dispute over what happened regarding the sheriff and the ranch including:

But the Times' February 14 report conflicted with other news reports from that day, which indicated that a law enforcement official had been barred from the Armstrong Ranch the night of the shooting. The Washington Post reported on February 14:

Local law enforcement officials did not interview Cheney until Sunday morning, about 14 hours after the shooting, in an agreement worked out between the Secret Service and Kenedy County Sheriff Ramon Salinas III. Secret Service spokesman Eric Zahren said at least one deputy was turned away shortly after the shooting because security personnel at the ranch were not aware of the agreement between the sheriff and the Secret Service.

On February 15, the Times also reported that Cheney had not been interviewed until Sunday. But the Times added that Salinas had claimed to have dispatched a deputy to the ranch on Saturday and that Zahren disputed that claim. The Times did not account for the discrepancy between this report and Salinas's previous reported claim that an interview took place Saturday night:

While there were reports, some from the sheriff himself, that a deputy had been dispatched to the ranch on Saturday night and been turned away, Mr. Zahren said that some local police officers had heard about the shooting on a scanner when an ambulance was sent to pick up Mr. Whittington. They showed up at the ranch unsolicited. Private guards, not Secret Service agents, Mr. Zahren said, turned the police away because they did not know anything had occurred.

Can anyone get anything straight any more. It seems like the earth has passed through some incredible vortex where even truth and facts are now perpetually mutable. As if one event is really 12 different events.

2496. wonkers2 - 2/16/2006 12:47:48 PM

Here's another--Cheney's picking Brit Hume for a softball scripted interview would be the equivalent of Hilary or Bill Clinton, in a similar situation, giving an interview to Al Franken on Air America. Here

2497. wonkers2 - 2/16/2006 12:48:34 PM

Cheney deserves everthing he's getting, not for the shooting, but for what amounts to a cover-up.

2498. jayackroyd - 2/16/2006 12:50:30 PM

fine, iiibbb.

But can you help me out with why you brought up Kennedy in this context? I honestly do not understand this line of argument, and it seems to come entirely from the right. Why does it matter, in discussing what Cheney did, what Kennedy did? Why does concerned say "clinton did this evil thing too" as if this somehow makes it okay for Bush to do it?

2499. Ms. No - 2/16/2006 1:12:08 PM

Jay,

Because it works. The GOPers say "Chappaquiddick" and the Dems choke.

Seriously. Until the Dems grow the balls to stand up and say "Fuck that dead horse Chappaquiddick" they'll continue to allow themselves to be left stuttering and stammering like a highschool sophomore on his first date.

It's the response Clinton should have made when questioned about Lewinsky. "Yeah, I fucked her. Thank you for embarassing my wife and my daughter and this nation with your prurient questions in an attempt to smear me because you don't have the goods to fight me on a level playing field. Since you believe this is important to national security, however, I've taken it under advisement and seen fit to have a list compiled of all the extramarital sexual activities occurring on the Hill which will be posted in the halls and run on the front pages of tomorrow morning's leading newspapers. Next question."

2500. iiibbb - 2/16/2006 1:15:55 PM

Because I didn't want everyone else to have the monopoly on cyncism.

I get tired of people changing their priciples when it suits them for a specific condition.

Because my bet is that the people that are clamoring about Cheney right now would dismiss Kennedy. Just like if Bush:Gore had gone Gore's way most of the people whining about chads would have taken up the opposite position. People that defend Clinton, but bash Justice Thomas or Newt (was it he that was caught cheating on his wife too).

This is not the same as taking a principled stand... I mean applying principles unequally or in a partisan manner. For instance what wonkers seems to be doing doing with the ATF activities vs. NSA activities.

This kind of stuff makes me as mad as a spinning/lying politician.

2501. jayackroyd - 2/16/2006 1:16:54 PM

Well, I do get the cheap and dishonest part. But folks here aren't running for office. And it's clearly a stupid line of argument.

2502. iiibbb - 2/16/2006 1:19:40 PM

I bring up the examples I bring up in an effort to show it's not fair... not because I wish to take a position that Kennedy=bad and Cheney=good.

So... what do you propose the reporcussions be for Cheney exactly? That he step down? What? There are many recent examples of cover ups and those politicians suffered few reprocussions. Why is this time different? Why do I get the feeling that if it Kerry had shot someone roles would be reveresed... that you guys would be defending him, and that Fox news would be calling for his head?

2503. jayackroyd - 2/16/2006 1:20:33 PM

I really don't understand. Your claim that people evaluate what Kennedy did in partisan terms is without foundation. To claim that people evaluate immoral behavior based on party affiliation is ridiculous. Kennedy is entirely irrelevant in a discussion of Cheney's actions.

2504. iiibbb - 2/16/2006 1:28:30 PM

Look... forget specific cases for a momemnet.

I'm trying to address the inconsistancy with which people's principles are applied.

I get the feeling that people who are critcising Cheney above and beyond the fuckup itself (which is damning enough as Mancas says)... would not be up in arms if it'd been someone else.

I get this feeling because I observe it all the time from Jex... from Wonkers with this ATF vs NSA crap... and others on here.


What outcome do you think should happen from this whole Cheney thing. Should he resign? Should he lose his hunting license? Should he be impeached? What?

If I were in office, the way some of the press behaves, I can't say I'd be rushing to let everyone know.

2505. iiibbb - 2/16/2006 1:31:21 PM

I hope in the next election we have some choices between honorable men.

My pipe dream is the next election to be a McCain(R) vs. Warner(D) race. I think both those guys are decent people. But I am not going to get my hopes up.

2506. Macnas - 2/16/2006 1:36:57 PM

Mancas, sounds like someone out of Last of the Mohicans.

2507. iiibbb - 2/16/2006 1:41:51 PM

A more recent example of selective-principles

Let me try and clear up some of this smoke & miiror act...

1. Clinton was oral sexed by Monica in the Oval Office.

2. Clinton went on national TV and lied about not having sex with Monica.

3. Clinton lied under oath about not having sex with Monica.

4. Clinton tried tap dancing around the meaning of sex and whether oral copulation (sex) was sex.


Cheney

1. Publically admitted & apologized for accidently shooting Mr. Whittington.

2. Never lied under oath about shooting Mr. Whittington.

3. Never been accused or convicted of lying under oath.



Obviously... what Cheney did was wrong... but for all the people clamorring for Cheney's head (or whatever they think should happen). Did they defend Clinton?

Now... peole say... he was only cheating on his wife... well I go back to my first principle and that is when I was a gov't worker if I had sex with an intern I would have been fired; end of story.


The relevance isn't tied to Clinton's behavior... it's tied to how the clammorers react to these events. I think the loudest voices are the onces that would be silent if it happened to someone they like.

2508. iiibbb - 2/16/2006 1:42:59 PM

I meant to quote that list... not mine although I did edit it to cut some of the dumbshit stuff the guy had said.

2509. iiibbb - 2/16/2006 1:43:55 PM

And I totally beleive the guy that wrote that list would switch his tune if it'd been Kerry who did the shooting.

2510. jayackroyd - 2/16/2006 2:03:43 PM

Why do I get the feeling that if it Kerry had shot someone roles would be reveresed... that you guys would be defending him, and that Fox news would be calling for his head?


I don't know where you get that feeling. That's my point. It seems purely tendentious to me--and wrong. This idea that people's moral judgement start with their political affiliation seems uniquely tied to the right.

And bringing up Clinton weakens your argument. You do recall that the people who impeaching him for shtupping a staffer were themselves shtupping staffers?

2511. jayackroyd - 2/16/2006 2:15:40 PM

So... what do you propose the reporcussions be for Cheney exactly? That he step down? What?

I do not believe this was handled the way it would have been handled if it were not Cheney. Decidedly not the way it would have been handled if Cheney were the victim.

Now some of that is wishful thinking, but this country is still about processes and the rule of law. The normal police investigation of a shooting should have taken place. I don't doubt that the result, given the parties involved, would have been a ruling of an accidental shooting.

That would have been the right thing to do, and, hey, you know what, the heat would be off by now if he had.

So that makes the whole business look fishy. If what the mildest account says is so ("came up from behind, blinded by the sun, 30 yards away") then he's just another hunter who doesn't understand gun safety and should have his license pulled. But there are other accounts, and his dodginess is very suspicious. Now he's a dodgy guy by nature, so maybe that suspicision is misplaced. But he's not looking good.

Does anybody know how the victim is doing? This can't be a walk in the park for a guy in his late 70s.

2512. jayackroyd - 2/16/2006 2:37:05 PM

emptywheel feels more strongly about this than I do, and uses the episode to illustrate how the administration operates when handling the media.

2513. wonkers2 - 2/16/2006 2:49:22 PM

Cheney has built up a fairly high level of distrust amont a large segment of the American public--over really serious matters such as the secret energy meetings, WMD, Iraq links to Al-Qaida and 9-11, intent by Saddam Hussein to attack the U.S., the Plame leaks, his assertion that the NSA program has saved thousands of American lives, and so forth. Assuming he was sober on the day of the event he should be held responsible for the misleading and bumbling way the information on shooting incident was handled by Anne Armstrong and others. He is being criticized and he has it coming, his weepy little mea culpa with Brit Hume notwithstanding. The story in this morning's Detroit Free Press may has well have been written or edited by Cheney and Rove. Thank goodness for the NTT, Chris Matthews and Slate. We sholdn't have had to go to ten different sources to get the basic facts.

2514. Magoseph - 2/16/2006 2:53:51 PM

What is the NTT, Wonks, please?

2515. thoughtful - 2/16/2006 2:56:20 PM

Ms No! Good one! Dang you should've been clinton's speechwriter and this whole impeachment thing woulda never happened!

2516. thoughtful - 2/16/2006 2:59:46 PM

I get tired of people changing their priciples when it suits them for a specific condition.

Oh the way lying the country into war is ok but lying about an illicit affair is an impeachable offense...the way being a flipflopper if you're kerry is unforgivable, but being a flipflopper if you're bush is fine...the way trying pot but not inhaling is a sign of character weakness, but being a drunk and a coke head for years is insignificant.

2517. jayackroyd - 2/16/2006 3:00:00 PM

This quote, from TPMCafe commenter is what is fishiest about all this:

Birdshot from a 28 gauge will not pass through several layers of clothing, skin, mucle and ribs from thirty yards.

I've seen that elsewhere. iiibbb, is it true? Macnas?

2518. wonkers2 - 2/16/2006 3:04:11 PM

Sorry, NYTimes.

2519. jayackroyd - 2/16/2006 3:04:45 PM

2516

That's at the heart of what flips me out about the "Johnnie did it too" argument--that the people making it claim to be adhering to principle when they are in fact rejecting it. Situational ethics, it used to be called.

It's not entirely unique to the right. NOW standing behind Clinton in what was clearly a case that they would have called sexual harrassment was an expedient abandonment of principle.

But it is absolutely jaw-dropping to see people who believe that impeaching Clinton was an appropriate thing to do while giving Bush a pass for flat out breaking the law, and saying he will continue to do so.

2520. thoughtful - 2/16/2006 3:09:08 PM

isbs, I agree with you about the problems with moral relativism, but the examples you cite suggest this is largely a problem with the dems when clearly it's a problem with both parties...it's a problem with politics. And I'd argue that it's esp a problem with this bunch that has actually fostered a new acronym for the problem: iokiyar: it's ok if you're a republican.

and the only learning from the example you cited above about clinton vs cheney is that cheney has been smart enough to refuse to be sworn in so he can't be guilty of lying under oath no matter how many lies he tells.

2521. wonkers2 - 2/16/2006 3:25:23 PM

Another senseless killing of an inner-city child. I'm tired of reading about these real killings so iiibbb can carry a pistol to protect himself against animals he imagines are going to hurt him. Here.

2522. Ms. No - 2/16/2006 4:22:55 PM

Wonkers,

So you know that was a duly licensed firearm that killed that little boy? Clearly it wasn't a responsible gun owner, but you think that stricter licensing laws would have prevented that child's death?

2523. Ms. No - 2/16/2006 4:31:07 PM

And what's with the cheap shots at iiibbb about the coyotes? You've clearly stated your lack of experience and your lack of exposure and yet you're going to continue to claim he's in the wrong even though he has both experience and exposure.

"You're wrong because I don't like your opinion and I want you to be wrong. So there, pussy!"

2524. wonkers2 - 2/16/2006 4:39:16 PM

Sorry, Ms. No, I was hunting coyotes before you or iiibbb was born. Only we used dogs, not guns. What he says about the danger from coyote attacks is completely ridiculous. I wonder if he's ever seen a coyote. By the way, have you ever seen one? What are your qualifications on this subject?

2525. wonkers2 - 2/16/2006 4:48:22 PM

I have concern for the legitimate rights of hunters and sportsmen, but iiibbb, the NRA and the gun lobby don't care a fig for the children and adults who are being needlessly killed due to lax and unenforced gun laws.

Did you happen to see the movie "Runaway Jury" with John Cusak, Dustin Hoffman, Gene Hackman and Rachel Weisz. Highly recommended for anybody interested in Second Amendment issues.

2526. jayackroyd - 2/16/2006 4:59:28 PM

The coyote who chased after Gracie was a little smaller than she is, maybe 30 pounds. And wanted nothing to do with me.

To say you feel the need to carry a gun to protect yourself from coyotes is something of a stretch. But I find iiibbb's threat awareness level to be something of a stretch, in general. Post hurricane looters, I can understand. But I just can't make sense out of a desire to carry routinely.

2527. wonkers2 - 2/16/2006 5:04:18 PM

Ms. No, you completely miss my point. The gun manufacturers are making big money by selling guns to unlicensed owners. The want no part of effective gun control laws. They have co-opted, through the NRA, well meaning outdoorsmen and sportsmen to support their position. Of course the gun that killed the little boy was unlicensed. What do you think I'm railing about?

2528. wonkers2 - 2/16/2006 5:10:38 PM

But worse than the gun lobby's effect on public safety and tranquility is their pernicious influence on electoral politics. They have helped to tip the balance far to the right by supporting right-wing red state fundamentalist wackos. This has been almost as important as the anti-abortion and white racist cards in the GOP's deck.

2529. Ms. No - 2/16/2006 5:25:31 PM

Wonk,

He's not hunting coyotes. He carries the handgun in the event of several unlikely but hardly unheard of dangerous situations.

How you do or don't choose to protect yourself is not the yardstick by which everyone else must be measured.

2530. wonkers2 - 2/16/2006 5:31:38 PM

As I said above (1)in my opinion, iiibbb's concern for being attacked borders on the paranoid; (2)however, that's his business so long as he doesn't us his fears as a reason for opposing enforcement of effective handgun controls; (3)I believe I said that I don't believe the problem is with sportsmen and that with good will, something could be worked out that would protect their rights. I haven't seen anything from him indicating that he cares a fig for the slaughter that's going on in our cities.

And I repeat, what's the basis of your expertise on dangerous animals? Maybe you should tend to your knitting and stop hitting us men with your purse!

2531. Ms. No - 2/16/2006 5:38:35 PM

Wonk,

You're arguing several different things here. iiibb is a responsible, licensed, law-abiding gun owner. Responsible, licensed, law-abiding, gun owners are not the problem and you hurt your position every time you attack one of them as if all gun proponents are the same.

It's like arguing that all cars should be illegal because some folks steal them and joy-ride while high on drugs.

Yes, there are irresponsible gun manufacturers who sell to disreputable retailers who comprise about 10% of all retailers and account for about 90% of all firearms used in the commission of violent crimes. AND THE ATF KNOWS ABOUT IT.

They could demand this list at any time. Now I'm sure the gun lobbyists have something to do with why nothing's been done about this, but stricter licensing would have NO EFFECT WHATSOEVER on these transactions because they're already occurring outside the present laws. Banning all firearms would have NO EFFECT because these transactions are already occuring outside the law.

Passing more laws will do nothing except to remove guns from a segment of the population that is not contributing to the overall problem of violent crime.

2532. Ms. No - 2/16/2006 5:51:48 PM

Wonk,

If the single issue of Gun Control were dealt with in a more reasonable manner by the Dems we wouldn't have lost the last two elections. Period.

Hit you with my purse? Are you serious? What are you, twelve?

2533. iiibbb - 2/16/2006 5:58:05 PM

Message # 2520

Your criticism is warranted, but part of the reason I am picking Dem examples is that it's the opposite side. I did mention Newt.

I also think that Cheney didn't swear because it's a dance between the press and politicians right now. This administration obviously learned something from the things the Clinton administration had to deal with.

It's not good for the country.

2534. wonkers2 - 2/16/2006 5:59:12 PM

Well, I guess the Dems could come out against gun control (quite a few have such as Dingbat John Dingle from Michigan), against choice, against affirmative action, against unions, against Social Security, etc. But then where would we be? Answer political whores, even more than we already are. My recollection is that polling data show that a majority of Americans support banning assault weapons and more effective handgun control, Social Security, and women's right to choose. What did the Dems do wrong on gun control in the last two elections? As I recall Gore won the popular vote only to have the election stolen by the Supreme Court on the vote in Florida.

2535. iiibbb - 2/16/2006 6:09:23 PM

Message # 2526

I've said many times that I don't carry routinely. However, I should be free to make a decision for myself when it might be warranted for my situation.

You guys are also making a bigger deal about the coyote thing than I did. If I carry, I carry for dogs and people. I have seen coyotes in my area. There is evidence of mt lions... although the population is low. There are black bear.

So I carry a gun sometimes... so what? It stays in its holster and isn't a threat to anybody. Just like a cop's gun only hidden.

Wonks... it's pretty funny that you highlight all kinds of accidental or criminal shootings as evidence that guns should be banned. However, the risk that I may be attacked is orders of magnitude greater than the rate of accidents. Also, if you demand that the risk of criminal shootings are great to warrant banning guns, why isn't great enough for me to carry one?

2536. wonkers2 - 2/16/2006 6:13:07 PM

Well, I guess that depends on how much value you put on the public good versus your freedom to walk around with a concealed handgun.

2537. iiibbb - 2/16/2006 6:14:16 PM

Message # 2534

You're recollection. I post an actual study and you slam me for my source. You "recollect" something, and that's supposed to be what?

Most Americans don't even know what a assault weapon is... just look at the list you made earlier... you lumped in all kinds of stuff that are already illegal. Besides it's not about what "most" americans want. It's about the constitution. If you want to change the constitution, get the 2/3rds majority that it requires.

I am concerned about social security's viability, but I am ok with it in principle. I think drawing from it should be based on need, rather than automatic.

I believe in the women's right to choose.

2538. iiibbb - 2/16/2006 6:16:37 PM

Every way they counted the votes after the Florida election save one, was in favor of Bush. This was by independent recounts.

The supreme court didn't steal the election, and I am willing to bet that if the roles had been reveresed you wouldn't have been demanding that Bush be instated.

If you want to blame someone... blame the Democratically run Florida election boards who chose crappy machines to tally votes.

2539. iiibbb - 2/16/2006 6:19:14 PM

Message # 2536

My concealed handgun, if and when I have it, isn't a threat to anyone. Are you implying something?

Why is it the public good that if were to be the victim of a violent crime (which happens to people thousands of time every single day), that I need be at the mercy of the criminal?

What is the ratio of violent crimes, to law-abiding misuse?

2540. wonkers2 - 2/16/2006 6:32:24 PM

I agree that your handgun isn't a threat. But there are plenty of other people who are carrying concealed handguns with and without permits who are a threat. Didn't you read the long article in the NYTimes about what's happening with guns in our cities? Do you acknowledge that this is a problem? How would you deal with it. I don't recall any positive proposals recently. I don't know what the ratio of violent crimes to law-abiding misuse is. Feel free to educate me on this. I am worried more about violent crime than law-abiding misuse. But if the Times article is accurate, both are a problem because of giving out cc permits like popcorn in some jurisdictions. There may be some way to deal with the problem while not interfering with outdoorsmen. Nothing you can say will convince me that giving out permits in cities based on no more than vague fears of encountering a criminal is a good idea.

2541. iiibbb - 2/16/2006 6:54:58 PM

Excuse me... I did propose that we move away from the war on drugs. That we adopt the steps that Arky suggests. And that we up the ante with those who prey on other people.

I don't have to educate you on misuse. First, I've quoted before the number of people that lose carry permits. Second, since you are the one who's demanding change, it's incumbent on you to prove that.

CC permits like popcorn huh? PROOF! Give me proof that these permit holders are in any way shape or form associated with the problem of guns in the city. Permit holders are the only citizens who have been certified by the state as law-abiding.


You claim that there are all kinds of crooked dealers. Well... the ATF's job is to nail those guys down, fine them, or close them... but they're too busy fucking around with joe-citizen asking the neighbors if they know he's at a gunshow making a purchase.


If there are "plenty of other people who are carrying concealed handguns with and without permits who are a threat", then why am I paranoid, why are my fears vague... the seem serious enough that you want to ban handguns from the 99% of people who are no threat at all. If they aren't a threat, then why do you care?

2542. iiibbb - 2/16/2006 6:58:12 PM

I've not made a positive suggestion? Excuse me... I did propose that we move away from the war on drugs. That we adopt the steps that Arky suggests. And that we up the ante with those who prey on other people. Poverty is part of what causes crime; help them. Those who prey on others should be treated like the animals they are; fuck them.

I don't have to educate you on misuse. First, I've quoted in past posts the statistics on crime by permit holders and statistics on those that lose carry permits. Second, since you are the one who's demanding change, it's incumbent on you to prove that the change will bring about the promised effects. Based on Canada's growing crime problem (and their population is most similar to ours) banning handguns, and licensing everything else is a boondoggle.

CC permits like popcorn huh? PROOF! Give me proof that these permit holders are in any way shape or form associated with the problem of guns in the city. Permit holders are the only citizens who have been certified by the state as law-abiding.


You claim that there are all kinds of crooked dealers. Well... the ATF's job is to nail those guys down, fine them, or close them... but they're too busy fucking around with joe-citizen asking the neighbors if they know he's at a gunshow making a purchase.


If there are "plenty of other people who are carrying concealed handguns with and without permits who are a threat", then why am I paranoid, why are my fears vague? The threat seems serious enough that you want to ban handguns from the 99% of people who have nothing to do with the problem. If they aren't a threat, then why do you care?

2543. iiibbb - 2/16/2006 6:58:33 PM

Damn... first it doesn't post... then it posts...

2544. arkymalarky - 2/16/2006 7:23:27 PM

And I repeat, what's the basis of your expertise on dangerous animals? Maybe you should tend to your knitting and stop hitting us men with your purse!

OOOhhhh! Be careful, or you may end up needing to have a stiletto heel surgically removed from your nether regions!

I totally agree with MsNo about Democrats. In this "red" state we have only one Republican legislator, in the same district we always have Republicans. The rest, even the liberal Vic Snyder, are very popular. I think they need to conduct a workshop for the DNC.

2545. jayackroyd - 2/16/2006 7:40:38 PM

I've said many times that I don't carry routinely

I realized that after I hit the post button. I apologize for that error.

2546. Macnas - 2/16/2006 7:54:44 PM

I'm a bit worse for wear after celebrating my brother-in-law's new baby, so, bear with me.

I neither mind or care that someone like iiibb takes a handgun with him when he hunts. None of my concern, and nothing to do with me. As far as I know, he is operating within the law when doing so.

So, what is the issue then? Well, some don't agree there is a need for it. Fair enough.

But consider this. A mate of a mate is going fishing in Canada this year. he's mad for it, made his own rod and all, can't wait for it.
The park service, whomever they may be, and the people setting up the trip advised that either he or his guide go armed, just in case a bear decides to take more then a passing interest.

Chances are, he'll never see a bear, chances are, the bear will sense him from 300 yards and will vacate the area untill he's gone. chances are there are no wolves in the area and even if there were, chances are they will steer clear.

But there is a small chance that a hungry or injured bear will call, or something rabid, so best take a side-arm.

If I was out in such wilderness, I'd like to be armed too. I don't consider myself remote from nature in any way, I am a part of it as I've said before, but I am aware that I have little in the way of body weapopns such as teeth and claws. So, as a tool-maker/user, I would prefer to have a side-arm.


My life and well being are worth a lot more than some intellectual tete-a-tete on an online forum, to me anyway.

2547. iiibbb - 2/16/2006 8:22:09 PM

This guy would have told you Grizzly's wouldn't hurt you. He went into the Alaskan woods for 7 years, getting very close to them.

He was eaten last year. Then they made a movie about the idiot.

2548. iiibbb - 2/16/2006 8:59:26 PM

Whittington says there was no drinking.

Sherrif closes the case.

2549. jayackroyd - 2/16/2006 9:11:10 PM

The park service, whomever they may be, and the people setting up the trip advised that either he or his guide go armed, just in case a bear decides to take more then a passing interest.

I don't know enough about stopping power. Is a side arm really adequate protection against a charging bear?

But IME this is wacked. In Kruger national park in South Africa, you're not permitted to leave your vehicle unless accompanied by an armed ranger. That struck me as excessive, but I've seen people do some stupid things when dealing with wild animals.

In the much pricier safari camps I visited in Botswana on the same trip, we were walked around by unarmed guides. The notion that people need to arm themselves against wildlife seems completely wacked to me. I did wear bear bells when hiking in Glacier National Park, and when we were traveling around southern Alaska, we (our guides and ourselves) made noise (YO BEARS!!). But if you don't between and a sow and her cub, nothing's gonna happen unless you're a complete idiot. Now i've seen that kind of stupidity--people trying to pet wild horses or trying to get close to a bear. But the gun's not gonna help if you're that stupid.

Now I'll grant you that this was stupid, in retrospect:



But this wasn't:



Nobody, not the driver, not the guide, not the bush pilot who was flying us out later that day was armed. The notion that you have to carry a gun to protect yourself from ravening bears is ridiculous.

Hippos, which actually kill people, are a problem. But even then the way you deal with them is to stay away. This notion that you strap on a magnum and strut your way past them is just wrong.

I got nothing against hunters. I have a bigger problem with the people who raise domestic meat animals. But the idea that you need a gun to be safe from animals in the wilderness is crazy. Aside from a couple of mountain lion incidents, this isn't a real issue. And a gun wouldn't have helped the people jumped by a mountain lion.

2550. jayackroyd - 2/16/2006 9:11:56 PM

This case was all gonna turn on what Whittington had to say. If he's okay with this, then, yes, case closed.

2551. jayackroyd - 2/16/2006 9:15:03 PM

2547

The Alaskan staff on my trip to southern Alaska unanimously despised this idiot. He fed the meme that bears are potential man-eaters. He made their job of educating visitors more difficult.

Did you see the movie? He was a freakin' moron. No, you don't cuddle with grizzlies. But you don't need to carry a sidearm to be safe in their territory.

2552. iiibbb - 2/16/2006 9:17:05 PM

Sidearms are generally considered inadequate against a grizzly... except fot the new .454 Casull, or the S&W 500. Most would rather have a rifle.

However, sidearms are perfectly acceptable backups for where I am.


Adolecent male bears, and bears that are used to people are dangerous to people. The trick is deciding whether they see you as a threat or as food. If they see you as a threat, playing dead may help save you. If they see you as food. You're meat.

A coworker's friend had to kill a bear in Alaska while they were doing stream sampling in Alaska this year. Took two slugs from a 12 guage. Bear took a hunk out of one of the group of 3's arm.

2553. iiibbb - 2/16/2006 9:21:23 PM

The feds don't agree with your bear assessment Jay

2554. jayackroyd - 2/16/2006 9:22:20 PM

bears that are used to people are dangerous to people

yes, that's true. Those are the ones the park service kills.

Were salmon running when your coworker's friend was doing his sampling?

2555. iiibbb - 2/16/2006 9:24:09 PM

Finally, I am the least worried about wild animals as I would be about people and dogs. I don't work very much were the wild pigs are anymore... but I'd prefer to never have to deal with them. They are ornery.

2556. jayackroyd - 2/16/2006 9:29:54 PM

page 17 seems to be what I've been saying, aside from the fairly gratuitous, some bears just get mean. Do you have death from bear attack numbers? How do they compare with lightning strikes?

2557. iiibbb - 2/16/2006 9:31:45 PM

Jay... you seem to misunderstand the order of operations for dealing with a dangerous animal. Just because I have a gun, doesn't mean I will resort to a sidearm first thing.

A gun is a last resort. For animals and people.

The gun is there for when there is nothing else left.

2558. jayackroyd - 2/16/2006 9:44:17 PM

I do get that. The whole business strikes me as a ridiculous concern about trivial risks--and entails taking the risk of carrying a weapon. Yes, I know yada yada yada that when you carry a weapon there's no risk involved.

But when I stay out of the way of bears, there's still less risk involved.

There's a strong human tendency to just do something--to anticipate a low probality, high drama event and plan for it. Planning for a bear attack by carrying a side arm strikes me as worrying about a low probability, high drama event that doesn't rank, in order of magnitude, with getting a case of giardias.

2559. arkymalarky - 2/16/2006 10:07:56 PM

The deaths in relation to the number of people in that environment and how often they are there (daily, once a year, etc) are all that's relevant when assessing a threat. Lightning strikes in the whole population aren't very impressive. People who golf when it's lightning are a different story.

2560. arkymalarky - 2/16/2006 10:09:18 PM

And the specific location is also important. What was that story in Africa a few months ago--an alligator? Who'd killed quite a number of people in its area over the years before it was caught.

2561. iiibbb - 2/16/2006 10:23:08 PM

But people also plan for low-probability events in which the cost of something going wrong are the most severe. How many people die of giardia vs the number who encounter it, against how many people die or are severly injured an animal attack?

3000 people lost their lives in fires in 2003

A lot more people are victims of violent crime.

Is it silly to prepare for a fire? Do you have fire insurance, a fire extinguisher, and a smoke detector? How often do you think an extinguisher saves a house from burning down? I suspect it's not that often, but their in just about every home.

2562. arkymalarky - 2/16/2006 10:28:20 PM

And how much did prevention reduce the number from what it would be otherwise?

2563. iiibbb - 2/16/2006 10:39:58 PM

Who says I don't practice prevention measures also.

2564. iiibbb - 2/16/2006 10:40:50 PM

But I still reserve the right to decide for myself when a firearm is an option.

2565. Macnas - 2/17/2006 3:38:00 AM

Jay,

I know nothing of safari parks or what goes on in them wrt procedures for being armed or not, you give an instance of both.

And you are right when you say there is very little risk.
But I'd still like to be prepared for that risk and a side arm is part of that.
I know that people getting attacked by bears is a rare thing, but I don't think I'd get much comfort remembering that fact if I happened to find myself becoming one of the small percentage of people who do.

As for stopping power, well, it'd be better than the stopping power of my right cross and left hook combination.

I would not attach as much drama or song-and-dance to the fact of carrying a side arm as you seem to make out, I also get the impression that you think just because I may have a side arm that I'm going to start blazing away at the first thing I see.
If for instance I was the guy going to the Canadian wilderness to fish, and carried a gun just in case, had a great time, caught some good fish, saw some great stuff, and hiked out with no problems at all, where is the problem?
The only problem is you don't like that fact I had a gun.
Big deal.

Oh, I'd probably would have had a couple of knives as well, and a small hatchet. Whacked, isn't it?

2566. jayackroyd - 2/17/2006 4:06:02 AM

I would not attach as much drama or song-and-dance to the fact of carrying a side arm as you seem to make out

Yes, I take that point. I don't like guns. To some degree that's an emotional thing. (And I did grow up with a .22 sitting the mudroom every day as I walked out the door to go to school.) I think they're dangerous and generally an overreaction to risk. But I do also understand that some people view them as tools. And that most people who carry them treat them with care and respect.

But I'll say this--the unarmed guys on foot in Botswana made me a lot more comfortable than the rifle toting guys in South Africa in their LandRovers. This has something to do with the attitude--one that iiibbb has and you don't seem to--of living in a very dangerous world.

2567. Macnas - 2/17/2006 5:04:18 AM

Well, I can't speak for iiibbb, but no, I don't think the world, at least the part where I live, is a very dangerous place.

Attitude, well, I think you do have a point of sorts regarding attitude.
Let me explain what I mean. Recently, after a 30 something year ban, hanguns have become legal again in Ireland. I have only a passing interest in pistols, so, I probably shan't be buying one.
Just before the ban was lifted, I was at a gundealer I know, looking at some work he wantd me to do. I asked him what he thought about pistols coming back on the scene, would he sell them if he could etc.

He said that yes, he would, as the demand is there for it, and then said "I tell you, there'd be one in the back of my belt when I'm in the shop, you never know who's going to come through that door."

Now this is a case of inventing a threat to suit a proposed response. If he thought that way normally, he'd have had a shotgun behind the counter, which he did not. But as soon as he's able to pack a pistol, his attitude changes.

It's not something I really understand or am comfortable with.

2568. jayackroyd - 2/17/2006 5:27:29 AM

It's the not understanding part that gets me. I understand that if your trying to catch big fish, you need a club to kill them. I understand that if you are in the Alaskan wildnerness sampling stream waters during salmon runs, that you might need to be armed for bear.

But that doesn't really seem to be central to a lot of these discussions--it's the justification offered up, but, really, I keep flashing a picture on my cousin-in-law in a public playground with his five-year-old on his shoulder and a Glock on his hip. I really don't understand what he could be possibly be thinking. His whole risk assessment brain seems broken to me.

Part of this is rhetoric--part of it is not expressing uncertainty for fear of weakening your argument. But there is something just wrong about feeling bigger because you've got a pistol strapped to your waist.

2569. Macnas - 2/17/2006 5:39:53 AM

The "bigger with a trigger" thing is something many young shooters go through when they start out, usually when they buy the first gun.

It lasts about an hour. Once you start using it regularly, the glamour goes off it, and you just enjoy it as part of your sport. When you hunt, you do not want to be consious of the gun, you want it to be like a part of your arm.

When you shoot clays or targets, you are focused on the results, not the tools you use to get them. You give it enough mind for the sake of safety and proper functioning, but nothing more.

When it becomes, (or doesn't advance from )all about the gun, then there is a problem.

2570. arkymalarky - 2/17/2006 8:53:38 AM

I've known a number of people who've been involved in very serious or fatal gun accidents. All of them involved careless attitudes of guns lying around or not being handled properly. Conscientious, knowledgable gun owners aren't a problem, and as tragic as the circumstances were and as awful as the people felt about what happened (like Cheney says he felt), they were negligent, and I think when people are negligent they should be charged as they would be in a car accident involving negligence. There needs to be some adjustment in the law and regulations so that people who legally own guns have something at stake in addition to the emotional loss, which they often unfortunately fail to consider until after the fact.

If anyone wanted to send a message along that line, they would charge Cheney with negligent use of a firearm resulting in damage or injury. That, in addition to negligent homicide, should be on the books in every state, imo.

I would not be afraid to be around Mac or 3i3b when they had guns. I have been in situations where people had them, not intending to hurt anyone, where I felt very much in danger.

2571. jayackroyd - 2/17/2006 9:29:07 AM

The local reporters in the Cheney shooting make a good point.

It's kinda the converse to "the fix was in" point that Josh Marshall made yesterday.

The reporters point to several stories the paper ran Thursday, including a timeline of the Secret Service actions the night of the shooting, the sheriff's department incident report, and an interview with Sheriff Ramon Salinas--who revealed that he did not go to the shooting scene Saturday night because he wanted to spend time with his family at an ongoing barbecue.

"That is not unusual in a small town," Garcia, 25, said about the sheriff's excuse. "I think the questions are being answered."

The sheriff, in that article, had explained why he did not rush to the ranch that night. "We've known these people (witnesses) for years. They are honest and wouldn't call us, telling us a lie," Salinas said. "I talked to an eyewitness who said it was a definite accident. We knew Mr. Whittington was being cared for."

It is a very small community. And it is entirely plausible that the sheriff knew everybody involved personally has a history of relationships with them and was satisfied with the answers.

It is also plausible, of course, that he's in the back pocket of the ranch owner. There's no way to resolve this uncertainty because he'd behave the same way in either case.

2572. iiibbb - 2/17/2006 9:33:47 AM

Jay:

I don't know how you can assume that I have this great feeling of fear. If I were as wigged out about danger I'd be packing every day. I don't. So obviously I have some perspective about risk.

For me to argue the right to carry, one must point out the reasons why one would carry. Some of you are the ones insisting I state my case, and then assigning all sorts of paranoia to it.

The world can be a dangerous place... not the world is a dangerous place.

My only point is that it is my decision. I don't think I should have to go to some beurocrat to decide what risks are and are not relevant. I don't even mind that much having to deal with carry permits as long as it's in the context of shall-issue (shall-issue being defined as the state has to find a reason to disqualify you, rather than you have to provide justification).

I only see the gun as a small part of the self-defense continuum. The first is being aware of surroundings, and de-escalation or retreat. Even though I constantly say this in here, I am frequently painted as a trigger-happy fool.

I also frequently have said that I know the gun is not a guarantee (see: de-escalation and retreat)... so I don't know how you can say that I feel "bigger" because of my ability to carry. I often don't carry because in much of my life I see it as a liability rather than a benefit.

Finally, I recognize that this right lies somewhere between a right and a privilage (which is why I consent to permitting), so I am unlikely to behave irresponsibly for fear of having the decision taken away from me. However, I see it as a right first, and it only becomes a privilage when you given cause to not be trusted. As a libertarian, I'm not really going to question your cousin's motives. I may not agree with his risk assesments either... but so what? As long as he behaves responsibly he should be able to do whatever the hell he wants.

2573. thoughtful - 2/17/2006 9:34:06 AM

It's most likely the latter...you don't get to be sheriff in a town that size without knowing how to take care of the most powerful and richest landowners in the area, esp when they have personal relations with the folks who spent many years running tx and now run the wh.

2574. iiibbb - 2/17/2006 9:41:23 AM

Most likely the latter, huh? "Back pocket" implies bribery. I'd like you to bring up some iota of PROOF before you go attacking some unknown's character.

2575. iiibbb - 2/17/2006 10:02:03 AM

Just another reason why I would tend to prefer concealed carry.

Even in a southern state you might get harrassed... and although you will get off... you shouldn't have to go through that.

2576. jayackroyd - 2/17/2006 10:02:58 AM

Rich people in very small towns often have a great deal of influence over law enforcement and small town politics, in general. That's not the same thing as bribery, nor does it usually take that form. As I said, the story the local reporters are telling hangs together.

As to my attacking someone's character, I was quoting someone else. I should have linked. Here it is.

As to paranoia (which is not a word I used) I do see a very distinct difference in your attitude about this issue than Macnas's. Do you not see such a difference?

2577. iiibbb - 2/17/2006 10:21:39 AM

Well, let's see... I claim it's my right, and many of you say it isn't and that I must prove that it's necessary. I point out situations that happen every day that I have a right to decide if I wish to prepare for them. I am accused of being something akin to, but not quite, paranoid.

The only difference that I see is that I have been forced into a position of advocate, whereas Macnas has less invested in the discussion.


When it comes to guns I relate to what Macnas says... not what you claim I say.

2578. wonkers2 - 2/17/2006 10:32:35 AM

Bush, Cheney, Brit Hume and the local sheriff are satisfied with Cheney's response....

Some leading medical examiners, veteran hunters and shooting experts said on Thursday that the shooting might have been at much closer range than cited in the accounts, based on reports of Mr. Whittington's medical condition....Dr. Michael M. Baden, director of the Medico-Legal Investigations Unit of the N.Y. State Police, estimated that Mr. Whittington was 15 yards from Mr. MaGoo when he was shot. "Witnesses' estimates of distances are notoriously off in such accidents," Dr. Baden said. Here.

2579. Macnas - 2/17/2006 11:40:19 AM

I was wondering about that, especially when I heard that a pellet had pierced his heart.

Still, if it was a good fast load, maybe a 28g magnum cartridge, with 20 or maybe even 28gms of shot, then it could penetrate at 30 yards. This is as big a cartridge load as you would want to shoot out of a 28g gun.

2580. jayackroyd - 2/17/2006 11:46:12 AM

"Witnesses' estimates of distances are notoriously off in such accidents,"

Again, this explanation is perfectly plausible. It's also plausible that he exaggerated the distance to appear less culpable. Or something in between--convincing himself that the guy was further away than he was.

But as I said, as long as the victim doesn't kick up a fuss, this should go away eventually.

I still don't understand, though, with all the security around the president and the VP, even to the point of Cheney's new home declared a no-fly zone, that it's considered okay to be playing with shotguns.

2581. iiibbb - 2/17/2006 11:57:12 AM

Well... it isn't "playing".

2582. iiibbb - 2/17/2006 12:05:38 PM

Maybe your cousin isn't so nuts afterall.

it happens.

I wouldn't expect a gunshots at a post office either or where I work either.

so whatever you think of my risk-assesments. If I go to these places armed and nothing happens... what's the harm exactly? You're only in danger if some wingnut starts shooting anyway... and then maybe you'll be glad that someone else has a gun. I know I might be glad... or maybe I'll just be running out the door anyway. But whatever...

2583. thoughtful - 2/17/2006 12:09:39 PM

on the pellet and the heart, I've not ever heard that it penetrated the heart. I think that is wrong. I suspect what happened is the pellet penetrated the chest and migrated up to the heart putting pressure on the heart thus affecting the heart beat.

No way a pellet penetrating the heart can be considered a "mild heart attack" as was described by the medical people.

And as far as besmirching the sheriff, I did no such thing. As jay mentioned, one need not take outright bribes to know which side one's bread is buttered on, esp if the sheriff is an elected position as it is in many places. Certainly to suggest that things are they way they are does NOT constitute attacking someone's character. Just in the same way that to suggest the vp was treated differently than another ordinary citizen might have been in the same situation is just telling it like it is. He is different. He is treated differently.

Don't believe me?

Well, then let me ask you if you have your own physician's assistant with you at all times and your own ambulance that follows you wherever you go, let alone your own secret service force.

2584. thoughtful - 2/17/2006 12:11:08 PM

And it is a very good question as to why the vp is permitted to engage in such a dangerous sport when the taxpayers are clearly shelling out $$$ to make sure he doesn't get hurt. What would have happened if whittington had been doing the accidental shooting and cheney had been the victim?

2585. arkymalarky - 2/17/2006 12:18:12 PM

Well, Whittington is going to speak to the press shortly.

2586. jayackroyd - 2/17/2006 12:21:31 PM

The money spent on the President and VP, as overblown and expensive as it is doesn't really matter. It's small beer.

But the mythos of security and safety, of having to ride in 20 car motorcades and hide in secret locations from dangerous people is hard to keep in the storyline with going out shooting.

2587. wonkers2 - 2/17/2006 1:27:52 PM

Ha! Ha! Arky. re #2544. I thought that would get a rise out of one of the "termagants" of the Mote. I'm glad you didn't disappoint me. :-)

2588. wonkers2 - 2/17/2006 1:30:56 PM

Hunting Season. The Armstrongs take the law into their own hands on their ranch. Here.

2589. arkymalarky - 2/17/2006 1:34:52 PM

Hey, just looking out for your safety, Wonk. That's what gun control's all about!

2590. jayackroyd - 2/18/2006 9:10:50 AM

via Kevin Drum, here's a guy doing some amateur ballistic experiments

As I've said, if Whittington is willing to walk away apologizing, then the story is over.

2591. wonkers2 - 2/18/2006 9:55:23 AM

Gang killers shoot up quiet Detroit suburb with automatic weapons. Here.

2592. wonkers2 - 2/18/2006 10:00:52 AM

Bullet proof vest fake, death real. Sixteen-year-old accidentally shoots his uncle with .357 magnum. Here.

2593. wonkers2 - 2/18/2006 4:08:22 PM

40% of gun sales are "off the books" in secondary markets.

2594. wonkers2 - 2/18/2006 4:26:40 PM

SHOCK'N AWE, TEXAS STYLE

Cheney's quail hunting group on the Armstrong ranch used a leaf out of Rummy's "shock and awe" strategy in Iraq, employing 40 dogs and two flanking outriders on horseback to herd the coveys of quail into the path of the shooters, thus insuring that they get their daily limit of 50-60 birds even if they used two cases of shells in the process. Drones and blockbusters were ruled out however because the quail might have been too hard to find or rendered inedible.

As with Rummy's BIG IRAQ ATTACK, Cheney displayed a willingness to accept limited ancillary damage. Cheney said he wasn't sure what happened to the quail he was aiming at when he bagged Whittington but allowed as how he may or may not have gotten a double, one quail and one Texas lawyer.

2595. wonkers2 - 2/20/2006 7:57:41 AM

NRA Solution to Gun Violence--JUST SHOOT! Just Shoot!

2596. wonkers2 - 2/20/2006 7:59:47 AM

Bad combination--hatred + handgun. Here.

2597. iiibbb - 2/20/2006 9:39:10 AM

Message # 2925

Some people call it "just Shoot"

Others call it "Innocent until proven guilty". There is a problem with claiming self defense in a shooting. The procecution has nothing to prove. The shooter basically doesn't deny any of the specific occurances or what have you. Under most current systems a self defense shooter is tried for murder, and must prove it was justfied.

Does that sound like the constitution?

These "stand your ground" are meant to force the government to prove that it was murder. If they have evidence that it was murder rather than self defense, then they can certainly prosecute.

And you complain that Cheney spins things too hard.

2598. iiibbb - 2/20/2006 9:43:47 AM

Message # 2596

Wonks... didn't you admonish me for going places where I "didn't belong"?

Maybe that gay fellow just should have stayed home if it's so dangerous out there. The place was known for robberies after all.

2599. iiibbb - 2/20/2006 9:44:45 AM

The world is not a dangerous place.

The world is not a dangerous place.

The world is not a dangerous place.

2600. wonkers2 - 2/20/2006 10:32:00 AM

Well, I agree with one thing at least--rather than carrying a gun, the best way to protect yourself is to (1)stay away from dangerous neighborhoods and be careful where you park your car--spend the money for an attended lot or valet parking, especially at night; (2)don't drink too much; (2)avoid arguments with strangers, drunks, impolite drivers, et al.

2601. iiibbb - 2/20/2006 11:44:39 AM

I look forward to you posting your letter to the editor suggesting gays "stay at home" in order to be safe. I hope you also mention to those living in low-income neighborhoods with crime problems that they "just move"

I might argue that following your suggestions and carrying a gun is also reasonalbe practice. Not everyone can tell which neighborhoods are bad... and not everyone has the option of avoiding them.

I would say that on average I go to a place I've never been before, as a specific destination, at least once a month. I probably drive through areas I have no real familiarty with all the time.

2602. wonkers2 - 2/20/2006 12:25:03 PM

"When a raven has croaked inauspiciously, let not the appearance hurry you away with it; but straighaway make a distinction in your mind and say, Non of these things is signified to me...." Epictetus

2603. jexster - 2/21/2006 8:36:45 PM

2604. wonkers2 - 2/22/2006 9:52:17 AM

Street Shooting Claims Another Detroit Child Here.

2605. iiibbb - 2/22/2006 10:13:25 AM

A bike claims another child in street.

We must register bikes and they should be banned from public use. Kids shouldn't leave the house anyway.

Bring back prohibition! I don't care if other people drink responsibly. This clearly indicates that no one can be trusted with alcohol.

2606. Macnas - 2/22/2006 10:20:05 AM

Well, it's a sorry fucked up situation where a kid can't leave his house to do some part-time work without getting shot to death.

Now see, this is the thing. I don't know if the gun that shooer had was illegal or not. And in the end it hardly matters to the kid. The issue is the level of extreme violence that is so common place now.

How do you address that? How do you stop people from getting to the stage where they are going to murder someone like this?

2607. iiibbb - 2/22/2006 10:27:05 AM

Can't Blame White People
by BILL COSBY

They're standing on the corner and they can't speak English.

I can't even talk the way these people talk:

Why you ain't,
Where you is,
What he drive,
Where he stay,
Where he work,
Who you be...

And I blamed the kid until I heard the mother talk.

And then I heard the father talk.

Everybody knows it's important to speak English...except these knuckleheads.

You can't be a doctor with that kind of crap coming out of your mouth.

In fact you will never get any kind of job making a decent living.

People marched and were hit in the face with rocks to get an education, and now we've got these knuckleheads walking around.

The lower economic people are not holding up their end in this deal.

These people are not parenting.

They are buying things for kids. $500 sneakers for what?

And they won't spend $200 for Hooked on Phonics.

I am talking about these people who cry... when their son is standing there in an orange suit.

Where were you when he was 2?

Where were you when he was 12?

Where were you when he was 18...?
and how come you didn't know that he had a pistol?

And where is the father?

Or who is his father?

People putting their clothes on backward:

Isn't that a sign of something gone wrong?

People with their hats on backward, pants down around the crack, isn't that a sign of something?

Or are you waiting for Jesus to pull his pants up?

Isn't it a sign of something when she has her dress all the way up and got all type of needles piercing going through her body?

What part of Africa did this come from? We are not Africans.

Those people are not Africans; they don't know a thing about Africa.

With names like Shaniqua, Taliqua and Mohammed and all of that crap, and all of them are in jail.

Brown or black versus the Board of Education is no longer the white person's problem.

We have got to take the neighborhood back.

People used to be ashamed.

Today a woman has eight children with eight different 'husbands' -- or men or whatever you call them now.

We have millionaire football players who cannot read.

We have million-dollar basketball players who can't write two paragraphs.

We as black folks have to do a better job.

Someone working at Wal-Mart with seven kids saying... you are hurting us.

We have to start holding each other to a higher standard.

We cannot blame the white people any longer

It is not for media or anyone of this time anymore to say whether I'm right or wrong. It is time, ladies and gentlemen, to look at the numbers. Fifty percent of our children are dropping out of high school. Sixty percent of the incarcerated males happen to be illiterate. There's
a correlation.

Tell the media to stop asking me what I think about people who don't believe what I'm saying or feel that I'm too harsh or feel that I'm just running my mouth because I'm old. Seventy percent of the teenagers pregnant happen to be African American girls. Don't ask me to soften my message." -

Bill Cosby

2608. iiibbb - 2/22/2006 10:28:13 AM

Obviously I don't think it's _black people_ but there are some resonant points within Bill Cosby's speech.

2609. iiibbb - 2/22/2006 10:28:34 AM

that apply to these issues.

2610. Macnas - 2/22/2006 10:33:05 AM

What's that got to do with the price of pistols?

Lookit, I've known men, who had the same rearing as I had, good childhoods, education and two parents who always did the bestthey could.

And some of these guys are in prison, some of them have spent years there. IRA men, drug dealers, violent criminals.
It isn't all about nurture and nature.

2611. wonkers2 - 2/22/2006 10:38:46 AM

It's within our power, if we put our minds to it, to do something about this sad situation.

2612. iiibbb - 2/22/2006 10:39:05 AM

It is about the responsiblity of individuals. It is about the relationship between poverty and crime.

People always fall into the trap of blaming guns... or the victim... or society... or anything other than the violent individuals who are the problem.

2613. iiibbb - 2/22/2006 10:42:56 AM

If they followed Wonker's advice... they wouldn't have been out in that crappy neighborhood to begin with... and the kids parents should have moved a long time ago.

2614. wonkers2 - 2/22/2006 10:46:38 AM

There's no silver bullet. But rounding up the handguns would help.

2615. Macnas - 2/22/2006 10:48:25 AM

I have no issue with guns, you know that. a lot of my spare time revolves around the use and repair/restoration of them.

In places like Detroit, all around the world, there is a habit of violence, of using deadly force on a whim.
Guns are the best tool for this, immediate, lethal, easy to operate and keep.

That's where the gun comes into it. What do we do to stop the intent?

2616. Macnas - 2/22/2006 10:52:13 AM

Wonkers,

Up north, in the recent past, getting searched on the street for weapons was common-place, as was having your door kicked in at 3.00 in the morning and having your house invaded by soldiers and police who would tear the place apart looking for guns and explosives.

There was still enough guns up there, all illegal, to arm most of the men in the entire province.

2617. iiibbb - 2/22/2006 11:00:46 AM

Message # 2614

You are obsessed. You claim there is no silver bullet, but you fawn over handgun bans as if it would have any meaningful impact on bad acts.

You think you would rather people use rifles or shotguns for self defense, but you seem to have no comprehension that they can be less appropriate for that purpose. They are more powerful than they need to be for defense, they kill at greater ranges with 5-10 times the energy. For some, and handgun is all they can use.

A handgun is a an defensive weapon. If a police officer carries them, then I don't see why it's inappropriate for me to carry them.


Just because some random crackhead criminal asswipe who lives in your town kills people for no good reason has nothing to do with me.

Why don't you just move?

2618. iiibbb - 2/22/2006 11:07:18 AM

Message # 2615

I don't know what to do about intent. I can't relate to the criminal mind. They see people as prey... or they murder through hate.... or they murder through apathy.

There is a lot of crime propegated by gangs. That is a cultural thing that Cosby's essay clearly addresses.

Some crime is due to poverty. All we can do about that is increase educational opportunities... however that won't work unless some of these cultural issues are also addressed.

Some crime is due to hate or violent natures. Lock these people up, throw away the key. I personally have little interest in their rehabilitation.

2619. iiibbb - 2/22/2006 11:08:16 AM

Some crime has been manufactured by our war on drugs. I would de-escalate the war on drug use, and escalate a war on violent crime.

2620. iiibbb - 2/22/2006 11:12:01 AM

Many in the entertainment industry seem to think that guns are awful... it might help if they quit glorifying violence in film and other media.

2621. wonkers2 - 2/22/2006 11:46:21 AM

Why should I have to move so that you can satisfy your paranoid fantasies?

2622. iiibbb - 2/22/2006 12:11:54 PM

You're the one who's paranoid...

And it is a fantasy that if you banned handguns they'd go away.

2623. iiibbb - 2/22/2006 12:12:39 PM

The moving and/or never going where crime is an issue is your suggestion. Why don't you follow it?

2624. iiibbb - 2/22/2006 1:16:32 PM

How do you rehabilitate this?

These guys just wake up one day and decide they're going to go out and beat the crap out of homeless guys; killing one.

They could've shot the guy in the process of their decision, but they elected to use bats.


Either way, If some guys like this were to randomley choose me... I'd much rather have a .357 with me than rely on a video camera after I'm dead.

2625. wonkers2 - 2/22/2006 2:24:07 PM

I agree there are other ways besides handguns of killing innocent people and with your comment about the war on drugs. I don't recall recommending moving as a solution.

2626. iiibbb - 2/22/2006 2:46:43 PM

Message # 1147

1147. wonkers2 - 3/10/2005 3:45:49 PM

"Unless you venture into places where you have no business going the odds of you being attacked are infinitesimal and do not justify walking around with a gun which you might well accidently shoot yourself or someone else with. Or it might easily be stolen from you or provide an incentive for someone to break into your house."

2627. iiibbb - 2/22/2006 2:51:06 PM

This is the first occurance I could find... and probably not the only time you've said something to this extent.


Speeking of paranoia... "walking around with a gun which you might well accidently shoot yourself or someone else with."

How often does a licensed person just pop someone by accident? I would venture it's considerably more infinitesimal than you claim the odds of me being attacked.

A proper holster. Concealed. The gun isn't going to come out unless there is a real reason. It's not going to be grabbed because no one knows it's there.

Same with it being in the house. The objective is that the badguys don't know about my guns. Unless of course they do something stupid like make public records of gun owners or list CCW permitholders (like in Ohio).

2628. wonkers2 - 2/22/2006 2:59:42 PM

The above advice was intended for suburbanites as I presume you are. Unfortunately, for most of the unfortunate victims of needless gun violence, moving or staying out of dangerous neighborhoods isn't a option, certainly not for the children who get caught in the crossfire.

2629. iiibbb - 2/22/2006 3:20:07 PM

Unfortunately it's not strictly an urban issue anymore.

Kidnappings, and wildlife are suburban issues now.

2630. iiibbb - 2/22/2006 3:22:37 PM

I used to live in a bad neighborhood. You didn't seem particularly conciliatory about my situation then either.

Either way, it's for me to decide what course of action I will take. There is no justification to limit the options of the law-abiding.

2631. iiibbb - 2/22/2006 3:24:57 PM

How do you decide where I have business venturing anyway? I went to an electronics store once to pick up some wire. Turned out the place was in the center of one of the worst parts of town. It was the only place that had what I needed.

Do I insist on delivery... or do I "venture in"?

2632. wonkers2 - 2/22/2006 5:35:25 PM

iiibbb, you are the one who has personalized this. I wouldn't presume to advise you. My remarks are directed not so much toward you, toward what would be a sensible policy in the interest of the majority. You're the one who keeps asserting that you need to be able to carry a pistol whenever and wherever you please. In this respect, you represent a fairly small minority.

2633. wonkers2 - 2/22/2006 5:38:22 PM

If you were an inner-city party store owner I might have more sympathy for your need to have a big gun under the counter. At this point I'm not ready to say that all guns should be confiscated. At the other extreme, I think its wrong for Virginia to give out concealed carry handgun permits to virtually anyone who asks for one, as reported in the NYT.

2634. iiibbb - 2/22/2006 6:38:43 PM

I personalize it because proposed policies affect me personally.

You have no proof that a banning handguns benefits a majority. I may be a minority in my opinion, but I guarantee that the people affected by handgun crossfire is a minority relative to those who are helped by having a handgun.

Furthermore, I do not assert that I need to carry whenever and wherever I want... I assert that the choice is mine to decide when and where I carry. I certainly don't carry frequently. There may be 10 days out of the year I feel it's warranted. By singling out storeowners, do you assert that the government makes a cutoff based on how many days of the year you're at risk?

Singling out storeowners is stupid. That has nothing to do with anything. There are plenty of people like me that are affected by violent crime.


Most states follow Virginia's objective approach. They do not hand them out to anyone that asks. Let's review: must take a safety class, must pass a intensive background check. To deny a permit, the Virginia must have a reason, that can't just deny it because someone like you sits behind a desk and decides they aren't a storeowner so they don't need it enough. That's a load of crap.

In NY, it is entirely subjective. You're chances of being issued a permit varries by county. You can be issued a full permit in one county, move to another where someone with exactly the same credentials as you cannot get a permit. That's not fair. That's not equal protection.

Why not rag on Vermont... you don't even need to ask the state for permission. You don't have to be a resident.

If your vision of the world is correct, why don't we hear about the shooting sprees and crime waves up there? Why are the most violent places to live the ones with the most gun control (see Washington DC or Chicago). Perhaps it has nothing to do with guns?

It is amusing the shock you seem to feel over the "virtually anyone". How about looking up Virginia and other state's Crime statistics and show me that their CCW policy actually has any bearing on violent crime.

2635. iiibbb - 2/22/2006 7:06:23 PM

Would these women rate a gun permit Wonkers?

Apparently not.

2636. iiibbb - 2/22/2006 7:07:52 PM

Why didn't they just call the police?

2637. jexster - 2/23/2006 12:27:04 PM

Meet

Destroyer Dick
NRA Gun Safety Mascot

2638. iiibbb - 2/23/2006 5:45:25 PM

My science project

2639. alistairconnor - 2/23/2006 6:27:07 PM

Lucky NZ gets a visit from pro-gun lobbyists
It's billed as a "gun safety" seminar; it's sponsored by the NZ police, and opened by the Minister; yet the speakers include

- Mark Barnes, a registered Washington firearm industry lobbyist who declared having received US$360,000 from the National Rifle Association of America (NRA) in one year.

- John R. Lott, the world’s most controversial pro-gun researcher, who writes that the solution to school shootings is to arm the teachers, and whose recent book is titled More Guns, Less Crime.

- Rick Patterson, Managing Director of the Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers’ Institute (SAAMI), is an American gun industry lobbyist who spoke at the United Nations last month, arguing that US and other civilian gun owners should be exempt from international gun controls.


Sounds like evangelism.

2640. wonkers2 - 2/23/2006 6:32:19 PM

Very interesting information. Thanks.

2641. iiibbb - 2/23/2006 10:19:36 PM

New Zealand probably has some of the most stringint gun laws in the world.

But that's their business.

2642. wonkers2 - 2/24/2006 11:05:28 AM

14-year-old boy accidentally shoots friend with .22 pistol. Here.

2643. wonkers2 - 2/27/2006 8:18:44 AM

Deadly Defense

2644. iiibbb - 2/27/2006 1:47:50 PM

Michigan legislators are considering a bill that would sanction fatal shootings of intruders into homes or occupied vehicles. The bill would not be a sweeping license to kill, as some of its critics suggest, but it is certainly unnecessary, imprudent and even dangerous.

The courts have already, with reason, given broad latitude to people defending themselves in their homes or vehicles. But exempting such cases from prosecution and even civil action sends the wrong message to a society plagued by gun violence.

However, this legislation puts the burden on the state to prove a self defense shooting was not... not the other way around. Just because you are eventually exonerated doesn't mean the system is fair. Just because you are exonerated doesn't mean you'll win your civil case either.

Why should somoene who is forced to defend themselves because the system has already let down further burden them with then having to defend their freedom and livelyhood?

If criminals don't want to suffer under the gov't sanctioning of people defending themselves, their better bet is not to be in someone's home to begin with.

Citizens legally possessing a gun already have the right to self-defense, even deadly force, if they have an honest and reasonable belief that they're in danger of death, serious injury or sexual assault. That right is maintained even if the belief turns out to be wrong.

If this is already true... then why are the writers objecting to a law that affirms this?

The bill, introduced by Sen. Alan Cropsey, R-DeWitt, would extend the right to preventing the commission of a forcible felony. In such a case, a person could apparently use deadly force even if they didn't believe they were in danger. It would also permit people to use force when they could have safely avoided confrontation.

Just what people need. Second guessing. People can safely avoid confrontation by not leaving their homes to begin with. We don't need a system where the likes of Wonkers is determining whether we had "any business being somewhere" after the fact.

Even given the broad right to self-defense, fatal shootings should be judged on a case-by-case basis. A driver who shoots and kills an unarmed, mentally ill homeless person banging on the window in an attempt to enter his car, for example, shouldn't be exempt from charges.

Why not? Put yourself in the situation of being in the car.

If the gov't fears for the safety of "unarmed, mentally ill homeless person banging on the window in an attempt to enter cars" then perhaps they should go around collecting these people and putting them somewhere safe.

"The law of this state should be one that discourages, rather than encourages, violent confrontations," Ronald Frantz, president of the Prosecuting Attorneys Association of Michigan, wrote to Cropsey in a letter opposing the bill.

Many people who shoot in self defense only have a split second to decide what to do. Who should get advantage of that split second? A person can cover 20 ft before most people can draw and fire an aimed shot. You have to wait until you're bleeding?

There is nothing wrong with training people to defuse or extract themselves from violent situations. However, the gov't should not create a situation where a victim is forced to weigh the prospects of a civil case at the critical moment when a situation leaves the victim's control...

A criminal has a choice not to enter homes illegally. The state has a choice to remove the mentally ill from the streets... or leave them there... But why put the onus on the victim?

2645. iiibbb - 2/27/2006 4:35:05 PM

Wonkers... I was wondering if you could explain to me why you find a distinction between registring sexual offenders registering firearms owners.

Your post appears to indicate a sex-offender registry completely offend you... while you have no compunction at all about registering gun owners.

Message # 9310 in thread 106

2646. wonkers2 - 2/27/2006 5:10:39 PM

You are comparing apples and oranges. First, I merely posted an article indicating that the Michigan registry includes a whole lot of people who anybody in their right mind would say has no business being listed, for example, someone who was convicted as a teenager of having sex with his teenage girl friend. Secondly, why should sex offenders who have paid the price of a prison sentence be singled out for publication on the internet when armed robbers, forgers, murderers, scam artists, corporate looters, etc., are not? Third, correct me if I'm wrong--the names of people who have registered their guns and have concealed carry permits are not published on the Internet nor are their neighbors notified. [Nor have I suggested they should be.] However, there is no stigma attached to owning a registered gun, whereas, there is great stigma to being convicted of a sex offense, even if its for indecent exposure when taking a leak behind a bush or in a late night parking lot before a long drive home. The Michigan sex offender list does not specify the nature of the crime committed by those listed. It leaves that up to the imagination of the "offender's" neighbors.

So, yes, there are plenty of distinctions between registries of sex offenders and gun owners.

2647. wonkers2 - 2/27/2006 5:13:25 PM

Come to think of it perhaps it would be a good idea to publish Internet listings of gun owners who hold concealed carry permits. That would give the rest of us a chance to avoid confrontations with them. Windshield stickers should be considered also and perhaps tatoos in the middle of their foreheads.

2648. iiibbb - 2/27/2006 5:23:23 PM

Apples and oranges?

You mean that the list of sexual offenders actually technically committed some kind of crime... where as a list of gun registrants only lists who might commit a crime (most who don't)?

Secondly, why should sex offenders who have paid the price of a prison sentence be singled out for publication on the internet when armed robbers, forgers, murderers, scam artists, corporate looters, etc., are not?

Why is it fair to single out gun owners who haven't done a damn thing to anyone? They post lists of CCW permitholders in Ohio. What have they done?

Two wrongs don't make a right. I'd list all those people you mention before I'd list a law-abiding gun owner to the public.

Third, correct me if I'm wrong--the names of people who have registered their guns and have concealed carry permits are not published on the Internet nor are their neighbors notified.

They have been in some places. Kentucky and Ohio for one. another source, and Wisconsin.

However, there is no stigma attached to owning a registered gun, whereas, there is great stigma to being convicted of a sex offense, even if its for indecent exposure when taking a leak behind a bush or in a late night parking lot before a long drive home.

No stigma? How many times have I been called a "vigilante", "part of the problem", "paranoid" in here?


So, yes, there are plenty of distinctions between registries of sex offenders and gun owners.

So what you're saying is that people who have not broken the law should be registered... but people what have broken the law should be protected.

Makes perfect sense.

2649. wonkers2 - 2/27/2006 5:45:03 PM

Would you mind reading my posts before commenting?

Yes, I do support handgun registration laws. And I think they should be enforced more strictly.

Records are now kept on criminal convictions of all kinds. Obviously, I have no objection to this. My objection is primarily to the publication on the Internet of the names and addresses of people whose crimes are categorized as sex offenses but which are not such that they represent any danger to anyone. Yet these people are being stigmatized for life in a way that makes it hard for them to get a job or have the respect of their neighbors. This is unnecessary and patently unfair. Moreover, I'm not sure what the logic is for singling out one type of criminal for public listing while not doing the same for others who arguably are equally if not more dangerous.

2650. iiibbb - 2/28/2006 9:05:20 AM

I'm just sort of surprised that you have greater reservations about lists of people with criminal records... but have no isssue with listing people who just own guns.

You claim there is no stigma associated with gun ownership, yet you have called me paranoid. People have been fired from work becaused of covert searches of vehicles. There are plenty of people who have prejudice against gun owners. I've seen it here since day 1. I've encountered it in my fiance's family.

And asside from all that... if we both are concerned that criminals steal guns to use in crime, why would we give thema list of homes where poeple could obtain them?

So are you for or against publicly listing concealed permit holders?

2651. wonkers2 - 2/28/2006 11:59:39 AM

It would probably be a waste of taxpayer money. The records should be open to public scrutiny upon request.

2652. iiibbb - 2/28/2006 12:50:18 PM

Even though there may be a stigma, and these people have been certified by the state to have never done anything to disqualify them.

Lists of felons, however, is wrong because it ruins peoples' lives.

Right-o.

2653. wonkers2 - 2/28/2006 1:57:24 PM

In most states,if I'm not mistaken, criminal records are easily obtainable.

2654. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 2/28/2006 4:15:34 PM

iiibbb uuu might enjoy this . . .[Click on image.]

2655. iiibbb - 2/28/2006 4:33:27 PM

Eh... whatever... as long as they eat it. I'm not much into the trophy stuff.

I probably wouldn't bow hunt either because I'd prefer the deer just die immediately.

2656. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 2/28/2006 6:13:39 PM

I love water buffalo with a good Chianti!

2657. wonkers2 - 2/28/2006 6:17:11 PM

Yes. I think concealed carry permit holders should be available to the public, but not posted on the Internet. I'm open minded on it if there are any other arguments beyond exposing them to theft. I thought you said that having a loaded handgun around would protect them from that.

2658. iiibbb - 3/1/2006 1:41:26 PM

It's not just exposing the gun to theft, it exposes the permit holder as well.

It's not meant to protect you from theft... it's meant to protect you from grevious bodily harm.

It is a deterant to theft because the homeowner doesn't have any way of determining the intent of a person the confront in their home. The theif doesn't know who's armed. Therefore the theif is deterred from breaking into homes in general.

In the case of Virginia... which you like to pick on... the list of CCW is available to those who matter. The police. CCW shows up when they run your license during a traffic stop. I posted examples of CCW lists being made public in Ohio, Kentucky, and Wisconsin.

It probably is enough of the public record that you could look me up specifically if you went to the courthouse and found my case. In other words, if a neighbor were worried about me specifically, they could find out because somewhere out there there is my name associated with a case number which can be looked up.

What is the purpose of centralizing this information in a general list? What purpose does the general list serve. Would it reduce crime? Reduce accidents? If it does not achieve either of these things, then what does the list achieve except the potential for the gun owner to be harrassed or targetted?

2659. wonkers2 - 3/1/2006 4:05:41 PM

Well, as you have said repeatedly he's perfectly able to protect himself.

2660. iiibbb - 3/1/2006 4:13:00 PM

I will listen to just about any proposal that would actually do something to reduce crime or accidents. If it can't accomplish either of these things... then what's the point?

2661. Ulgine Barrows - 3/3/2006 6:31:24 AM

Kill all the people, simple.

2662. iiibbb - 3/3/2006 5:09:04 PM

Lawyers first of course.

2663. wonkers2 - 3/3/2006 5:17:39 PM

NRA members first!

2664. iiibbb - 3/3/2006 8:36:07 PM

I didn't realize that was Shakespeare too.

...that or you are one hateful person.

2665. iiibbb - 3/6/2006 12:57:18 PM

Just goes to show that you can ban everything... lock us all in our rooms... and some dumbass will still find a way to off themselves.

2666. iiibbb - 3/6/2006 12:59:51 PM

She should have just called the police. Doesn't she know that the world isn't a dangerous place.

2667. iiibbb - 3/6/2006 1:01:57 PM

If he'd done more with his life... been important... perhaps he could have gotten a carry permit in Boston

2668. iiibbb - 3/7/2006 10:17:49 AM

Our society just keeps churning them out... but some of you continue to think that I am the problem.

I am so not-the-problem.

Good luck.

2669. jexster - 3/9/2006 12:14:53 PM

Al-Zaman says that the security situation has gotten so bad in Mosul, with constant kidnappings and violence, that provincial governor Kashmulah has decreed that ordinary citizens may carry around a pistol or even a Kalashnikov.

And Bush says "they hate our values"!

2670. iiibbb - 3/9/2006 1:04:25 PM

More worried about stigmatizing criminals?

He should've been on somebody's list apparently.

If the gov't can't keep up with someone like this... why should I believe they can effectively manage the information in some grand gun-owner registration scheme enough to prevent crime?

2671. iiibbb - 3/9/2006 1:06:24 PM

Message # 2669

Poor trigger discipline... finger should never be on the trigger... even for gun porn.

2672. jexster - 3/9/2006 1:23:00 PM

i3 UR so fuckin cool you can have sex with my tank

2673. wonkers2 - 3/9/2006 1:38:55 PM

The register might not prevent crimes, but it might help solve crimes???

2674. iiibbb - 3/9/2006 2:16:53 PM

There are several places in the US with gun registration. Can you provide me with a example where the registry provided the critical piece of information to solve the crime? Canada has their failed registry (which was supposed to help solve crimes). NY has registered weapons for years...

Examples? I doubt you can find them.

Usually there is ample forinsic evidence... and if the gun is still in the possession of the original buyer, the police can track it through the FFL books that gun dealers are required to maintain and are audited by the ATF.

2675. iiibbb - 3/14/2006 8:54:16 AM

Private companies hired for law enforcement?

Do you prefer a neighbor with a gun... or a militerized private contractor who probably isn't subject to the same rules as a normal law enforcement officer under oath?

2676. iiibbb - 3/14/2006 10:23:37 PM

What reason did she have to have a gun before today?

In wonker's world she wouldn't be able to establish a need... would she?

2677. alistairconnor - 3/22/2006 3:11:38 AM

In the spirit of gratuitous provocation, gunk and troll :


Martin I've been being harassed by him and his parents for five years. Today just blew it up. Kid's just been giving me a bunch of shit, making the other kids harass me and my place, tearing things up.

Operator OK, so what'd you do?

Martin I shot him with a goddamn 410 shotgun twice.

Operator You shot him with a shotgun? Where is he?

Martin He's laying in his yard.

2678. alistairconnor - 3/22/2006 3:12:33 AM

(that was the 911 call after the murder)

2679. Macnas - 3/22/2006 6:46:26 AM

With a 410? he must have been within a couple of arms length when he shot him first.

Very small bore shotgun. Very crazy man owning it.

2680. arkymalarky - 3/22/2006 5:04:14 PM

Yep. But, as I've posted before, we own a 410 that is a murder weapon. Bob's dad had it from when he was sheriff.

2681. arkymalarky - 3/22/2006 5:05:18 PM

Aaaaargh! I mean granddad.

2682. iiibbb - 3/27/2006 11:58:39 AM

Police finding it hard to fill vacancies - Departments offer perks, alter standards to draw recruits

Police departments around the country are contending with a shortage of officers and trying to lure new applicants with signing bonuses, eased standards, house down payments and extra vacation time.
-------------------------------
Williams said that some departments are hiring applicants with criminal records. "A few years ago, an arrest record was a deal breaker," he said. "Now departments are asking whether someone is salvageable."


For the record... this means that in some places it will now be easier to become a police officer than obtain a concealed weapons permit.

2683. wonkers2 - 3/28/2006 6:49:30 AM

iiibbb, Ak-47s are de rigeur in Pontiac gangs. They use them for squirrel hunting, no doubt, on weekends. And of course they're great for self defense--from the police, that is. Here.

2684. wonkers2 - 3/28/2006 7:58:40 AM

"'There's plenty for everyone' or something to that effect was what witnesses told the police the gunman said...Chief Kammerer continued, 'Whenever you encounter a suspect that has 300 rounds or more of ammunition immediately available to him, I think it's safe to surmise that they intend to undertake a campaign.'....

"The police said that people who saw Mr. Huff at the party before the attack described him as quiet, maybe a bit moody, but not showing any indication he would turn violent...

"Chief Kammerer said Mr. Huff had 'hundreds of rounds and weapons.

"'An assault weapon was found in his vehicle, in addition to the shotgun and the handgun and numerous rounds that he took withhim into the house,' the chief said. 'A machete was found. Flex cuffs were found in the vehicle'..." More here.

2685. Macnas - 3/28/2006 8:29:19 AM

Wonder what the hell all that was about?

These bastards, why don't they just shoot themselves first.

2686. wonkers2 - 3/28/2006 8:51:35 AM

Yeah. I wonder where iiibbb has been lately? :-)

2687. Macnas - 3/28/2006 9:24:31 AM

Yeah, hilarious.

2688. iiibbb - 3/28/2006 6:54:36 PM

Message # 2686

iiibbb has been working trying to make money so he can buy more guns.

Message # 2684

I'm pretty certain I have more than 300 rounds of ammunition on hand. Mostly because I have a case of .308 I bought for target practice @ better than 1/3rd of what .308 usually costs. I have a lot of 9mm for practice becase Walmart is almost always out if I decide to buy it the day I want to go to the range. So I stock up when it's available.

I'm still not going to go out and shoot anyone... or myself.

Would licensing and registration... smart gun technology... balistics fingerprinting.... have prevented or solved the Seattle spree? ---- Nope.

Also... with California threatening to drive ammo prices up by requiring individual serial numbers for every cartrige. I suspect a lot of people are stocking up.

Message # 2683

Why does it matter if a criminal uses a medium-power rifle like an AK47 against police vs a high power hunting rifle?

2689. wonkers2 - 3/28/2006 7:57:21 PM

?Ak-47s are used by terrorists, dope dealers, wackos?

2690. iiibbb - 3/28/2006 9:00:35 PM

First... let's disconnect between AK-47 (full auto military assault rifle) and MAK-90 (semi-auto civilian rifle that looks like an assault rifle).

Second... I know at least 10 people who own MAK-90's or SKSs. They own them because they cost 1/4th what a AR-15.. and the ammunition is about 60% what AR ammunition costs. If you like to go target shoot. It is economical.

And trust me... 8 of 10 of those friends are college educated... and half again have upper level degrees.


But ultimately who cares? If they aren't hurting anyone who cares? The psycho in Seattle used a 12-gauge... probably one of the most common firearms in the U.S. (and the pistol grip has nothing to do with lethality).

2691. Macnas - 3/29/2006 1:52:08 AM

Hmm, have to say the same goes for me. I've got over a thousand cartridges right now, cost is going up soon so, took advantage of a good deal as did iiibbb, and indeed as do most people who do a lot of target shooting or clay pigeons.

And I've my hunting cartridges as well, so, a lot of ammunition there with no illegal intent.

Pistol grips, you can buy and retrofit them to most current models of self-loading and pump guns, it doesn't increase lethality just changes the way you have to hold the gun.

It's where it's pointed and why is the problem.

2692. iiibbb - 3/29/2006 12:53:11 PM

Bad because a 5 yr old brought a gun to school, or good because the parents followed enough safety rules to prevent something tragic?

2693. iiibbb - 3/29/2006 9:11:41 PM

Well... at least I have less than 3000 rounds.

but less than 300 is specifically designed for bodily harm.

2694. iiibbb - 3/29/2006 9:20:19 PM

most of that 300 are hunting rounds for deer.

2695. iiibbb - 3/29/2006 9:23:14 PM

Distributed between 7 different calibers.

I generally shoot 150-300 rounds at a range session.

2696. Macnas - 3/30/2006 2:51:24 AM

7 calibers??

Do you reload at all?

2697. Ulgine Barrows - 3/30/2006 2:56:07 AM

I never reload, I love my girl.

2698. Ulgine Barrows - 3/30/2006 3:06:52 AM

hubs hid the key to his gun, said he was protecting me

but I think he's avoiding suicide

2699. Ulgine Barrows - 3/30/2006 3:11:52 AM

Riders on the storm
Riders on the storm


blah de blah

2700. Ulgine Barrows - 3/30/2006 3:17:09 AM

Can't wait to move outta here

2701. iiibbb - 3/30/2006 7:20:43 AM

Message # 2696

I tend to chose common military calibers (9mm, .308, 7.62x54R), so it's usually easy to find relatively cheap practice ammo. The only thing pricy I have is a .357.

I'd like to get into reloading at some point. I'm limited by the entry cost, and I don't really have a place to do it right now. Once I get a house maybe.

2702. iiibbb - 3/30/2006 7:22:08 AM

Message # 2700

If there is something wrong, I sincerely hope it gets better for you soon.

2703. Macnas - 3/30/2006 7:24:38 AM

I make do with 12 bore and .22lr.

I might pick up something in .223 in the future, but I'm in no hurry.

2704. iiibbb - 3/30/2006 7:32:23 AM

Message # 2696

I have a .22 (everyone has a .22), a 9-mm pistol for competitions & self defense, a .357 revolver (.38spl and .357) for target shooting and teaching my finace, a .308 for hunting, a 7.62x54R for fun, and a 12-guage.

I don't think there's anything remarkable about my collections as far as a firearms enthusiast goes. I suppose people in it strictly for home defense buy 1 or 2 guns to put in their closet and rarely touch them.

Then there are those who have huge collections. I have a friend/aquaintance who supposively has about 30-40 guns... a number of them were inherited. He's the gun-accumulator type. There's a few guns out there I think it would be fun to own, but I don't have that kind of budget, or the opportunity to justify that kind of expenditure.

I don't expect my collection to get any larger at this point.

2705. wonkers2 - 3/30/2006 8:08:45 AM

iiibbb, if you're going to be a gun nut you should learn how to spell gauge.

2706. iiibbb - 3/30/2006 8:27:20 AM

Yay for the spelling police.

2707. Macnas - 3/30/2006 9:26:49 AM

Speaking as a gun nut, the correct term is 12 bore.

Thank you.

2708. alistairconnor - 3/30/2006 9:39:05 AM

I think the correct term here is "gun bore", not "gun nut".
If we're being pedantic.

2709. Macnas - 3/30/2006 9:44:19 AM

Am I boring you?

That's easily rectified.

2710. iiibbb - 3/30/2006 12:56:14 PM

Not me...

How's your favorite range day go?

I like to shoot at IDPA competitions....

that and cowpies with my Mosin.

2711. wonkers2 - 3/30/2006 12:59:14 PM

If its any consolation, plenty of sailors spell buoy, "bouy."

2712. Macnas - 3/31/2006 1:31:25 AM

iiibbb

I don't do much range work, if the .22 needs zeroing I'll do it, but I don't punch that much paper anymore.
The last time I was at a range, sometimes early last year I think, I spent some time grouping at 100 with the .22, just for fun, and then moved onto my friends sako 6.5x55, and enjoyed using that for a while. That said, it's not a big draw for me anymore, I've done many years behind a rifle on the range, as part of shooting teams and whatnot, and have achieved all I'm able to.

I shoot more clays than anything else these days, and if I'm not doing that I'm keeping the magpie and grey crow population in check on the lands where I shoot game. It helps control predation and also does a lot for the songbird population, as these wily birds are great stealers of eggs and chicks. I take woodpigeon and rabbit for the pot regularly.

2713. iiibbb - 3/31/2006 7:11:55 AM

Clays are fun. I can hit stuff, but seem to have little talent for it.

2714. Macnas - 3/31/2006 8:03:39 AM

If you can hit them, then that's all the talent you need!

But I guess you mean hitting stuff consistantly. Like any other sport, it's practice practice practice.

I love it because it's one of those things where, if you get a good run of hits, where you might straight a stand as they say, it's like a little moment of perfection, you are on automatic pilot and everything is happening at the right time and in the right way, kind of zen like.

2715. iiibbb - 3/31/2006 10:23:36 AM

Actually... there are some very interesting studies about the state an athlete's mind goes in when they are "in the zone". The more you practice the easier it is to achieve the alpha waves... which are the brainwaves that dominate during sleep.

A link

I think this is why I like to compete. I have been in the zone before for some of the things I do. It is really pretty cool to be there. Easy to see why people get addicted to sport.

2716. wonkers2 - 3/31/2006 11:07:00 AM

I think I got "in the zone" once and bowled a 250 or thereabouts game at a time when my average was around 150. As the game progressed it seemed like I couldn't miss.

2717. iiibbb - 3/31/2006 12:32:52 PM

England has tight gun control, but that doesn't stop people who are just plain dumb. I guess it's a good thing they register all the weapons over there or they would've never cracked this case.

Ban shotguns!!!

2718. iiibbb - 3/31/2006 12:33:19 PM

link

2719. iiibbb - 3/31/2006 12:33:51 PM

link again

2720. iiibbb - 3/31/2006 12:59:57 PM

The organization will work for three key reforms at the state and federal level in an attempt to shut down sources of illegal guns without interfering with legal gun ownership:

-- Strengthen law enforcement tools to crack down on corrupt gun dealers. Congress will be lobbied to repeal "irrational legal constraints" that have reduced ATF's effectiveness in enforcing the law against dealers who feed the illegal market, and state legislatures and local governments will be asked to give state and local law enforcement new tools to combat gun trafficking.

If dealers are breaking the law... what additional tools do they need? I want to seen an example of a gun dealer who did something illegal and the ATF was unable to revoke their license or even arrest them for criminal charges. The laws are in place... what else could the possibly need?


- Extend background checks to all gun sales. Since the enactment of the Brady Bill over 10 years ago, more than 1.3 million felons and other prohibited purchasers have been blocked from buying guns from licensed gun dealers. Background checks must now be extended to all gun sales, wherever they occur, the group stated.

I thought it was crooked gun dealers... but 1.3 million felons were blocked? Why haven't these felons been arrested?


-- Stop large-volume gun sales that supply traffickers. It is possible in most states for "straw purchasers" - criminals' friends and acquaintances who have no felony convictions - and traffickers to buy unlimited numbers of guns to sell to the illegal market. The Brady campaign hopes to end this practice.

Straw purchases are possible in ALL STATES. Is it straw purchases or is it crooked dealers selling directly to illegals?

Large-volume purchases? What the hell are they talking about? Apparently they're talking about multiple sales and straw purchases... "large-volume" just sounds good I guess.

If Traffickers are selling to the illegal market and the Brady Campaign is naming names... the question shouldn't be "what extra laws do we need"... but "why isn't the ATF doing its job?"

P.S. note that while VA is admonished for passing out carry permits like candy (which is untrue because you still have to pass significant background checks), they are actually praised for limiting handgun purchases to 1 per month.

So is Virginia a Neandertal state... or not?

2721. iiibbb - 3/31/2006 1:08:01 PM

Here the Brady Center talks about crooked gun dealers

They bemoan that there are an average of 80 violations per ATF inspection (limited to 1 per year). But out of 1800 inspections, there were only 60 revocations.

What isn't said is what kind of violations? Probably transcription errors. They complain that the ATF be able to prove that the dealer willfully violated the law. Boo hoo. Given the ATF's misbehavior in Richmond... I'd say their zealousness is why congress put the clamps down.

However... note below. The Brady campaign provides a table that shows that a minority of dealers are the major contributers to illegal gun sales. So why are they crapping all over the 1800?

Basically... they want to justify shitting on everyone (make felonies of clerical errors?) because of the actions of a few... and I am still left to wonder if this "handful" of gun dealers are responsible... why isn't the ATF just cracking down on them instead of harassing people in Richmond.

2722. iiibbb - 3/31/2006 2:02:02 PM

Instead the BATF is cracking down on... custom gunsmiths...

Because as we know... custom guns are the prefered weapon for gangs and ninjas.



of course it is just a blog...

2723. iiibbb - 3/31/2006 4:16:35 PM

This is what the ATF is doing with their time

Dear Forum Members:

Please regard this as an unofficial notice, but I thought I could help clear up what’s going on.

The Firearms and Ammunition Excise Tax (FAET) is a tax imposed by Chapter 32 of the Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S.C. 4181) on the sale of firearms and ammunition by manufacturers, producers, and importers. The present situation has arisen due to a possible misinterpretation of the term “manufactured” by the ATF. It has been difficult in the past for gunsmiths to determine exactly which services performed by gunsmiths were “manufacturing” and thus subject to FAET. Generally, gunsmiths are not subject to the FAET, unless the gunsmith has title to the firearm and his work materially changes the firearm so that a different taxable article results. See Rev. Rulings 58-586, 64-202 and 69-325.

Which specific acts (mounting a scope, re-stocking, checkering, engraving, etc.) count as “manufacturing” has been difficult to determine and inconsistently applied by ATF in the past.

To address this problem, on October 1, 2005, 26 U.S.C. Section 4182 was amended to also exempt any pistol, revolver, or firearm from FAET if it was manufactured, produced or imported by a person who manufactures, produces or imports less than an aggregate of 50 such articles during the calendar year. This allows gunsmiths to operate (for fewer than 50 guns per year) without worry that a particular act would be considered “manufacture” or not.

The 50 guns per year change, however, is not retroactive (despite our efforts to make it so). Recently gunsmiths have been aggressively investigated by ATF, and their back records examined for FAET compliance. This investigation is legal and proper, however, there is concern that ATF is again misinterpreting “manufacture” and including transactions under FAET that should properly be excluded.

Larry Crow, owner of Competitive Edge Gunworks and member of the American Pistolsmith Guild, is currently being charged as liable for taxes and penalties for the “manufacture” of firearms; Mr. Crow questions the validity of ATF’s determination that he manufactured the firearms. In meetings and discussions with the ATF and IRS beginning 24 January 2006, Mr. Crow has been unable to get a direct and consistent answer regarding both ATF and IRS policy.

The National Rifle Association is in contact with Mr. Crow and others in the gunsmithing community, and is actively exploring both regulatory and legal remedies for this situation. This situation is, however, one which may not lend itself to a quick or easy fix, as it involves statutes, regulatory rulings, and policy decisions at the intersection of two separate federal agencies.

I assure you that the National Rifle Association will make the most efficient use of its resources, with the goal of protecting the civil rights of Americans, as the Framers sought to protect those rights under the Constitution. We will provide updated information on our website as further significant details or activities become known.

Thank you for your continued support.

-Eric Swartz
Office of Legislative Counsel
National Rifle Association – Institute for Legislative Action


Oooooo - the Evil NRA is in the pocket of the industry...

The ATF wouldn't be investigating unless something bad was happening.

Just like Bush when he taps phones... no one's civil rights are being violated.

2725. PelleNilsson - 4/5/2006 12:05:58 PM

Gun glut in Iraq

Iraq has long been awash with guns. But after the bombing of a Shiite shrine in Samarra in late February, sectarian tensions exploded, and more Iraqis than ever have been buying, carrying and stockpiling weapons, adding an unnerving level of firepower to Baghdad's streets.

The average price for a Russian-made Kalashnikov AK-47 assault rifle, which is legal here, has jumped to $290 from $112 in the past month, according to several gun dealers. The cost of bullets has climbed to 33 cents each from 24 cents.

Hand grenades, which are not legal, but are easy to get, cost $95.

Pre-Samarra, they were about half that. The swiftly rising prices are one clear sign that weapon sales are hot.

....

The U.S. military has added to the arsenal also, by shipping in hundreds of thousands of firearms and millions of rounds of ammunition, in an effort to equip the fledging Iraqi security forces so U.S. troops will be able to leave.

....

Paul Bremer, the former top U.S. administrator in Iraq, did not try to step between Iraqis and their weaponry. He issued an order in 2003 that essentially upheld Iraqi law: Every man and woman 25 and older with a "good reputation and character" was entitled to own one firearm, including a fully automatic AK-47 assault rifle, the world's most popular killing machine.

Shortly after arriving in Iraq, Bremer disbanded the Iraqi Army.

Days later, Baghdad was transformed into a weapons bazaar, with kiosks popping up across the city offering bargains on pistols, carbines, rifles, shotguns, machine guns and rocket-propelled grenade launchers - essentially, just about anything with a trigger.

....

Janabi, 27, is a television journalist. She is East-meets-West, coming from a religious Shiite family but favoring snug jeans and insisting that women should carry guns - though, she admits, "it makes you feel a little like a boy." A friend in the Interior Ministry showed her how to use her 9-millimeter pistol. She appears quite smooth - and proud - loading it.

Just to make sure, she rides the bus with her pistol in her lap.

2726. wonkers2 - 4/5/2006 2:00:09 PM

Obviously, everybody needs a gun for self-protection, applying NRA logic.

2727. wonkers2 - 4/7/2006 9:48:19 AM

Mysterious shooting on front porch in Baghdad, no, it was Grand Rapids. They don't have fron porches in Baghdad Here.

2728. iiibbb - 4/7/2006 10:04:09 AM

Message # 2725

wait a minute... if hand grendades are illegal... how can people get them?


I like the special phrases that are the mark of good journalism.

was entitled to own one firearm, including a fully automatic AK-47 assault rifle, the world's most popular killing machine.

Days later, Baghdad was transformed into a weapons bazaar, with kiosks popping up across the city offering bargains on pistols, carbines, rifles, shotguns, machine guns and rocket-propelled grenade launchers - essentially, just about anything with a trigger.

I thought grenades were illegal... how could anyone be selling them...

Janabi, 27, is a television journalist. She is East-meets-West, coming from a religious Shiite family but favoring snug jeans and insisting that women should carry guns - though, she admits, "it makes you feel a little like a boy." A friend in the Interior Ministry showed her how to use her 9-millimeter pistol. She appears quite smooth - and proud - loading it.

2729. iiibbb - 4/7/2006 10:05:31 AM

Message # 2727

Don't be paranoid.

2730. wonkers2 - 4/7/2006 10:09:51 AM

AK-47 attack in the suburbs. Here.

2731. wonkers2 - 4/7/2006 10:11:37 AM

"Don't be paranoid." Ha!

2732. iiibbb - 4/7/2006 10:43:09 AM

Message # 2730

The first paragraph says it all...

What kind of person carries [read owns] an AK-47 assault rifle with 33 rounds of ammunition? That's the question West Bloomfield police are trying to answer after a family reported armed gunmen at their door at 1:30 a.m. Monday.


Actually... I know several people that own AK-47's with high-capacity magazines... and they're the type of people that go to the range and spend about $20 on ammo and targets for the afternoon.

The better question is what type of person accosts a family at night armed... period. I don't give a flip what kind of gun they happen to be using to commit said assault.

An even better question is what would that family have done if instead of retreating the gunman entered the home. Is it just as reasonable for the home owner to have a shotgun to repel the person if they were to try?

I think so.

PS - What is the advantage of a law that limits the homeoner to 10 round magazine in such circumstances? What advantage is a law that would limit the capacity of a law-abiding citizen to acquire a suitible weapon such as a small calliber "assault rifle" or shotgun with pistol grip?

2733. iiibbb - 4/7/2006 10:45:21 AM

quote from article

"Fuhs said the fact that the suspects had an assault rifle is unusual. "There is some history here," Fuhs said. "But we haven't identified a motive.""

I thought that assault rifles were the choice of criminals?!?

2734. iiibbb - 4/7/2006 10:48:31 AM

Also... if they're throwing guns out the window of a car... they must be fairly certain those guns are tracable to them. Specifically, they were obtained illeagally somehow.

2735. wonkers2 - 4/19/2006 11:22:23 PM

iiibbb, are you going to cover this? Bloomberg's Gun Summit

2736. Macnas - 4/20/2006 1:22:08 AM

bold type ?

2737. Macnas - 4/20/2006 1:24:08 AM

toys

2738. Macnas - 4/20/2006 1:24:19 AM

toys...

2739. Macnas - 4/20/2006 1:25:38 AM

shit, this never works for me.

2740. Macnas - 4/20/2006 1:26:09 AM

yay?

2741. Macnas - 4/20/2006 1:26:41 AM

Yay me! Finally.

2742. iiibbb - 4/20/2006 6:40:57 AM

Message # 2735

What's to cover?

A bunch of cities that use gun control to faile to solve their gun-violence problem are getting together to talk about what new gun control they might foist on normal people.


In Boston, which this year has seen about twice the number of shootings compared with the same period last year, Menino says guns are a "crisis on our streets."

"I'm proud to join leaders from our nation's cities to come together, share ideas and, more importantly, to commit to working collaboratively to stop this epidemic and make our streets safer," Menino, a Democrat, said in a statement.


So where gun-control is strongest... it isn't following the national trend.



Bloomberg recently testified before Congress with harsh words against a bill that would make permanent a bar on federal authorities' ability to share gun trace data with local governments. Some municipalities had used the information to launch lawsuits against gun manufacturers and dealers.


I have to admit ignorance about the law in question... but it sounds like municipalities weren't using the information to solve crimes... they were using the information to sue manufacturers.

Let's see... given the choice of using the information so solve crime and go after the criminals... municipaities choose litigation against a third party. That's going to solve their crime epidemic?

Give me a break.

Bloomberg told a House judiciary subcommittee that the bill is a "god-awful piece of legislation" that would lead to more shooting deaths.

Their failure to go after criminals is leading to more deaths. It's not like their lawsuits are going to decrease the number of deaths.


These mayors have tunnel vision. They are just like Bush with Iraq... They have a policy they wish to impliment and they're not about to let facts get in the way of getting their way.

2743. iiibbb - 4/20/2006 7:16:54 AM

According to the 1997 Survey of State Prison Inmates, among those possessing a gun, the source of the gun was from -

* a flea market or gun show for fewer than 2%
* a retail store or pawnshop for about 12%
* family, friends, a street buy, or an illegal source for 80%

2744. iiibbb - 4/20/2006 8:05:24 AM

Democrats in my state is presently ramping up some gun control initiatives...

It's almost like they're begging to lose the upcoming congressional elections... they either think they have in the bag... or they just have no forsight whatseover.

You'd think if Bush can do all the shit he did and still win the last national election... that Democrats would refrain from doing things that lost them power in the recent past.

2745. wonkers2 - 4/27/2006 9:22:37 AM

Big City Gun Summit Here.

2746. iiibbb - 4/27/2006 10:54:46 AM

''Gun violence is a national problem that needs a national response," Menino said. ''If the White House isn't going to do it and Congress isn't going to do it, the mayors have to do it."

Delusional... and their bias shows...

Lawrence G. Keane, a senior vice president at the National Shooting Sports Foundation, a Connecticut-based trade association, said his organization runs a program that helps gun dealers identify and stop illegal ''straw purchasers," people who buy guns legally with the intention of selling them illegally. Keane said his group asked to attend the gun summit and was turned away, which he found especially disturbing because the mayors invited gun control advocate Joshua Horwitz of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence.

-----------------------------------------
'Thirty-thousand individuals are killed every year through gun violence," Menino said at a press conference after the four-hour closed session. ''Think about where we are in this country on the issue of the war and how people are outraged by that. Why aren't Americans outraged by 30,000 Americans killed by guns each year in America?"

It is always a little annoying when they pad their statistics by including suicides in that number which make up half or more of those deaths.
------------------------------------------------

Bloomberg also criticized new legislation being considered that would further restrict the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives from keeping extensive records and sharing information with local police departments. He said 1 percent of gun dealers supply 60 percent of guns used in crimes.

If they really know this to be true... why aren't they going after the dealers?

The ATF abuses it's powers and harasses people. That's why congress clamped down on them. If they'd stuck to fighting crime instead of harassing people, then this wouldn't be an issue.

----------------------------
Ninety-four percent of police chiefs support background checks for all handgun purchases; 83 percent want all new handguns equipped with trigger locks; and 82 percent want tamper-resistant serial numbers added to firearms, the study said.

These things in large part are already done.
------------------------------------------
Trenton Mayor Douglas H. Palmer recalled telling a mother her 7-year-old daughter had been shot in the face by stray gunfire in a gang dispute.

''I had to call that mother that night, and believe me, it wasn't pleasant," Palmer said. ''Maybe some of the people in Congress who feel so far removed from this issue and listen to other lobbying groups need to come with us mayors as we make calls to those families."

Is the problem guns or gangs?

2747. wonkers2 - 4/28/2006 7:20:59 AM

Out of 1662 murders in New York City, 2003-2005--

Guns were used in 2/3 of the killings

93% were by men

Women used knives more than guns

Women were twice as likely to murder a spouse or lover

Oldest killer was 88; youngest 9

Killer and victim were of same race in 3/4 of cases

Killer and victim knew each other more than half the time

Five people killed a boss

One-quarter of killings involved strangers

90% of killers had prior criminal records

A lot of the cases involved plain stupidity

One-third of murders are unsolved

More on NYC Murders.

2748. iiibbb - 4/28/2006 7:31:37 AM

But guns are illegal in New York... How are the most common proposed controls going to stop crime in New York City? You need criminal control... not gun control.

Key points in my mind:

1) 90% of killers had prior criminal records

2) A lot of the cases involved plain stupidity (Seems like this is a non sequitur... unless you mean that a lot of cases the killers had prior criminal records... and it is plain stupid not to punsish these people with a little more impact?)

3) Women used knives more than guns. (Ok... so we should ban women from owning knives?)

4a) Killer and victim knew each other more than half the time b) One-quarter of killings involved strangers... so does this mena that the killer knew the victim 3/4 of the time?



All and all an interesting list. How do you propose we address it? If 90% of the killings involve the criminal element... how are you going to get them to obtain licenses and registrations in a city that already has such strict controls?

2749. wonkers2 - 4/28/2006 7:51:26 AM

Isn't part of NYC's problem that guns are coming in from states that have weak or poorly enforced gun laws? It seems to me it's very hard for a city that is in a country or state awash in handguns to enforce its gun control laws.

2750. iiibbb - 4/28/2006 8:06:50 AM

According to the 1997 Survey of State Prison Inmates, among those possessing a gun, the source of the gun was from -

* a flea market or gun show for fewer than 2%
* a retail store or pawnshop for about 12%
* family, friends, a street buy, or an illegal source for 80%


--so is it the State's weak gun laws, or weak prossecution of the illegal sources?

You keep posting that most criminally used guns can be traced to specific dealers. If this is so... why hasn't anyone stung these dealers... or the patrons of these dealers?

Instead the ATF is dicking around at Richmond gun shows (2%) going to people's homes, and giving neighbors sensitive information about your personal life.

That's effective.


The problem remains that this country doesn't take gun crime seriously enough... or violent crime. Dump the worthless war on drugs and clamp down on preditors.

In your stats the killer knew the victim in more than half the cases. I've covered my bases there by controlling who I associate with. There remains the 25% that involve strangers. For that, I have access to my own firepower.

I submit to training and permitting... for what it gets me. I don't know how me following a law that says I can't take my own gun onto school grounds, or into a resturant, protects the general public from a criminal who'll do it anyway... and in fact may be more likely to do it there because they know there's less of a chance someone will be armed.

2751. iiibbb - 4/28/2006 8:10:29 AM

My prediction is that the mayors will propose laws that target me... not criminal activity.

Their bias is already in evidence in that they would not allow a shooting sports organization (one that has worked to control straw purchases, obviously the BIGGEST PROBLEM) to attend their meeting, but did invite Handgun Control.

The mayors are disingenous shits.

2752. iiibbb - 4/28/2006 11:13:32 AM

Meanwhile in Kansas

Opinion: Concealed carry, the problem with guns (bold are my responses)

It can be said that bullets from guns don't take names, don't avoid the innocent or mourn the dead. This occurs clearly because guns, unlike people, have no conscience. The decision of when a weapon is used is left entirely to the gun's owner, and apparently some Kansas lawmakers trust those owners completely.

This became evident in March when lawmakers overrode Gov. Kathleen Sebelius’ veto of a bill that makes it legal for Kansans to apply for permits to carry concealed weapons.

There is a reasonable level of concern that every Kansan who receives this permit will not be able to handle the responsibility that comes along with being a gun owner. Sure there will be National Riffle Association members and some citizens who view this concern as an exaggeration. There will be those who argue this law is a victory for individual freedom that puts the power back in the hands of the people. But while they are celebrating, lives are being put in jeopardy as guns take center stage in violent activity throughout the state.

Most people who bother to get the permits don't mind training... those who can't handle it, or are violent, are probably not going to bother with permitting

Just last week five Kansas students were stopped by officials after allegedly planning a brutal attempt at opening gun fire on fellow students and teachers at their high school. Their actions would not have been prevented if it were not for watchful eyes; it seems all Kansans will be forced to be more aware after the implementation of this law.

Were those kids planning to applying for CCW as part of their assault on the scool?

The new gun law does prohibit owners from carrying their weapon in places like schools, churches and government buildings. But there is no guarantee that violent individuals will particularly care, bringing the issue back to trust.

So she grasps the fact that criminals don't follow the laws... and if the CCW permit holders obey the laws, then it remains that criminals ignore the rules

Those in favor of carrying concealed weapons would be naive to think guns won't end up in the wrong hands. This campaign of trust they so vigorously promote remains unrealistic in comparison to the repercussions this law will create. Kansas’ problems with crime and safety can't be solved with a new gun law. The safety of citizens in this state can’t be left to backgrounds checks and waiting periods.

The fact that guns wind up in the wrong hands is precisely the reason we carry - very funnly to hear a gun control advocate saying more laws won't solve the problem

There is nothing wrong with depending on the government and police departments to provide citizens with safety -- especially since it is their obligation to ensure domestic tranquility. What does seem problematic is lawmakers’ trusting that all Kansans won't turn into trigger happy gun owners who justify their actions under the umbrella of protection. "

The gov't is not obligated to, nor can it provide safety for all citizens. Here we go again with the demonizing of the law abiding by calling them "trigger-happy"

2753. iiibbb - 4/28/2006 11:17:49 AM

Opinion: Concealed carry, an issue of liberty

The Kansas State Legislature recently passed a bill, overriding the governor’s veto, that will allow Kansas citizens to carry concealed handguns after obtaining a license. The resolution takes effect July 1, and the first licenses will be issued in January 2007.

Issues of gun control and gun rights are at the forefront of many political debates today. Politicians and students alike are arguing the merits of both sides. Friends students should be aware that this bill is a step toward decentralizing government power and allowing citizens freedom to exercise their Constitutional rights of self-defense.

The Second Amendment to the Constitution states that the people have the right to keep and bear arms and that this right is not to be infringed upon by the state. The Tenth Amendment states that powers not delegated to the federal government belong to the States and the people.

The Constitution places priority on personal responsibility over federal bureaucracy. Citizens are given the right to defend themselves. When there is a question of interpretation, we should err on the side of more liberty, not more legislation.

This kind of thinking is difficult today, because the federal government has come to be viewed as a benefactor, rather than a facilitator. It has taken over the traditional roles of family and church and is now in the business of micromanagement. So the debate over concealed carry is really a debate over liberty. Will the state become more powerful, or will the people become more responsible?

But protests still come. People don’t need guns, so regulating them is no big deal. This is how we think today; always looking to the state to give us answers and direction. If we are at a crossroads where we have the option of more laws or more liberty, we generally choose in favor of the former. And why not? The government knows best, doesn’t it?

But guns are dangerous. People are hurt, killed. However, guns don’t have a mind of their own; they are instruments, either for protection or destruction. The real problem is with people, not guns. There are evil people in the world who will wound or kill regardless of whether they have a gun. And guns are not the only danger today. There will be no end to federal power if citizens keep looking to the state to provide protection from every hazard.

A brief reading of the concealed carry bill will alleviate fears of convicted criminals easily acquiring a license to carry a gun. Felons and substance and alcohol abusers are among those excluded. In addition, the attorney general has the right to check the criminal records of any applicants.

The concealed carry bill allows law-abiding citizens an equitable means of self-defense. And the restrictions built into the bill prevent vigilantism. The bill restricts carrying guns into many public places, including schools, courthouses, athletic events, or churches. Also, a license to carry a gun can only be issued after completion of a weapons safety course.

A return to personal accountability and self-government is what we need. The dream of the government providing for our every want and protecting us from every danger will only end in the nightmare of totalitarianism.

Sure, life is easier when the government looks after us, but the concealed carry bill represents a step toward more responsibility and protection for the people, by the people.

Not the most eloquent... and he certainly has it wrong by implying that the gov't is even capable of "look after us" but whatever, it ran with the opinion above.

2754. iiibbb - 4/28/2006 1:01:06 PM

Would our local coyote and dangerous wildlife "expert" care to chime in?

Coyote nips two boys in Seattle suburb
Officials set traps to catch animal believed to be behind string of attacks

2755. uzmakk - 4/28/2006 1:12:50 PM

Topical. If you haven't seen this you might enjoy it. Based on a true story of two lions that killed 130 people in a nine month period in Africa in 1893.

Sorry, I'm not the wildlife expert.

2756. uzmakk - 4/28/2006 1:15:20 PM

Can't get those links to work. The Ghost and the Darkness. Val Kilmer, Michael Douglas.

2757. uzmakk - 4/28/2006 1:25:42 PM

It is 1898 and charming, cretinous Captain of Industry Beaumont has hired Col. John Patterson,eminent engineer/bridge builder to complete a bridge spanning the river by Tsavo, Africa.

Arriving in the continent he has dreamed of forever, Patterson meets his project. There are problems with it: Competing French and German rivals, Ethnic hatred among the crews and, on Patterson's first day there, a worker is attacked by a lion. He goes to "sort it out" by shooting the beast with one shot; gaining the admiration of his crews, lifting spirits, adding motivation to complete the bridge, and unleashing a nightmare

Only weeks after the shooting the camp is suddenly besieged by a pair of giant man-eating lions. Their first "kill" is Mahina (Henry Cele), considered the strongest man in the camp. This serves to unnerve every man on the project, including Indian rabble-rouser Abdullah, who doesn't like Patterson from the start. Nerves jangle and fray as the lions repeatedly and relentlessly attack and attack and attack! They strike under the cover of night AND during the heat of day; They kill not for hunger, not for sport, but simply because they like it. Men are dragged from their beds and mauled to death in the tall grasses; the hospital becomes a blood-bathe; Laborers aren't safe as the beasts leap out and snatch them from their work. Everything is falling apart and Patterson is at his wit's end as Beaumont arrives to make matters worse. And still the lions attack and attack and attack.

Enter Big Game Hunter Charles Remington who is as determined to destroy the lions as the lions seem determined to eat every man in camp.

This is an under-appreciated, well made, well scripted nail biting adventure. It boasts solid artists on both sides of the lens: William Goldman penned the script, Gail Anne Hurd and H. Kitman Ho are two of the producers who know how to spend the budget wisely, the great Vilmos Zigmond is responsible for the mesmerizing African cinematography. Stephen Hopkins directs with great vision and skill and the actors are uniformly solid and believable in their roles. Val Kilmer plays Patterson with an understated, simple and elegant performance; Tom Wilkerson is the charming snake of a boss Beaumont, Brian McCardie gains the viewers sympathy as a youthful, innocent, and doomed Angus Starling, John Jani is the stalwart Project Manager Samuel, Bernard Hill the irritable/irritating Dr. Hawthorne, Om Puri is the creepy, sarcastic Abdullah ("You are white. You can do anything.") and Michael Douglas, also an Executive Producer – he got the money – plays hunter Charles Remington, removing the sweet edges of his Romancing the Stone role to create our renown hunter.

Hopkins not only knows how to build tension, suspense, and terror, but when to let us relax and how to fill that time. The quiet moments are never dull. They let us empathize with these men, their characters get to develop and we bond with them and their nightmare. Zigmond (Close Encounter of the Third Kind) uses deep oranges and blacks for the African locale, except during a daylight lion hunt and cave exploration when he switches to bright sunlight, vibrant greens and sharp browns as if to show us that even a travelogue holds a nightmare. It is near Hitchcockian.

Rolling underneath the film like summer thunder (or the breathy growl and snarling of our killer lions) is Jerry Goldsmith's pounding, tribal driven score, which accents the mood and gives further dimension to the narrative. Listen closely, you can hear him using tonal motifs he developed for Star Trek: The Motion Picture.

As the hysteria builds and the men frenzy, many explanations are offered for the appearance of these animals: Are they the spirits of medicine men come to exact revenge; Or demons sent by the devil to keep Africa unsoiled; Or have they come to claim John Patterson? Is it to helplessly watch as they strip away the layers of security around him until he is exposed and defenseless against their teeth and claws? It is no coincidence that Kilmer is photographed at times slack- faced and full on and LOOKS like a lion himself.

Once this film starts, I can guarantee you that you won't be able to take a snack break, bathroom break, or even think about dozing off. It is that good. And remember this: You can see the preserved bodies of these two giant man-eaters at the Field Museum in Chicago, Illinois because this incredible story is TRUE.

2758. uzmakk - 4/28/2006 1:26:54 PM

Read the last paragraph, at least.

2759. iiibbb - 4/28/2006 1:33:22 PM

The "Tsavo Lions"

2760. uzmakk - 4/28/2006 1:42:29 PM

Did you see it? Did you enjoy it?

2761. webfeet - 4/28/2006 1:44:00 PM

Now you're everywhere today, bobbing around like a goldfish. And to think I didn't even know this was a thread until now.

2762. uzmakk - 4/28/2006 1:47:48 PM

I decided to relax on the Mote today, Webbie. Like a goldfish?

2763. iiibbb - 4/28/2006 1:48:49 PM

uz... I seem to remember seeing part of it. I don't recall why I didn't finish it.

2764. uzmakk - 4/28/2006 1:53:18 PM

Shame on you. You probably watch your movies when you are tired and only 25% concious like I do. Its easy to get bored or fall asleep when you are only 25% concious.

2765. webfeet - 4/28/2006 2:13:32 PM

oh, can't we just stop fighting!

2766. uzmakk - 4/28/2006 2:14:34 PM

Are we fighting, Webbie?

2767. uzmakk - 4/28/2006 2:15:56 PM

I am not fighting.

2768. uzmakk - 4/28/2006 2:20:59 PM

Nilsson tried to pick a fight with me, but I refused.

2769. wonkers2 - 4/28/2006 3:04:58 PM

This police officer's weapon apparently didn't help him defend himself. Here.

2770. iiibbb - 4/28/2006 3:43:44 PM

I never said a weapon guaranteed anything.

But obviously the cop believes enough in the need to have one to carry it off duty.

2771. wonkers2 - 4/28/2006 3:51:57 PM

Detroit police are required to carry their weapons when off duty. This frequently gets them into trouble when they stop off for a few drinks on the way home. They are subject to the same issues as anyone else.

2772. iiibbb - 4/28/2006 4:33:54 PM

Required or not... MANY police officers carry weapons while off duty.

If they have a gun with them they shouldn't be 'stopping for drinks'. If I'm not allowed in a bar with a gun... why should they be... especially if they're going to be drinking? If by duty they are required to have a gun at all times, then they shouldn't be drinking at all.

2773. iiibbb - 4/28/2006 4:37:23 PM

How can I take a big city seriously on gun control if they require their officers to carry a gun while consuming alcohol?

That's screwed up.

2774. wonkers2 - 4/28/2006 9:35:19 PM

I agree. I'll try to find our what the actual rules are. I assume they aren't supposed to drink to excess. Whether or not drinking is prohibited I'm not sure.

2775. wonkers2 - 5/1/2006 8:42:32 AM

Here's a modest proposal supported by law enforcement groups around the country. Modest Proposal

2776. iiibbb - 5/1/2006 10:21:10 AM

Opponents of gun control often pretend to represent the interests of law enforcement, while painting people who favor sensible firearms regulations as naive liberals who wouldn't know a 9 mm from an AK47. They should take note that most of those on the front lines of gun violence support tougher gun control measures, including laws to require background checks on all people purchasing firearms.

A new study -- Police Chiefs' Perceptions of the Regulation of Firearms -- found that law enforcement leaders back gun control proposals that are generally opposed by groups such as the National Rifle Association.

The study, conducted by researchers from Wayne State University, the University of Toledo and Kent State University, found that more than 80% of police chiefs favored mandatory background checks for all handgun, rifle and shotgun purchases; equipping new handguns with trigger locks; and requiring tamper-resistant serial numbers on firearms.

I'm not sure how you can call Police Chiefs as being on the 'front lines'

Everyone has to undergo background checks for purchases through dealers. Private sales do not (because it is basically unenforcible). Every gun I have bought lately has come with a disabling mechanism of some kind (although not required by law in this state). I think tamper resistant (or hidden) serial numbers are already de rigour for most manufacturers.

And I still don't know how this modest proposal is going to control violent criminals or accidents.

2777. iiibbb - 5/1/2006 10:23:44 AM

The gun lobby has consistently opposed such sensible measures and others, including a modest ban on assault weapons, which have the support of most Americans. For the most part, politicians have rolled over.

I like how they slipped this in.

Most americans equate assault weapons to fully auto military weapons. Assault weapons... true assault weapons... are already seriously restricted.

2778. iiibbb - 5/1/2006 10:27:02 AM

Frustrated with a lack of leadership from Congress and the White House, 10 big-city mayors met at a national summit on gun violence in New York last week to exchange ideas, talk with experts and promote cooperation among the law enforcement agencies in their cities. New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who has made gun control a priority, has testified before Congress against a bill that would restrict the federal government in sharing gun trace data with state and local police.

Failing to pass ineffective stupid laws is not an indication of poor leadership... quite the contrary. It is poor leadership when one doesn't even bring to the table a shooting sports organization that has worked to reduce straw purchases... it is poor leadership that tries to legislate by frivolous lawsuits.

2779. iiibbb - 5/1/2006 10:35:19 AM

Unfortunately, state legislatures have been little or no help in controlling gun violence, generally bowing to NRA-led pressure to relax gun laws. In Michigan last week, the state House passed a package of bills that would essentially sanction the fatal shooting of intruders into homes or occupied vehicles.

You know what... it should be sanctioned...

The bills are imprudent, dangerous and unnecessary, as courts have already given broad latitude to people defending themselves in their homes or vehicles. The Prosecuting Attorneys Association of Michigan has opposed a similar bill in the state Senate.

The bill are a reaction to the gun-controls repeated, unnecesary attempts to affect the ability to defend themselves. This article overstates the protection the laws give people... the laws do not condone murder. They merely place the burden of proof on the state, rather than someone having to prove their innocence.

The repeated mischaracterization of these laws highlights how disingenuous are the motives of gun control advocates.

2780. wonkers2 - 5/1/2006 2:33:19 PM

The motives are not disengenuous. They are purely to stop the needles and pervasive gun violence in our cities. Some of the propaganda may be one sided or disengenuous. But of course that's not at all true of the NRA whose motives are disengenuous. NRA pretends to be out to protect hunters and sportsmen, but in reality is out to protect gun manufacturers.

2781. iiibbb - 5/2/2006 8:12:26 AM

I suspect Mr. Maye was in a position of proving his innocence

Cory Maye shot and killed a police officer when that officer burst into his home on December 26, 2001. Cory lived in one side of a duplex. On the other side was a certain Mr. Jamie Smith. In a surprise midnight raid, the officers stormed Smith's side. A local police officer, Ron Jones, went around to break in the other side of the building, into the other unit of the duplex. And on that side lived Cory Jermaine Maye.

Maye was awakened from sleep by the commotion at the door, went into the bedroom and fired at an intruder. This was after the intruder had broken down the back door and entered the living room, and was coming toward the bedroom. The officer was hit by one .380 caliber bullet in the abdomen. He staggered back out of the apartment and died some hours later.

Search warrants had been procured by the police for the side containing Smith, naming him by name. For the side containing Maye the search warrant just said "unknown occupants". Police statements indicate that Maye and was not the target of the raid. Maye claimed he fired in self defense at intruders fearing for himself and his 18 month old daughter. The man he killed, Officer Ron Jones, was the son of the police chief of Prentiss, Mississippi.

Maye was convicted in 2004 by a jury comprised of ten whites and two blacks. He was sentenced to death by lethal injection.

2782. iiibbb - 5/2/2006 8:22:50 AM

Handgun crime up

Where they've been banned.

2783. wonkers2 - 5/4/2006 6:17:09 AM

Indian political leader shot by his brother because "He treated me rudely." Here.

2784. iiibbb - 5/4/2006 6:54:54 AM

From Wonker's beloved Detroit Free Press

The Free Press could make more headway with the gun-owning public if it stopped using the term "gun violence" ("Gun Sense: Lawmakers should listen to pleas for tighter rules," May 1). Guns do not commit violence; people do. What you're really talking about is criminal behavior.

I'm a gun owner who supports gun control legislation but who also believes in common sense. All the paperwork in the world required to register a handgun isn't going to stop a person with criminal intent from using a firearm in a robbery or homicide.

There are a lot of gun owners who would support more gun control legislation if it were realistic, and if your paper and others would stop calling it "gun violence." Say what it really is: criminal behavior.

Jeff Counts
Livonia

Failed gun laws

The Detroit Free Press missed the point in its "Gun Sense" editorial. Lawmakers are listening to the people. The people are getting very tired of the few politicians and the news media pushing gun control laws that have been one failure after another. Trigger locks will not work if people don't use them. We already have background checks for handguns. If we cannot control the violence with AK47s, how is a "modest ban on assault weapons" going to work? The money that is used for failed gun control laws could be used to keep violent criminals who commit gun-related crimes in prison for life.

Craig Clark
Livonia

Life-saving legislation

Thank you for your editorial. It was right on target. The gun lobby has dominated this issue not because it is right or in the majority, but because it uses its clout to threaten weak politicians who cave in to those threats. We need leaders in Lansing and Washington who will listen to the people, not just to those who have deep pockets and throw money their way.

The package of bills that the state House passed and will soon be before the state Senate panders to those who have been brainwashed into believing that any attempt to regulate firearms is an attempt to overturn the Second Amendment, which is blatantly untrue. Attempts to regulate firearms are an attempt to stop gun violence, to stop unintentional shootings, and to create a civil society.

Kathryn J. Ross
Bloomfield Hills

Criminals want more gun laws

It doesn't matter to the criminal if we have one law or 1 million laws; violent criminals are lawbreakers. But if we are speaking about "sensible gun laws," the criminals will give you their full support, as they prefer to rob, steal and rape unarmed victims.

Criminals do not play by the rules, but the ordinary citizen has to. Sensible gun laws are simply making it more and more difficult for ordinary citizens to purchase guns legally for self-defense. Give the good guys a break and focus our energy on enforcing and prosecuting existing law.

Jay S. Jeffrey
St. Clair Shores

Get tougher on lawbreakers

Wrong again! Instead of knocking the National Rifle Association and irritating peaceful, law-abiding gun owners with more dumb laws, how about really getting down on those who break our present laws and then get light or no punishment?

Maybe you should do a study. Perhaps you might find that law enforcement and prosecutors are not doing a very sterling job of capturing, prosecuting, convicting and punishing people who get away with breaking our already formidable gun regulations.

Joe Doremire
Bakersfield, Calif.

2785. iiibbb - 5/4/2006 6:56:59 AM

Message # 2783

I wish some of our political leaders would shoot each other over disputes. Just allow it for a week.

2786. iiibbb - 5/5/2006 11:52:05 AM

Norfolk student charged with having rifle to be freed

One might postulate that the laws are lax... but what would someone do if they happened to have a loaded gun and had to go get their child.

'Common sense' would dictate that there are provisions for storing or making the firearm safe without having to return home or whatever.

The kid will proably still get expelled.

2787. wonkers2 - 5/6/2006 9:58:25 AM

Seems to me a warning would suffice. I'm not a believer in expulsion in the first instance of actions without apparent bad intentions. Because of recent school incidents, the rule is reasonable, IMO. Especially since he also had a clip of ammunition in the trunk along with the rifle. He may have just left the rifle in his car trunk after a visit to the local target range. But target and hunting rifles don't usually have ammunition clips, do they, iiibbb?

2788. iiibbb - 5/9/2006 9:52:08 AM

But target and hunting rifles don't usually have ammunition clips, do they, iiibbb?

Some do, some don't. Many but the most exotic target pistols have magazines.

Rifles vary. Most rifles that are built up strictly for target are bolt action. These may or may not have magazines.

Carbines usually have magazines.

There are also the ar-15 and mak-90 military copies... which lots of people use for target practice. I've done several competitions with such rifles.

2789. iiibbb - 5/9/2006 9:52:48 AM

They don't say what kind of rifle... could be a .22 or anything....

2790. wonkers2 - 5/10/2006 7:34:42 AM

Seems like we should be able, at least, to figure out a way to keep AK-47s out of the hands of mentally ill teens! If we put our minds to it.Here.

2791. iiibbb - 5/10/2006 8:21:13 AM

It's illegal for that kid to have handguns.

2792. iiibbb - 5/10/2006 8:23:02 AM

He fired 70 times... spray and pray "aiming".

I'm sure with my hunting rifle I could go somewhere and shoot twice and kill more people.

He could've bombed the place... run over cops on the sidewalk... whatever. If he's mental and bent on destruction, he will destroy something. That's the issue.

Certainly has nothing to do with how "easy" it is to get a Concealed carry permit in Virginia.

2793. wonkers2 - 5/10/2006 8:37:08 AM

"It's illegal for that kid to have handguns."

But AK-47 are okay!?

2794. iiibbb - 5/10/2006 8:44:15 AM

The point is a looney is a looney.

and that AK-47, was not an AK-47.

One could do just as much damage with a hunting rifle and 70 rounds of ammo. Perhaps even more damage because hunting rifles are more powerful, and generally someone will take more careful aim with them.

A looney will get a gun whether they're supposed to have them or not

If they can't get a gun, they will cause mayhem some other way.

Are you saying it's better when a looney runs over 6 people on the sidewalk than when he shoots 3 people at a police station? Would it be better if he poisoned a salad bar?

2795. iiibbb - 5/10/2006 8:45:51 AM

Someone could take a machette into a kindergarden and do more damage... but it wouldn't be gun violence.

2796. wonkers2 - 5/10/2006 8:55:30 AM

I'm just suggesting that nobody needs AK-45 assault rifles, period. And that tighter controls on all guns would be in the public interest.

2797. iiibbb - 5/10/2006 8:56:25 AM

Crouched between two vehicles, Mr. Kennedy, who reportedly escaped from a mental institution a month ago, shot and wounded one officer before he turned to Detective Armel, who returned fire.

Mental guy escapes from institution... how does he acquire all those guns in only a month?

Doubt it was a gun show

Doubt it was a FFL

Who was he living with for a month?

Last month, Mr. Kennedy escaped from a psychiatric facility in Rockville, Md., where he was being treated, The Washington Post reported.

Soon after his escape, Mr. Kennedy hijacked a truck, holding the driver at gunpoint, but on April 19 he turned himself in, the authorities said. He was held for three days before posting $33,000 bond, and was awaiting a trial date, said Lt. Charise Thompson of the Fairfax County Sheriff's Office.

So he escaped... got a gun immediately and hijacked a van ?!?!

Then he turned himself in...

... and he wasn't back in the institution?



How many chances to stop the guy before the shooting did the authorities have?

Perhaps they were out with the ATF harrassing some non-violent gun owner like myself... asking their neighbors if they knew their non-violent law-abiding gun owner was buying something that day.

2798. iiibbb - 5/10/2006 8:59:41 AM

Message # 2796

Why fixate on the AK-47 (MAK-90)?

It is a lower-power weapon... and even if you did take them off the market, it's not like you've eliminated firearms as an option to loonies.

You're fixated on guns...

I think you should pay more attention to violence... and what we do with violent people (see above post).

2799. wonkers2 - 5/10/2006 2:14:12 PM

Well, this is the gun control thread! I'm not a supporter of violence of any type except to protect oneself, one's family or one's country.

2800. wonkers2 - 5/10/2006 2:15:50 PM

I suppose it's not always easy to tell the non-violent gun owners from the violent ones.

2801. iiibbb - 5/10/2006 4:55:09 PM

You think they didn't have some clues with this particular character?

Gun control is the lazy solution to situations like this one specifically.

2802. wonkers2 - 5/10/2006 6:00:29 PM

I imagine somebody did.

Gun control is only part of the solution. But an important part. It can be effective without impairing the rights or enjoyment of sportsmen.

2803. Macnas - 5/11/2006 1:40:04 AM

Well, I'll say it again wonk, we've pretty stiff gun control here, but people still get shot on a pretty regular basis. That basis being founded in crime/drug gang war, we'd average about one gun death a week.

We have a much lower incidence of accidental gun death, but that has more to with lifestyle/culture than anything else. Guns are kept secure or far away from those who have no business with them, and people don't carry guns as a matter of course.

I think I might have mentioned it before, but handguns are now legal again in Ireland. However, you cannot go to your gunsmith/gundealer and buy one, oh no, that would be far too easy!
You have to apply for a firearms certificate, even if you already have one for a rifle or shotgun, and also have to arrange a firearms import licence. The police have to approve both before you can get it into the country, and part of the justification is the declared reason for ownership. If it's for target shooting you have to be a paid up member of an approved range/club. If it's for humane dispatch of deer, you have to have a deer shooting permit. Just wanting to own a handgun is not a valid justification.

Legislation is on the way in that will give the police the power to "borrow" your handgun for ballistic profiling, any time they may wish to. This may be expanded to create a database of ballistic profiles for all legally owned handguns in the country.

2804. iiibbb - 5/11/2006 7:35:48 AM

Sounds like a waste of money. I suspect the police could do better things with their time and budgets...

... such as track down loonies who might shoot up a station or school.


One need only look to Canada to see what a boondoggle a large inefficient program winds up being.


I think that I can safely say that any time spent keeping track of me is wasted time. If my gun happens to be stolen, I have plenty of 'balsitics' evidence and other information I will happily hand over to the authorites.

2805. Ulgine Barrows - 5/12/2006 9:30:52 PM

O, let's all imagine me in possesion of a gun, yay!

2806. wonkers2 - 5/17/2006 5:44:31 AM

New York is on the right track. Bloomberg Joins Schumer in Seeking Gun Sales Data

2807. iiibbb - 5/17/2006 11:50:49 AM

I've got no problem with tracing gun ownership as long as they get a warrant. This is my preferred approach over a blanket registration system.

I've got no problem with stinging dealers for straw purchases assuming they give the dealer enough clues about there being a straw purchase taking place. Specifically, I saw a dealer who got stung by this operation on the news. A woman came in to buy the gun... filled out the paperwork (including saying "yes" to the question that specifically asks if you are buying the gun for yourself)... but when it came time to pay, she got the money from a guy that was roaming the store with her.

That's a red flag.

Of course... smart criminals will just give the money to their straw purchaser before they _go_ to the store. I don't know how a dealer could be expected to account for that.

2808. iiibbb - 5/17/2006 11:52:50 AM

Of course the article also mentions suing gun manufacturers for what dealers are doing... I don't see how they can. If the dealer is an FFL and the manufacturer sells the gun to that dealer, it's out of the manufacturer's hands as far as I am concerned.

The claim that this is meant to target of manufacturers is offensive to me.

2809. iiibbb - 5/18/2006 12:41:39 PM

More info

From NYC site

“These gun dealers are the worst of the worst,” said Criminal Justice Coordinator Feinblatt. “They represent a small group of immoral and irresponsible dealers who are knowingly breaking the law and causing irreparable harm to innocent New Yorkers. When it comes to this group of bad apples, we will be relentless. It is our duty to make sure that they no longer get a free pass for the terrible human cost they inflict on our City.”

“Too many New York City police officers have paid with their lives to allow flagrant straw purchases to continue unchallenged,” said Police Commissioner
Raymond W. Kelly.

The law firm of Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman will field a team of ten pro-bono litigators to appear on behalf of the City and assist in the litigation.

“This litigation has the potential to improve the safety and security of every New Yorker, by helping staunch the flow of illegal guns into the city,” said Ken Taber, chair of the New York litigation group of Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP.

Somehow I doubt these dealers... after seeing them on TV and visiting a discussion site where some guys know some these people... are the "worst of the worst".

I also sincerely doubt that “This litigation has the potential to improve the safety and security of every New Yorker, by helping staunch the flow of illegal guns into the city,”... That is a promise way beyond what it will deliver.

Local news story on the "Worst of the worst

He doesn't sound "Worst of worst". Not running... not hiding... Just doesn't sound like the reaction of someone who's blatantly trying to get around gun laws. If the worst of the worst are saps like this... then the problem is with enforcement.

Webb's Sporting Goods owner Harold Webster Babcock Jr. was dismayed by news of the lawsuit.

"Does this mean they're coming to arrest me? . . . This has taken me by surprise," he said. Babcock said he had not seen the lawsuit but understands it had to do with the sale of a handgun on April 21.

A man and a woman came in together to look at a gun that day, Babcock said. "He seemed to like the gun, and she said, 'I'll take it.'" At the cash register, the woman did not have enough money to pay for the gun, and the man gave her some, Babcock said. "She said it was for her," Babcock said.

Babcock said he assumed that the man had come with the woman to give her advice on the purchase. The woman filled out the required state and federal forms and answered "Yes" to the question on the federal form that asks "Are you the actual buyer of the firearms listed on this form?," Babcock said.

"We called it in to the Virginia State Police Firearms Transaction Center, and they approved the sale," Babcock said. "That is what the whole thing is about, I guess. I don't know what I'll do next. I'll guess I'll get a lawyer."

In another transaction... when dealer says to the male customer that he needs two ID's and the male replies that he's going to get her to do the paperwork, the dealer says okay and kinda chuckles.

That appears that the dealer is facilitating a straw purchase... and that's the type of dealer that they should sting.

However... once again... criminals will simply become less obvious. The strawman will go alone, with ample cash. I really doubt that this will have any lasting effect on NY crime... I would seriously wonder if the effect would even be detectable in the short term.

2810. Adam Selene - 5/18/2006 6:56:25 PM

I haven't said much in this thread (anything yet?) but it's time to stir the pot.

Why do gun's rights advocate use the "sport hunting" strawman? The constitution gave us gun rights so we could defend ourselves against an overbearing government if we ever needed to. They wanted to insure that we could overthrow the government if the experiment failed...just like they over threw King George.

So - why the hypocracy? I want my grenades and my SAMs, and I want them now.

2811. iiibbb - 5/18/2006 9:22:43 PM

I am in somewhat tacit agreement. Between gov't spying... RFIDs in passports... Attempts to fix elections... etc etc...

Certainly there is precident for private ownership of fairly substantial armaments. In the 18th and 19th centuries, private parties owned top of the line military equipment.

I think there's a lot of good reasons to not give this particular right away. But I don't fear _this_ gov't... I fear the future gov't that could abuse the information.

We've talked about this topic early on in this thread. I don't spend a lot of time on it because it's not so much a pressing concern. Crime, self defense, hunting, civil liberties, and lawsuits, are the topics that are on the forefront of gun control issues.

2812. Adam Selene - 5/18/2006 9:58:42 PM

iiibbb - nice to find a sympathetic ear. Most people are horrified at the thought of citizens having weapons for the express purpose of keeping authorities in line. But - there was nothing in the constitution about a right to hunt or a right to shoot targets. Bearing arms was all about using them in combat.

So how did this ever get so perverted? When did we lose the right of mutual defense and gain the right to shoot squirrels?

2813. wonkers2 - 5/19/2006 7:55:07 AM

Whatever its original intent and meaning (it's debatable), the defense against the government of the second aspect is totally irrelevant and meaningless today.

2814. wonkers2 - 5/19/2006 7:56:40 AM

Except perhaps to Antonin Scalia and Wayne LaPierre (and of course to our own iiibbb!)

2815. iiibbb - 5/19/2006 10:05:37 AM

I tend to agree wonkers... except I would say it is somewhat irrelevant, rather than totally.

I would almost say totally except for the bullshit with Bush, gov't spying, etc.

Our privacy problems are probably less at risk from gov't than from big business. The problem seems to be that gov't currently seems to favor them.... however that can still be corrected by elections and whatnot.

2816. wonkers2 - 5/19/2006 3:19:35 PM

Do you agree that Wayne LaPierre is getting a little too big for his britches in his latest caper of demanding that mayors sign an NRA pledge that they won't conficiscate weapons in event of emergencies like Katrina. The mayor of Milwaukee told Wayne to "bag his ass."

2817. wonkers2 - 5/19/2006 3:21:15 PM

The only people who are talking about using guns to protect themselves from the government are pretty far out--tax refusniks and the like.

2818. wonkers2 - 5/19/2006 3:21:50 PM

And, of course, our Adam.

2819. Adam Selene - 5/19/2006 5:53:50 PM

You rang?

2820. Adam Selene - 5/19/2006 5:55:31 PM

Anyway - if you're right, and 99% think we should not use guns in self-defense of our liberties - then why hasn't the 2nd amendment been repealed? Surely the founding fathers didn't think shooting squirrels was a basic human right?

2821. Wombat - 5/19/2006 7:25:36 PM

There is a qualitative difference between top of the line firearms in the 18th century and today. Also, whatever heavy weapons that existed back then were kept in arsenals for use by "duly constituted militias." It's not like people back then owned their own 6 pound cannons.

2822. Adam Selene - 5/19/2006 7:33:50 PM

I ask again - if the 2nd amendment was only meant for hunting... or only if the weapons were not "too good"... then why hasn't it been repealed?

I'm suggesting that our sensibilities about personnal responsiblity for our lives and our society have been so dulled that we refuse to be accountable for the ability to determine our own destiny. We do not want the responsiblity of having the power to directly defend ourselves...we want to pass the buck on that one and we therefore don't want anyone else to have that ability either.

So... if I'm right, why haven't we repealed the 2nd amendment yet? Discuss amongst yourselves.

2823. Wombat - 5/19/2006 7:41:14 PM

Both sides in the argument are terrified of addressing the constitutionality of the 2nd Amendment. Gun control supporters (and the minority among them who favor a total ban) do not wish to challenge it, for fear that the Supreme Court will uphold it. The NRA and their ilk worry that the Supremes could narrow the scope of the amendment (past rulings have not upheld the right of individuals to own artillery and sawed-off shotguns under the 2nd Amendment).

I personally think that the 2nd Amendment is an anachronism.

2824. Adam Selene - 5/19/2006 7:57:28 PM

"Anachronism." Interesting... very intersting.

You may very well be right. At least, in our public consiousness, we allow ourselves to think that we can "kiss it and make it better" with a simple vote or, worst case, a march.

I wish it were so... but I really don't know. Maybe. Or maybe the march is only effective if the threat of violence is held in reserve? Tiananmen Square didn't achieve much. Maybe they needed grenades in their pockets?

2825. Ulgine Barrows - 5/19/2006 8:52:48 PM

That dumb law was written when guns were the worst weapon.

I say! let's all give me a missle & nuke to make up for the lag in the law.

You can each have a missle & nuke, too.

There.

2826. Adam Selene - 5/19/2006 9:10:15 PM

yep, sarcasm rules. ;)

so...we should only allow people to have weapons that can kill 1 person? what about 2? 20? 100? What principal is it that 100 deaths are worse than 1?

Stating appealing conclusions as if everyone agreed is all nice and well... but I don't buy it. You actually have to make your argument here. Explain why governments should be able to stop people from owning weapons aside from any past criminal behavior. By what argument would you repeal the 2nd amendment?

2827. Ulgine Barrows - 5/19/2006 9:20:34 PM

What principal is it that 100 deaths are worse than 1?

Um, I really don't know how to answer this, you devil's advocate.

Common sense, I know it in my being.

And I never said I'd repeal the 2nd amendment. DOn't go putting words in my mouth.

I wrote, that dumb law was written when a gun was the worst weapon they could think of.

2828. Adam Selene - 5/19/2006 9:23:05 PM

Fair enough. So... would you restrict the 2nd amendment to muskets? It's a basic human right to be able to kill one person every 5 minutes, but no more?

2829. Ulgine Barrows - 5/19/2006 9:30:42 PM

Well, Mr. Stir the Pot, there will always be strawmen who need money and will buy arms in another's name.

So are we talking about that, or something else?

2830. Ulgine Barrows - 5/19/2006 11:34:09 PM

That was just me asking, the FBI didn't visit, AFAIK.

Sure shut you gun nuts up though, didn't it.

Jackasses.

2831. iiibbb - 5/20/2006 7:14:58 PM

Message # 2816

I agree that the NRA can be a pain in the ass... and I agree that demanding the mayors to sign some silly agreement is pure theater.

Do you agree that indiscriminate disarming of people after a disaster may put them in harm's way? It was precisely this kind of disaster that got me to purchase a gun in the first place. When the gov't isn't in control 911 is an ineffective means of protecting yourself. When the power is out ADT isn't going to send the calvary.

2832. iiibbb - 5/20/2006 7:16:35 PM

Message # 2819

The only current people advocating such things...

... who knows who will be after Bush's 5th term.

2833. iiibbb - 5/20/2006 7:22:42 PM

As to the remainder of the discussion...

... people shouldn't be killing anyone. Firearms for me are purly utilitarian and/or defensive in nature.

Taking the discussion to nukes and missles is not helpful or germane. Guns represent a very personal level of protection. You're way more likely to get me to agree that people shouldn't own bazookas than you'll ever get me to agree that law-abiding people shouldn't have access to the same level of protection as a police officer.

2834. iiibbb - 5/20/2006 7:23:13 PM

Particularly if I go through the bother to train myself... which I do.

2835. Wombat - 5/23/2006 6:58:49 AM

Adam:

You have to take the long view. Tianamen Square made China a more open society than it was before (and stained the government permanently). Passive resistance and civil disobedience (backed by a real threat of violence) took decades to work in India (and in the United States' civil rights struggles).

One doesn't need firearms (or an extremely arguable interpretation of the 2nd Amendment) to use violence against against oppressors. Ask the Palestinians during the first Intifada.

2836. wonkers2 - 5/23/2006 8:30:31 AM

BLOOMBERG'S GUN BATTLE

The gun lobby is so intimidating these days that few elected officials are standing up strongly for gun control. So it is encouraging to see mayor Michael Bloomberg make getting illegal guns off the streets a focus of his second term. He has filed a smart lawsuit aimed at rogue dealers whose guns are used in crimes in New York. He should keep up the fight, and other elected officials, particularly mayors, should join his efforts.

The lawsuit, filed this month, accuses 15 out-of-state dealers of allowing "straw purchases'--when one person who has the required background check buys guns that are obviously intended to end up in the hands of someone else. City investigators found the defendants through a two-month undercover investigation of gun stores in states like Virginia and Georgia that are part of the "iron pipeline" of illegal guns that end up in New York. Focusing on rogue dealers is the right way to go. One percent of the nations's dealers supply as much as 60 percent of the guns used in crimes.

The lawsuit navigates a legal landscape that has been badly skewed by the gun lobby. Congress made a bad decision last year to shield gun dealers and manufacturers from lawsuits. But illegal gun sales were not covered, so the city went after dealers it said broke the law. Under gun lobby pressure, Congress has also blocked access to a federal data-base that traces guns used in crimes back to particular dealers. The city got around that problem by using data collected before the ban.

Last month, Mayor Bloomberg organized a meeting of 15 mayors who agreed to work harder to fight illegal gun trafficking. With the recent electoral focus on more rural swing states, urban concerns like gun control have gotten short shrift. Mayors, who are held responsible for crime control, should keep up the pressure.

Unfortunately, Mayor Blomberg has failed to use one of the most potent methods of persuasion at his disposal. As Diane Cardwell recently noted in The Times, he has made sizable campaign contributions to pro-gun congressional candidates. Cutting off such politicians would help drive home the message of the lawsuit, that there needs to be a better balance between the rights of gun owners and the right of everyone not to be shot by an illegal gun.

NYT 5-23-06

2837. iiibbb - 5/23/2006 8:41:13 AM

I believe the overthrow-the-government aspect of the 2nd amendment to be relatively minor.

However, I'll only say that it's better to have the option open than close it. As the saying goes... it's better to have a gun and not need it, than need a gun and not have it.

Or as Harold Wright put it... "One doesn't need a gun very often in this country," he explained. "But when he does, he usually needs it badly."

There are plenty of other legitimate uses for guns that are more germane in this day and age anyhow. IMHO banning is not an option. Most people want to treat guns like cars. Registration has little to offer with regards to crime control; it is pablum. Licensing could be useful, but as a gun owner, for me to agree to that a license must give me something I can't do otherwise. It's got to be more than just a pain in the ass hoop to jump through. If it's going to treat a gun like a car I should be able to carry the gun across state lines etc.

2838. alistairconnor - 5/23/2006 9:05:11 AM

However, I'll only say that it's better to have the option open than close it.

Well, yeah. Because if you needed to overthrow the government but you couldn't because it was forbidden by the Constitution, that would be a shame.

2839. iiibbb - 5/23/2006 9:21:43 AM

x-post

8-yr-old sneaks on bus and kills girl... arrested for homicide

8-yr-old covers eyes of bus driver causes wreck

I am waiting on politicians to declare that 8 will no longer be an allowable age... we will go from 7 directly to 9 from now on. The 7-9 birthday will occur 6 months after what would be their 8th birthday.

This should solve all problems caused by 8-yr-olds.

2840. iiibbb - 5/23/2006 9:24:19 AM

Message # 2838

Funny misplaced sarcasm.

The constitution preserves that power held by the people. If it didn't then getting that gun in order to overthrow the gov't that might be abusing the rest of the constition could be a little difficult... wouldn't you think?

2841. iiibbb - 5/23/2006 9:30:08 AM

I now genuinely wonder what our country would've been like if they didn't have to answer to the citizenry over the first 100 years of our history.

Like it our not... the 2nd amendment probably played a huge role in both our sovereignty, as well despotism in our formative years.

I can just imagine the prairies where the calvary rode from sodhouse to sodhouse checking gun registrations.

2842. Wombat - 5/23/2006 10:57:12 AM

One could argue that when the internal "threat" of Indian attack ended (late 19th Century), so did the rationale for the 2nd Amendment.

2843. iiibbb - 5/23/2006 11:04:39 AM

One could arue that... but it requires an impressivly narrow-minded view regarding the utility of firearms.

2844. jexster - 5/23/2006 1:50:16 PM

The right to arm Bears!




1910 Maxim in Action
North Caucasus
Great Patriotic War




Soyuz nerushimy respublik svobodnykh
Splotila naveki velikaya Rus'!
Da zdravstvuyet sozdanny voley narodov
Yediny, moguchy Sovetsky Soyuz!
CHORUS:
Slavsya, Otechestvo nashe svobodnoye,
Druzhby narodov nadyozhny oplot,
Partiya Lenina — sila narodnaya
Nas k torzhestvu kommunizma vedyot!
2.

Skvoz' grozy siyalo nam solntse svobody,
I Lenin veliky nam put' ozaril,
Na pravoye delo on podnyal narody,
Na trud i na podvigi nas vdokhnovil!
CHORUS
3.

V pobede bessmertnykh idey kommunizma
My vidim gryadushcheye nashey strany,
I krasnomu znameni slavnoy otchizny
My budem vsegda bezzavetno verny!
CHORUS



by the choir and orchestra of Bolshoi Theatre, conductor Yuri Simonov

2845. jexster - 5/23/2006 1:56:05 PM

Errata

Partiya Lenina — sila narodnaya
Nas k torzhestvu kommunizma vedyot!<

2846. jexster - 5/23/2006 1:56:39 PM

BRAVO!!!!!

2847. wonkers2 - 5/25/2006 5:58:31 PM

N.Y. club bouncer goes on shooting rampage and is charged with murder with illegal weapon. More gun mayhem.

2848. Marc-Albert - 5/25/2006 7:51:36 PM

My 12-year old brother sporting his latest Christmas present: a 20/20 Remington shotgun. Hard to believe that, in those days, you could walk across town with your artillery on your shoulder without anyone giving it a second glance.

2849. concerned - 5/25/2006 8:50:43 PM

Back when po' kids lived with both their parents and weren't alienated from success by political interests.

2850. concerned - 5/25/2006 8:54:10 PM

Re. 2827 -

There was a considerable stretch of history when the US government couldn't fully fund a modern military. Don't see how what worked was 'dumb'.

2851. Adam Selene - 5/26/2006 7:16:36 AM

When I was that age, I didn't know anyone without a shotgun. Mine was a 12-guage pump with a 7-round magazine. Great for killing leaves while the birds laughed at me. I was a great target shooter, just had trouble with moving things.

2852. wonkers2 - 5/26/2006 9:17:23 AM

Maybe this'll get 'em interested in gun control! Gunfire in Capitol garage.

2853. Adam Selene - 5/26/2006 9:31:36 AM

Guns are already outlawed in DC. Not sure what else they could do.

2854. Ulgine Barrows - 5/26/2006 11:03:14 PM

2833. iiibbb - 5/21/2006 2:22:42 AM
...Taking the discussion to nukes and missles is not helpful or germane. Guns represent a very personal level of protection.


Au contraire. It is entirely germane to this discussion. Guns are all about protecting oneself, no?
That law those founding fathers wrote? Is outdated.


What do guns do in the face of nukes and missiles and airplanes crashing? Not a damn thing. We're at the mercy of some other person.

2855. Ulgine Barrows - 5/26/2006 11:05:20 PM

2836. wonkers2, thanks for that.

You stepped up to the strawman debate.

2856. iiibbb - 5/27/2006 5:35:08 AM

Message # 2854

You are nearsighted.

No one can control war or those who make war... American citizens back then couldn't individually protect themselves from calvary or infintry. Guns are used for personal protection every day. They aren't a panacea, and I've never portayed them that way. They are just the best one-on-one defensive tool there is.

If they are useless... why do beat cops carry them?

2857. iiibbb - 5/27/2006 5:39:13 AM

Message # 2854

Gee... I wish I had my own personal security force if there were gunshots near my home.

2858. Adam Selene - 5/27/2006 9:53:58 AM

Strawman.. nope. At least we're talking about using guns for self-defense and not for sport hunting, which is what politicians think guns are for.

2859. Ulgine Barrows - 5/27/2006 11:04:49 PM

2856. iiibbb - 5/27/2006 12:35:08 PM

Message # 2854

You are nearsighted


No. You are nearsighted.
No one can control war or those who make war...
nukes and missles

2860. iiibbb - 6/1/2006 10:21:42 AM

Schools Teach Combat Skills to Civilians
Lack of Regulation Of Private Training Troubles Some

The irony is that anti-gun people often criticize civilians for not having enough training.

During a recent "Combat Focus Shooting" class, instructor Brad Schuppan sent each student into the shoothouse's fake downtown with a special training handgun -- whose wax-tipped plastic bullets are designed to leave a mark but not injure -- and a set of terse instructions. "Private citizen. Concealed carry. Out and about," he told them, meaning: Don't do anything you wouldn't do in real life.

Not everybody listened. A few steps inside the door, student Mark Youngren drew his gun on the first person he saw, who turned out to be an instructor playing an unarmed bystander.

"Why have you got your gun out?" Schuppan yelled.

Youngren was sheepish under his helmet. "Just habit, I guess," he said, and he reholstered.

Some gun instructors have questioned whether such classes make civilian students such as Youngren too aggressive with their guns in real life. But the schools say they train students to avoid confrontations if possible. They argue that a well-trained civilian should be less dangerous than an untrained one with the same gun.

Seems like the recognize that it's a spectrum

But many schools also provide civilians with training that would seem to have few, if any, applications in everyday life.

Thunder Ranch, for instance, offers a class in which two-person teams learn to move and shoot in confined spaces and provide covering fire for each other. One recent class included eight officers from the Los Angeles Police Department and a husband-and-wife pair of junior high school teachers from California, Smith said.

Why doesn't this apply to real life? If someone is in your home with you and your wife... wouldn't you want them to understand tactics too?

At least seven of the 16 schools teach civilians the use of military-style assault weapons. Some schools say they teach only target shooting using these guns, but at Front Sight Firearms Training Institute outside Las Vegas, there are classes in both the M-16 rifle and the Uzi submachine gun that include tactical simulations and lessons in how to use the guns in "full auto" mode.

I would suspect it's as much for the fun of using something you don't normally have access to. I shot a full-auto MP5 before. Pretty fun.


The point is that I could make a serious explosion with the knowledge I gained from high school chemistry. Determined people will find their ways.

2861. jexster - 6/1/2006 4:46:52 PM

MarcAlbert..he ain't no 12 yo..he's a hottie!

2862. jexster - 6/1/2006 4:49:09 PM

A wedding present I3...this oughta put some lead in your pencil



You'll have to excuse me. Am watching BoB re-runs - armor ID

That's a Jagdpanther - 88mm. PAK. bout 90 inches frontal armor

2863. Adam Selene - 6/1/2006 5:29:26 PM

My ninjutsu class has sessions on defense against guns (pistol and rifle) which are extremely effective in teaching an almost paranoid respect for guns in other peoples hands. I'm very proud that I "passed" the gun/knife test. Here's how it went down:

Everyone went outside and they turned off the lights in the dojo. The only light was the red glow from the back exit sign

We each walked in and went to the exit... and at some point we were accosted by 3 of the senior staff playing the parts of gang members.

They were very good... I was surprised at the language and cold agression they used!!!

At some point, one would pull either a pistol (water) or a knife (rubber) from their back wasteband. Our goal was to disarm them.

Given that the techniques for fighting a knife vs. a gun are polar opposites... this was a challenging test. You close in to a gun because it's a distance weapon and you have some hope of getting inside the attack and disarming them... you back off from a knife so you can avoid being cut while stepping in behind the swing to get control.)

I have to brag... in my test the instructor pulled a water pistol... and I stayed dry! :)

However, throughout the training everyone gets wet (and marked from the knife) so you learn an extremely healthy respect.

Another thing we were taught - ask them what they intend to do. Nearly every time they will tell you the truth. If they say, "I want your money" then you will go free. But if they say, "I'm gonna kill/rape you..." then you need to get serious about proactively defending yourself.

2864. Ulgine Barrows - 6/2/2006 1:10:09 AM

2860 iiibbb
The point is that I could make a serious explosion with the knowledge I gained from high school chemistry. Determined people will find their ways

That was rather my point, as well. Let's us all fall on our swords.

2865. Ulgine Barrows - 6/2/2006 1:43:22 AM

one of my favorite songs is by the Clash, and there is really cool cover by Nouvelle Vague that you might look up

When they kick at your front door
How you gonna come?
With your hands on your head
Or on the trigger of your gun

When the law break in
How you gonna go?
Shot down on the pavement
Or waiting on death row

You can crush us
You can bruise us
But you'll have to answer to
Oh, the guns of Brixton

2866. iiibbb - 6/2/2006 7:49:57 AM

Message # 2864

I am sorry... but I miss your point UB.

I will clarify mine. I was speaking to that article.

If gun control gets to the point where they try to suppress knowledge about them too... then you know it's gone of the deep end.

Anything that can be taught formally, can be taught informally. Will we shut down Adam's dojo because he knows a strike that can kill a man? Knowing how to kill a man means that you also know how not to kill a man.

If I'm going to have a gun... I should learn things that make me proficient with a gun. Every instruction I've recieved regarding my gun does say that they are not a sure thing. Carrying a gun is as much about conflict avoidance, as combat.

The knowledge is already out there. Someone who is intent on creating mayhem will do so anyway. It doesn't even require much knowledge. From high school and college chemistry I'm already in a position to create a great deal of havoc...

2867. iiibbb - 6/2/2006 7:52:30 AM

If you're argument is an extension of Message # 2854.

A gun does plenty in the face of nukes and planes. Nukes and planes do not hold territory. It's always infantry.

In the face of nukes and planes (assuming a country turns them on their citizens or whatever you're implying). I can protect myself and my family who might choose to take advantage of a lack of law.

Nukes and planes are the warmaking tools of a country.

A gun is a tool of an individual.


Yeah.... I still miss your point.

2868. iiibbb - 6/2/2006 11:38:11 AM

Nothing to do with nukes and missles

2869. jexster - 6/2/2006 12:11:24 PM

Or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Second Amendment (Sundog)

2870. Ulgine Barrows - 6/7/2006 12:25:39 AM

2867...A gun does plenty in the face of nukes and planes. Nukes and planes do not hold territory. It's always infantry.


Yeah, and after the nukes kill everyone with a brain, we have this kind of infantry:

2863. Adam Selene - 6/2/2006 12:29:26 AM
I have to brag... in my test the instructor pulled a water pistol... and I stayed dry! :)

2871. iiibbb - 6/7/2006 6:42:46 AM

Well Ulgine... I'm a lot less worried about nukes and planes than I am about being robbed again.

2872. iiibbb - 6/7/2006 9:18:32 PM

So called "common sense"

2873. robertjayb - 6/12/2006 9:49:04 PM

San Francisco gun ban shot down...(NYTimes)

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) -- A California judge on Monday overturned a voter-approved city law that banned handgun possession and firearm sales, siding with gun owners who said the city did not have the authority to prohibit the weapons.

Judge James Warren sided with the National Rifle Association, which argued that a local government cannot ban weapons because the California Legislature allows their sale and possession.

2874. iiibbb - 6/13/2006 9:38:38 AM

I'm pretty amazed. But it's not the first time a SF handgun ban was overturned.

2875. iiibbb - 6/13/2006 9:44:08 AM

The Kalashnikov

funny ironic sentence at the end...

The octogenarian inventor recently lent his name to another Russian institution: vodka. Let's hope Kalashnikov Vodka doesn't also find its way into the hands of the underage and the irresponsible.

2876. iiibbb - 6/13/2006 9:51:06 AM

Start of hurricane season triggers gun debate

“When you’re in one of those tragic situations, when there’s no 911, it’s up to you to defend your life and the life of your family.”

Gun-control advocates say the post-Katrina problems were blown out of proportion and dismissed the push for legislation.

Joshua Horowitz, director of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, said there is a lack of evidence showing post-Katrina residents of New Orleans were under grave danger without their firearms.


If the danger was overblown... why did the gov't feel the need to confiscate legally owned and responsibly carried firearms? If the threat is minimimal to the public... isn't it also minimal to the police?

2877. wonkers2 - 6/21/2006 5:46:22 AM

Detroit Police Seek Help After 6 Shootings Here.

2878. iiibbb - 6/21/2006 12:49:29 PM

and now... the rest of the story

3 killed; officials tell parents to monitor teens

June 21, 2006

BY CECIL ANGEL

FREE PRESS STAFF WRITER

A 17-year-old girl remained in critical condition Tuesday and her 16-year-old alleged attacker in custody as police continued to sort out a particularly bloody Monday when at least six people were shot -- three fatally.

"I know we've had a lot of shootings, but I'm hoping it's getting better," Detroit Police Sgt. Eren Stephens said Tuesday.

Stephens stressed that if violence is to decrease in the city, it's going to take efforts from more than the police.

"It's going to take everybody to get to our youth," she said. "It starts at home."

On Monday night, Margaret Jones, 17, and Dannisha Russell, 7, were shot as they walked to a gas station to buy potato chips. The 16-year-old boy who allegedly shot them was being held Tuesday in the Wayne County juvenile detention facility pending charges.

The two victims were shot less than four hours after an 18-year-old man was fatally shot in the 1300 block of Charleston on the city's east side. Police said the man got into a fight with another man and was shot as he attempted to run away.

Earlier Monday, at 6:05 a.m., three men were shot -- two fatally -- as they gambled in a known drug house in the 16000 block of San Juan on the northwest side. Detroit police narcotics officers had raided the house in January.


At least they're somewhat blaming the people responsible.

2879. iiibbb - 6/21/2006 12:50:59 PM

On Monday night, Margaret Jones, 17, and Dannisha Russell, 7, were shot as they walked to a gas station to buy potato chips. The 16-year-old boy who allegedly shot them was being held Tuesday in the Wayne County juvenile detention facility pending charges.

People are just being paranoid... this kind of stuff never happens.

2880. wonkers2 - 6/21/2006 6:21:27 PM

It happens all the time. That's why we have to get rid of the handguns.

2881. iiibbb - 6/21/2006 7:09:30 PM

But I am paranoid because I think it might happen to me?

2882. wonkers2 - 6/21/2006 7:40:17 PM

Well, I guess the other option would be to make handgun training mandatory starting in the 2nd grade and make everybody carry one. Then the playing field would be level. We could just shoot it out like in the Wild Wild West.

2883. iiibbb - 6/21/2006 7:52:29 PM

People have bringing up the wild west scenario since concealed carry laws came into effect a little over a decade ago.

And there hasn't been wholesale shooting in the streets because of it.

Your fixation that the wild west will rise again just goes to show your paranoia.

2884. wonkers2 - 6/23/2006 8:38:31 PM

In case you haven't noticed, the Wild, Wild West has already risen long ago in our cities around the country.

2885. Ulgine Barrows - 6/23/2006 11:36:35 PM

iiibbb vs wonkers2

i could imagine a more secure life

2886. iiibbb - 6/24/2006 10:02:41 AM

Message # 2884

That violence is being conducted by criminals who ignore the laws anyway... not by people like me.

If I say I want to have a gun because I see violence and want to have the option to prepare for it... I am told that is unreasonable (even though guns are frequently used by people to protect themselves).

If you say you want to ban guns because you see violence and want to ban them... you are what? Even though criminals continue to bypass laws that are supposively going to curb gun violence.

2887. wonkers2 - 6/24/2006 6:20:08 PM

Obviously, the laws need to be strengthened and enforced more effectively.

2888. iiibbb - 6/24/2006 8:05:00 PM

I would say start with plain enforcement... there are plenty of laws already.

How many people are arrested for attempting to buy while failing the background check?

2889. iiibbb - 6/26/2006 7:41:06 AM

Theft still a problem in New Orleans.

No doubt the police are stretched thin.

No doubt others are suffering theft.

I'd want a gun pretty handy if I lived down there.


I guess no one should go there if they know they're going to be robbed. Don't go where you don't belong... right?

2890. Ulgine Barrows - 7/7/2006 10:14:02 PM

And for god's sake don't wear a short skirt, you're asking for it@!

2891. Ulgine Barrows - 7/7/2006 10:15:18 PM

That is some sick-headed, wrong thinking, iiibbb.

2892. iiibbb - 7/9/2006 8:46:53 AM

That was wonker's rationale... not mine.

The wrong thinking is that I should modify my behavior to suit that of a predator.

2893. iiibbb - 7/9/2006 8:51:00 AM

I am well-minded enough to know what constitutes a credible threat.

Some of you have me mistaken for a gun nut... complete with booby-trapped welcome-mat.

I am fairly non-violent... I've never been in an adult fight... I don't drink... I don't hate anyone in particular... I am generally regarded as a pretty decent guy... but I am not a pacifist.

2894. ronski - 7/13/2006 1:14:33 PM

Gun-Friendly Florida's Crime Rate Dropping

2895. Ulgine Barrows - 7/13/2006 11:48:08 PM

2893. iiibbb
You've a penchant for dots, dots, and more dots.

2896. Ulgine Barrows - 7/13/2006 11:55:34 PM

iiibbb
Do you go practice at a shooting range?

2897. iiibbb - 7/14/2006 7:36:01 AM

I love dots.

I go to my hunt club's range every couple of months. I go to competitions about twice a year (would go more often, but they are a bit of a drive). Hunting season is roughly mid-November to January. I sometimes go to the range quite frequently before deer season.

My wife has expressed some interest in learning to shoot, so I took her to the range for July-4th. She shot the .357 revolver I sort-of bought for her; it is a big heavy thing so there is very little recoil. Her second group was about 2" at 7 yrds which is pretty good for a first-timer I thought.

She had fun.

One ironic story is that before we went out she got a call from her parents. When they asked what she was doing today she told them "going shooting" because she knew it would rattle their chains a little (both of them are pretty anti-gun). The first thing out of both of their mouths was essentially "who are you going to shoot". The idea that a gun could be used for recreation and non-violently was that foreign to them.

Most people that are neutral or gun owners ask "what [gun] are you going to shoot", or where.

2898. iiibbb - 7/17/2006 11:48:21 AM