3005. iiibbb - 10/6/2006 9:15:10 AM
You are nuts UB...
3006. concerned - 10/6/2006 1:09:34 PM
I wonder how much she intentionally emulates the Thurber character....
3007. Ulgine Barrows - 10/7/2006 11:49:39 PM
I wonder how concerned she really is....
3008. Ulgine Barrows - 10/8/2006 1:49:53 AM
Actually, concerned, I laugh every time I read that Thurber story. I'm always on Mr. Martin's side. I'm judgemental, like him.
"A gavel rapped in Mr. Martin’s mind and the case proper was resumed. Mrs. Ulgine Barrows stood charged with willful, blatant, and persistent attempts to destroy the efficiency and system of F & S."
3009. Ronski - 10/11/2006 10:36:28 AM
Boy Kills Intruder who Threatened Him and Mom
3010. Ulgine Barrows - 10/12/2006 3:20:26 AM
Ronski, lots of loose ends in that story. I'd say they all knew each other.
And I can't imagine being 14 and killing a person. Aaarghh
3011. Ulgine Barrows - 10/12/2006 3:33:35 AM
Cuz from the info I have, he lived there....... and they decided to murder him, or not.....sure, that car will turn up.....
Police did search the area for the dead man's car and also checked for other suspects. They've found nothing at this time.
And I can't imagine being 14 and killing a person. Aaarghh
3012. alistairconnor - 10/12/2006 4:03:05 AM
I just read that story, The Catbird Seat. I didn't know you were a Thurber character, but I should have guessed from the name...
3013. Ulgine Barrows - 10/12/2006 4:08:35 AM
Why, alistairconnor?
Why did you think you would guess, with american as your second wanna-be culture?
Like I know half of what I want to, when you make French or other-continent jokes.
Anyway.
3014. Ulgine Barrows - 10/12/2006 4:13:50 AM
Well, I feel as I've betrayed you somehow, alistairconnor, due to my lack of french.
Which is impossible, I don't know french very well....but I'd like to!
3015. Ulgine Barrows - 10/12/2006 4:19:22 AM
It's clear that Mr. Martin should never own a gun.
3016. alistairconnor - 10/12/2006 8:50:30 AM
Betrayed me? Not yet honey.
You can't help thinking, if he'd found a gun lying around at Ulgine's place, he would have rubbed her out.
3017. iiibbb - 10/12/2006 1:30:31 PM
Message # 3009
Just think... with a "smart" gun those two people would likely be dead instead of the criminal.
Now everyone can move... because any peaceloving person would never live in such an unsafe area.
3018. thoughtful - 10/12/2006 1:35:12 PM
interesting bit coming from of all places larry the cable guy...people blame violence on guns...he said, do you blame the pen for misspellings?
3019. robertjayb - 10/12/2006 6:42:49 PM
Dad charged in Missouri school shooting...
JOPLIN, Mo. Oct 12, 2006 (AP)— The father of a 13-year-old who fired a shot inside his school in a bloodless shooting was arrested Thursday and charged with being a felon in possession of a gun, authorities said.
Gregory Lynn White, 44, appeared before a federal magistrate in Springfield after being arrested without incident outside his Joplin home, federal agents said.
He has two felony convictions on his record: one for burglary in Florida and one for possession of a controlled substance in California, said Marino Vidoli, assistant special agent from the Kansas City office of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.
He said federal law prohibits felons convicted of crimes punishable by more than one year in prison from possessing firearms.
3020. Ulgine Barrows - 10/18/2006 9:42:01 PM
When there's that much poison in your blood, the only thing left to do is shoot yourself.
SAW
3021. jexster - 10/30/2006 1:15:05 PM
Insist on Your Right to Bear Arms
World's Best Main Battle Tank
Finally the Military Channel has recognized Le Roi - Le Char LeClerc - the French Main Battle Tank
It has all the bells whistles, armor and armament of the Abrams, Leopard II and Challenger BUT thanks to its high tech innovations it requires fewer crew which makes it at 56 tons, the lightest and the fastest MBT around
0-30Km - 6 seconds
I wish I had a YouTube of that puppy flying and shooting...
Vive La France!
3022. jexster - 10/31/2006 12:46:57 PM
When Did You Become a Man I3?
3023. iiibbb - 10/31/2006 3:24:07 PM
When I was done with your sister, fool.
3024. robertjayb - 10/31/2006 3:36:49 PM
Ouch!
3025. jexster - 11/1/2006 2:34:24 PM
Don't have a sister I3....but you could screw her if I did
3026. iiibbb - 11/29/2006 7:19:05 PM
3027. wonkers2 - 11/29/2006 9:37:29 PM
Gingrich is a menace to civilization.
3028. jexster - 11/30/2006 5:18:24 AM
i3b3's Crimmus Wish List
3029. wonkers2 - 11/30/2006 9:45:43 AM
The NYPD should limit the number of rounds each officer is allowed to carry to one or two. Sergeant York would have killed 50 Germans with that many rounds. Instead he killed a few and captured 100. Kelly should make his entire department watch Gary Cooper in action! And make sure they complete their target practice. Getting off on getting off 50 rounds at one or two suspects strikes me as a little excessive. What do you think iiibbb?
3030. iiibbb - 11/30/2006 9:51:14 AM
Jexter, I don't know if you made up that list all by yourself,
Asside from the fact that I doubt you can find a single redneck nature in my posts... the fact that your list includes a reference that I might share beliefs with the KKK is insulting.
My possition on guns, free speech, and freedom of religion etc. are soundly grounded in libertarianism, and not redneck bullshit as evidenced by my belief in abortion rights, decriminalizing drugs, and a myriad of other issues. I'll certainly do without you putting words in my mouth.
I generally give you a lot of leeway, and was tempted to delete this post... but it's always better to leave it up and let someone just be the ass that they are.
I'm sure anyone about to defend Jexter in the spirit of he was "just being funny"... I'll expect lengthy posts defending Mr. Richards and Mr. Gibson.
3031. iiibbb - 11/30/2006 9:52:44 AM
Forgot to mention being pro-gay marriage...
3032. iiibbb - 11/30/2006 10:01:29 AM
Message # 3029
I think the shootings in NY just illustrate that
1) Some officers seem to get drunk on authority.
2) When bullets start flying it isn't a reasonable expectation that someone only fire one or two bullets... they will likely empty their gun. Why the officer didn't reasses about putting a new magazine in sure makes me wonder though. I don't know how he could still perceive a threat.
Officers really don't get that much training for this kind of thing. They qualify on firearms perhaps once or twice a year, and for some that's all they do. I for instance, do some sort of firearms training or competition 2 to 3 times as often.
3) Some officers seem to get drunk on authority.
3033. iiibbb - 11/30/2006 10:03:35 AM
I don't think they should limit the rounds carried. It's obviously what they do with those rounds. This implies better screening of officers, and better training.
3034. robertjayb - 12/11/2006 2:29:09 PM
No comment...
AUSTIN — A state lawmaker wants to make sure no Texan is left out when it comes to hunting, even if the hunter is legally blind.
Rep. Edmund Kuempel, a Seguin Republican, has filed a bill for the 2007 legislative session that would allow legally blind hunters to use a laser sight, or lighted pointing instrument. The devices are forbidden for sighted hunters.
Blind hunters would also have to have a sighted hunter along with them, but they could hunt any game that sighted people can hunt in the same seasons and using the same weapons.
"This opens up the fun of hunting to additional people, and I think that's great," Kuempel said.
3035. Ulgine Barrows - 12/14/2006 2:57:45 AM
3033. iiibbb - 11/30/2006 5:03:35 PM
I don't think they should limit the rounds carried.
Me neither, you whackaloon. I could meet you in an online game and use unlimited rounds. You twisted sicko.
3036. Ulgine Barrows - 12/14/2006 3:38:41 AM
I met a girl who sang the blues
And I asked her for some happy news
But she just smiled and turned away
~Don McLean
3037. iiibbb - 12/14/2006 9:10:24 AM
Welcome back Ulgine. Thanks for contributing.
When I say they shouldn't limit rounds were're talking about the context of the NY shooting. One of the officers had 30 rounds... two magazines for their gun. One in the gun, and one reload. Some might carry a back up gun as well.
The reason why I don't think such an ammount should be limited is there are ample cases where the bad-guys are seriously armed. The LAPD shootout from 1997 is a perfect example (note this was while the AWB was in effect... in California no less). The bad guys had illegally obtained automatic weapons, and were all dressed in body armor.
Now the idea that civilians should be unarmed when facing bad-guys is the reason you think I'm "twisted"... now you're telling us that I'm "twisted" because I don't think police should be hamstrung.
Is it really so twisted and so sick to think that perhaps training is what is required?
And remember... you're the one who threatened suicide... that is a symptom of several personality disorders.
What have I done to anyone? Absolutely nothing.
3038. iiibbb - 12/14/2006 9:17:32 AM
Suicide is it a legitimate threat... or just manipulation by someone with a disorder?
3039. wonkers2 - 12/14/2006 5:41:54 PM
The fruit of inadequate handgun control isn't sweet! Road Rage Shooting
3040. Magoseph - 12/14/2006 6:21:34 PM
That link "manipulation by someone with a disorder" is very interesting, ib, thanks.
3041. jexster - 12/16/2006 3:10:23 PM
Steyr Sturmgewehr 77 AUG
I could kill me some turruhrisses with that bad boy
3042. jexster - 12/16/2006 3:12:40 PM
Kill me a couple of Escalades too Wonker
3043. iiibbb - 12/16/2006 11:51:55 PM
You could do it with this too Jex.
And probably from farther, and for less money to boot.
3044. Ulgine Barrows - 12/17/2006 1:43:47 AM
3037. iiibbb - 12/14/2006 4:10:24 PM
Welcome back Ulgine. Thanks for contributing.
Oh, did I hit a nerve? A cheat nerve at getting unlimited rounds and unlimited lives at these fantastic violent games? Is the corner of your eye twitching, you cheat? Maybe you don't have the latest code?
And when you meet people with guns in the street, and they don't honor the cheat codes, what will you do?
Thanks again for bringing up my suicide threats to my husband so he'd ditch the guns. The only thing that has happened on that point, is he 'lost' the combo and key, and no one can get to them. Heh.
3045. Ulgine Barrows - 12/17/2006 1:54:03 AM
Oh, excuse me.
I have BPD.
I read that article you posted.
BPD may experience intense bouts of anger, depression, and anxiety that may last only hours, or at most a day
I expressly told my 11-yr-old son not to install any software on my work laptop without asking me first. He installed some game. I had an intense bout of anger.
Oh no!
I have BPD.
Son also cannot touch my work laptop until I say, and he's to have no access to home desktop for a week. He cried himself to sleep. Boo hoo.
3046. Ulgine Barrows - 12/17/2006 2:34:02 AM
I cannot express enough disgust at the 'cheat codes' concept that I have learned from my husband and brother-in-law. This cheat code concept often depends upon getting certain weapons and magicial health-restoration formulas.
I really think it has harmed my son and niece in their perspective of the world.
They trot around in these games, and pick up health and weapons.
Unreal.
3047. Ulgine Barrows - 12/17/2006 2:44:20 AM
And here I am, assuming y'all know what I'm talking about.
Cheat codes has to do with any kind of PC, XBox, Nintendo game.
Some go-getter (like me) will beat the game, and then tell everyone else, how to do likewise.
Kinda sucks all the fun out of it.
Whaddaino, people make livings from it.
3048. Ulgine Barrows - 12/17/2006 2:53:20 AM
Can society sink any lower?
3049. Ulgine Barrows - 12/17/2006 3:31:17 AM
That pre-teens talk of cheat codes?
3050. Ulgine Barrows - 12/17/2006 3:32:43 AM
It makes my eyes hurt.
Lucky me, I never looked at a gun permit.
3051. iiibbb - 12/17/2006 10:46:49 AM
No, you're not hitting a nerve by calling me a "twisted" "sick" wackaloon.
If you can make assumptions about me, then I can certainly make assumptions about you being BPD. I'm only doing what you're doing.
Does that touch a nerve?
As far as video games go. I'm with you. I think they have their affects, and depending on how well-balanced the player is they can encourage violence outside the game. Even then, I don't think it's a primary cause.
In any case, good luck with your kid.
3052. iiibbb - 12/17/2006 10:47:17 AM
affects=effects
3053. wonkers2 - 12/18/2006 12:39:56 AM
The cheat codes prepare them for going into business in case they get to be a CEO.
3054. wonkers2 - 12/18/2006 7:58:06 AM
Here's why we don't need assault weapons
3055. iiibbb - 12/18/2006 9:38:57 AM
If he used a lever-action, outcome is changed how?
3056. wonkers2 - 12/18/2006 11:56:09 AM
If crooks have automatic weapons, cops have to have better ones. It's an escalating arms race with results like the one in NYC where cops pumped 50 rounds into three innocent men, killing one. It's a matter of drawing a sensible line.
3057. iiibbb - 12/18/2006 12:19:15 PM
Automatic weapons? I doubt guy in your news item had an automatic weapon. He probably had a semiautomatic version.
If the guy in your news item went into that club with a lever action he would have been able to shoot as many people in as short of time... and not change the outcome at all. Probably would have taken aimed shots as well, as opposed to inaccurate spraying.
You're NY example is a bit difficult to apply because those guys cops shot were unarmed. The overzealous cops were using pistols, not automatic rifles. Besides most guns are illegal in NY city anyway.
The cops already have access to bigger and badder weapons than most citizens, and they have the authority to carry and use them. Citizens have to navigate a minefield of regulations.
Of course, criminals don't follow any laws.
3058. iiibbb - 12/18/2006 12:33:29 PM
I might want an "assault weapon" if so many people broke into my home.
3059. wonkers2 - 12/18/2006 5:51:12 PM
Whatever version of an AK-47 he had, he shouldn't have been able to have it. There is no valid justification for allowing people to own such weapons. Legitimate hunting weapons, yes. AK-47s no I don't care what technical justification you may provide. Those kinds of weapons have no necessary or legitimate purpose. Ditto for handguns.
3060. iiibbb - 12/18/2006 6:12:34 PM
Handguns do have a purpose... they are self defense weapons. That's why cops have them.
I could post a long line of news items again and 90% of those self defense shootings will involve a handgun. I don't know how you can then conclude they have no use. Not everyone can handle a rifle or shotgun.
If you want the cops to outgun everyone as you say, then you'd want everyone to have handguns.
I also don't understand why the cosmetic things matter to you so much. I can shoot someone with a .44 mag lever gun and they're just as dead as if someone did it with an AK-47 or a semi-auto hunting rifle.
3061. wonkers2 - 12/18/2006 7:32:29 PM
You're the gun expert, but my impression is that the incidents where a handgun saves someone from being robbed or killed are a tiny fraction of the ones where a handgun is used to rob someone or kill a citizen or a member of law enforcement or is used in a suicide or results in an accidental shooting. I'm not at all convinced that the self-defense argument holds water overall. It may be valid in certain uncommon or extreme circumstances, but not for most of us. The mayhem resulting from handguns and assault type weapons is much greater than the largely imaginary or rare self-protection benefit. The cost benefit ratio doesn't favor widespread possession and carrying of handguns or other weapons. (I'm not talking about hunting or target shooting which are separable from what you are advocating.)
3062. wonkers2 - 12/18/2006 7:35:05 PM
Someone selling or buying or owning an Ak-47 or similar weapons designed for the military is highly offensive to me. Nothing you can say pointing out that some legitimate hunting weapons are just as lethal will convince me otherwise. The people who buy Ak-47s and the like are not hunters. And hunters are not, by and large, the people who feel they have to carry handguns for self protection. Of course there's some overlap but not a whole lot.
3063. iiibbb - 12/18/2006 7:55:57 PM
Your impression is incorrect. Even if we use the smallest estimate of defensive gun uses it outnumbers contact crimes.
People using guns for defense may not be pulling the trigger as much as the good guys, but I hope you think that's a good thing.
Accidental shooting numbers we've gone over, and it's not a large number relative to other unregulated risks in society.
Suicides don't count because most suicides are going to figure out a way to go through with it.
You're just making up your own facts. I've cited a number of things in here before that at the very minimum show a vast number of defensive gun uses.
-------------
re ak-37.
Some people find gay marriage offensive. What do you say to them?
Some people find black people offensive. What do you say to them?
You're overall assessment of gun owner demographics is pretty lacking.
3064. iiibbb - 12/18/2006 7:56:51 PM
They're simply not going to ever hurt you. No matter what you say.
3065. jexster - 12/18/2006 8:51:59 PM
Yea 12 ga. great Escalade killers!
3066. wonkers2 - 12/18/2006 9:12:57 PM
You're the one who's worried about being hurt. I hope you don't shoot your foot or balls off!
3067. iiibbb - 12/18/2006 10:17:43 PM
I will endeavor not to... or anyone elses.
So far so good. Just like most people.
except this moron cop in a school.
3068. iiibbb - 12/18/2006 10:19:14 PM
But they're the ones you think should have guns... and you probably feel ok about cops having them in schools...
But it really comes down to training and proper attitudes.
3069. wonkers2 - 12/21/2006 6:49:56 AM
Seven shootings. Zero reports of effective self-protection with handguns. Gunfire rages in Detroit
3070. wonkers2 - 12/21/2006 6:52:17 AM
And another gun crime last night in upscale suburb, Rochester Hills Party Store Robbed in Rochester Hills
3071. iiibbb - 12/21/2006 9:32:48 AM
I wouldn't expect reports of self protection... editors don't think it's "newsworthy" for some reason. Maybe a bias? 4% news items on major networks are pro gun, 32% neutral, and 64% are anti gun
Here's some...
AZ
MI 5-lines.
MI here's another from MI... you're missing them because they're so short Wonk...
TX
AK
LA ... oh wait... she didn't have a gun.
KY
WI
FL
I only did 10 because I get bored.
3072. iiibbb - 12/21/2006 11:27:00 AM
Doing stories on defensive gun uses is like them doing news stories on people that don't cheat on their taxes.
3073. iiibbb - 12/23/2006 10:41:12 AM
Here you go UB. They actually had "professional video game players" on TV this morning on the USA network. I had never heard of such a thing. They can actually make 6-figure incomes.
Bet they don't use cheat codes.
3074. wonkers2 - 12/24/2006 7:06:16 PM
Did iiibbb go south for Christmas? Gunmen open fire in crowded Florida mall, one killede.
3075. iiibbb - 12/25/2006 8:51:35 AM
Gee... another "teasing" did ib kill a bunch of people joke again.
Such a sweet xmas greeting.
3076. wonkers2 - 12/25/2006 11:40:03 AM
Just kidding! Merry Christmas!
3077. robertjayb - 12/28/2006 12:40:52 PM
Armed citizens...(HouChron)
Two men were fatally wounded and two others taken into custody early Wednesday after homeowners in east Harris County opened fire on them during an attempted robbery, the sheriff's office said.
Robert Deleon Jones and Jonathan Garcia were fatally wounded in the 3900 block of Crosby Barbers Hill about 2 a.m. Garcia died at San Jacinto Methodist Hospital, and the other man died at Memorial Hermann Hospital.
Investigators said they were told that Jones, Garcia and two other men had been attempting to rob the residents.
The unidentified homeowners apparently were within their rights protecting their property and will not be charged in the shootings at this time, sheriff's Sgt. N. Araguz said, but the surviving men — Charles Duran and Rodney Jones — face charges of aggravated robbery.
3078. arkymalarky - 12/28/2006 1:49:44 PM
Bob's brother's neighbor shot and killed someone breaking into Bob's brother's house years ago. He was halfway in the window and fell dead on top of his gun.
3079. jexster - 1/1/2007 9:47:01 PM
A marketing opportunity here I3???
...my Crimmus/New Year/Wedding Gift...
Surge On Oh Ship of State
Investigation
Guns and Gas: Baghdad Price Update
IraqSlogger Tracks the Necessities in Baghdad
In eastern Baghdad's majority Shia district of Shaab, those seeking to purchase arms and ammunition often turn to the police. Muqtada al Sadr's Mahdi Army militia dominates the police and the streets in Shaab and has been engaging in sectarian attacks there for over two years, targeting Sunnis. In Early December, bullets for Kalashnikovs were selling at a cost of 750 Iraqi Dinars each, or over fifty cents, whereas a month before, prior to a devastating attack in Sadr City bullets were 250 Dinars each.
In early December, according to an IraqSlogger security source in the Iraqi government, the average prices for bullets in southern Baghdad and Sadr City Kalashnikov bullets were approximately 500 Dinars each, or less than fifty cents. Kalashnikovs cost between $200 and $400, depending on the country of origin. The weapon in highest demand by militias was the PKC, a Russian machine gun often mounted on the back of pick up trucks. The average PKC price was about $2200 and they were in such high demand that they were difficult to obtain. Rocket propelled grenade (RPG) launchers cost 70,000 Dinars, or about $50, and their ammunition cost 50,000 Dinars each, or about $36. RPGs were also difficult to obtain. In addition, Shias could only purchase RPGs from Shia militias and Sunnis could only purchase them from Sunni militias.
3080. wonkers2 - 1/5/2007 8:57:42 AM
3081. jexster - 1/8/2007 12:57:31 PM
WARNING!
Cheney is going hunting again today
3082. jexster - 1/25/2007 4:00:24 PM
Saw a bit on the Military Channel about Kalashnikov. I didn't know that the AK-47 is available as a hunting rifle and .410 shotgun both semi-automatic
What a genius!
Kalashnikov 12. ga combat shotgun
Saiga 7.62-01 Self-Loading Hunting Carbine
AK Versions
3083. Ulgine Barrows - 1/26/2007 5:26:42 AM
gun control - I am dumbstruck, again, with the stupidity of it all.
3084. Ulgine Barrows - 1/26/2007 5:35:37 AM
3073. iiibbb - 12/23/2006 5:41:12 PM
I sent that link to my kid, thanks.
3085. jexster - 2/4/2007 11:08:34 AM
Heckler & Koch MP7
A Personal Defense Weapon
Oh baby!
3086. jexster - 2/4/2007 12:01:22 PM
HK MP7A1 submachine gun / personal defense weapon with extended 40-round magazine and a number of extras, including night sight, flashlight and silencer
3087. iiibbb - 2/4/2007 8:52:10 PM
Stock... less than 16 inch barrel. Sorry, not available to civilians without a class III license.
3088. jexster - 2/4/2007 10:27:36 PM
But it is a PERSONAL DEFENSE WEAPON..
What has this country come to I3?
Our Founding Fuckers must be really pissed
3089. iiibbb - 2/5/2007 10:06:17 PM
Well it sure makes my right to a simple handgun to not be such a big deal; that's for sure.
3090. Ulgine Barrows - 2/7/2007 1:54:50 AM
It was the perfect kingdom
Until
Wrong hands got the wrong gun
3091. jexster - 2/10/2007 1:03:16 PM
Iraq has long been short of everything except weapons. Every Iraqi family possessed arms even under Saddam Hussein. In the early 1990s he introduced a buy-back programme by which he would pay for heavy weapons handed in. One tribe in south-east Iraq turned up with three tanks which they offered to sell to the government if the price was right. Deeming the official offer too low, they returned the tanks to their tribal arsenal.
3092. jexster - 2/15/2007 6:04:09 AM
Your little brown EyeRaki wards can get em but YOU can't America!
So as Bush loses his wars over there and they come over here, whaddaya gonna do Wonk, shoot em with your spit wads made from the Second Amendment?
Steyr .50HS heavy sniper rifle, with folded bipod
Caliber: .50BMG (12.7x99mm) or .460Steyr
Operation: manually operated rotating bolt action
Barrel: 833 mm (33")
Weight: 12.4 kg
Length: 1370 mm (54")
Feed Mechanism: single shot, no magazine
3093. Ulgine Barrows - 2/15/2007 6:08:28 AM
"Feed Mechanism: single shot, no magazine "
This makes me laugh.
Where do you use this machine effectively?
Or is it recreational?
3094. Ulgine Barrows - 2/15/2007 6:11:20 AM
Who dat?
Who dat?
Who dat?
Who dat tryin' to be bad?
~ Tom Tom Club
3095. iiibbb - 2/15/2007 5:51:42 PM
I'm sure a 30 lb, single-shot weapon would certainly be prefered by gangs.
3096. jexster - 2/15/2007 7:21:33 PM
Not gangs! They need spray power...no this is a sniper rifle and better, a counter-sniper rifle...it'll kill ya by lookin at ya..
Take out them terrorists one shot at a time
3097. jexster - 2/15/2007 9:36:51 PM
BAGHDAD, Feb. 14 -- At least once a week inside his stationery shop, Ali al-Yousef stacks up old notebooks in the back room and fires his pistol at them.
"Target practice," Yousef said. "We don't like guns, but we have to have them. I think every house should have a gun."
Kinda reminds me of the scene in the Sopranos where Johnny Sac's underboss puts a phone book over Lorraine's chest and fires...
"Just made it to the R's..."
3098. iiibbb - 2/16/2007 9:40:44 AM
How could a concealed handgun help?
I think the operative term at the end is that every adult should consider a gun. If they come away from that deliberation deciding it doesn't work with their lifestyle... fine.
But there is no denying that a person (cop) with a concealed firearm a) wasn't a sitting duck, and b) saved a lot of people.
What is funny is that the people who say that it is rediculous for a portion of the public to be armed, also think that putting signs up at a mall would do anything.
Signs prohibiting concealed guns also are posted at entrances to the Hutchinson Mall. Mall manager Dan Flores said the decision was made by the corporate owner and there was no discussion among the merchants. But Flores supports the decision.
"Just look at what happened at the Trolley Center," he said, referring to a shooting this week at a Utah mall, where a teen killed five people.
Yes... just look to the shooting this week... I'm sure a sign at the mall entrance would have totally detered that wacko.
When's the last time you heard of a concealed permit holder killing someone in a mall?
3099. wonkers2 - 2/16/2007 9:52:37 AM
Okay, but where are these nutcases getting the guns and ammo? They are getting them because the gun control laws are inadequate and unenforced.
3100. iiibbb - 2/16/2007 9:55:16 AM
Two opinions
One
Two
The second thinks that "Worst of all, Charlton Heston is on the verge of knocking on my back door with the butt of a rifle. The gun enthusiasts will bathe themselves in hypothetical soap, saying that if only a concealed weapons permit holder had been there, everything would be just fine. Every man, woman, child and dog should have a gun stashed in his or her pants, purse, backpack or water dish. If everyone has a gun, no one will ever get hurt."
Notice how he deftly takes it from one extreme to the other. Advocates such as me do not think that everyone should have a gun.
I only beleive that I should have the opportunity to defend myself if I choose to. I hardly think that arming everyone is necessary at all.
As far as soapboxes go... it was an off duty officer with a concealed weapon that did put an end to this thing... so I don't know why you can call it a hypothetical soapbox.
The point of the matter, is that if you were in a mall, and a whacko came in guns blazing... would you care that someone was in the store with you who had a gun?
3101. iiibbb - 2/22/2007 11:22:29 AM
Using gun-control for a model... do we ban Muslems from driving cabs, or just driving based on these seemingly rare events... among others? They are happening at our schools!
3102. arkymalarky - 2/24/2007 10:06:20 AM
You all know I support regulated gun rights and we own guns, but this is insane. They're all about the Second Amendment, but screw the First. Disgusting.
3103. iiibbb - 2/24/2007 10:46:49 AM
Yeah...
I agree.
It is ironic that gun rights advocates often proclaim that the 2nd ammendment is the reason we still 1st.
Pretty sad, but there are people standing up for him.
3104. iiibbb - 2/24/2007 10:57:40 AM
I will say it was pretty out of line of Zumbo to say what he said. Terrorist rifles? That was a pretty extreme statement. It's akin to calling all hunting rifles high-power sniper rifles and calling Zumbo a Malvo-freak.
3105. arkymalarky - 2/24/2007 10:58:15 AM
They need to be more vocal, but he needs to keep his spine now that he has nothing else to lose. He already "blew it" with that bunch. Why not stand on principle? The use of "terrorist" may have been a poor choice, but so what? Take that one back and otherwise stick to his guns (sorry, couldn't resist). I wonder if there's a bit of fear associated with his recantations? The ones he's most likely to have pissed off are the most rabid, I would imagine. I know assault-rifle hunters who wouldn't like his remarks, but they wouldn't be emailing about it or boycotting or otherwise going ballistic.
The NRA really looks bad in all this (not that they don't already). Don't bother showing some leadership and rationality as the nation's gun lobby--just help stir the fringe up and use them to scare the majority into line. It's a public character assassination led by the NRA with the clear message of "Don't you be next."
3106. iiibbb - 2/24/2007 11:03:39 AM
However, this isn't the first time that a group has destroyed one of it's own.
Often when a group feels betrayed, the wrath is far worse than even directed at the percieved enemies.
History is full of examples.
3107. iiibbb - 2/24/2007 11:05:58 AM
As far as the NRA leading the charge on Zumbo, I doubt it. I think they're trying to make hay in the aftermath.
The response from gun-ownerers seems far more viseral.
3108. iiibbb - 2/24/2007 11:07:19 AM
The NRA is too sophisticated to whip their membership into this kind of froth.
3109. iiibbb - 2/24/2007 11:22:04 AM
Not related, but an example of when the NRA's tenaciousness is a good thing.
3110. iiibbb - 2/24/2007 12:40:25 PM
Responses
"The last few days have been an educational experience, to say the least. My ill-conceived inflammatory blog, as all of you now know, set off a firestorm that, I’m told, has never before been equaled. I’m not proud of that.
Let me say this at the outset. My words here are from the heart, and all mine. No one can censor me, and I answer to no one but myself. And I have no one to blame but myself. Outdoor Life, a magazine that I worked for full-time as Hunting Editor for almost 30 years, fired me yesterday. My TV show was cancelled yesterday. Many of my sponsors have issued statements on their website to sever all relationships. This may cause many of you to do backflips and dance in the streets, but, of course, I’m not laughing, nor am I looking for sympathy. I don’t want a pity party.
They say hindsight is golden. Looking back, I can’t believe I said the words “ban” and “terrorist” in the context that I did. I don’t know what I was thinking when I wrote that. I can explain this as sheer ignorance and an irresponsible use of words. What I’ve learned over the last few days has enlightened and amazed me. As a guy who hunts 200 days a year, does seminars on hunting, wrote for six hunting magazines, had a hunting TV show, and wrote 20 books on hunting, how could I have been so ignorant and out of touch with reality in the world of hunting and shooting?
But I was. I really can’t explain it, maybe because I just summarily dismissed the firearms in question in my mind when I saw them in magazines and catalogs. I saw one “black” firearm in a hunting camp in all my 50 years of hunting, and I shot one last year off a boat when fishing in Alaska. To tell the truth, it was fun and I enjoyed it immensely, but I never considered one for use in hunting. I have to tell you that I have had a revelation. I’m learning that many of my pals own AR-15’s and similar firearms and indeed use them for hunting. I was totally unaware that they were being used for legitimate hunting purposes. That is the absolute truth.
My biggest regret is not the financial impact of all this. I’m almost 67 and retirement is an option. The dreadful impact here is that I inadvertently struck a spear into the hearts of the people I love most…America’s gun owners. And, even though this huge cadre of dedicated people have succeeded in stripping me of my career, I hold no grudges. I will continue to stand as firm on pro hunting as I’ve ever done. But what’s different now is that I’ll do all I can to educate others who are, or were, as ignorant as I was about “black” rifles and the controversy that surrounds them. My promise to you is that I’ll learn all I can about these firearms, and by the time this week is out, I’ll order one. The NUGE has invited me to hunt with him using AR-15’s, and I’m eager to go, and learn. I’ll do all I can to spread the word.
I understand that many of you will not accept this apology, believing that the damage has been done and there’s no way to repair it. You have that right. But let me say this. I mentioned this above, and I’ll repeat it. I’m willing to seize this opportunity to educate hunters and shooters who shared my ignorance. If you’re willing to allow me to do that, we can indeed, in my mind, form a stronger bond within our ranks. Maybe in a roundabout way we can bring something good out of this.
Jim Zumbo "
3111. arkymalarky - 2/24/2007 1:50:19 PM
As far as the NRA leading the charge on Zumbo, I doubt it. I think they're trying to make hay in the aftermath.
Well yeah, that's my point.
3112. arkymalarky - 2/24/2007 1:51:15 PM
And I was going by the NRA's own official comments on the issue, not their membership's or gun-nuts.
3113. arkymalarky - 2/24/2007 1:52:32 PM
"led by the NRA" I see I said, but I meant they're the official voice out front with it now and after the fact.
3114. arkymalarky - 2/24/2007 1:53:51 PM
Often when a group feels betrayed, the wrath is far worse than even directed at the percieved enemies.
History is full of examples.
I have some of my own (not personal, political betrayals). But civilized people try not to act like emotional idiots about it. At least not in public.
3115. arkymalarky - 2/24/2007 1:59:56 PM
The NUGE has invited me to hunt with him using AR-15’s, and I’m eager to go, and learn. I’ll do all I can to spread the word.
He'd better hold where and when they're planning to go under his hat.
And on another subject, I'm getting damned sick and tired of one wayward remark or blog entry ending a career. These ridiculously inflamed reactions are beginning to look like a national mental illness, and the media just feeds the flames. Other nations don't act like that. At least not to the extent Americans do.
3116. iiibbb - 2/24/2007 4:58:27 PM
3115:
I agree.
People just don't know enough to debate anymore.
3117. wonkers2 - 2/27/2007 9:37:26 PM
Here's your chance iiibbb! Machine gun for sale
3118. iiibbb - 2/27/2007 10:21:30 PM
Not too interested... it would be fun for the first $50 which would be about the first 5 minutes.
3119. iiibbb - 3/1/2007 10:36:21 AM
Another example of how criminals get guns they aren't supposed to have no matter what permitting or laws or controls we might place on them... submachine gun stolen from SWAT team
3120. wonkers2 - 3/2/2007 10:11:09 AM
More handgun mayhem in Motown--Driver snapped, shot at tailgater's tires
3121. iiibbb - 3/2/2007 10:19:11 AM
I like the comments... people are more concerend about who occupies the passing lane than whether a person will go nuts and shoot at you.
Obviously not a permit holder either.
3122. wonkers2 - 3/2/2007 10:25:54 AM
Crazy people!
3123. wonkers2 - 3/3/2007 11:03:05 AM
Editorial
Overkill
E-Mail
Print
Save
Share
Digg
Facebook
Newsvine
Permalink
Published: March 3, 2007
A famous hunter and outdoorsman recently voiced misgivings about people who use assault rifles to kill prairie dogs.
Everyone knows what a prairie dog is: a chubby North American rodent that lives in a communal burrow and grows to be about a foot long. “Assault rifle” is a much touchier term. It is generally understood to be the kind of gun that soldiers use in wars and terrorists use on the evening news. But the gun lobby despises “assault rifle,” considering it a false, scary label tacked onto perfectly legitimate weapons by people who want to take away others’ rights.
That is a debate for another day. The question for now is whether the hunter, Jim Zumbo, deserved what he got after he wrote on his blog that hunters should shun what he called assault rifles — semiautomatics like the AR-15, a cousin of the M-16, and civilian knockoffs of the AK-47. “Excuse me, maybe I’m a traditionalist,” he wrote, “but I see no place for these weapons among our hunting fraternity.” He added: “To most of the public, an assault rifle is a terrifying thing. Let’s divorce ourselves from them. I say game departments should ban them from the prairies and woods.”
Until he wrote that, Mr. Zumbo was one of the most admired hunters in America, a widely read magazine writer with his own cable TV program and lots of lecture appearances and corporate sponsorships. He of all people should have known that “ban” is the mother of all fighting words to gun zealots. His 250-word posting caused a huge eruption on gun blogs, and Mr. Zumbo instantly became their second-most-hated man, after the gun-control advocate James Brady. Even though Mr. Zumbo quickly disavowed his words and apologized, he lost his blog, was dumped by Outdoor Life magazine and was disowned by the National Rifle Association, after 40 years of membership. His corporate sponsors, including the gunmaker Remington, ditched him. His cable show was canceled. The N.R.A. issued a chilling statement warning Congress to take heed of Mr. Zumbo’s fate. By the time Blaine Harden told his story in The Washington Post, Mr. Zumbo was professionally dead.
The paranoia and gloating that Mr. Zumbo’s name has evoked on gun discussion boards like ar15.com and freerepublic.com speak for themselves. You will find only a handful of postings suggesting cautiously that the overnight destruction of a man’s career might not be the proudest moment for the advocates of gun rights. One or two say that instead of cementing their reputations for reflexively enshrining gun ownership above everything, they might have asked Mr. Zumbo what he was talking about. They might even have had a healthy debate. But they shot first.
3124. iiibbb - 3/3/2007 12:30:23 PM
Zumbo was on the radio this morning and seems to have made a complete 180.
AR15 board is known for trolls
Ted Nugent board has more than a handful of post-apology supporters.
It's not like other groups don't eat their own. It seems to be a popular practice for conservatives who go on speaking engagements at liberal universities to be shouted off the stage.
Ultimately... Zumbo was wrong.
3125. wonkers2 - 3/3/2007 1:37:42 PM
That's a matter of opinion. Apparently he's not entitled to one. Do you think the NRA and Outdoor life may have over-reacted a bit?
3126. wonkers2 - 3/3/2007 1:38:42 PM
Outdoor life is supposed to be about sport hunting and fishing. Shooting prairie dogs with an AK-47 hardly qualifies.
3127. wonkers2 - 3/3/2007 1:40:23 PM
When I was a kid we hunted ducks on windmill ponds in the Nebraska Sandhills country. We could have shot them sitting on the pond and got more. But we waited til they saw us and flew before shooting because that was "good sportsmanship."
3128. iiibbb - 3/3/2007 8:56:55 PM
Find me anything where someone shoots prairie dogs with an AK.
People do shoot them with AR-15s. The .223 round is perfectly suited for that purpose. More people actually use the much higher power 22-250 or 308.
You need to stop mixing unrelated issues. The AR15 boards and the NRA are not the same thing. People mouthing off against Zumbo are not by default NRA members.
And Zumbo is wrong... and has since changed his story, aarently genuinely based on the radio interview.
3129. iiibbb - 3/3/2007 9:01:14 PM
It's not like The Mote itself hasn't chased off people with ideas that the collective found undesireable.
3130. iiibbb - 3/3/2007 10:22:31 PM
Do you think Ann Coultier should lose her "livelihood" after that crap she spewed recently?
People lose endorsements. I doubt Zumbo is going to starve... and I wouldn't be surprised if he came out of this as well employed.
Character assasination happens all the time. I'm not sure why this case deserves particularly keen attention.
People lose endoursements when they say things publicly their sponsors don't like.
If a abortion rights person were to change their mind I have little doubt that a subset of the pro-choicers would attempt to assasinate their character.
If a global warming advocate were to suddenlt come out against it... I have little doubt that they would lose funding and the climate science community would do their damndest to discredit that person.
Heck, Gary Kleck... who once was for gun control changed his mind, and now he's a hack.
No one has a monopoly on morality in this case.
Just like any case, you can't judge the whole gun community based on the Zumbo case. Certainly I should be an example of letting people say what they want in here, and doing my best to argue the facts presented.
3131. iiibbb - 3/3/2007 10:26:00 PM
Don't get me wrong... what happend to Zumbo was wrong. I think this subset of the gun community are out of line.
It's an emotional issue for them. They believe in that right as much as my wife believes in abortion rights. I'm not at all surprised.
3132. arkymalarky - 3/3/2007 11:17:07 PM
Do you think Ann Coultier should lose her "livelihood" after that crap she spewed recently?
Hell, that IS her livelihood.
Wingnuts are wingnuts, but the NRA's reaction--official reaction--was despicable.
3133. judithathome - 3/3/2007 11:20:48 PM
It's not like The Mote itself hasn't chased off people with ideas that the collective found undesireable
Are you daft? The Mote hasn't "chased off" anyone...if assholes can't take the heat and leave the kitchen, screw 'em.
3134. iiibbb - 3/3/2007 11:23:11 PM
Well... if Zumbo can't take the heat... screw him... right?
3135. judithathome - 3/4/2007 12:13:53 AM
People do shoot them with AR-15s. The .223 round is perfectly suited for that purpose. More people actually use the much higher power 22-250 or 308.
Why in the fuck does anyone want to shoot a prarie dog? Are they eating them? Why not get a Hummer and run over squirrels?
3136. judithathome - 3/4/2007 12:16:46 AM
I am astonished that you seem to be defending people that shoot little animals that do nothing but wish to survive...do you think people ought to shoot Golden Labs because they sometimes act up and dig holes in the yard?
3137. iiibbb - 3/4/2007 12:30:53 AM
cows break their legs in the holes. They are considered a nuisance in many places.
That's an entirely seperate issue.
3138. judithathome - 3/4/2007 12:53:59 AM
Yawn...straw man.
3139. arkymalarky - 3/4/2007 9:20:29 AM
In CO when we were there last summer there was a huge flap between animal rights activists and organic farmers over prairie dogs. Organic farmers wanted to blow them up with dynamite because they can't use any chemical means to control them.
There's something very comical in all that (except for the blown up prairie dogs).
To farmers any hole-digging animal is more than a nuisance; it can be a threat to their livelihood; but anyone trying to control them with a gun (except the occasional armadillo) is an idiot or just gets a thrill out of shooting small animals. You need something that can deal with the animals when you're not around.
3140. iiibbb - 3/4/2007 10:28:39 AM
PD's are considered a pest species in many places. Like nutrias down south.
The morals of shooting them is a seperate issue. There are other nuisance species that farmers shoot with .223 or 22-250 like coyote. Shooting them may or may not be an issue, but what you shoot them with (either an AR15 or a single shot or whatever), poison them with, or blow them up with sure isn't. They're just as dead.
3141. wonkers2 - 3/4/2007 11:12:05 AM
How you kill them IS an issue for sportsmen. That's why we don't dynamite fish or use gill nets. Getting rid of pests is another issue. Horses do occasionally break legs by stepping in prairie dog holes. However, this is mostly theoretical. Everybody knows where the prairie dog towns are and avoids them. Apparently even horses and cows unless thay are stampeded. Once in a blue moon you hear of a horse breaking a leg in a prairie dog hole, usually because his rider strayed into a prarie dog area. Coyotes eat a lot more prairie dogs and rabbits than calves or lambs.
3142. iiibbb - 3/4/2007 11:22:42 AM
Well yes... how you kill them is an issue...
but whether it's with a .223 or a 22-250 or a 308 isn't.
Again, I'm not going to defend the ethics of PD or coyote hunting. It's not my area, but it isn't illegal.
People use .223 on deer in Fl and some other southern states because the deer are small enough that it's appropriate. Where I am, .223 isn't allowed.
A friend of mine used a military rifle to take his first deer this year. Same caliber as my hunting rifile. Doesn't make much difference to the deer.
3143. iiibbb - 3/4/2007 11:32:11 AM
Killing nuisance animals isn't sport really... and I don't think it's considered sport.
3144. wonkers2 - 3/4/2007 11:47:47 AM
We can agree on that.
Nebraska used to pay a $15 bounty on coyotes. I doubt they still do. We used to hunt them with dogs, on horseback or in a pickup truck with a spotlight at night. Quite exciting. The dogs could easily handle a coyote. But every once in a while they ran into a badger which could be very bad news for a dog or even two or three dogs.
3145. arkymalarky - 3/4/2007 1:13:23 PM
I love love love love our coyotes out here. What a great sound on a clear night.
3146. wonkers2 - 3/4/2007 1:49:40 PM
I like to hear them, too. But they haven't gotten close enough to our neighbor hood although they are becoming common in Michigan.
3147. iiibbb - 3/5/2007 10:31:48 AM
A point I read about Zumbo today that I should've been able to make.
"To put the Jim Zumbo episode in context, let is note that it was pretty much the same thing as happened to Mel Gibson after his drunken tirade against Jews, or to comedian Michael Richards (Seinfeld's "Kramer) upon his bigoted response to a couple of black hecklers.
Why shouldn't people respond to bigotry against black guns the same way we do when encountering bigotry against black _people_?"
3148. wonkers2 - 3/5/2007 10:50:04 AM
Wow! Talking about false analogies. Comparing rampant drunk antisemites to critics of shooting prairie dogs with military weapons. Don't you think equating advocacy of gun control and hunting sportsmanship with racial prejudice or drunken anti-semitic rants is a bit of a stretch? "Prejudice" against guns equates to racial or religious prejudice?
3149. iiibbb - 3/5/2007 12:48:45 PM
The distinction that pissed off all the gun owners is that they felt Zumbo essentially called said gun owners terrorists.
I don't think it's much of a strech on the prejudice front. I've been called a lot of names in here by a lot of less rational people than you.
3150. iiibbb - 3/5/2007 12:54:09 PM
In less you think that I'm wrong that there are people on the gun control side of life that try to pain gun owners as paranoid, less educated, redneck, criminal, vigilante, etc.
Doesn't seem like too far of a stretch to me.
I complain about PC to a liberal friend of mine on occasion, and they made the valid point that it doesn't matter what I think is prejudice speech... it only matters what they think. So in this case, "they" the gun-owners seem to feel that it was prejudice enough to complain to his sponsors.
3151. wonkers2 - 3/5/2007 6:17:45 PM
Well, the difference is that prejudice against gun-owners is justified while anti-Semitism isn't! :-)
3152. iiibbb - 3/5/2007 11:27:29 PM
These the people you expect me to call if I need to defend myself.
These are the people that you wait on while some lunatic to finish his work.
Yeah... good plan.
3153. iiibbb - 3/6/2007 9:32:38 AM
Surrender and comply
Good luck if they've already shot someone
Not a situation where the cops would do you much good either.
Asheville is a nice place. Very progressive for a Southern city.
3154. iiibbb - 3/6/2007 9:33:17 AM
I should note that if he'd been open carrying, he probably would've been shot outright.
3155. iiibbb - 3/6/2007 9:38:52 AM
Actually... I don't know if he was carrying or not. Just checked the legal age to carry in NC and it's 21.
So by all rights, this 20 yr old should be dead because he's not responsible enough to carry a handgun.
3156. iiibbb - 3/6/2007 9:42:12 AM
Meanwhile in the UK the new weapon of choice/
Are we always going to ban things when it becomes a "weapon of choice?"
Why not just ban criminals?
3157. iiibbb - 3/6/2007 9:54:11 AM
3158. alistairconnor - 3/6/2007 10:06:04 AM
Why shouldn't people respond to bigotry against black guns the same way we do when encountering bigotry against black _people_?
Right on! Guns have feelings too.
Remember, guns don't kill people. People kill guns.
Or something.
3159. iiibbb - 3/6/2007 11:35:32 AM
Sounds like she was very complient.
3160. arkymalarky - 3/6/2007 5:55:46 PM
Yes, their analogy is silly. People have legitimate disagreements about what is appropriate gun use. To be so villainized for it is a ridiculous application of PC to shut down free speech.
3161. iiibbb - 3/6/2007 7:40:13 PM
More random gun-ban attempts.
If you continue to wonder why gun-owners get so rabid.
3162. arkymalarky - 3/6/2007 8:19:33 PM
If you continue to wonder why people support gun-bans, look at gun-owners getting rabid about "their rights." They don't help their cause by reinforcing a very real concern that they shouldn't be allowed guns in the first place because of their inability to reasonably defend their rights while respecting the right of others to disagree and fight for legislation that reflects their beliefs.
3163. iiibbb - 3/6/2007 8:40:55 PM
Well... I wonder what percentage of gun-owning population those people on the bulletin boards really represent.
And is it fair to damn the whole gun-owning population because of them?
3164. iiibbb - 3/6/2007 8:53:28 PM
We haven't really seen if Zumbo has suffered much yet. Sounds like he's already gotten some gigs.
3165. arkymalarky - 3/6/2007 11:43:10 PM
And is it fair to damn the whole gun-owning population because of them?
No, but it's understandable that the fringes scare people, just like fringes of a lot of groups do, and make them wonder if guns need to be more controlled to keep them away from that type of nut (and I know the enforcement issue, yaddayadda, but it's how people naturally feel). The mainstream needs to try to keep a better handle on the message, and there's no way they can do that with the idiots at the helm of the NRA fanning flames.
3166. iiibbb - 3/7/2007 9:12:18 AM
So it's ok for everyone to be scared of gun owning fringe, but it's not ok for gun owners to be scared of gun-banning fringe?
I'll restate that it is an emotional issue for people on the same order as abortion rights. No one should be surprised at all by the reaction.
I still doubt Zumbo will suffer much from it.
I don't see how the NRA has fanned the flames I get unwanted spam from them because I have to be a member to validate the insurance of the gun range I go to. I never got an email about a writing campaign for Zumbo... I do get them for all kinds of other stuff.
It's also not like people aren't defending Zumbo.
Zumbo et al. was/are wrong that the 2nd ammendment is about hunting. You only need read what the founding fathers wrote. It's about personal defense and national defense. The AWB was useless and would be useless if renued. That's why it was voted down in spite of public "support"... but that same public thinks that the AWB has something to do with machine guns. The only thing in the AWB that might have something to do with lethality is magazine capacity, which the 10-round limit was pulled out of a hat by William Ruger who made the same sort of off-the-cuff comment Zumbo made. There are no studies that support the 10-round limit really. Magazine changes take less than a couple of seconds... big whoop in a massacre like that mall in Utah.
Again, I find myself further frustrated by the lack of resolution on this issue. It's obvious that if we concede the AWB, they go after ammo, or try to further bans. It is obvious that in New Orleans the gov't ignored peoples' right to defend themselves (and those gov't officials are facing charges).
It is no wonder at all to me how the NRA has evolved such an absolutist stand.
Talk about fanning the flames. Gun-control people are fanning flames at every opportunity they are given as well... who calls them on it?
3167. iiibbb - 3/7/2007 9:16:52 AM
The Brady people have already siezed on the "terrorist rifle" BS.
They are already fearmongering about "sniper rifles"
Guns that are big are "too powereful" for public use.
Guns that are too small are "too easy for criminals to conceal".
It doesn't matter to them if the guns are actually used in a crime. It doesn't matter to them if hunting rifles are actually more powerful than "high-power" assault rifles.
You guys act like the NRA is the only team playing the system.
3168. iiibbb - 3/7/2007 9:33:16 AM
This one sums it all up pretty rationally.
Zumboing of Zumbo
3169. iiibbb - 3/7/2007 9:36:34 AM
3170. jexster - 3/7/2007 1:57:11 PM
I TOLD YOU SO I3
I want to have the right to buy .50 cals and incidiary rounds
Our founding fuckers are rolling over in their graves because of the denial of our fundamental rights
CNN just did a debate between a NJ lawmaker and the manufacturer....
It was a joke..."Our gun has the best safety record of any rifle.."
Hells fucking bells I3...do you people think we are ALL morons?
The Glock has killed far more folks in the USA than the fucking LeClerc MBT too and nuclear weapons COMBINED!
WOW
3171. jexster - 3/7/2007 2:00:21 PM
WAKE UP AMERICA
Fight for your right to bear a LeClerc!
Safer than Glock 9, deadlier than Shooters .410
3172. iiibbb - 3/7/2007 3:02:38 PM
It wasn't the Glock Jex... it was the asshole wielding it.
I'll give up my gun when the violent people move away or I have my personal bodyguards.
As it stands now I've been let down my the system a few too many times for my taste.
3173. arkymalarky - 3/7/2007 6:56:42 PM
So it's ok for everyone to be scared of gun owning fringe, but it's not ok for gun owners to be scared of gun-banning fringe?
If they are a fringe, then not only should they not be afraid, they would be idiots to be afraid, because they only fear changes in the law or Constitution and fringes are incapable of that.
3174. arkymalarky - 3/7/2007 7:01:39 PM
WRT NRA fanning flames, I'm talking about their public statements, and personally I don't care because I'm generally satisfied with current laws. The NRA hurts itself in the long run because it doesn't work toward gaining broad appeal, so when the Right Wing loses congressional seats due to other issues they have no moderate support to keep them in play in congress. Yet they continue to whip up their base, marginalizing themselves even further.
3175. arkymalarky - 3/7/2007 7:03:22 PM
Had they responded by strongly disagreeing with Zumbo and stating their reasons clearly while respecting his right to an opinion they wouldn't be getting negative publicity from everybody but Fox and Freeper.
3176. jexster - 3/7/2007 7:26:20 PM
It wasn't the Glock Jex... it was the asshole wielding it.
I'll give up my gun when the violent people move away or I have my personal bodyguards.
That's what I said when I tried to buy a LeClerc...hey instead of a bodyguard....
LeClerc's don't waste houses, people do
3177. jexster - 3/7/2007 7:29:02 PM
But you gotta give me at least one thing i3...I don't follow this cold dead hands crap...I could pretty much care less...but I distinctly recall expressing my love for 50 cal sniper rifles (hell I could take a fucking car out with one of those!) and you tried to steer me to some girlie man .410!
3178. jexster - 3/7/2007 7:34:18 PM
Voyez Char LeClerc
3179. jexster - 3/7/2007 8:55:55 PM
That French reporter is CUTE
3180. Ronski - 3/9/2007 11:24:09 AM
DC Gun Law Struck Down (from HowAppealing law blog):
Divided three-judge D.C. Circuit panel holds that the District of Columbia's gun control laws violate individuals' Second Amendment rights...
According to the majority opinion, "[T]he phrase 'the right of the people,' when read intratextually and in light of Supreme Court precedent, leads us to conclude that the right in question is individual." The majority opinion sums up its holding on this point as follows:
To summarize, we conclude that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. That right existed prior to the formation of the new government under the Constitution and was premised on the private use of arms for activities such as hunting and self-defense, the latter being understood as resistance to either private lawlessness or the depredations of a tyrannical government (or a threat from abroad). In addition, the right to keep and bear arms had the important and salutary civic purpose of helping to preserve the citizen militia. The civic purpose was also a political expedient for the Federalists in the First Congress as it served, in part, to placate their Antifederalist opponents. The individual right facilitated militia service by ensuring that citizens would not be barred from keeping the arms they would need when called forth for militia duty. Despite the importance of the Second Amendment's civic purpose, however, the activities it protects are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual's enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or her continued or intermittent enrollment in the militia.
The majority opinion also rejects the argument that the Second Amendment does not apply to the District of Columbia because it is not a State. And the majority opinion concludes, "Section 7-2507.02, like the bar on carrying a pistol within the home, amounts to a complete prohibition on the lawful use of handguns for self-defense. As such, we hold it unconstitutional." Senior Circuit Judge Laurence H. Silberman wrote the majority opinion, in which Circuit Judge Thomas B. Griffith joined. Circuit Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson dissented.
Judge Henderson's dissenting opinion makes clear that she would conclude that the Second Amendment does not bestow an individual right based on what she considers to be binding U.S. Supreme Court precedent requiring that result. But her other main point is that the majority's assertion to the contrary constitutes nothing more than dicta because the Second Amendment's protections, whatever they entail, do not extend to the District of Columbia, because it is not a State.
This is a fascinating and groundbreaking ruling that would appear to be a likely candidate for U.S. Supreme Court review if not overturned first by the en banc D.C. Circuit.
3181. wonkers2 - 3/9/2007 11:41:09 AM
The DC Circuit is the worst in the country. I wonder what the Washington D.C. statute provided.
3182. iiibbb - 3/9/2007 12:35:01 PM
From Packing.org
General Notes
Date updated: Aug 22, 2005 @ 7:30 pm
Visiting Washington DC
When Visiting DC your best course of action is to leave all weapons at home. Even small pocket knives are not welcome in Government Buildings. Most buildings in DC are Government Buildings. You will have to go through Metal Detectors to get into some Government Buildings. The Mint, White House, Capital and even the Smithsonian and others. Large bags are not allowed in most buildings. Get info from the Government Agency you are planning to visit. Remember that your items will be searched. Big bags will just take longer to search and hold you up.
Definitions in DC Law.
22-4501. Definitions.
(a) "Pistol," as used in this chapter, means any firearm with a barrel less than 12 inches in length.
(b) "Sawed-off shotgun," as used in this chapter, means any shotgun with a barrel less than 20 inches in length.
(c) "Machine gun," as used in this chapter, means any firearm which shoots automatically or semiautomatically more than 12 shots without reloading.
Although the NRA information sheet showed "yes" under concealed carry, D.C. has some of the strictest gun laws in the country and the following was found in the text: "Carrying a handgun in the District is prohibited. All firearms are to be kept at ones home or place of business." (Title 7, Subt. J, Ch. 25, ) Requires the registration of all firearms that are owned by private citizens.) ( 7-2502.02.) Registration of certain firearms prohibited. (a) A registration certificate shall not be issued for a: (4) Pistol not validly registered to the current registrant in the District prior to September 24, 1976)
Possession Of Unregistered Ammunition.
Reference is made to information provided on the packing.org web site regarding to the District of Columbia. Please take note that the District of Columbia Criminal Law and Procedure, Chapter 7-2506.01 states,
No person shall possess ammunition in the District of Columbia unless:
(1) He is a licensed dealer pursuant to subchapter IV;
(2) He is an officer, agent, or employee of the District of Columbia or the United States of America, on duty and acting within the scope of his duties when possessing such ammunition;
(3) He is the holder of the valid registration certificate for a firearm of the same gauge or caliber as the ammunition he possesses; except, that no such person shall possess restricted pistol bullets; or
(4) He holds an ammunition collector's certificate on September 24, 1976.
7-2501.01 Definitions
(2) "Ammunition" means cartridge cases, shells, projectiles (including shot), primers, bullets (including restricted pistol bullets), propellant powder, or other devices or materials designed, redesigned, or intended for use in a firearm or destructive device.
7-2507.06 Penalties
(1) A person who knowingly or intentionally sells, transfers, or distributes a firearm, destructive device, or ammunition to a person under 18 years of age shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned for not more than 10 years, or both.
This means that possession of even a single round of ammunition or a component, like a single bullet or fired cartridge case, including a dummy round, probably even including a novelty key chain made from a cartridge, is an equivalent violation to possessing an unregistered firearm.
To cite a specific example that a reader witnessed, a construction worker at a government building, opened his truck's glove box to get its registration for a police officer who had requested it. The officer observed a box of .22 Long Rifle ammunition in the glove box (I saw it too) and promptly arrested the man and took him off in handcuffs for "possession of unregistered ammunition." There was no firearm present.
I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that individuals who visit the District of Columbia who may be carrying "ammunition" that's picked up by one of the ubiquitous metal detectors could end up being arrested like the construction worker was.
3183. iiibbb - 3/9/2007 12:36:15 PM
What good is a gun in your home if it's illegal to have ammunition?
3184. wonkers2 - 3/9/2007 2:22:43 PM
I wish we had a similar law in Detroit. If we did we might not lead the nation in homicides. Violent Crime in Cities Shows Sharp Surge
3185. iiibbb - 3/9/2007 3:48:30 PM
Kleck claims more guns less crime. There was a study recently that said that may not be true... but even in that case, guns may not help, but they do not hurt. We'll just go ahead and assume that ammo-availability is ubiquitous when guns are available.
So if they do no harm... why call for their prohibition?
I still invoke the right to decide my own risks for myself... it's not yours or the government's business.
3186. iiibbb - 3/9/2007 3:50:41 PM
There are some upsides to this decision for you...
...the decision specifically said that the 2nd ammendment doesn't preclude training requirements. It does not preclude registration. It also does not preclude restricting concealed carry.
Which meshes with what I've said for a long time... I would accept licensing and registration if it meant I could carry unfettered anywhere in the country at my own discretion.
3187. jexster - 3/9/2007 8:02:59 PM
Does this mean I get my LeClerc - being necessary for a well regulated militia of course?
3188. iiibbb - 3/9/2007 8:35:30 PM
Actually it doesn't Jex.
If you read the decision, it makes the case why "the people" would have access to small arms, but not more powerful weaponry.
What a lame dissenting opinion... rather than counter the majority's argument, that judge argues that the bill of rights does not apply to people in DC. One paper called it scathing; it was weak.
3189. jexster - 3/9/2007 9:03:53 PM
small arms? where does it say "small arms" in the constitution I ask!
Either I have the right to bear a Leclerc or I don't even have the right to bear an air rifle
3190. jexster - 3/9/2007 9:10:13 PM
3191. iiibbb - 3/9/2007 9:12:18 PM
I'm just going with their reading of it... but to paraphrase.
We are all in the militia, meaning we should be equiped like the standard infantry... this would mean handguns, but it wouldn't mean tanks.
Takes less than half an hour to read the entire decision... Section III
3192. jexster - 3/9/2007 9:40:02 PM
Equipped like the infantry eh? We are all in the militia eh? Well, well...there we are ..the end of the Second Amendment fundies..
And they have a point...our National Guards over in Iraq..
So arm me like a national guard...I want Strykers, Bradleys, m-16's, .50 cal machine guns, sniper rifles and you can have the Abrams...this well-regulated militiaman drives a LeClerc
What an absurd decision except for that militia part....gun control advocates have been trying to read that out of the Second Amendment for decades
3193. iiibbb - 3/9/2007 10:44:35 PM
I was paraphrasing Jex... you'll just have to read it for yourself.
You pretty much the only person claiming we want tanks.
I've only said all along that I should have access to similar equipment to a police officer.
3194. iiibbb - 3/9/2007 10:46:33 PM
Again gun-grabbers should be a little bit please as it also supports the notion of registration and training requirements.
3195. jexster - 3/10/2007 12:17:35 PM
The Court correctly interprets the Second Amendment protection as conditional on "well-regulated militia" then proceeds to create a risibly absurd fiction that we are in the miliitia (I think I'll join Hizbullah!)
But the reality may not be as far-fetched or far away as it might seem. This is the view of a small group of forward thinking military strategists of what is known as Fourth Generation Warfare. 4GW is more than strategy and tactics, it is premised on the breakdown of the nation state and in this is finds historical underpinnings in the writings of Martin van Creveld.
With that in mind, here's your militia I3
Modern Warfare
by William S. Lind
a record of an informal seminar
3196. iiibbb - 3/10/2007 4:25:11 PM
Militia
-CITE-
10 USC Sec. 311 01/03/05
-EXPCITE-
TITLE 10 - ARMED FORCES
Subtitle A - General Military Law
PART I - ORGANIZATION AND GENERAL MILITARY POWERS
CHAPTER 13 - THE MILITIA
-HEAD-
Sec. 311. Militia: composition and classes
-STATUTE-
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied
males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section
313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a
declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States
and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the
National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are -
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard
and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the
Naval Militia.
3197. jexster - 3/10/2007 7:36:11 PM
Like I said..It's a fiction and by statute not "well-regulated"
3198. jexster - 3/10/2007 7:42:14 PM
For Second Amendment Fundies, that is a very dangerous decision.
3199. jexster - 3/10/2007 9:03:08 PM
But We're the Unorganized Militia!!
the unorganized militia of preble county
Are we laughing yet?
3200. iiibbb - 3/10/2007 10:17:05 PM
Jexter. Your disingenuous posts really don't make any point at all. The militia was meant to be the able-bodied general populace. Basically that it is our civic duty to help maintain the peace and protect the country.
If you want to blow it up to some non-sequitur definition of militia, that's your business.
1) I defer to the decision and interpretation written by this court. I don't see how an honest review of the second amendment comes away with any other meaning but that it is an individual right.
If you don't believe them... if you want to focus on the individual words without the context of the others... oh well. The court goes through it step by step.
2) If this court and perhaps the supreme court happen to come down in favor of it being an idividual right... and you and others don't like it... change the constitution.
3) Studies have show that a) more guns = less crime or b) more guns = neutral to crime... no studies show that more guns = more crime or that gun control = less crime (maybe less gun crime, but that doesn't help if people just knife each other).
So the onus is really on gun control advocates on why they should be taken away.
The best the dissenting judge could come up with was... "DC is not a state"...
wow... that's a scathing rebuttle... So DC doesn't have a right to free speech or freedom of religion either?
3201. jexster - 3/11/2007 3:57:21 PM
I think that every man oughta have the right to join Hezbollah and drive a Leclerc..
3202. jexster - 3/11/2007 4:02:22 PM
None of your points has anything to do with mine, which I kindly illustrated.
A well-regulated militia....
most pro-gunners have tried - yourself included if memory serves - to read the first 13 words out of the Second Amendment. (there are only 27!)
Living with the absurd result should make interesting for an interesting appeal
3203. jexster - 3/11/2007 4:07:45 PM
In other words your right to bear arms for self-defense is not a constitutional right. Constitutional protection exists only if it can be show necesssary to a well-regulated militia which it cannot without a yuck fest
3204. alistairConnor - 3/11/2007 4:21:24 PM
Violent Crime in Cities Shows Sharp Surge
Local police departments blame several factors: the spread of methamphetamine use in some Midwestern and Western cities, gangs, high poverty and a record number of people being released from prison. But the biggest theme, they say, is easy access to guns and a willingness, even an eagerness, to settle disputes with them, particularly among young people.
“There’s a mentality among some people that they’re living some really violent video game,” said Chris Magnus, the police chief in Richmond, Calif., north of San Francisco, where homicides rose 20 percent and gun assaults 65 percent from 2004 to 2006. “What’s disturbing is that you see that the blood’s real, the death’s real.”
[...]
Police officials say the violence tends to happen among young men in their late teens and early to mid-20s. In some cases, it is random. But in many cases, it is among people who know one another, or between gangs, as a way to settle disputes. Arguments that 20 years ago would have led to fistfights, police chiefs say, now lead to guns.
“There’s really no rhyme or reason with these homicides,” said Edward Davis, the police commissioner in Boston. “An incident will occur involving disrespect, a fight over a girl. Then there’s a retaliation aspect where if someone shoots someone else; their friends will come back and shoot at the people that did it.”
In Richmond, Chief Magnus said he would often go to the scene of a crime and discover that 30 to 75 rounds had been fired. “It speaks to the level of anger, the indiscriminate nature of the violence,” he said.
But this probably has nothing to do with guns.
3205. jexster - 3/11/2007 4:32:31 PM
Though the District is, in fact, not a state in need of a militia, that was not the strongest argument in the dissent
the right of the people to keep and bear arms relates to those Militia whose continued vitality is required to safeguard the individual States.
3206. jexster - 3/11/2007 4:33:23 PM
I announce the formation of California Hezbollah - the Militia that dares to own a Leclerc
3207. jexster - 3/11/2007 4:37:04 PM
AC...I've had a murder and a drive by within 2 blocks of here within the past month...has me checking CityCrimeStat regularly
As legal matter, there is no serious argument. You have to stretch to read out fully half the amendment. Practically though, they could institute DC gun control nationwide tomorrow and this country is so awash in guns it would make no difference whatsoever
So I really don't care I want a LeClerc
3208. iiibbb - 3/11/2007 8:14:30 PM
I don't try to read it a certain way. I defer to the US vs Emerson decision and this decision... which explains the whole 27 words.
The US code says I'm in the militia... you're the one trying to discount the unorganized (which is not an antonym for regulated).
Gun grabbers are trying to ignore the "keep", in "keep and bear arms".
Message # 3203
The DC circuit does not agree with you on this matter. Self defense is a constitutionally protected right.
3209. iiibbb - 3/11/2007 8:17:17 PM
Message # 3204
I wouldn't discount guns, but you can hardly blame guns for those rises. From what I understand most of the increase is due to increasees in juvinile crime in medium-sized cities.
I'm sure there are a lot of convoluted factors in these statistics...
...although I would say a 2 year sharp rise hardly a trend makes. Violent crime is still comprable to the 60's and 70's, and well below the spike we saw in the 80's.
3210. jexster - 3/11/2007 8:37:34 PM
No you can keep and bear arm to the extent necessary for militia
3211. jexster - 3/11/2007 8:39:03 PM
That's all the constitution gives you. You may have a statutory right or a common law right but unless that .50 cal sniper rifle is for well-regulated militia, the Second Amendment leaves you shit out of luck...
3212. jexster - 3/11/2007 8:40:07 PM
Which well-regulated militia do you belong to I3?
Posse Comitatis?
Crips?
Bloods?
Hamas?
3213. jexster - 3/11/2007 8:45:29 PM
Put yet another way I3, if the Second Amendment gives EVERYONE the right to keep and bear then the first 13 words would be entirely superflous, now wouldn't they?
And if you think some obscure 1916 statute declaring all adult males under 45 to be members of the militia you haven't read the entire statute which sets up the draft...that's how they drafted the draft statute...
As far as making you a member of a well-regulated militia, don't make me laugh
3214. iiibbb - 3/11/2007 9:55:33 PM
Yet it's odd that the dissenting opinion focused on the concept of "state"... rather than what you're subscribing to.
Perhaps because that judge realizes that your arguments are fundamentally flawed.
3215. jexster - 3/12/2007 1:37:45 PM
State, militia..the quote was from the dissent
3216. iiibbb - 3/12/2007 1:54:48 PM
What gun prohibitionists do with information
First directly compares them to child molestors, then posts their names and addresses on the internet. These are the people who are following the rules the closest. This list does not include people who carry, but never bothered to get the permit.
This is why libertarians get pissed off about registration and licensing... because people like this turn around and abuse the information that's there.
Why don't we publish all drivers names and addresses?
Why don't we publish all police officers?
I'm sure the women who've managed to escape violent relationships really appreciate this. I'm sure that the criminals appreciate knowing places where they can likely find a gun if the need one.
3217. iiibbb - 3/12/2007 1:57:08 PM
I don't see what quote you're referring to.
3218. iiibbb - 3/12/2007 2:01:32 PM
Per another earlier post Message # 3211
... since when have I said I want a .50 cal. I have repeatedly said I only think I need what a common police officer would need. Generally, they are issued a pistol, shotgun, and/or some kind of carbine or rifle.
Most cops take those around in their patrol cars, and they all seem pretty legitimate weapons for a 'militia' and self defense if needed.
But what's the point of arguing with you? You want a tank.
3219. clydefo - 3/12/2007 3:51:52 PM
After the French Revolution, I'm as nervous as anyone else in the "establishment" with the "rabble" being armed, but I do hold that it's their constitutional right. To the extent that the courts condition the right on militia service, I think they've totally missed it.
I maintain that both the Second and the Third Amendments recognize individual rights that are meant to protect us from our own military.
Given the comprehensive Article I powers of Congress
("...To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress..."),
additional enabling provisions concerning State powers are hardly necessary in a Bill of Rights intended to protect the individual from the government and the military. It is a ridiculous place to insert an unneeded redundancy.
The Third Amendment clarifies the meaning of the Second. Its use of the word "soldier" clearly provides protection from any and all military forces or Militias.
("No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.").
Taken together, as they should be, they manifest a wariness of domestic military forces.
In its context, "Well regulated" can only mean "well-constrained and intimidated by an armed populace" . We don't want no Coup d'etat or Military dictatorship. Otherwise, why the reference to "...the security of a FREE state..."?
If "well regulated" means "well-run and efficient", then the presence of the word "free" is superfluous and puzzling. It is also puzzling that Congress would envision a rag-tag collection of blunderbuses, long rifles, dueling pistols and pitchforks providing security for any sort of State or being anything but a logistical nightmare.
What the founders meant to say, IMO: A well-constrained Militia, intimidated by an armed populace, being necessary to the security of a State free of military rule, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms sufficient for such security, shall not be infringed.
I think that the constitutional keeping and bearing of arms is conditional, but the condition is that arms be used AGAINST the military when reasonable persons would agree that freedom is threatened, not on a condition that they be used FOR facilitating the military.
3220. iiibbb - 3/12/2007 6:02:10 PM
Ill conceived.
The Virginia paper has taken down the database of permit holders after they discovered that it contained names and addresses of people who's names and addresses shouldn't have been released.
So... should this guy suffer Zumbo's fate?
He seems to me to be more deserving, so I hope so.
3221. arkymalarky - 3/12/2007 9:52:27 PM
Hey Clyde! Welcome back!
3222. arkymalarky - 3/12/2007 9:54:15 PM
They've done the same thing with abortion providers.
3223. jexster - 3/13/2007 9:59:36 AM
Here's our militia I3
Let's join up!!
I swear I recently saw a movie somewhere with this theme but damned if I can remember.
3224. jexster - 3/14/2007 10:34:51 AM
The outcome turned on an interpretation of the Second Amendment, which says, “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.”
The key legal precedent is a 1939 decision in which the Supreme Court concluded that the amendment protects the private ownership of guns only when it has “some reasonable relationship to the preservation of efficiency of a well-regulated militia.” By not viewing the amendment as creating a basic individual right, the decision left room for broad regulation of gun ownership.
Unfortunately, that did not deter last week’s two-judge majority from adopting exactly the opposite interpretation, which is favored by the National Rifle Association and the Bush administration. Written by Judge Laurence Silberman, a Reagan appointee, and joined by Judge Thomas Griffith, named by President Bush, the decision says the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms belongs to individuals and is “not limited to militia service.”
The Right to Ban Arms
3225. jexster - 3/14/2007 10:36:14 AM
But that would leave us Militia-less..for a preview of what THAT would mean
Shiites want the help of Sadr's militia
After a week of attacks, the Iraqis demand that the Al Mahdi army be allowed to return to the streets to protect them.
3226. iiibbb - 3/14/2007 10:50:54 AM
Message # 3224
The DC decision discusses that aspect of the Miller case. Specifically, that the Supreme Court decision really only covered the types of weapons, but not the nature of the individual right.
Also, Miller is a pretty bad case in general. There were no arguments presented by the defenent because he didn't have representation because he was dead.
3227. jexster - 3/14/2007 11:55:49 AM
That's the very same reason that the Shiites are pissed that their Mahdi Army militia went to ground. A goodly portion of their number are showing up dead, as in ground meat
We should have the same rights as our little brown brothers. In fact, Gen PetRaeus himself remarked that many countries have auxillary police.
So what are we waiting for I3?
Bet you didn't know that the LeClerc Main Battle Tank is superior to all rivals because:
1. It has a longer barrelled 120mm main gun
2. It's unique automatic loader by eliminating the need for a fourth crew member enables the tank to be the lightest, most nimble, and fastest MBT on the planet
3. It's French weapons system can track 6 targets at one time
4. To deal with the threat that constant advances in anti-tank tech pose,, the Leclerc employs modular armor
Check out Main Battle Tanks on the Military Channel
3228. jexster - 3/14/2007 12:07:47 PM
Certainly the court tried to weasel around the Supreme Court's prior holding...that's not the worst of it for as I have demonstrated & as the NyT editorial alludes to,, the court in reaching the decision it did, necessarily had to render the first 13 words of the Second Amendment superfluous.
And that's what the dissent argued and that's the central issue before the Court en banc
3229. jexster - 3/14/2007 12:10:12 PM
I say rather than all these screwball second amendment arguments, the Cold Dead Hands crowd ought to use that shitpot of political payola they spread around and organize a campaign to have legislatures around the country enact statutes legalizing ownership of all arms under all conditions by adults 18-80 who have enrolled in the State Volunteer Militia
3230. jexster - 3/14/2007 12:10:55 PM
Personally I am sick and tired of legislating justices who ignore the constitution and the will of the people
3231. iiibbb - 3/14/2007 1:17:50 PM
I'm sick and tired of legislators ignoring the constitution. We wouldn't have to go through with this if they followed the constitution in the first place.
If people don't like the 2nd amendment... they're certainly welcome to go through the steps to amend the constition.
3232. iiibbb - 3/14/2007 1:27:34 PM
Message # 3228
But you would have the other words rendered superfluous.
And the judges are right... if it were only about state militias, then it could have been writen in a far more direct way. Everywhere "the people" is used in the constitution, it means individuals.
3233. iiibbb - 3/14/2007 1:28:17 PM
3234. OhioSTOPAS - 3/14/2007 2:38:39 PM
I don't think the Second Amendment can reasonably be read to prohibit any STATE laws against arms ownership, since an obvious purpose of the amendment is to preserve the states' prerogative in this area. The recent case under discussion, however, involved the District of Columbia, whos laws are enacted directly by Congress or by Congressional authority.
3235. iiibbb - 3/14/2007 3:50:24 PM
I agree with you Ohio. If this sucessfully upholds individual rights, I think the next debate will revolve around what 'reasonable' means.
I agree with the judge that it doesn't preclude certain laws, but it would preclude prohibition.
Ultimately, at the very minimum people should have the right to keep a gun in their home. DC went over the line by taking a hardline prohibition stance. Sure they had permitting, but it's basically impossible to get a permit. That isn't reasonable.
3236. clydefo - 3/14/2007 10:56:52 PM
"I don't think the Second Amendment can reasonably be read to prohibit any STATE laws against arms ownership, since an obvious purpose of the amendment is to preserve the states' prerogative in this area." 3234. OhioSTOPAS
The purpose of the Bill of Rights is to protect the RIGHTS of individual persons from "states' prerogative" (POWER). It is one of the "Checks and Balances". State authority and powers concerning the Militia are granted in Art I Sec 8 (they get to name the Militia officers). Thus the only logical conclusion is that the 2nd is intended to "...prohibit any STATE laws against arms ownership..." rather than the opposite. The states are otherwise free to expand or restrict the use of firearms as they wish. And a state can no more claim (if any have) that by disbanding the militia, gun rights become moot, than they could shut down polling places and claim that we've lost the right to vote.
3237. jexster - 3/14/2007 11:02:59 PM
That's a nice sylogism but the issue remains - Either the Second Amendment means what it says - every word of it - or the courts must legislate the first thirteen away.
A big circle gets you no where and your analogy to the right to vote, that gets you less than no where....unless the right to vote is conditional ...somewhere in the constitution? I don't think so
3238. clydefo - 3/15/2007 12:20:00 AM
Every word in the 2nd A is critically important. The problem is that the aristocratic judges and their privileged pals down at the club are loath concede real POWER to the vulgar and profane masses and so deliberately misinterpret the meaning of words. They choose to define "well regulated" as meaning "well administered by the state" but then cannot explain how the word "free" doesn't become superfluous in that context.
Isn't a bill of individual rights an odd place to put enabling authority for governmental powers, especially since such wide ranging power has already been granted in Art I? The Constitution is a minimalist document, redundancy is avoided. The only way the structure and relationship between the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, the balance of powers and rights, makes sense is if "well regulated" means "well controlled and intimidated by an armed populace". With this natural and contextually consistent (a list of rights) meaning, the reason for the inclusion of the word "free" becomes clear. If not clear, then go on and read the Third Amendment.
3239. jexster - 3/15/2007 9:35:14 AM
It isn't an enabling authority for the government. The government doesn't and didn't need the Second Amendment to create a militia and neither does the citizen need it to have the right to bear arms which can be bestowed statuorily if not pre-existing at common law.
The Second Amendment is not creating a constitutional right it is conditioning it.
No need to make the simple complex here.
Parsimony uber alles
Ich hatt' einen Kameraden (mp3)
3240. iiibbb - 3/15/2007 12:25:30 PM
Obviously, not everyone agrees with you Jexter.
It is not easy to explain why, after winning a revolution that depended on Americans having free access to arms, the founding fathrs would suddenly condition that right.
If they were trying to form any condition, it is as the decisions said, they were declaring it a civic responsibility to arm yourself... and arm yourself with weapons paid for privately.
3241. clydefo - 3/15/2007 12:29:14 PM
Jexster, if as you say, the 2nd A is neither an enabling authority or an individual right, then it really is a queer duck. Totally superfluous, since even your "conditioning" justification for its presence is unnecessary because conditions can be imposed by statute if the basic right itself can be. The amendment is a waste of ink using your logic.
All nonsense of course, since any "right" granted by statute can be repealed by statute and is thereby not a right at all. The Bill of Rights does not "create" rights, it recognizes, acknowledges and enumerates them. The Framers named those that they could and make it crystal clear in the 10th A that other unnamed rights exist.
If there is a condition in the 2nd A, it is that Constitutional protection extends only to possessing the means to resist mischief by the domestic military forces, and not a condition that our personal weapons be used to facilitate governmental power. In Colonial times, some Militias were little more than marauding predators.
It follows that if the Framers are not granting or creating rights (and they are not), but as they point out, merely naming a few of them, then they likewise cannot, as they list them, "deny or disparage",modify, alter or "condition" any right "retained by the people".
The "well regulated Militia" phrase is nothing more than an attempt at a clarifying note, rarely used and similar to "to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts..." when authorizing Congressional power to write patent and copyright law. The Framers' 2nd Amendment premise may or may not be true (ie, a poorly regulated Militia may well be adequate for security in a FREE state) but a vague premise cannot be used as an excuse by paranoid judges to "deny or disparage" the individual gun rights of the people.
3242. iiibbb - 3/15/2007 12:29:38 PM
constitutional scholars praise decision
3243. iiibbb - 3/15/2007 12:34:53 PM
regular people get it
as do other state constitutions
3244. wonkers2 - 3/15/2007 4:10:43 PM
Greenwich Village Gunfight Leaves Four Dead
3245. iiibbb - 3/15/2007 4:23:44 PM
So when unarmed police officers face an illegally armed felon who's already shot someone... the officers are at a disadvantage?
Meanwhile, citizen is shot, but returns fire and kills assailent in thwarted carjacking.
Yup guns have no use at all.
3246. iiibbb - 3/15/2007 4:26:04 PM
But you're right... the gun can always be taken away from you... but in this case it was the carjacker.
3247. jexster - 3/15/2007 8:48:14 PM
Clyde it is really not all that hard.
Which is the Second Amendment:
A> "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. "
B> "he right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. "
This is the only Amendment in the Bill of Rights to have a predicate.
You should stop trying to stuff ten pounds of shit into a five pound bag just long enough to read the Amendment.
3248. jexster - 3/15/2007 8:49:31 PM
Occam's Razor
one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything
3249. jexster - 3/15/2007 8:52:20 PM
it is the duty of courts to accord meaning to each word of a legislative enactment if it is reasonably possible so to do. It is to be presumed that each word in a statute was placed there for a purpose Canon of Statutory Interpretation
3250. jexster - 3/15/2007 8:57:14 PM
Obviously, not everyone agrees with you Jexter.
If everyone agreed with me, I wouldn't have bothered to post I3
''[w]ith obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted with that end in view....[i]n the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than 18 inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well- regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense" United States v. Miller 307 U.S. 174 (1939).
3251. jexster - 3/15/2007 8:58:14 PM
Amen
3252. jexster - 3/15/2007 9:00:23 PM
I3 and I ready to join up with that new outfit in Iraq...the one with the Giant Spiders but I need more than a sawed off shotgun...I need a LeClerc
3253. iiibbb - 3/15/2007 9:50:40 PM
Message # 3250
From a case where the representatives for the defendent didn't even show up.
3254. iiibbb - 3/15/2007 9:55:22 PM
I don't know why you keep muddying the waters with the tank business... no one here is arguing that except you... even if mockingly, it is unrelated to positions held by anyone here.
3255. iiibbb - 3/15/2007 10:03:07 PM
Message # 3247
speaking of trying to pack shit in a bag. You're trying to interpret the amendment at the complete excluson of the second half of the sentence.
The militia includes me by definition by code and by training.
3256. iiibbb - 3/15/2007 10:04:55 PM
3257. jexster - 3/15/2007 10:13:41 PM
No I am NOT!!!!! It's conditional. That is the only way you can honestly read the amendment and give effect to every word.
Again the argument you try to construct out of a US code article that established the DRAFT in 1916 is an absurdity. In fact, that statute guts the argument. We have a well-regulated militia here in California. It's called the National Guard.
It's not that hard I3.
3258. jexster - 3/15/2007 10:15:13 PM
You want to have constitutional protection - simple - have a well-regulated militia that you can join and take your girlie guns every so often. Then your right to bear arms cannot be abridged...even if you dare to own a LeClerc!
3259. iiibbb - 3/15/2007 10:23:44 PM
so how does the DC prohibition of handguns, their refusal to issue permits for long guns, and their prohibition that the guns can be maintained in a manner suitable for home defense jibe with "not be infringed"?
And what does that have to do with tanks?
You're saying that the milia clause refers to the national gaurd? The national guard was created in 1903... it is federal (which goes against the heart of the 2nd amendment)... so by your reckoning we should disband the national guard.
There is still the matter of the "unorganized militia" which is everyone else... including me.
3260. iiibbb - 3/15/2007 10:25:26 PM
You're also trying to read the 2nd amendment ignoring the context of every other amendment...
Why weren't the militias established in the other articles of the consitution? The bill of rights enumerates the rights of the people... not the states, and not the federal government.
3261. iiibbb - 3/15/2007 10:32:32 PM
Militia
wiki
United States
Main article: militia (United States)
There is a long history of militia in the United States, starting before the country became a country, with the colonial militias normally consisting of all adult male citizens of a community, town, or local region. This practice was continued after the signing of the U.S. Constitution, and remained relatively unchanged until the late 1800s. Central to the complete concept of "militia" as used by the American Founders in the second amendment of the Constitution was that it be "well-regulated", which meant well-trained and well-organized, but not necessarily by government. Thus, the term would not have been properly used to refer to an armed, unruly mob, but only to persons who behave in a responsible, law-enforcing mode, and who might act to control an armed, unruly mob as an "insurrection".
3262. jexster - 3/15/2007 10:35:21 PM
Go get yourself an 18th Century militia there I3...For me it's either Hamas, Hezbollah, or that new Giant Spider one.
I am delighted that we agree. But it doesn't matter to me much anyway. The Gun Grabbers could ban all tommorrow and we'd not be rid of em for another 200 years
3263. iiibbb - 3/15/2007 10:53:02 PM
I have a right to protect my home from the people my gov't apparently can't control.
3264. wonkers2 - 3/16/2007 9:04:39 AM
The best way to control them would be to take their handguns away! Then all you'd need is a baseball bat.
3265. iiibbb - 3/16/2007 9:32:51 AM
How do you propose to actually take their handguns away?
They'll get them from somewhere, there are at least 3 links recently where cops have had guns stolen from them.
Meanwhile in other ineffective measures.
3266. iiibbb - 3/16/2007 9:34:37 AM
Message # 3264
Washington DC, NY and Chicago are all prime examples of where banning handguns sure is effective in keeping them out of the hands of predators.
3267. jexster - 3/16/2007 10:49:51 AM
That has nothing to do with whether you have a constituional right or they have one or anyone has one. If you Cold Dead Hands people would just go pass yourselves some gunslinging laws and keep your cotton pickin hands off our Founding Fuckers Holy Writ, we could shut this thread down..and I'd have my LeClerc
3268. iiibbb - 3/16/2007 11:10:00 AM
I do have a constitution right Jex. We happen to be passing "gunslinging" laws as well. CCW rights continue to expand. Castle doctorine continues to be put into statute.
Sorry if you don't agree.
3269. iiibbb - 3/16/2007 11:10:59 AM
The upshot is that I'll be more likely to vote Democrat once this right is secured.
Too bad they'll probably interpret it as me being against gun rights.
3270. iiibbb - 3/16/2007 2:07:04 PM
Message # 3249
Speaking of the "Canon of Statutory Interpretation". Why do they uses "states" (plural) in the 10th amendment, and "state" (singular) in the 2nd?
What is the definition of "a free state"? Shouldn't it be the same as "a free nation"? If not, why not?
3271. clydefo - 3/16/2007 2:26:13 PM
From US v Miller (my emphasis):
"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.(I recall a conversation about weapons with a Vietnam vet friend and he said that a sawed-off shotgun was very effective in close quarter work and that his war experiences led him to choose it for his own home protection) Aymette v. State of Tennessee, 2 Humph., Tenn., 154, 158.
The Constitution as originally adopted granted to the Congress power- 'To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.' U.S.C.A.Const. art. 1, 8. With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view."(? ? ?)(This insightful comment (boldface) certainly applies to the preceeding sentence concerning the Congressional power under Art I, 8, indeed it is exactly the reason the powers were granted, as I argue below. And the implication that Art.I,8 is is inadequate " to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces" and therefore the 2nd Amendment was needed for that purpose is nonsensical. )
Judge McReynolds and others are simply confused as to what was intended by the Framers.
In citing the hodge podge of various state and local Militia provisions, the court seems to be focused on the traditional justifications for and traditional means used "to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia". The history is interesting but the court fails to understand that the Framers see the same hodge podge and are overriding and consolidating the whole mess and turning authority over to Congress. One purpose of the Constitution is to overturn the old order, it is a new paradigm. The States and individuals are relieved of the burden of hauling their shotguns down to the town square like in the old days. The problem is that Judge McReynolds and other "control freaks" (present company excepted) naturally, to their minds, assume that "well-regulated" means "well-administered", when in fact, given its context within a list of individual rights protecting the people from the powers of government and its soldiers, the meaning can only be "well limited and constrained".
Indeed, Jexster, on your 3249, "It is to be presumed that each word in a statute was placed there for a purpose". What do you think is the purpose of the word "free" in the 2nd Amendment?
3272. wonkers2 - 3/19/2007 6:51:09 AM
Permit to carry and "stuff happens."
3273. iiibbb - 3/19/2007 7:37:47 AM
Yes... a flake.
My only side question is how was she permitted for 9 years, when MI has only been shall-issue for 6 or 7?
I've seen others, but due to time limitations I can only wiki... but crime rates within the population of concealed permit holders is very small.
The number of revocations of permits is very small:
* North Carolina reports 0.2% of their 263,102 holders had their license revoked in the 10 years since they have adopted the law — a lower proportion than the crime rate among North Carolina police officers. Revocation of license is for any criminal conviction, and need not involve an illegal firearm usage. Revocations typically arise from DUI.
* Of the 14,000 licenses issued in Oregon, only 4 individuals (0.03%) were convicted of criminal (though not necessarily violent) use or possession of a firearm.
3274. wonkers2 - 3/19/2007 7:54:04 AM
I wonder how many "flakes" have permits?
3275. iiibbb - 3/19/2007 8:07:29 AM
I wonder how many don't.
3276. iiibbb - 3/19/2007 8:16:11 AM
Should we take drivers' licenses away from all people over 65? They're in fatal accidents at rates that rival teenagers. Even if some of them can be responsible with a car, we should take them away.
For that matter... should we allow muslims into this country? Granted most are peaceful, but there are those few who've killed a lot of people.
3277. iiibbb - 3/19/2007 8:20:36 AM
How about people that get marriage licenses? We know that people often kill their spouses. Just watch Ed Water's new show.
3278. clydefo - 3/19/2007 2:14:21 PM
From Parker v. D.C. (2007)
The wording of the operative clause also indicates that the
right to keep and bear arms was not created by government, but
rather preserved by it. See Thomas B. McAffee & Michael J.
Quinlan, Bringing Forward the Right to Keep and Bear Arms:
Do Text, History, or Precedent Stand in the Way?, 75 N.C. L.
REV. 781, 890 (1997). Hence, the Amendment acknowledges
“the right . . . to keep and bear Arms,” a right that pre-existed
the Constitution like “the freedom of speech.” Because the right
to arms existed prior to the formation of the new government,
see Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 U.S. 275, 280 (1897) (describing
the origin of the Bill of Rights in English law), the Second
Amendment only guarantees that the right “shall not be
infringed.”
From Jexster (3239)
"... neither does the citizen need it [2nd A.] to have the right to bear arms... pre-existing at common law...
The Second Amendment is not creating a constitutional right it is conditioning it."
From the Ninth Amendment:
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
Given the above, how can a "condition" that limits or modifies a pre-existing right be construed as anything but denial, disparagement or infringment of that right?
3279. wonkers2 - 3/19/2007 2:29:21 PM
Based on common-sense, practical responses to changed conditions as in the case of slavery. Under the constitution citizens have the right to own slaves. They no longer have that right. Ditto for "separate but equal schools." As in the movie about the mob the name of which I can't recall, "Things change." Google is amazing. The movie was called "Things Change." It starred Don Ameche and Joe Mantegna. Poor Don Ameche found out to his dismay that "things had changed."
3280. wonkers2 - 3/19/2007 2:31:58 PM
When the Constitution came into being the guns were muzzle loaders. Now iiibbb argues that people should be able to own assault weapons, machine guns and no telling what else, for their self protection of course and annihilating gophers.
3281. iiibbb - 3/19/2007 2:38:07 PM
Message # 3280
Which is it going to be Wonkers...
either the original constitution is out of date and we shouldn't own slaves...
... or the original constitution is totally relevant and we should only have muzzle loaders?
noting that owning slaves wasn't a right specifically guaranteed by the bill of rights. And slavery was in fact corrected by amending the constitution (the way things should be done)
What amendment added to the constitution to account for our modern needs justifies gun-control?
3282. wonkers2 - 3/19/2007 3:28:11 PM
Amendments aren't the only way in which the Constitution is changed. It is subject to reinterpretation in light of changed conditions.
When Americans had an unfettered right to own and carry weapons the country rural and agricultural where a significant number of people hunted for food. There was no drug culture and gangs were not a problem. Now most of the population lives in cities where gun violence, gangs, drugs and criminality are significant problems. As noted above guns were single or double shot muzzle loaders. Now the gun lobby claims that citizens have the right to all kinds of automatic weapons. These weapons are causing problems to society that were behind the comprehension of the drafters of the 2nd Amendment. It should be amended or interpreted to allow for the adoption and strict enforcement of of reasonable handgun control laws as supported by a majority of law enforcement organizations and Americans.
3283. clydefo - 3/19/2007 4:15:42 PM
The Bill of Rights accrue to individual persons; not just to citizens or "free persons". Even "three fifths" of a person is still a person, if we accept the Framers concept of a slave's value. (The "three fifths" idea is simply a device to apportion representation, and not intended as any sort of definition of a person or a slave.)
If ownership of another person is right, then a slave could himself own another slave, or two slaves could own each other, both nonsensical notions. Roman citizens may have had the self-enabled right to own another person but not any Americans. Slave ownership certainly was not a common law right. To the extent it occurred, it was a manifestation of governmental power to sanction the practice.
Same for "separate but equal schools". It has nothing to do with an individual right except to violate same, but rather it is a state power that has been curtailed as unconstitutional.
3284. wonkers2 - 3/19/2007 4:45:28 PM
Slaves, segregated schools, buses, and unfettered gun ownership were legal and Constitutional once upon a time. Now, so far as guns are concerned, I believe that the only question left is to what extent and how may guns be regulated. Reasonable gun regulations are Constitutional.
3285. iiibbb - 3/19/2007 4:49:54 PM
So you agree that the DC, NY, and Chicago prohibitions are unconstitutional?
3286. clydefo - 3/19/2007 4:54:01 PM
I don't disagree with any of 3284 except "...and Constitutional...".
3287. wonkers2 - 3/19/2007 5:01:58 PM
I don't know what the DC, NY and Chicago prohibitions are. I suspect I would probably consider them reasonable in view of the gun violence problems in those cities. I am not in favor of prohibiting weapons used and needed for hunting and target practice. I do support very strict handgun regulations, and I believe such regulations are Constitutional.
3288. iiibbb - 3/19/2007 5:19:16 PM
...even though hadguns are the most appropriate weapon for many applications...
3289. wonkers2 - 3/19/2007 7:53:28 PM
True, they can be easily concealed and are very useful for shooting people at close range.
3290. iiibbb - 3/19/2007 8:55:53 PM
And the are not as powerful, thus less likely to pass through walls or go as far.
That's why the police carry them.
3291. wonkers2 - 3/20/2007 10:36:09 AM
True enough. I don't have a problem with the police carrying them as long as they don't go postal and unnecessarily pump 50 bullets into innocent citizens.
3292. iiibbb - 3/20/2007 11:24:37 AM
But they pled not guilty... and if they'd been carrying ar-15's or shotguns they would've pumped just as many rounds in the guy... and could very well have injured bystanders by using more powerful weapons.
Why wouldn't I want to avoid that?
Handguns are the correct tool because they are defensive weapons.
3293. clydefo - 3/20/2007 2:46:39 PM
Based on the sordid reputation and history of the NYPD, those cops that stopped Sean Bell's van may well have intended to steal whatever drugs or money they figured the group to have in their possession. Undercover? The stories I hear suggest that they are "unmarked" cops that entrap, extort and steal. Sadly, these summary executions of recalcitrant drivers are all too common and are tolerated by our ignorant, gullible and frightened society.
3294. wonkers2 - 3/20/2007 3:31:49 PM
Aside from the shootings, a lot of cops are bullies and very intolerant of any disagreement with them. I recently was involved with a case where, where following a minor altercation, a policeman complained to the person's employer and got him fired. The disagreement between the individual and the policeman had nothing to do with the individual's job. It was a pure revenge action by the policeman for no good reason whatsoever. Judge for yourself, the individual was working for a dealer in the capacity of checking in lease cars at the end of their leases. The policeman followed a leassee up the dealer driveway and began writing a traffic ticket. The car inspector began his inspection of the car while the policeman was writing the ticket. The policeman took exception to this and a disagreement ensued. The no profanity was involved by the inspector. He merely said I'm just trying to do my job. The policeman contacted the employer and the inspector was fired a couple of hours later.
3295. jexster - 3/22/2007 4:25:02 PM
The Panzerhaubitze 2000,
or PzH 2000 for short, is a German 155mm self-propelled howitzer developed by Krauss-Maffei Wegmann (KMW) together with Rheinmetall for the Bundeswehr (the German Armed Forces). The PzH 2000 is one of the most powerful conventional artillery system currently deployed. It is particularly notable for a very high rate of fire; in burst mode it can fire three rounds in 9 seconds, ten rounds in 56 seconds, and can fire between 10 and 13 rounds per minute continuously depending on barrel heating
3296. jexster - 3/22/2007 4:26:16 PM
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Amen
3297. jexster - 3/23/2007 3:07:15 PM
I DEMAND my right to bear arms not be infringed I3
I DEMAND my right to bear manly arms and not be consigned to girlie weaponry used by you and your ilk of the Cold Dead Hands Crowd
I can take out light armored vee-hicles and even cut a man in half at 1400 yards with this puppy
Say hello to my boy i3
The Barrett .50 cal sniper rifle
3298. jexster - 3/26/2007 5:51:31 PM
CNN reports that Sen Jim Webb carries a loaded gun on his person. Bush better watch his stoopid yap next time
Such a MANLY MAN!
I think I am gonna start packin.
3299. alistairconnor - 3/27/2007 6:49:06 AM
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Amen
Yeah you reckon you can pick up that Panzerhaubitze and carry it?
RPG, check. Mortar, check. Self-propelled howitzer : unconstitutional.
3300. iiibbb - 3/27/2007 9:32:43 AM
I would want one if iranian zombie hordes were a real threat.
Otherwise, you are counting on extreme interpretations to justify your position.
I've never indicated a need for a howitzer. I only care about having something to defend myself and my home. A handgun, rifle, and/or shotgun all have thier applications and are firearms normal police officers depend on and carry every day. They don't have RPGs or Howitzers.
3301. jexster - 3/27/2007 10:32:49 AM
What's to be "interpreted"? IOW - What part of "right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. ..." is unclear?
3302. iiibbb - 3/27/2007 11:07:32 AM
If you were able to force me to an absolutist's position, I'm likely to go to the no weapons barred camp, than the prohabitionists camp.
But, I've never claimed to be an absolutist, have I?
3303. jexster - 3/27/2007 11:08:37 AM
Yes you have. Either the right to keep and bear arms is unconditional or it can be "infringed"
So you would infringe the right to keep and arm bears
3304. jexster - 3/27/2007 11:10:41 AM
Now I say, that I as a member of the militia have the right to keep and bear and RPG, an IED, a Barrett Sniper Rifle, a LeClerc MBT and a PzH 2000 (sucker can put six 155mm shells one spot all at the same time!!!!), and an assortment of your girlie guns
3305. iiibbb - 3/27/2007 11:25:20 AM
Whatever Jex. If I thought you were making an honest argument I might entertain you. Like I said, if you press me I'll tend to lean toward open interpretation of the amendment.
But since you're just being you.
3306. jexster - 3/27/2007 1:40:40 PM
I am making a socratic argument and it is honest, just painful...
Lawyers! The should all die of painful stomach cancer eh
3307. iiibbb - 3/27/2007 3:12:29 PM
Well continue forth my friend... I will not disagree in principle that you should have your tank.
Assuming you can afford it.
3308. iiibbb - 3/27/2007 3:14:22 PM
Because in a strictest sense... that is indeed what the 2nd ammendment says.
I'll be happy with my shotgun, rifle, and handgun, thanks.
3309. iiibbb - 3/27/2007 3:19:11 PM
But... are tanks "arms"? How about rocket launchers or grenade launchers?
Arms usually means firearms. Firearms usually means a rifle or pistol.
So I was never really contradicting myself in your socratic debate.
3310. robertjayb - 3/27/2007 4:00:54 PM
Don't mess with Texas! We'll shoot 'ya!
AUSTIN — Gov. Rick Perry signed into law today a bill that gives Texans a stronger legal right to defend themselves with deadly force in their homes, cars and workplaces.
Both chambers of the Legislature overwhelmingly approved the measure earlier this month. The bill, backed by the National Rifle Association, states that a person has no duty to retreat from an intruder before using deadly force.
3311. jexster - 3/27/2007 4:20:08 PM
Here are the arms the founding fuckers had in mind
Not the AUG
3312. iiibbb - 3/27/2007 4:21:18 PM
Again, all a law like that does is put the onus on the gov't to show that a shooting wasn't defensive, rather than a person have to prove their innocense.
3313. jexster - 3/27/2007 4:25:30 PM
3299 ...no silly...you DRIVE it...just like a tank
GD weenie cheese-eatin surrender monkeys..they do make a fine MBT however
3314. iiibbb - 3/27/2007 7:07:39 PM
Message # 3311
By that logic freedom of speach only applies to pen to parchment... not the internet, radio, tv, movies, etc. The founding fathers never expected that somoen would be able to transmit information almost instantly.
Those muskets were modern military firearms. The AUG is a modern military firearm.
3315. iiibbb - 3/27/2007 7:08:58 PM
You go from rediculous argument to rediculous argument. I'm sure Socrates would be damn proud.
3316. clydefo - 3/28/2007 9:29:44 AM
Would any environmental restrictions on the operation of privately owned tanks be an infringement? Could anti-noise ordinances be applied against privately owned anti-aircraft cannons?
3317. Ulgine Barrows - 3/28/2007 9:46:14 PM
Do not forget to wish me happy birthday from this controlled hell-hole
3318. Ulgine Barrows - 3/28/2007 9:47:55 PM
If I try to edit anything, make italics or bold, this interface shuts down.
tral lalla la la la la
Not a stellar interface
3319. alistairconnor - 3/29/2007 3:38:44 AM
Well here's a big fat happy birthday from me.
And a sloppy kiss if you want it!
And the interface is my fault anyway. Rustic and awkward but functional, and rather cute in a weird way.
Just like me. Smoooch.
3320. wonkers2 - 3/29/2007 6:52:34 AM
The Cap'n sez, "Happy birthday, Ulgine! How about celebratin' with a little moonlight cruise on the Tomater Sloop!"
3321. wonkers2 - 3/30/2007 6:32:25 AM
3322. wonkers2 - 3/30/2007 7:16:03 AM
iiibbb, where do you stand on this latest berserk proposal from NRA?
Workers’ Safety and the Gun Lobby
E-Mail
Print
Save
Share
Digg
Facebook
Newsvine
Permalink
Published: March 30, 2007
The aura of invincibility that has legislatures bowing before the gun lobby is running into a commendable challenge from corporate America. Two conservative powerhouses — gun fanciers and business leaders — are facing off in statehouses over the gun lobby’s attempt to stop employers from exercising their property rights and barring workers from carrying firearms to work.
Bills to deny this common-sense right to workplace safety were initially approved in three states. But they failed last year in such gun-friendly states as Florida, Georgia, Indiana and Virginia after business interests rose up in active opposition. The National Rifle Association is back at work harder than ever in a dozen states. But so are Chambers of Commerce and corporate executives, warning of the danger — and business liability — of forcing companies to allow workers to carry guns.
There is no debate that doing so endangers workers. Workplaces that tolerate guns are five to seven times more likely to suffer homicides than job sites that ban firearms, according to a 2005 study in The American Journal of Public Health. The notion that self-defense mandates keeping guns in office drawers or out in parking-lot glove compartments is a dangerous fantasy.
The employers’ challenge was first thrown down in 2002 by an Oklahoma company that fired workers who refused to leave their weapons at home. That sparked the gun lobby’s mischievous campaign. With court fights under way, the employers’ cause was bolstered by the American Bar Association’s approval last month of a resolution defending the primacy of “traditional property rights” and federal laws mandating safe workplaces.
The private sector is showing good traction. The feisty Florida Chamber of Commerce doesn’t shy from mockery in warning lawmakers against a “Take Your Gun to Work Day” mentality. In Georgia, a conservative legislator with an A-plus N.R.A. rating, buttressed now by actively concerned corporations, dared to denounce the gun lobby’s “bullying” threats (“We will spare no effort to work against you,” vows the N.R.A).
The nation’s welfare needs more of this man-bites-John Wayne news.
Next Article in Opinion (4 of 14) »
Tips
To find reference information about the words used in this article, double-click on any word, phrase or name. A new window will open with a dictionary definition or encyclopedia entry.
Past Coverage
Felons in Florida Are Getting
3323. iiibbb - 3/30/2007 8:43:23 AM
I think property owners have a right to decide the rules for their property.
Fairness and logistics dictate they should provide a means for an employee who otherwise carries to either check their weapons, or allow them to keep them in their car.
Now, if a company decides no guns on their property, and then a madman shoots the place up... is the company responsible? They've created an environment where everyone but the lawbreaker is a sitting duck. The company should be held accountable, correct?
Personally, if I happened to find out someone I trusted had brought a gun to work despite a rule against it. It depends entirely on the circumstances of my discovery of course, but I probably wouldn't say anything to anyone.
According to the abstract for the AJPH the confidence interval for their risk was 1.7 to 13.9
Which seems to be a pretty sucky interval, and barely different from 1. I might go to the library and look at it just for kicks. Medical journals are notorious for using improper statistics (Altman, 2000; Statistics in Medicine 19:3275-3289)... knowing social scientists socially... I doubt they fair much better. The article reports that serious statistical flaws were found in 40% of the papers of one major journal, and that researchers drew conclusions not supported by their data in 20%. They found error rates of 75% in one journal. The lowest rate was 19% had serious errors.
3324. iiibbb - 3/30/2007 8:46:09 AM
That woman is a moron... whether she thought is was self defense or not... firing a gun out of a moving car is incredibly irresponsible.
3325. iiibbb - 3/30/2007 8:50:49 AM
Actually reading the article again... they should both lose their drivers licenses, and she should lose her gun permit.
She should have pulled over and let the guy go on. If he pulled over too... _then_ she might consider the gun. She should've called 911 as well, as she was not in imminent peril.
3326. iiibbb - 3/30/2007 8:51:56 AM
Castle doctrine does not apply, as it can be easily established that this would not have been a legitimate self-defense shooting.
3327. wonkers2 - 3/30/2007 9:10:33 AM
We agree that companies should be free to make the rules about guns in the workplace. We disagree on your comment that "The company should be accountable, correct?"
A more correct observation IMHO is that a company that fails to adopt and publish a rule prohibiting guns in the workplace is responsible for any shootings on their property. The only situation that I can conceive of where a company that prohibits gun should be held responsible is in the event the company failed to enforce its rule or failed to respond appropriately in the event of a warning or threat of which it became aware (anonymous warning, tips, threats, etc.). Employers should be expected to take reasonable steps to prevent gun or other violence in the workplace. The best place to start is to prohibit weapons on company property. In some inner city plants it might be appropriate to install weapons detection equipment at plant entrances as is now done at some inner city schools.
3328. clydefo - 3/30/2007 9:18:41 AM
No sex toys of any sort at work!
3329. iiibbb - 3/30/2007 9:22:30 AM
Message # 3327
Why are they not responsible? If they make a clear rule, and and a disgruntled nutjob still comes to work, then the defenseless people within are defenseless because of the company's policy.
Why are they not liable?
3330. clydefo - 3/30/2007 9:33:30 AM
a disgruntled nutjob still comes to work
At least now the nutjob has to leave work to get the gun. Maybe someone will notice the steam from his ears. Think about how many nutjobs are all around you, if you're at a typical workplace. Do you really want them to already be packing when they blow?
3331. iiibbb - 3/30/2007 9:55:05 AM
You assumption is that they have to go home to get it. If someone is going to blow, they likely already have it there.
How many places with firearms prohibitions actually check their employees at the door? I venture very few really have the means to keep a gun off their property.
3332. wonkers2 - 3/30/2007 10:19:55 AM
Why are they not liable? Ask a lawyer. I'm not one. But my impression is that an employer would be more likely to run into a liability problem IF they allowed guns in the workplace than if they prohibited guns. Most employers don't even like to arm their plant security people because they fear liability if a security employee gets trigger happy and shoots somebody unnecessarily. And they don't want to spend the money on the firearms training and pay the wages that would be required if their guards were armed. All that can be expected of an employer is that he take reasonable precautions to protect his employees. That would be interpreted, in my opinion, by courts to mean estabilishing and publishing and enforcing a rule prohibiting guns or other weapons in the workplace. Enforcing would mean taking reasonable steps--such as dismissing or disciplining violators of the rule. It would not be reasonable to require pat down searches of every employee entering the plant or installing metal detectors.
3333. clydefo - 3/30/2007 10:37:53 AM
We'll never know how many nutjobs have cooled off on the walk to the car to get the gun, but I'll bet it's a considerable number.
Consider the odds. Right now your chances of being a workplace gun victim are exceedingly small, like winning in the numbers racket. Arming the nutjobs all around you would seem to drastically increase those chances. Seems like an irrational and dangerous thing to do.
3334. iiibbb - 3/30/2007 10:48:02 AM
I agree about the overall risk being very small Clyde... which is why I follow the rules, but is also why I think most gun control is fruitless.
I carry in the woods, which is the only time I've every been confronted by anyone.
A workplace nutjob is going to do whatever they do no matter what anyone does about it.
The number of people that "cool-off" on the way home or to the parking lot is probably as low or lower as the number of occasions it actually happens.
Overall, the relative risk if being shot in anger is just plain low, period.
3335. jexster - 3/30/2007 2:28:18 PM
Leopard II - Best Main Battle Arms in the World???
NO!
Jexster's Tank Ratings:
1. Char LeClerc!
2. Leopard II
3. M1A1
4. T90S
5. Challenger
3336. jexster - 3/30/2007 9:12:18 PM
Competition for LeClerc
Just introduced..
The Korean XK2's gun may have more penetrating power. Note the resemblance to LeClerc...low and slung...fast..because of auto-matic loader which reduces size of coupla, crew by one, and overall weight
3337. jexster - 4/1/2007 7:43:11 PM
Love a Marine with a Weapon!
Never call it a "gun"
3338. jexster - 4/1/2007 7:43:58 PM
Oh baby...keep and bear me in those arms any day
3339. jexster - 4/5/2007 9:53:44 PM
OOOPS i3..we already have one!
but maybe now that they've made it involuntary..
They'll take you and your .410
WASHINGTON (AFP) - The Pentagon will call up 12,000 National Guard soldiers for service in Iraq to fill gaps in the overworked army, a news report said Thursday.
The National Guard is a volunteer militia, but, said NBC News, they will receive an involuntary call-up to report for duty in Iraq.
The Pentagon told AFP it had no immediate comment on the report.
3340. jexster - 4/17/2007 7:06:10 AM
Excerpt from the NRA Gun Safety Rules:
"Know your target and what is beyond.
Be absolutely sure you have identified your target beyond any doubt. Equally important, be aware of the area beyond your target. This means observing your prospective area of fire before you shoot. Never fire in a direction in which there are people or any other potential for mishap. Think first. Shoot second."
The Chinaman was a true marksman!
3341. iiibbb - 4/17/2007 7:45:20 AM
Too bad no one could shoot back. Just lie on the floor or line up on the wall. Nice second options.
PS not from China.
3342. bubbaette - 4/17/2007 7:46:37 AM
South Korea -- english major.
3343. iiibbb - 4/17/2007 8:04:09 AM
Well that worked
A bill that would have given college students and employees the right to carry handguns on campus died with nary a shot being fired in the General Assembly.
House Bill 1572 didn't get through the House Committee on Militia, Police and Public Safety. It died Monday in the subcommittee stage, the first of several hurdles bills must overcome before becoming laws.
The bill was proposed by Del. Todd Gilbert, R-Shenandoah County, on behalf of the Virginia Citizens Defense League. Gilbert was unavailable Monday and spokesman Gary Frink would not comment on the bill's defeat other than to say the issue was dead for this General Assembly session.
Virginia Tech spokesman Larry Hincker was happy to hear the bill was defeated. "I'm sure the university community is appreciative of the General Assembly's actions because this will help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus."
Same guy that apparently thinks that students don't need to be warned about loose gunmen either.
3344. jexster - 4/17/2007 9:18:55 AM
That's JUST what we need...a binge drinking college kid with a glock
3345. jexster - 4/17/2007 9:19:35 AM
Second easiest to get a gun
Biggest mass shooting in US history
We have a history of mass shootings
3346. iiibbb - 4/17/2007 9:28:01 AM
Meanwhile on another campus shooting spree
Armed students subdue a shooter on a rampage.
3347. jexster - 4/17/2007 9:47:43 AM
The Cold Dead Hands Patrol hard at work
Nice to see
Try again
[edit] January 16, 2002
On January 16, 2002, the Dean, Anthony Sutin, Professor Thomas Blackwell, and student Angela Dales were shot and killed by disgruntled student Peter Odighizuwa, 43, of Nigeria. Three other students were shot but survived
Guess that's why we didn't get a link and a quote
Another shooting in guess where...
3348. jexster - 4/17/2007 9:48:35 AM
Not not LA
Not NyC
Not Chicago
Nor SF...
Nor Philadelphia, DC...
The boonies of Cold Dead Hands country
3349. jexster - 4/17/2007 9:51:08 AM
When the government takes away our guns, only Korean engrish majors will have guns
3350. iiibbb - 4/17/2007 9:51:57 AM
I guess that's why we didn't get the full quote from Jexter
On January 16, 2002, the Dean, Anthony Sutin, Professor Thomas Blackwell, and student Angela Dales were shot and killed by disgruntled student Peter Odighizuwa, 43, of Nigeria. Three other students were shot but survived. The abrupt ending to Odighizuwa's shooting spree is attributed to two students with personal firearms who quickly took action.[1] At the first sound of gunfire, fellow students Tracy Bridges and Mikael Gross, unbeknownst to the other, ran to their vehicles to grab their personal firearms.[2] Bridges and Gross then worked with another student, Ted Besen. The three students approached Odighizuwa from different angles. Bridges raised his revolver and pointed it at Odighizuwa who then dropped his firearm and was first subdued by Besen followed by other students.[3] Once Odighizuwa was securely held down Gross went back to his vehicle and retrieved handcuffs to help hold Odighizuwa until police could arrive. Police reports noted there were two empty eight round magazines belonging to Odighizuwa’s .380 semi-automatic handgun. It is unclear whether Odighizuwa ran out of ammunition or if there were still rounds in the chamber at the time that he dropped his firearm.
3351. jexster - 4/17/2007 9:54:05 AM
Yea...good
.he emptied two clips
Virginia
Case crosed
3352. jexster - 4/17/2007 9:55:59 AM
IF Cpl. I3, Cold Dead Hands Brigade, had his way, Blacksburg would be more like Baghdad
3353. iiibbb - 4/17/2007 10:14:57 AM
Whatever Jex.
All I know is that under your vision, everyone is a sitting duck.
3354. iiibbb - 4/17/2007 10:45:33 AM
Plenty of warning signs
Cho had shown recent signs of violent, aberrant behavior, according to an investigative source, including setting a fire in a dorm room and allegedly stalking some women.
A note believed to have been written by Cho was found in his dorm room that railed against "rich kids," "debauchery" and "deceitful charlatans" on campus.
Cho was an English major whose creative writing was so disturbing that he was referred to the school's counseling service, the Associated Press reported.
3355. iiibbb - 4/17/2007 10:46:04 AM
I give up my rights because people don't act?
3356. jexster - 4/17/2007 10:50:52 AM
Virginia has the second most lax firearms sales laws
California, New Jersey the strictest....
Can't pack here I3
Can't bear a LeClerc either
a C4 vest either for that matter
3357. jexster - 4/17/2007 10:53:01 AM
Nation Again Grieves Over A Tragedy "Of Monumental Proportions"
Just the price we pay for our freedom to have a well-regulated militia to protect us against Kings George of Tejas
3358. jexster - 4/17/2007 10:54:34 AM
"Friend of Mine'' - full lyrics
3359. wonkers2 - 4/17/2007 2:00:14 PM
Anybody know if Cho had a permit??
3360. iiibbb - 4/17/2007 2:58:32 PM
Message # 3356
2nd most is rhetoric. It is easy, but no different than many states.
3361. iiibbb - 4/17/2007 3:01:13 PM
Message # 3357
Where were the police to stop this guy? You people always tell me to call the police if something like this happens.
Well?
If this guy didn't have access to a gun, he'd blow something up... run people down with a car... whatever. He was nuts in his head. Guns have nothing to do with it.
3362. iiibbb - 4/17/2007 3:05:02 PM
I wonder if the police engaged this guy at all.
Victims have to wait for it all to end.
3363. thoughtful - 4/17/2007 3:34:51 PM
Well apparently at the time the 2nd round of shooting started, the cops were busy interviewing the wrong guy.
3364. iiibbb - 4/17/2007 3:51:41 PM
Either or. Virginia Tech is a big campus. I've not heard a resolution about using the bomb threats to test VT response times. I'm sure they'll compare handwriting and we'll find out.
The "wrong guy" was tied to the first woman in some way. So the police weren't completely off base. I still wonder why they took so long to alert everyone.
I have no idea why it is reasonable to expect me to disarm myself and wait for them if they're not going to engage the guy at all. Too early to comment on the police actions... I have no idea how long the gunman was active in the second site.
Ultimately, the police were not there to protect people. You can easily find yourself in situations where all you have is yourself. You can flee, fight, or submit. I think it ridiculous that "fight" is not considered a viable alternative... even condemned by some of you. If you want to lie on the gound, or line up on the wall and submit... that's your business. I'm going to run or fight.
3365. iiibbb - 4/17/2007 3:55:00 PM
I should say... I will do my best not to submit... because one never knows how they're really going to act in the face of something like this.
But I do not feal ashamed of that aspiration.
3366. clydefo - 4/17/2007 4:17:09 PM
iiibbb, your desire to protect yourself in the worst case scenario is understandable but misguided. If you encourage an environment where many guns are all around you, even for well-intentioned reasons such as self defense, you only increase your chances of encountering that scenario. You are correct when you say that, "It's not the guns that kill people..." and that is especially true when the guns are left at home or barred at the gate..
3367. iiibbb - 4/17/2007 4:31:32 PM
I don't agree. Guns are already around me. More than half the people I know own them. I know people that carry them.
I've been in two situations in my life that were too close for comfort... so whether you think I'm misguided doesn't matter to me. There are plenty of examples where guns are used in self defense to feel misguided. I have two friends who used them in self-defense (without shooting). There are examples in the press where armed people have intervened and helped officers and innocents.
Again, VT is a yet another example of someone taking a gun where it's not supposed to be and using it. People that follow the rules, were unarmed.
So, when you can get the bad guys to follow the rules... let me know and I'll reconsider my position.
3368. concerned - 4/17/2007 4:51:53 PM
Re. 3362 -
What? They're not getting paid enough to take a bullet.
3369. concerned - 4/17/2007 4:55:02 PM
How about 'knife control'?
I've recently been bitten twice by the same police dog while running. As a precaution, I've started carrying a knife when I run past the house where the dog lives.
The last time I did it, the dog's owner (who can't control his dog) called the cops on me for running by his house carrying a knife, and I was 'pulled over' from jogging by two squad cars.
3370. concerned - 4/17/2007 4:56:33 PM
I don't really see the sense in allowing the students to carry guns for 'self protection', but the faculty and administration is a different matter entirely, IMO.
3371. Wombat - 4/17/2007 5:01:24 PM
#3361
Last time I checked, there is no Bombs 'r' Us in Blacksburg. And it is not possible to tuck a car into your jacket, drive it into buildings, and run people over in classrooms. Guns provide a degree of convenience and efficiency that other means of killing people lack (for your run-of-the-mill nutcase).
3372. betty - 4/17/2007 5:01:46 PM
Clyde
I present gun ownership in Switzerland.
I know that if you do a search on this topic you will get crazy amounts of anti-gun-control webpages. My point is that havign guns around does not make for violence. And I say that as a strong, gun control supporter. I was an organizer for the Million Mom March.
There is a culture of alienation and disconnectedness in the US that is not as evident in other countries. There is a psychological problem in our country that, I strongly believe comes from lack of a social safety net. It makes people crazy and desperate and violent. In the US, it is farily easy to get a gun so the anger people feel gets amplified, like it did in Columbine, like it did at Virginia Tech.
It's not a coincidence that these shootings are largely committed by young men going through economic transitions (graduating high school, university, laid off, etc).
3373. clydefo - 4/17/2007 5:24:38 PM
betty, the wikipedia piece did discuss the need for militiamen to transport their weapons, etc. But notice the picture caption: The carrying of ammunition is strictly forbidden.
3374. concerned - 4/17/2007 5:25:52 PM
I believe the cause of the excessive gun violence in the US is also significantly contributed to by a lack of social cohesiveness. Some of this is probably unavoidable because of the large amount of diversity in the US, but it is aggravated by those who have or are encourage to become cynical about society or have a victim mentality.
3375. Max Macks - 4/17/2007 5:27:14 PM
It's crazy to all automatic weapons
be legal in the US but too late to change the laws.
does anyone want to guess when the psycho wacko
in the US will want to get his name in history
by killing more than 32people at same time?
3376. clydefo - 4/17/2007 5:28:59 PM
For dog defense, try carrying a bright red plastic water pistol with a dilute lemon juice or other eye-irritant. (ask a vet)
3377. arkymalarky - 4/17/2007 5:40:27 PM
Two things equaling two total cents for me:
1) if a professor flags a student for writings or actions that are disturbing, it is imperative on a university to act---not to put the onus on a deranged student to take care of the issue himself
2) history of such problems should preclude a gun sale, period. All the talk about gun regulation and/or personal defense is legit, but not in this case. This was a disturbed individual WHOM PEOPLE KNEW TO BE DISTURBED. He should have been intervened upon via the university once this was known, and a record of his past mental difficulties AND THEIR NATURE should have prevented him from being able to buy a weapon.
Nothing else would have stopped this incident. This guy didn't act out of the blue, and like most other cases of this sort, there were many red flags regarding him--not his mental illness or past emotional struggles in general, because the vast vast majority of mentally ill people are not dangerous--but because of the nature of the manifestion of his particular issues and his personal history of them.
3378. arkymalarky - 4/17/2007 5:42:14 PM
I'm sorry, but it seems easy enough for gun-nuts to at least get together enough with pinko Constitution-haters to agree that that young man should never have been able to purchase a firearm.
3379. wonkers2 - 4/17/2007 5:50:04 PM
Arky's on the right track. Too easy for anyone to buy guns, especially handguns of the type used in this horrific slaughter.
3380. wonkers2 - 4/17/2007 5:51:30 PM
They should be illegal. They serve no useful purpose that I can think of. They are the kind that Al Capone would have loved.
3381. arkymalarky - 4/17/2007 5:53:41 PM
Thing is, whether you or I or Con'd or 3i3b believe that or not, there ought to be some area where even widely divergent people agree enough to get meaningful legislation passed. Slate had an article to that effect, but it didn't go far enough, imo, in that it still only looked at criminal history. That isn't nearly enough for cases like these.
3382. arkymalarky - 4/17/2007 5:56:59 PM
If I had a student I knew to have that background or who displayed similar things as what was in this student's (or the Columbine boys') writings, and I reported it, and that student wasn't reported to state authorities and flagged or put in a database that the Brady Bill would restrict, that is a MAJOR security concern. I am bound BY LAW to report a suspicion of child abuse, which the state authorities are then bound to investigate and from which action is expected to be taken on findings. The same should hold for students like these.
3383. arkymalarky - 4/17/2007 5:58:21 PM
I can't find any reasonable reason for anyone on even the most extreme sides of the gun debate to disagree with that.
3384. iiibbb - 4/17/2007 6:09:54 PM
Message # 3371
No, but there are plenty of places to buy the means for making a bomb.
There are plenty of sidewalks on the tech campus to run down people.
Nutcases will find their way.
3385. iiibbb - 4/17/2007 6:17:58 PM
I am not opposed to most levels of background checks before purchasing firearms.
Like 911, all the warnings were there, but there was no one to put them all together.
This kid had disturbed writings, but is he much different than Quinton Tarrantino and all the playwrites who may be emmulating him? I read the kid may have been on depression meds. That stuff is scary. Is it Ambien that's been linked to suicides? I know my wife's best friend tried to kill herself when she was prescribed that stuff.
Still a lot of unknowns out there.
As to Wonkers saying there's no use for guns. Why do police have them?
3386. iiibbb - 4/17/2007 6:19:11 PM
Message # 3368
That is not a dig on the actions of the police... it is a statement that if you think they're going to rush in and save you may be a fatal assumption on your part.
3387. jexster - 4/17/2007 7:37:39 PM
LONDON - The Virginia Tech shootings sparked criticism of U.S. gun control laws around the world Tuesday. Editorials lashed out at the availability of weapons, and the leader of Australia — one of America's closest allies — declared that America's gun culture was costing lives.
No shit
3388. wonkers2 - 4/17/2007 7:47:02 PM
I didn't say there's no use for guns. There is no use for pistols with big magazines of the type used by the nutcase today. Police don't need them either. In Michigan police departments are selling their automatic weapons to generate money to balance their budgets. As far as I know (I don't claim expertise) the kind of pistol used by Mr. Cho aren't used by the military; they aren't used by hunters; and they aren't used in organized target shooting. They are toys used by wingnuts and by drug lords. iiibbb, please tell us why they should be legal.
3389. iiibbb - 4/17/2007 8:16:24 PM
Michigan may be selling them off, but many departments use them.
The gun he had happens to be one of the guns I own. I have it because it was one of the few ambidextrous guns out there at the time.
This same type of gun, a 9 mm semi-auto, is carried by our troups. The troops use a Beretta, this was a Glock; however they both have the same capacity, 15 rounds.
Revolvers can hold up to 8 rounds and reloaded fairly quickly with speed-loaders or moon clips. The target competitions I go to (which do in fact use these types of weapons) are regularly won by a guy with a 6-shot revolver (although he is highly skilled).
I'm not so certain that if semi-autos were banned (and successfully made to ~disappear~) that the outcome would have be greatly altered by him having a couple of revolvers.
I'll await the national debate. I'm tired of thinking about this right now.
3390. iiibbb - 4/17/2007 9:06:41 PM
Meanwhile, so-called professionals continue to prove to be more irresponsible than me.
3391. jexster - 4/17/2007 9:15:49 PM
WaPo
Va. Killings Viewed as Mirror of U.S. Society
Officials, newspapers and people around the world describe the Virginia Tech massacre as a tragic reflection of an America that fosters violence at home and abroad.
3392. Ulgine Barrows - 4/18/2007 1:20:12 AM
I can't imagine being a parent of a student there, waiting.
Horrible.
I hate guns.
3393. iiibbb - 4/18/2007 8:37:23 AM
Seems to be something wrong with the background check system
Not only had a teacher referred him to counseling... The police did as well.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/18/vtech.shooting/
3394. clydefo - 4/18/2007 11:32:48 AM
You can keep your Glock popgun. I don't carry a gun. But far and away, my weapon of choice not to carry is the Smith and Wesson Model 29 44 Magnum loaded with armor piercing rounds.
Those crazed video game killers are wearing body armor now, fer Christ's sake!
3395. iiibbb - 4/18/2007 12:59:02 PM
You can mock me all you want. I'll still be nice to you about it.
But make no mistake. I take no pleasure in what happened. I do not carry myself with a false bravado. I'm not even sure the gun I have will ever serve in my defense. I don't actually want it to. I don't want to shoot anyone. I don't want anyone to be shot.
I do not feel my views are unique among the gun owners I know.
So you guys go ahead and mock-away.
3396. iiibbb - 4/18/2007 1:17:40 PM
What I'm thinking about is before Monday, this kid was in desperate need of help.
3397. iiibbb - 4/18/2007 1:20:05 PM
What I'm thinking about is the incredible heroism of Liviu Librescu. I can only hope that I ever think with as much clarity as him in a crisis.
3398. iiibbb - 4/18/2007 1:20:38 PM
What I am not thinking about is Dirty Harry and armor peircing ammo.
3399. thoughtful - 4/18/2007 1:25:44 PM
amen iiibbb
3400. wonkers2 - 4/18/2007 1:41:29 PM
Hmmh, pro-imus, anti-gun control, anti-Gonzales hearings. Methinks we have a mole in the Mote!
3401. thoughtful - 4/18/2007 1:53:53 PM
wonks, join the wiz camp... I think he's looking for members
3402. thoughtful - 4/18/2007 1:54:23 PM
and you left out global warming! How could you!
3403. wonkers2 - 4/18/2007 3:36:26 PM
Thanks, I'll add it to my list. The axis of evil: Imus- Thoughtful-Concerned-Gonzales-Bush-Cheney-Exxon-Mobil-James Dobson.
3404. jexster - 4/18/2007 4:01:30 PM
Now he's blaming 9 seconds of Imus!
I knew old Wonker would slither his way into this somehow.
Hey pics out!!! KimcheeHead Walther in one hand, Glock in the other, lookin I3 on militia maneuvers at the OK Corral
3405. iiibbb - 4/18/2007 4:27:06 PM
Jex, you are emmensly disrespectful of me. I don't appreciate it. I don't deserve it. You do not seem to add anything to any conversation I've ever read.
3406. wonkers2 - 4/18/2007 4:37:45 PM
Jex, like Imus, is equal opportunity disrespectful. They call it satire when Imus does it.
3407. iiibbb - 4/18/2007 4:43:56 PM
I don't get satire from him... everything under his name is vitriolic. I try to respect people. I'm even respectful of him. I'm tired of it.
3408. wonkers2 - 4/18/2007 5:13:07 PM
Have you noticed what he's been saying to wonkers? Join the group. Don't take it personally. Or, better. see the light on reasonable handgun control and enforcement.
3409. clydefo - 4/18/2007 5:28:21 PM
Suck it up, Pilgrim! Fatigue makes cowards of us all. If you wimp out when the satire stops you're gonna put all of us Special Forces Green Beanies at risk.
3410. arkymalarky - 4/18/2007 5:29:01 PM
I think 3i3b is fairly reasonable, esp wrt screening for purchases. That's the only legal gun control that will be effective in stopping something like this, imo. The rest is to crack down on the illegal. And I notice no one seemed to disagree with what I posted above (Con'd! Come out and throw in your two cents), so surely that's a bit of common ground for all but the most extreme on either side to work from.
And I agree with 3i3b that it is sad the guy didn't get help, but he also showed no indication of being someone who'd ever have been receptive or responsive to help. Those types of people are very rare, and there are serious questions about what to preemptively do with them. Personally I think the university at least should have done more to monitor him at the very least. But he and others like him should certainly be flagged when trying to purchase a gun, and at the very least prevented from buying one legally.
3411. wonkers2 - 4/18/2007 5:39:03 PM
Slate's Tim Noah on gun control
3412. wonkers2 - 4/18/2007 5:41:11 PM
How the right keeps winning on abortion and gun control
3413. iiibbb - 4/18/2007 6:05:58 PM
There was a gun-control failure in this case. I'm not sure what more gun control (proposed and recently expired) would have accomplished.
I still wonder how he was able to stay below the radar on the emotional checks that are supposed to be in place.
3414. arkymalarky - 4/18/2007 6:09:03 PM
The gun control failure is that the law isn't restrictive enough on screening purchases, which is essentially what the Slate article suggests.
3415. jexster - 4/18/2007 7:01:58 PM
I3..don't forget your medications before bed
-- Nurse Ratchet
The Business End of a Glock9
3416. jexster - 4/18/2007 7:04:06 PM
And they wanna stop the people of DC from protecting themselves from the Wild West Gun Culture
Prob is, as I have said Arky, is even if they banned all handguns tommorrow, this country is so awash with weaponry and large parts of it in the grip of a yahoo gun culture..you'd not notice a fucking thing 5 years later
3417. wonkers2 - 4/18/2007 7:31:49 PM
The gun control laws were, by and large, written by the NRA.
3418. arkymalarky - 4/18/2007 10:41:09 PM
That guy apparently didn't own a gun until he easily, legally bought those two a few weeks before his rampage.
3419. arkymalarky - 4/18/2007 10:42:10 PM
But that aside, there ought to be some means to more aggressively intervene with someone like that before a weapon is bought, legally or illegally, much less used.
3420. alistairconnor - 4/19/2007 1:43:09 AM
I haven't looked at the details of the case, so feel free to shoot me down.
It seems to me that the hate-filled, mentally-unstable loner, who seem to be the perpetrators of such massacres, is unlikely to go out and find a gun illegally. Such people are likely to be timid and law-abiding in everyday life, with poor networking skills. So I think it's likely that proper background checking would lower the incidence of such events.
iii: I still wonder how he was able to stay below the radar on the emotional checks that are supposed to be in place.
My guess is that the checking is rather routine and perfunctory, and governed by an ideology that all people have a right to bear arms, so you need a very specific cogent reason to deprive them of that right.
My opinion is that such checking should be supplemented by a requirement to obtain a user's license, rather like a driver's license, with compulsory training by some registered organism (shooting club or school). Along with technical and safety skills, trainers would be required to evaluate the trainee's psychological aptitude to own a gun.
3421. wonkers2 - 4/19/2007 6:09:07 AM
You're on the right track, in my opinion.
3422. jexster - 4/19/2007 6:17:44 AM
In my opinion, you couldn't find the track with a map and Al Sharpton
3423. concerned - 4/19/2007 8:31:59 AM
Grammar alert:
Could armed students and employees have prevent (sic) the VA Tech shooting rampage?
3424. concerned - 4/19/2007 8:32:12 AM
Grammar alert:
Could armed students and employees have prevent (sic) the VA Tech shooting rampage?
3425. concerned - 4/19/2007 8:32:51 AM
Sorry about repost.
3426. iiibbb - 4/19/2007 8:55:30 AM
Message # 3423
Yes it is possible, but it was not likely. Something like 2% of VA citizens have permits to carry. What percentage of that actually carries is unknown because people also get the permits because it allows them to buy more than one handgun a month.
Of people that do carry, a large number would never activly engage a shooter unless they were directly confronted... so if they were elsewhere in the building, they probably wouldn't have closed on the shooter.
So in those 4 classrooms you probably have 10 people who are over 21.
I would tend to think the odds are less than 1/2% that a permit holder would have altered the outcome.
But that's not to say it couldn't happen, but anyone who thinks it's likely is being dishonest.
3427. iiibbb - 4/19/2007 9:00:25 AM
However, from a personal standpoint... I think actually having a gun greatly enhances a individual's chances of surviving an predatory attack.... certainly better than the alternative.
I don't see permit numbers increasing after this. Even if they were to open the campus up to it.
Ultimately unknowable.
3428. concerned - 4/19/2007 9:07:51 AM
I don't see a problem with limiting gun ownership to people who have histories of mental illness.
3429. concerned - 4/19/2007 9:09:37 AM
Just so nobody misinterprets my last post, I should say that I don't see a problem with denying handgun ownership to people with histories of mental illness that may indicate a possible tendency to violence.
3430. iiibbb - 4/19/2007 9:17:58 AM
I can't think of anyone who thinks it was a good that this guy passed a background check.
What is going to be debated is what constitutes a "history of mental illness". He "volunteered" to go to counsilling. Women who were stalked didn't press charges.
This is a tough one that I don't know the answer. Balancing privacy with the publics right to know has been a tricky subject in the past. If there were blacklists that that one could falsely be added to? Would there be a mechanism for someone to clear their name?
3431. Wombat - 4/19/2007 9:33:11 AM
iiibbb:
Two examples:
Sex offender registry and the do not fly list. Both much easier to get on than to get off. The former is at least based on a conviction for a crime (although some of what is considered "criminal" may be open to question). The latter is apparently riddled with mistaken identities and arbitrary standards, with no publically available standards for selection, and no appeal process.
3432. wonkers2 - 4/19/2007 9:37:37 AM
True. But being on both these lists arguably imposes a greater hardship than being put on a list making one unable to buy or carry a handgun.
3433. wabbit - 4/19/2007 9:37:59 AM
Message # 3423
Thank you, concerned.
3434. jexster - 4/19/2007 10:49:47 AM
3435. jexster - 4/19/2007 10:58:24 AM
I3b3 and I have a cure.
A little quirky, perhaps, but it will provide closure.
3436. clydefo - 4/19/2007 12:14:54 PM
It is a sad irony that the best data that could be mined in the effort to identify and stop these gun rampages is destroyed shortly after it's collected by the FBI through their background checks.
3437. poipual - 4/19/2007 12:47:25 PM
"someone like that"
Arky, exactly what do you mean? What law did he break prior to the shooting that should have prevented him from obtaining a gun? Would that have vilated his Civil Rights? Wouldn't that be more important than the death of a few people?
3438. iiibbb - 4/19/2007 12:47:36 PM
Do you even know what data is collected during that check?
3439. clydefo - 4/19/2007 1:03:14 PM
What is collected? Names, dates, purchase locations etc. might reveal useful patterns. Correlated with other data bases, it might help prevent a tragedy. The innocent have nothing to worry about...
3440. iiibbb - 4/19/2007 1:25:52 PM
How would names, dates, addresses, and the questionare with things like "Do you use illegal drugs" and "have you ever recended your US citizenship" prevent the tragedy?
Correlated with what other data bases? That's what they're supposed to be doing with the background check in the first place.
Tell me Dirty Harry... Tell me a pattern that could be drawn.
3441. concerned - 4/19/2007 1:34:48 PM
How about a signed authorization from the relevant mental health authorities being required before a person with a history of mental problems is allowed to purchase any firearm?
3442. iiibbb - 4/19/2007 1:39:52 PM
Perhaps... I'm not sure how creating a market for such letters would really change much... but it might stop someone like him.
You might wind up with a Mental health "professional" who'll sign for anyone... or you might get someone who won't sign for anyone. Seems like mental health is a very subjective field.
I just don't know enough to say that would, or would not work.
I don't think Dirty Harry or Mr. LeClerc knows much about it either... but I'm sure they're going to wow us with the same brilliant cognative skills they've shown us so far.
3443. iiibbb - 4/19/2007 1:40:13 PM
and deft debating skills.
Really... I've been floored.
3444. jexster - 4/19/2007 2:06:16 PM
I3..pick yourself up off the floor...be a man..get whatever girliegun you call a weapon and stand by
Another member of our well-regulated militia has gone berserk up in Yuba City. Armed with an AK47 and a few IED's, this meth-head has promised to make the VT slaughter something even Charlton Heston could be proud of!
Yuba City schools are on lock down
This shit wouldn't have happened if big government busy bodies hadn't taken away the holy right to bear arms granted by our Sainted Founding Fuckers
In short...If I had my LeClerc, that bitch would be ground meat.
3445. jexster - 4/19/2007 2:07:04 PM
If the governmetn takes away our right to bear arms, only Yahoos will have I3 girlie guns
3446. iiibbb - 4/19/2007 2:32:08 PM
More incite from Jexter.
Thank you Jexter.
3447. jexster - 4/19/2007 2:42:59 PM
UR welcome
Say return the favor?
Did they have to pry that Glock out of Kimchi's cold dead hands?
3448. iiibbb - 4/19/2007 2:47:25 PM
I don't know Jex... why dont' you go find out so you can add even more to the conversation. Everything you add is such a gem of wisdom.
3449. arkymalarky - 4/19/2007 4:15:28 PM
If someone is flagged for a more in-depth check due to a report of concerns from official bodies like school administrators, professional counselors, social services, etc, it would be no more than what happens wrt credit applications and the like. No personal info need be provided. Just a flag on a name requiring further inquiry and a few days delay before a gun purchase goes through.
3450. clydefo - 4/19/2007 4:24:07 PM
3340.
Well, Harry hates office work but analyzing the gun data and phone records, credit card data, NRA membership lists, etc. might reveal that Joe Gunnut and his known cohorts are moving across the USA accumulating assault weapons and other suspicious items like dynamite. Talking together, meeting, renting storage facilities and dissing Nancy Pelosi. Wouldn't you want Harry to go check those punks out?
3451. jexster - 4/19/2007 4:53:08 PM
I'd want the punks packing Glock9's keep our schools and colleges safe!
3452. jexster - 4/19/2007 4:56:25 PM
Sutter Cty. Rampage Threat
Hunt is on for man who allegedly told pastor he planned to carry out attack that "will make Virginia Tech look mild."
Well-regulated Militiaman Jeffery Thomas Carney
3453. clydefo - 4/19/2007 5:07:46 PM
3441. How about a signed authorization from the relevant mental health authorities being required before a person with a history of mental problems is allowed to purchase any firearm?
3442. I don't think Dirty Harry or Mr. LeClerc knows much about it either... but I'm sure they're going to wow us with the same brilliant cognative skills they've shown us so far.
You are talking about people that can prove they are sane. Harry knows and loves those easy cases. Everyone else is suspect and keeps him busy.
3454. jexster - 4/19/2007 5:18:44 PM
Monsieur LeClerc to you...
LeClerc
It's French bitch!
3455. iiibbb - 4/19/2007 9:15:28 PM
Like many disaasters... the "blame" does not lie with any one thing, but failures at multiple levels... from notifying students, the failure to actually secure the dorm after the shooting, to notifying the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS)
3456. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 4/19/2007 10:09:33 PM
Would any of your points matter if it wasn't so easy to get guns in this culture? No!
Would there be less risk of this sort of thing happening if guns weren't so readily available? Yes!
If this sick kid used a hammer or a knife, instead of a Glock, would there be as many dead people after his spree? No!
Who the hell do you think your deceiving, iiibbb? Only yourself!
3457. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 4/19/2007 10:21:47 PM
Click on this link, iiibbb, and look at the lives lost to a couple of guns that were easy to get . . . VICTIMS
Click on any of those faces and try to imagine the sorrow and the anguish of the people whose lives they were taken from.
And then think of the greed of people who make money from the gun industry and the fear-filled gun fanatics who obsess about weaponry--because that's what's behind all this--profit and fear.
3458. iiibbb - 4/19/2007 10:25:59 PM
Knife, hammer... bomb? How many died in Oklahoma? Try carrying a thought all the way through.
Who's deceiving their own self?
3459. Magoseph - 4/19/2007 11:53:28 PM
Lock down your school!
3460. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 4/19/2007 11:58:22 PM
Oklahoma has nothing to do with any of my points and it reveals that you haven't got a suitable answer--or a rational counter argument. If you did, you would have addressed them.
So YOU are the deceived and deceitful one here!
3461. alistairconnor - 4/20/2007 1:44:41 AM
Knife, hammer... bomb? How many died in Oklahoma? Try carrying a thought all the way through.
OK, I'll have a try.
iii, you mentioned somewhere that the guy could have massacred people on campus by running them down with a car. That's probably true.
My question is, how come it never happens?
I'll speculate a bit. I think there are at least two major classes of reasons : availability, and psychology.
We can examine different classes of massacre weapons.
First : the car.
Let's say, for the sake of argument, that it's easier to get a car and a license than a gun (though this may vary depending on which state you're in?). So why don't we see more car massacres?
One reason is because a gun is a far more effective tool. It's a lot easier to escape a killer car on a campus than a gunman in a classroom or corridor. I doubt whether he would have got more than two or three with a car. (Also, a car is not a very good ... vehicle ... for suicide in that situation.)
Secondly, i'm not sure that the psychological gratification of murdering someone with a car is of the same nature. I'm wondering why, in places where guns are not easily available and cars are (Europe for example) we never see car massacres. When there are nutcase massacres in Europe (and we have our fair share of nutcases, believe me!) they are always with guns.
But there are a lot less massacres, and a lot less guns. Coincidence?
3462. alistairconnor - 4/20/2007 1:50:59 AM
Knife, hammer... bomb? Paper, scissors, rock?
I'm sure you'll acknowledge, iii, that the guy would not have achieved much of a death toll with a knife or a hammer. Similar arguments as for a car : a lot easier to run away from than a gun. Also, requires greater strength, skill and dexterity than a gun. Finally, there certainly would have been people willing to take him on.
Nutcases use knives sometimes. I'm thinking Japan. Death tolls are lower, obviously. Guns aren't widely available, obviously (if you really want to kill as many people as possible, you'd be stupid not to use the most effective weapon you can lay your hands on.) There is also a cultural reason, I expect : Japanese culture, even modern popular culture, is suffused with references to swords and knives, as tools of vengeance and suicide. Sort of like American culture with respect to guns, somewhat.
3463. alistairconnor - 4/20/2007 2:07:17 AM
OK how about a bomb? That's a fair question.
Again, two things : availability, psychology.
I'm thinking that explosives are pretty closely controlled, in most parts of the world. For good reason. (but not in Iraq, where civil liberties are not restricted in that respect. I guess their constitution stipulates that the right to bear bombs shall not be infringed.) You'd need reasonably good skills and access to explosives, or an organisation to back you up. Cho clearly wasn't capable of building himself a Middle East style explosives belt.
OK, but people can roll their own. How about those guys in the UK, who made backpack bombs out of agricultural chemicals? (OK, one of the two teams got the recipe wrong and failed, but clearly the thing is feasible).
So the nutcase, especially if he studied chemistry, could have made himself a backpack bomb, and blown himself up in a crowded amphitheatre. If he had a really good recipe, he could perhaps even kill more than 33 people.
So why didn't he? How come they never do?
Nutcases, I mean.
Here's where psychology has to be taken into account.
The Oklahoma bomber is not a valid comparison because 1) he didn't blow himself up, and 2) he was politically motivated.
It may well be that bombings, even suicide bombings, will start to happen in the US, but they will be political in nature. This will not be in any way related to the Virginia massacre.
This guy Cho : imagine him in the crowded amphitheatre. He announces : you guys are all really mean, the world has tortured me, it's over now, you made me do it, we're all going to die. Boom.
Nah.
What he did was way more gratifying. Random victims. Look them in the eye. See their fear. Blam. Blown away. Sweet revenge. Next.
And so on, 32 times. Best time he ever had in his life.
This was visibly All About Him.
To blow yourself up, knowing that you don't get to savour your victims' suffering? That's only possible if you're doing it for something way bigger than yourself.
3464. alistairconnor - 4/20/2007 2:10:11 AM
Wiz, Jex :
I suggest you give iiibbb a fair hearing. He is not a legitimate target for vitriol here. It seems to me that he is genuinely struggling with the question, and that he's being straight with us.
He could have claimed that, if he'd been there, he'd have taken the guy out. I would have believed him. Nobody but he can know.
3465. iiibbb - 4/20/2007 6:31:55 AM
Message # 3461
OK, I'll have a try.
iii, you mentioned somewhere that the guy could have massacred people on campus by running them down with a car. That's probably true.
My question is, how come it never happens?
Thank you Alistar
I'm guessing you're right about why these people may choose a gun. But I also think people in general don't think outside the box. I can imagine a nutjob wants to hurt more people psychologically as much as physically... and more people than their victims if they can manage to. And the Press isn't interested in such stories. They're interesed in the sensation. Guns are the worst in their mind, so that's what they report on. That's why we also rarely see guns used defensivley in national news (only local).
However, for the car example... just last year at the University of North Carolina.
This guy didn't kill many I think because he was trying to kill someone specific
Try the buldozer guy if you want a crazed psychopath. I'm surprised he didn't rig it to explode given his flair for engineering.
I agree that they may get more gratification from shooting someone point blank, but I'm also saying that taking guns away isn't going to deter them from making plans and executing them, it's just going to make them seek other means. These people are crazy, but rational enough to plan.
I wouldn't be surprised if they start doing suicide bombing one of these days.
3466. Wombat - 4/20/2007 7:02:54 AM
It is vastly more difficult to construct a bomb than it is to buy a gun and anmmunition. Leaving aside the knowledge of how to formulate an ammonium nitrate-diesel bomb, one result of Oklahoma City was that purchases of large quantities of fertilizer by non-farmers excite immediate suspicion.
It simply takes more effort and know-how, and your average suburban death-obsessed loser lacks the skills, ambition, and resources. Since--at least in Virginia--he can stroll into a gun shop, plop down a couple hundred dollars, lie about his background, and walk out with lethal weapons, it is much easier.
3467. iiibbb - 4/20/2007 7:13:24 AM
An I'm all about stiffining background checks.
Perhaps if someone has ever been referred by court order for evaluation due to a suicide threat or stalking behavior, they should have to get some sort of psycological certification in order to buy a gun.
I don't think it takes any special talent to build a bomb. You don't have to use ammonium nitrate. We were lucky that the Columbine boys were sucky engineers.
3468. iiibbb - 4/20/2007 7:15:31 AM
A few gallons of Gasoline in a dorm hallway could probably cause good mayhem.
3469. Wombat - 4/20/2007 7:30:36 AM
iiibbb:
Most depressed suburban 15-25 year-old losers are sucky engineers. If they weren't, they probably wouldn't be losers, as they would have a life--or at least something contstructive to obsess about.
A few gallons of gasoline would certainly cause mayhem. It would also trigger sprinklers and alarms, and not necessarily kill anyone, including the perpetrator. Also, bringing a gas can into a dorm would excite suspicion in a way that bringing a concealed weapon wouldn't.
Arguing that that there are other ways of killing lots of people, so limiting access to guns wouldn't work, is not the strongest argument one can make.
3470. iiibbb - 4/20/2007 8:05:15 AM
Poisoning then. That doesn't require much technical know-how.
I'm sure if I had many years to brood over it, I could come up with something deadly and stealthy.
Cho was clever enough to create a diversion so that he would have more time on another side of campus. I'm sure that if he'd put his mind to it, he could've come up with something. I had a friend who usd to make bombs when he was a kid. Fireworks were banned in my state and he would patiently take apart firecrackers and harvest the powder to make larger bombs. As a juvinile, it never occured to me to tell someone about it... if he'd grown up and bombed someplace I suppose I could be interviewed and people would ask me all kinds of indignant questions, but I would be in the same boat as Cho's roommates.
3471. iiibbb - 4/20/2007 8:06:30 AM
It may not be the stronges, but it is hardly the only argument I have made in all these 3471 posts.
Your premise that taking guns away eliminates threats is just as ill-conceived.
3472. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 4/20/2007 8:19:47 AM
3464. alistairconnor - 4/20/2007 4:10:11 AM
Wiz, Jex :
I suggest you give iiibbb a fair hearing. He is not a legitimate target for vitriol here. It seems to me that he is genuinely struggling with the question, and that he's being straight with us.
He could have claimed that, if he'd been there, he'd have taken the guy out. I would have believed him. Nobody but he can know.
Fine Alistair,
But iiibbb didn't acknowledge any of my points and he leaped to an absurd rebuttal. That tells me that he isn't struggling with anything that upsets his own mindset.
He didn't even respond to your points, so why give him the benefit of the doubt?
Even in his latest post, he refuses to acknowledge that guns represent a greater risk of more deaths and mayhem of innocents. The guy is deluded and in denial of the obvious.
3473. iiibbb - 4/20/2007 8:47:59 AM
WoW
First... maybe I don't feel like responding to comments laced with insults. From my end there doesn't seem to be much point in it because your mindset is clear.
As whether my responses to Alistar are reasonable, I'll let him decide; however, with an issue as delicate as gun-control, expecting a slam-dunk from me is an unreasonable/impossible standard that I know I can't meet.
I've always acknowledged gun-control is a very difficult topic. If that's not an up-front recognition that there will be holes in any argument I make, then I don't know what is. For you to even claim that I do not have understanding about the risk that guns present is just evidence that you only selectively read what I post.
I stand by my record and my behavior in this forum. I have been 95-99.9% respectful of all posts in here and dare to say that is a conservative estimate. I know I've lost my temper with a few people on a few posts, but I have always apologized directly to the person.
I no longer have patience for people who are incoherent, juvinile, and repetative. How many videos of LeClerc does Jex think he needs to make a point? Your occasional forays into coherent discussion are so rare I don't know what to make of them.... but how the hell am I supposed to respond to your declaration that Cho is an NRA member of the month? That isn't debate. That isn't conversation. You posit a question that deserves more than a one-word answer and call it debate?
3474. iiibbb - 4/20/2007 8:49:33 AM
And with that I'm leaving for the weekend.
3475. clydefo - 4/20/2007 9:13:48 AM
The Media certainly has done a thorough job covering every angle of the Va. Tech story. They've probed the gunman in depth. Examined the trauma to the families of victims and students. They are examining the trauma and fears of Korean-Americans now. Thankfully they are already well into their self-analysis and that may taper off soon. There is light at the end of the tunnel. The only trauma left to explore is that caused to the stupefied TV audience by the saturation coverage.
3476. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 4/20/2007 9:15:04 AM
WoW
First... maybe I don't feel like responding to comments laced with insults. From my end there doesn't seem to be much point in it because your mindset is clear.
iiibbb- first of all, I didn't insult, I didn't say you were a bad person, I gave my opinion about your behavior and came to the conclusion that you're in denial and deluded regarding this issue and that giving you the benefit of the doubt is a mistake.
I can't speak and would NOT want to, regarding jexster's often irksome behaviors.
So it comes down to you either address my points or you evade them and you chose the latter in all of your posts. This tells me that you don't have a legitimate response.
I reiterate:
Would any of your points matter if it wasn't so easy to get guns in this culture? No!
Would there be less risk of this sort of thing happening if guns weren't so readily available? Yes!
If this sick kid used a hammer or a knife, instead of a Glock, would there be as many dead people after his spree? No!
3477. iiibbb - 4/20/2007 9:44:34 AM
Would any of your points matter if it wasn't so easy to get guns in this culture?
Yes.
Would there be less risk of this sort of thing happening if guns weren't so readily available?
Yes, but in my mind this is an issue of enforcement.
If this sick kid used a hammer or a knife, instead of a Glock, would there be as many dead people after his spree?
No, but I don't think that he ends his efforts there. There are other ways to cause the kind of harm he's looking. I don't think that I need to outline a plan for you any more specifically than I have. I think people like this are resorceful.
3478. iiibbb - 4/20/2007 9:45:01 AM
There is no huff. I will be back Sunday night.
Have a good weekend.
3479. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 4/20/2007 10:13:47 AM
3477. iiibbb - 4/20/2007 11:44:34 AM
Would any of your points matter if it wasn't so easy to get guns in this culture?
Yes.
Because??? You were talking about blame and how there was enough to go around, but if guns were not so easy to get there would be less blaming, especially in cases like Columbine and Virginia Tech.
Would there be less risk of this sort of thing happening if guns weren't so readily available?
Yes, but in my mind this is an issue of enforcement.
Without making this place Big Brother and 1984, gun mayhem with easily procured automatic weapons along with high profits for dealers, enforcement will always be impossible. If you can't admit that, then you aren't facing the facts and the realities of human nature.
If this sick kid used a hammer or a knife, instead of a Glock, would there be as many dead people after his spree?
No, but I don't think that he ends his efforts there. There are other ways to cause the kind of harm he's looking. I don't think that I need to outline a plan for you any more specifically than I have. I think people like this are resorceful.
Resourceful maybe, but they have to go to a lot more trouble and the chances that he might have flagged himself as dangerous or gotten caught would have increased considerably.
But thank you for addressing the questions and I apologize if I've stepped on your toes, iiibbb. I'm sick at heart over innocents dying this way because it brings back memories of what I've seen weapons do.
I also have a nephew that married into a family of gun dealers who are greedy and selfish people. They blatantly don't care about the consequences of their very lucrative business. It "puts bread on their table" and large toys in their mansion.
3480. jexster - 4/20/2007 1:52:39 PM
Yet another member of I3's well-regulated militia has gone berserk, this time at the Johnson Space Flight Center...school on lock-down (like at Huntsville Pen!)
H'town PD Swat is on the scene..
I wonder if he carried his glock concealed on his person per the Tejas High Noon Statute
3481. anomie - 4/21/2007 9:39:58 AM
It gives me no pleasure to agree with IB. I don't like guns, and I wish WOW's challenges weren't so hypothetical, but are. Such restrictions will never get guns away from the highly determined. Gun control laws will never prevent atrocities such as this. I'm reminded of the Dunblane massacre in Scotland a decade ago when a man used a shotgun to kill a group of young school kids. There will always be a firearm of some kind available to a madman.
So turning the question around... If we can't prevent these crazies from getting guns, wouldn't it be safer if more people carried defensive weapons?
3482. clydefo - 4/21/2007 10:40:14 AM
So turning the question around... If we can't prevent these crazies from getting guns, wouldn't it be safer if more people carried defensive weapons?
Most likely a dispassionate risk/benefit assessment would find that these massacres occur so infrequently that they should be compared to the occasional bad train wreck.
How many lives would be saved with a 25 MPH speed limit? What would that cost us?
Common sense about human nature suggests that more guns in public means more deadly public gunfighting. Petty disputes escalate easily. The idea of a general public armed to the saturation point that would be necessary to reasonably expect to reduce the madman menace gives me the heebie jeebies. At the very least, if one in every ten or so is carrying a loaded gun at the Mall, require that they wear a special hat or something so that they might have some deterrent effect.
If I saw the hat I could edge out of the way and always give them plenty of room for their quick draw.
3483. anomie - 4/21/2007 11:05:54 AM
I'm pretty sure you're right on all points, Clyde. I'm also pretty sure there's no one-size-fits-all answer. I tend toward a more free society, however, and what is more important than being allowed to protect yourself?
3484. wonkers2 - 4/21/2007 11:52:22 AM
Other countries appear to be able to control guns, as well as provide health care to everyone. Could it be that special interests divert our legislators from serving the public interest?
3485. anomie - 4/21/2007 11:58:28 AM
W2, This is what my vague mention of Dunblane was about. England and Scotland reputedly have very good control over guns, but it didn't stop a deranged man with a shotgun. I don't think any country bans legitimate hunting weapons.
(Just for the record, I don't own a gun and haven't shot one since military training years ago. I have been meaning to buy a handgun but just haven't done it yet. I truly don't like guns)
3486. wonkers2 - 4/21/2007 12:26:13 PM
There will always be an occasional deranged man with a gun. However, in our inner cities people are dieing every day in drug wars, suicides, drive by shootings, accidental shootings, road rage shootings,needless police killings, etc. The slaughter at Virgina Tech is a tiny part of the problem. I'm pretty sure if you check the statistics you'll find that gun deaths of all kinds are much lower in England, Scotland, Canada and most other countries. I'm sure iiibbb will correct me if I'm wrong on this. And, health care is much better as well, per the longevity and infant mortality statistics. [At much lower cost.]
3487. clydefo - 4/21/2007 12:28:12 PM
3483.
A free society is a scary thing. There are trade-offs. Bush's assertion that it is universally preferred in all societies is incorrect. I think the best self-protection is to cooperate in making our own evolved system work. Pay what's needed to enforce the rules, train the cops and then leave the guns to them.
If I felt endangered enough to get a gun, I would also want to consider the odds that it would ultimately be stolen and contribute to the problem. Worse yet, how many guns end up being used against the owner? Situations where a gun defense is appropriate are very rare, even for cops, who are looking for trouble.
3488. anomie - 4/21/2007 12:44:32 PM
W2, It's a tough call for me. I see your point. Obvioulsy we have a different gun culture here, maybe based as far back as pioneer days. I'm not sure we will evolve a more European sensibility. In fact, I think maybe Europe is getting to be more like us.
On a different subject, that is crime in general, I was surprised at the various forms of hooliganism in England, ranging from the football thugs to gangs robbing handicapped people. And although their gun crimes may be fewer, they are just as strange and creepy, or maybe even more so. As to other gruesome killings over there, knives, beatings and farm implements come to mind. (No charge for these comments that have nothing to do with the topic.)
I have long advocated universal health care here, so I couldn't agree more on that one.
3489. anomie - 4/21/2007 12:48:17 PM
Clyde, you've hit on some reasons I haven't bought a gun. I'm not sure I want the anxiety of having it around, and I would hate to slip up and have it get into th ewrong hands. Even though i have no kids in the house, it could still get stolen or misplaced. I have a hard enough time finding my car keys sometimes.
3490. wonkers2 - 4/21/2007 12:48:58 PM
It would be interesting to compare the stats on total peacetime deaths and injuries due to all weapons in all circumstances in the industrialized countries. Where's iiibbb when we need him. I'm too lazy to look the figures up.
3491. wonkers2 - 4/21/2007 12:52:37 PM
Seems to me we wouldn't be infringing anyone's so-called Second Amendment rights by prohibiting large magazine weapons of the type used in Viriginia Tech. I think I remember hearing on television that police found four or five large capacity magazines on the floor in the room along with the bodies. As I previously pointed out there is no sport hunting or target shooting use for these weapons. They are strictly designed for killing people. iiibbb is the expert but my recollection is that single shot rifles and pistols are mostly what is used for big time target shooting.
3492. wonkers2 - 4/21/2007 12:55:19 PM
Moreover, the sale of the guns and ammunition to Cho was illegal under current Federal law. Apparently there are a lot of holes in the system designed to keep crazy people from buying guns. Or the system is under-funded. Or enforcement is lax. Or all the above. Everybody seems to agree that the guns and ammunition should not have been sold to Cho. I wonder whether the store that sold them will be prosecuted. They probably did a check that came up okay. ??
3493. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 4/21/2007 1:36:49 PM
FYI Department:
From last night's News Hour . . .
MARK SHIELDS: I don't disagree with David. I have a little different take on it, Judy. In all the wars that the United States fought in the 20th century, World War I, II, Vietnam, Korea, the first Persian Gulf, 659,763 Americans died. Since Ronald Reagan became president of the United States until George Bush was re-elected, 768,000 more people died in all those wars died by firearms in the United States. Of the 26 developed nations in the world, 83 percent of all the people who died by firearms die in this country.
And the idea that we can't do something, that this man that David has described, with a 9-millimeter Glock semiautomatic pistol, and other countries, only police officers have them. I mean, the fact that he could buy this, and with no check really made of him, you know, is disturbing.
Are we this great, pitiable, helpless giant in dealing with this problem? I mean, you know, I think that we lack will; we lack imagination; we lack commitment to do something about it.
3494. anomie - 4/21/2007 3:38:39 PM
W2, I have no problem banning some weapons. Some are absurd to have in private hands.
I heard someone say, however, that all pistols are "semiautomatic". This simply means that the gun goes off at each pull of the trigger.
3495. alistairConnor - 4/21/2007 3:40:50 PM
Anomie :
I tend toward a more free society, however, and what is more important than being allowed to protect yourself?
What is more important is to live in a society where one is safe.
Easy to say. How do you get there from here?
3496. anomie - 4/21/2007 3:44:09 PM
The second amendment has been outdated for a long, long time and should be repealed or revised. How silly to think joe-civilian could defend against the fire power available to the state these days.
3497. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 4/21/2007 3:53:30 PM
anomie . . . and I wish WOW's challenges weren't so hypothetical but are.
Baloney!
Mark Shield's provided astonishing factual information (above) that wasn't in the least "hypothetical," which you chose to ignore.
My questions had absolutely nothing to do with hypotheticals; they were reasoned questions about risk and the obvious probabilities of less death and mayhem if guns were not so ubiquitous and easy to get (as they are in America)--especially in comparison to the rest of the so called civilized world.
3498. anomie - 4/21/2007 4:08:01 PM
Baloney?! Not good for my diet of late, so don't tempt me.
Of course your questions are hypotheitical. That doesn't make them bad. In fact, I would agree with your self-referential answers since they are contingent on the results you conjecture. You can't lose.
Hypothesis: He killed with a hammer and knife.
Fact: I wish it were not hypothetical.
3499. anomie - 4/21/2007 4:14:58 PM
"Are we this great, pitiable, helpless giant in dealing with this problem? I mean, you know, I think that we lack will; we lack imagination; we lack commitment to do something about it."
"Will", is no small part of the solution. It is part of our capability to change the culture. Same with "commitment". Changing our will and commitment is the same as saying we need to change the gun culture and I'm all for that. Till then, results are hypotheticals, Mark Shields notwithstanding. He is simply stating how it is in any case, not how it could be if...
3500. anomie - 4/21/2007 4:24:11 PM
AC, I don't have all the answers. Especially not to safety vs freedom question. This is not a new problem as you know. I don't live my life worried about the odds of getting hit by a bullet, just as I don't expect to win the lottery. But I don't think it would hurt to have a few more responsible people carrying weapons in schools and work places and other areas where large numbers of people are at risk from an idiot with a machine gun. I;m sure this would not be perfect solution. Nothing is.
3501. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 4/21/2007 4:34:21 PM
3502. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 4/21/2007 4:42:31 PM
3503. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 4/21/2007 4:43:22 PM
3504. alistairConnor - 4/21/2007 4:46:30 PM
OK, talking strictly about the USA (it is an absolute certainty that nobody's safety will be improved where I'm sitting, in France, by having more people walking around with a gun in their pocket).
If we're talking strictly about nutcase massacres. I think we will find (need to analyse the statistics I suppose) that perpetrators are generally
1) in legal possession of the murder weapons
2) totally unsuitable to be permitted to possess the weapons.
If we look at it like that, then tell me what is wrong with my proposition in Message # 3420.
If, on the other hand, it is deemed that it is impossible to keep guns out of the hands of the nutcases (either because it is too easy for them to obtain arms illegally, or because it is politically impossible to restrict the legal acquisition of arms by nutcases), then I guess you have to put an end to the current paradoxical situation : guns could not legally be carried on the campus, but that restriction was not enforced, i.e. only the "good guys" were disarmed.
As to how effective it might be to have armed "good guys" roaming around, I have no idea. How many would have been ready to put their lives at risk in that scenario?
It also raises the question of how you know who the "good guys" are. If anyone can carry a gun, then you are very likely raising the threshold of collateral damage.
3505. anomie - 4/21/2007 5:00:19 PM
AC, 3420 sounds okay to me. I'm not a second amendment supporter and don't base my opinion on it.
Letting key people carry guns is not a good solution but it is perhaps worth consideration given the current ease with which a nutter can get guns. Such a proposal is easily dismissed if perfection is the standard.
(BTW, W2, regarding universal health care, perfection seems to be the standard of its opponents. The most frequent arguments I hear against it consist of anecdotal horror stories.)
3506. anomie - 4/21/2007 5:02:23 PM
WOW, The NRA is part of the problem AFAIC. Talk about nut cases...
3507. wonkers2 - 4/22/2007 8:26:27 AM
We can't control the illness. We can control the guns. Control the guns!
3508. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 4/23/2007 6:12:50 PM
Sorry to blow the margins, but I think this is worth it . . .
3509. jexster - 4/23/2007 6:35:18 PM
Good god Wizzer!
I was about to note that another one of I3's well-regulated militiamen went berserk in Houston today - and looks like one of ours has
(Bad Reporter is great tho)
3510. wonkers2 - 4/25/2007 4:14:30 PM
Why police support gun control
3511. wonkers2 - 4/26/2007 5:55:36 AM
3512. wonkers2 - 4/26/2007 6:00:03 AM
Cops Hunt Detroiter in Killing Over Lawn Spat
3513. wonkers2 - 4/26/2007 6:04:50 AM
Many States Don't Send Mental Health Data to FBI for Gun Checks Privacy versus Gun Safety
3514. iiibbb - 4/26/2007 7:36:31 AM
NRA working on strengthening background checks... must be up to something... eh wonk?
Similar to your above but notes that Virginia was the most aggressive about reporting mental health records. Perhaps the compromise is that a flag like this wouldn't let you pass the instant check, but with a few hoops you might eventually get approved. Dunno. I have been surprised at how poorly administered the checks are.
Ultimately, note the police language. They're not coming to your rescue. If you need their help they are not going to rush in, you're going to wait for it. They gave Cho an extra 5 minutes trying to get into the doors. why didn't they go in a window?
I certainly wouldn't blame someone for wanting to be armed themselves. The police are obviously not obliged to take a bullet for you.
3515. wonkers2 - 4/26/2007 8:10:57 AM
NYTimes Editorial "Guns and More Guns"
By now, the logic is almost automatic. A shooter takes innocent lives, and someone says that if the vidtims had been armed, this wouldn't have happened. The only solution to a gun in the wrong hands, it seems, is a gun in the hands of everyone.
That's the state of the debate over gun control today. The National Rifle Association and the gun lobby have silenced every legislature in this country. Instead of stricter laws, tighter controls and better background checks, the gun lobby proposes more guns. And what the gun lobby proposes, lawmakers deliver.
Seung-Hui Cho bought his guns illegally, though with the appearance of legality. He slipped through a loophole, through a disconnect between the way Virginia defines a disqualifying mental incapacity and the way the federal government does. After the fact, the loophole is self-evident, and it's tempting to believe that now political leaders will work harder to keep people who are dangers to themselves from becoming dangers to others by buying guns. But the laws are as fragile and imperfect as they are because that is how the gun lobby wants them--and it is paying good money to keep them that way.
Those gun advocates who believe that the Second Amendment confers the right to carry a gun in public are quick to point out that they are law-abiding, decent trying to protect themselves and their families in a world gone mad. But, of course, the guns can't tell the difference. Arming more people would be a recipe for disaster.
True safety lies in the civility of society, in laws that publicly protect all of our rights and in having law-enforcement officers who are trained in the use of deadly force, then authorized to apply it in rationally defined situations. It is the gun lobby's incessant efforts to weaken the gun laws that makes a tragedy like the one at Virginia Tech possible.
3516. iiibbb - 4/26/2007 8:16:45 AM
I like the twist. A) only about 2% of the people presently have a permit at all... I'm not sure that any loosening of the laws is going to even double that number. So the idea that _everyone_ has a gun is false.
Two, the assumption is that the laws governing the use of those weapons evaporate for those people. False. Concealed means conceaeled. A gun carried by such a person shouldn't come into play unless it's needed. In states where these permits are allowed are hardly awash with blood spilled by these people.
Civility is all great and good, but useless when facing someone who intends to harm you.
3517. iiibbb - 4/26/2007 8:30:32 AM
The most popular propsosed gun control measures are
Licensing and registration - Cho wouldn't have been detered.
The renewal of the AWB - Cho wouldn't have been detered... although he may have had to reload slightly more often (Firing ~170 shots, a 15 round magazine vs a 10 round magazine, would cost him about 12 seconds).
Repeal concealed carry laws - Already disallowed on the VT campus, and Cho ignored that.
Bullet registration - So we confirm the ammunition he bought... big whoop.
Ammo limits - How much ammos should one have access to. I'll shoot 100 rounds minimum when I go to the range to practice.
Gun ban - Perhaps it would deter Cho, but the black market exists, police are robbed of their weapons. Cho also has options such as pipe bombs, poison.
Mandatory gun locks for kids - Irrelevant
Smart gun technology - Irrelevant (stolen cop guns are exempt as well because they don't trust the technology)
So while the gun-lobby may try to weaken laws (and that's a matter of perspective), the "common sense" laws don't really have much of a chance of stopping this kind of thing either.
1) Improve background checks - fine - NRA is for this
2) Include mental health records - fine - NRA is for this
3) Increase scrutiny of black market gun trade - fine
4) Gun licensing - fine, but with a caveat that it actually mean something in terms of my right to carry a weapon, and that I would have national reciprocity. A license should mean something after all.
3518. iiibbb - 4/26/2007 8:31:27 AM
All I know is that if you call the police to come save you, they're going to be late, and are not obligated to rush in and save you.
Good luck with that.
3519. ronski - 4/26/2007 9:22:17 AM
3520. clydefo - 4/26/2007 10:12:30 AM
More public gunslingers means a greater chance of being caught in a crossfire.
3521. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 4/26/2007 10:39:00 AM
All I know is that if you call the police to come save you, they're going to be late, and are not obligated to rush in and save you.
Good luck with that.
That scenario has absolutely nothing to do with the greed and profiteering of the weapons industry, the lack of adequate laws to stop the proliferation of weapons made for mass mayhem, and the ready availability of those weapons to anyone with the money to buy them.
You base all of your fear-based logic on a remote scenario that won't happen to 99.9 % of the population. So all of us have to walk around in fear of nutjobs with semi -automatic arsenals and hollow point bullets because of the thousands of paranoids in the NRA who bribe our lawmakers to allow this shit.
Give me a break!
3522. iiibbb - 4/26/2007 11:16:30 AM
Conversely you are basing the same fear-based logic to justify banning weapons altogether.
Why is my "fear-based" logic wrong, and yours right?
3523. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 4/26/2007 6:57:30 PM
Because your fear is illogical, improbable and forces innocents to die by the truckload. The numbers of those who would be killed by an intruder are far less than those who now die at the hands of fools and whackos with guns that don't "protect" anyone. Besides, who intruded into Cho's dorm room?
You also ignore the rest of my argument and supplant it with a question rather than with any answers. What does this say about your argument--other than how weak it is?
3524. iiibbb - 4/26/2007 8:53:39 PM
There are ample examples in the press of guns being used in self defense, they just rarely make national news. Your contention that far fewer people are threatened by intruders and that guns don't protect anyone is invented.
Unfortunately at the personal level I know people who's lives were surely saved by a firearm. So guns did protect those people.
I've had my own incidents that were to close for comfort and didn't have to go my way.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/cvictgen.htm
There were 5.2 violent crimes in the US in 2005. It's not up to me to predict which ones will result in my homicide. It's just about a 2:1 split between gun homicides and other methods. Citizens have traditionally had similar numbers of justifiable homicides as police.
3525. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 4/26/2007 10:26:39 PM
Oh come on, that's a very weak rebuttal in many ways. You're trying to say with all of the violence in America, the only solution is to pack a weapon?
That's just an preposterous leap of paranoia. You still ignore the rampant flooding of guns in a culture that exploits and promotes violence in movies on TV, video games and the internet, by rapacious gunmakers and gun dealers.
You say it's a problem of law enforcement and yet law enforcement supports stricter gun control.
The NRA, (like banks, insurance and big pharma), has bribed lawmakers to submit to their will and continue with all of this charade. America has become Pottersville, where greed and exploitation rule. That's really what you support iiibbb, so stop kidding yourself.
3526. wonkers2 - 4/27/2007 6:20:58 AM
The "fear-based logic" of gun control advocates is rational and actually fact based. You can see examples of gun mayhem nearly every day in every newspaper in the land.
3527. thoughtful - 4/27/2007 7:52:29 AM
Wiz: and yet law enforcement supports stricter gun control
Check out the latest Suvey of Police Chiefs & Sheriffs
92% Say Yes to: Should any law-abiding citizen be able to purchase a firearm for sport or self-defense?
93% Say No to: Within the past year, has your agency been called upon to arrest anyone who has made a false statement on an application to purchase a firearm?
95% Say Yes to: Do you maintain that criminals currently are able to obtain basically any type of firearm by illegal means?
60% Say Yes to: Will a national concealed handgun permit reduce rates of violent crime as recent studies in some states have already reflected?
3528. iiibbb - 4/27/2007 8:14:53 AM
Wonkers... if all of that mayhem is happening... even in sleepy places like Blacksburg... and the police are unable to protect you... why wouldn't you have a gun at your disposal? There is no obligation to use it.
However, none of your arguments matter when it comes to an individual
3529. iiibbb - 4/27/2007 8:18:01 AM
The gun mayhem you fear is actually down substantially since the 1990's and began to drop before the AWB went into effect... but it did drop after states started allowing CCW.
I won't credit CCW... I basically think that gun laws are irrelevant to the statistical incidence of gun crime.
Where a gun does become relevant is when an individual needs it.
How would the scenario of the previous article have ended if the vicitim had not been armed?
3530. iiibbb - 4/27/2007 8:19:54 AM
Message # 3510 So you're really using an article that has police acting as vigilate's as an example?
3531. iiibbb - 4/27/2007 8:21:52 AM
Message # 3510 So you're really using an article that has police acting as vigilate's as an example?
3532. iiibbb - 4/27/2007 8:22:58 AM
Message # 3511 Who's defending machine guns here? I'm glad the police caught them.
Tell me... how well did gun-control laws do in keeping the guns out of those guys' hands?
3533. iiibbb - 4/27/2007 8:25:29 AM
Message # 3512 Why didn't the 17 and 37 year-old victims just call the police?
It's a hands-down homicide. The homeowner could have used a bow and arrow and killed them both just the same. No gun-rights advocate is going to defend the actions of that homeowner. In fact we hope they publicly string the guy up because every time something like this happens it threatens our legitimate rights.
3534. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 4/27/2007 10:06:49 AM
iiibbb, you still focus on the only points that you have ammunition for and ignore all the rest.
If your only tool is a hammer the solution to everything is another nail.
I know you will conveniently jujitsu this adage into your own interpretation, but I see it as your fixation with having a gun for protection as your hammer. And in some ways, I totally appreciate your pov.
However, your obsessive interest prevents you from seeing the whole truth about America's sick gun culture and it prevents me from taking you seriouslyĐso I won't bother to waste any more of your time or mine.
3535. iiibbb - 4/27/2007 11:43:50 AM
A gun is not the only tool. It is a tool. It can be a valuable tool.
What do you want me to say about our gun culutre? Shall I say once again that I have no slam-dunk response for you, and that I don't think a slam-dunk exists for your criticism.
Gun rights are imperfect. Like abortion rights are imperfect. They rely principle as much as logic.
You reject gun culture, I'm trying to in recognition of it.
3536. iiibbb - 4/27/2007 12:27:13 PM
First gun rights bill to be voted on since the Virginia Tech Shooting.
This is for a state preemption law that disallows municipalities from passing laws more stringint than the state, and over-riding a governor veto. It passed the Kansas senate by a narrow margin both times.
Tends to make me think that gun control legislation will have trouble getting traction.
I think the main result we'll see (hopefully) is greater reporting of mental health records.
3537. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 4/27/2007 12:34:38 PM
I don't reject gun culture and come from Hartford CT where I was trained as a curatorial assistant for the Colt Collection. I've fired all kinds of automatic weapons. I even think guns are beautiful, but they are "tools" made solely for the overly-efficient destruction of human bodies, and human lives.
No mature adult can condone what they have done in our world and their control is essential to protect innocents world-wide. You deny it and support the tragic consequences of an irresponsible contingent of self-indulgent fanatics.
You may not be able to admit it, but that's the truth. You still fail to recognize that your weakness and fear has been exploited by powerful forces who profit from an industry that only cares about money and developing an even larger culture of death. What chance do poor impressionable children all over the globe have against these immoral profiteers and the culture they romanticize?
Cho was a powerless weakling who filled himself with hate and resentment and a gun gave him the courage to "get even" for all of the slights he received and imagined.
Yet you don't seem to have the imagination to recognize that the world is filled to the brim with these kinds of immature cowards and for whom weapons are made and obscenely proliferated.
3538. iiibbb - 4/27/2007 1:07:28 PM
They are not made soley for dispatching humans.
They are also tools meant to improve the chances for the weak and outnumbered.
I acknowledge that there are tragedies. I don't know what else you want me to do. Throw down my guns because I'm disgusted with the evil other people commit?
I've been exploited by powerful forces? I doubt that. It took a close call for me to buy my first weapon. I've had another close call since then.... and guess what.... I still don't carry regularly. If I was so fraught with fear of all the bad things that could happen to me I'd never leave the house or I would break laws in order to carry all of the time. I don't.
All industry only cares about money. Even charities only care about money. Al Gore, Mr. "Save the Environment" himself is trying to make money off of global warming... why don't you discredit him?
I do not know much about the romance you speak of. I am a first generation gun-owner. I didn't have my first exposure to a firearm until I was 20. I didn't own one until I was 31 or 32.
You are doing some serious reaching trying to claim what Cho was thinking or what gave him courage to do what he did. I'll wait for the official report, but right now everyone is stimied except to say he had some serious mental problems.
Filled to the brim with cowards like Cho?... I keep losing track who's fear mongering here.
There should be nothing wrong with the likes of me owning a gun if I so chose. Most gun owners I know take that ownership seriously.
3539. iiibbb - 4/27/2007 1:32:24 PM
Assuage my fear Wiz... convince me that the police will save me from a madman.
3540. iiibbb - 4/27/2007 2:09:27 PM
3541. clydefo - 4/27/2007 3:07:18 PM
3537: ...the world is filled to the brim with these kinds of immature cowards ...
3538: ...Filled to the brim with cowards like Cho?...
On a tangent...have we lost another good word to the fuzziness of contemporary usage?
All the bad guys are cowards these days. Surely there is a more accurate word to express our contempt, anger and urge to insult. I can't think of one but I want "coward" back.
Same for bastard and queer.
cow·ard /[kou-erd]
–noun
1. a person who lacks courage in facing danger, difficulty, opposition, pain, etc.; a timid or easily intimidated person.
–adjective
2. lacking courage; very fearful or timid.
3. proceeding from or expressive of fear or timidity: a coward cry.
[Origin: 1175–1225; ME < OF couard-, couart cowardly, equiv. to coue tail (< L cauda) + -art -ard]
—Synonyms 1. craven, poltroon, dastard, recreant, milksop.
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.
Cowardice -wikipedia
Etymology
According to the Online Etymology Dictionary, the word "coward" comes from an Old French word coart, a combination of the word for "tail" and an agent noun suffix. It would therefore have meant "one with a tail" — perhaps one in the habit of turning it, or it may be derived from a dog's habit of putting its tail between its legs when it is afraid. Another more clearly related word, in old French, that can be related to coward is "couard" which literally means coward and was frequently used by French knights in battle...
Legal definition
As a legal definition, according to Subchapter X, Section 899, Article 99[1] of the United States Uniform Code of Military Justice, cowardice is defined as:
Running away from an enemy;
Abandoning, surrendering or otherwise fleeing any post that the soldier is tasked with defending;
Endangering the safety of any post that the soldier is responsible for through disobedience, neglect or willful misconduct while in combat;
Discarding arms or ammunition while in combat;
Abandoning combat to plunder or loot or commit other crimes;
Willfully failing to do all within the soldier's power to fight or defend when it is his duty to do so, while in combat;
Refusing to give any needed aid or relief to fellow troops while in combat; or
Performing other unspecified acts of "cowardly conduct" while in combat.
3542. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 4/27/2007 6:09:33 PM
Guns=courage to the coward. The word fits and quibbling over its usage distracts from the reality of innocents being slaughtered by fear-driven people who lack the courage to face the truth about themselves.
3543. iiibbb - 4/27/2007 10:43:42 PM
Cho was damaged... I don't think he was a coward. I actually feel sorry for the guy. McVeigh, not so fond of because he was far more conscious about what he did. Cho... just broken; it's really sad.
3544. iiibbb - 4/27/2007 10:45:10 PM
It's also why I think he'd still find a way to act out if guns were somehow unavailable to him.
Although he was broken, he appears to have been quite cunning.
3545. iiibbb - 4/28/2007 7:59:44 AM
The disarming of America
aka police state
Former diplomat... but they don't say what country. It's very big of him to allow gun stores to continue to sell antique weapons that must immediately be turned in.
3546. iiibbb - 4/28/2007 8:00:42 AM
3547. iiibbb - 4/28/2007 8:07:24 AM
We can use the 100% successful war on drugs as our model
3548. wonkers2 - 4/28/2007 9:26:50 AM
"Wars on" rarely work out the way they're supposed to. They provide an excuse for brain fade and a focus on simplistic, narrow and extreme measures when thoughtful and broader spectrum approaches are required. Bush's "war on terrorism" is another example of this.
3549. arkymalarky - 4/28/2007 10:07:56 AM
I want to feel sorry for him, because he obviously had major mental problems, but his entire mind was nothing but self-absorption and hate. In that sense he and McVeigh are cut from the same mold. McVeigh just claimed an ideology that backed his actions and got him a couple of accomplices. No one mattered to Cho but Cho, unlike a psychotic or other person with severe mental illness or trauma who suffers a breakdown and becomes violent (which is, again, very rare). I haven't seen anything that indicates he was ever anything other than what he indicated in his selfish video, even to his family.
3550. arkymalarky - 4/28/2007 10:10:32 AM
Had he, like McVeigh, continued living and been "brought to justice," I think he would have been as remorseless and unresponsive to being confronted with his own actions as McVeigh was, thinking himself a martyr at his execution and not even stopping a moment to consider whether anyone on the planet agreed with him.
3551. iiibbb - 4/28/2007 10:47:06 AM
I always considered McVeigh to be born of broken ideology...
I think Cho's was born of mental illness. He had imaginary friends, couldn't look people in the eyes. I don't think anyone was home up there.
3552. wonkers2 - 4/28/2007 4:57:07 PM
Here's a gun situation with a happy ending. Gun nut arrested in Pontiac with no casualties
3553. wonkers2 - 4/28/2007 6:10:23 PM
The New Yorker's Adam Gopnik on Virgina Tech:
The cell phones in the pockets of the dead students were still ringing when we were told that it was wrong to ask why. As the police cleared the bodies from the Virginia Tech engineering building, the cell phones rang, in the eccentric varieties of ring tones, as parents kept trying to see if their children were O.K. To imagine the feelings of the police as they carried the bodies and heard the ringing is heartrending; to imagine the the feelings of the parents who were calling--dread, desperate hope for a sudden answer and the bliss of reassurance, dawning grief--is intolerable. But the parents, and the rest of us, were told that it was not the right moment to ask how the shooting had happened--specifically, why an obviously disturbed student, with a history of mental illenss was able to buy guns whose essential purpose is to kill people--and why it happens over and over again in America.
3554. jexster - 4/29/2007 5:42:46 PM
Another one of I3's well-regulated comrades went beserk in a KC shopping mall.
And whenever this happens we hear "well the vast majority of gun owners in this country are responsible...."
I daresay 99.99% of all shopping mall, spouse killers and university AxePeople would agree.
3555. iiibbb - 4/29/2007 9:35:46 PM
Watched 60 minutes tonight. No comment except to say it was mostly about how difficult it is to get people with mental problems into the FBI database. The NRA is for it, but the Gun Owners of America weren't. I always thought GOA was much more militant, but everyone likes to harp on the NRA.
Basically, I think that if a court sends you to treatment for being a danger to yourself or others, that's a red flag. I don't know why that violates any kind of doctor-patient privilage. If you go voluntarily before a court is involved, I can see _that_ being private, but once courts are involved the privacy issue isn't a valid argument anymore.
3556. iiibbb - 5/2/2007 7:16:26 PM
3557. wonkers2 - 5/3/2007 8:12:15 PM
iiibbb, you missed a chance to buy a fully automatic M-16. The price only $18k. Automatic M16 sale
3558. iiibbb - 5/3/2007 8:58:02 PM
Sucks to be me I guess... of course I'd rather be buying a house right now.
3559. iiibbb - 5/3/2007 8:58:49 PM
or a new car
or a new tv
....
I could use 18K right now.
3560. wonkers2 - 5/4/2007 5:57:56 AM
Couldn't we all?
3561. jexster - 5/4/2007 5:00:22 PM
NRA Warns Bush - Don't ban gun sales to Terror suspects
3562. iiibbb - 5/5/2007 7:46:55 AM
Jex... for the sake of socratic argument... do you think it's also ok to tap the phone lines of these suspected terrorists without a warrant? After all, they are suspected.
It seems funny that for all the mistrust that you have for the Bush administration that you fall right in step with him when it comes to trampling the rights of someone who's only suspected of something. What do you think of the people who are on no-fly lists that only share a name with a suspected terrorist?
3563. iiibbb - 5/5/2007 7:52:39 AM
If they're "suspected" enough to disqualify them from buying a gun... then they're suspected enough that we should just deport them.
3564. wonkers2 - 5/5/2007 7:51:53 PM
Liberal case for gun rights helps sway judiciary>
3565. iiibbb - 5/7/2007 8:13:03 AM
Cho never went to treatment
What's the point of having a gun control law if the government won't even enforce it?
3566. jexster - 5/8/2007 1:14:22 PM
Fresno Student Opens Fire
Three are shot, one fatally, near CSU campus. Suspect, a Hayward 19-year-old, flees the scene.
3567. iiibbb - 5/8/2007 1:26:55 PM
Looks like No En Banc in the Parker vs DC decision.
3568. iiibbb - 5/8/2007 1:53:50 PM
Interstingly, the dissenting judge from the original decision, did not vote for an En Banc review.
3569. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 5/10/2007 12:44:58 PM
3570. iiibbb - 5/10/2007 1:27:44 PM
So I take this to mean you're all for government making lists based only on suspicion, and then preventing you from doing things vis-a-vis the no-fly lists?
Basically you want the Attorney General to forgo due-process.
Again I ask... if they are such threats that they can't buy a gun, why aren't we just deporting them?
3571. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 5/10/2007 1:32:24 PM
You "take" quite a few liberties with "meaning," iiibbb, while ignoring the most obvious one--the cartoonist's meaning.
3572. iiibbb - 5/10/2007 1:40:42 PM
So you don't think that "lists of terrorists" mean anything? If so, who gives a shit about the cartoonists meaning, except to say he's not doing a complicated problem its due justice.
3573. thoughtful - 5/10/2007 1:58:49 PM
Here's an eye popper...you can now be liberal and in favor of 2nd amendment rights!!! From NYT:
There used to be an almost complete scholarly and judicial consensus that the Second Amendment protects only a collective right of the states to maintain militias. That consensus no longer exists — thanks largely to the work over the last 20 years of several leading liberal law professors, who have come to embrace the view that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to own guns.
(Don't tell the NRA!)
3574. clydefo - 5/10/2007 2:53:15 PM
When a terrorist on the watch list tries to buy an airline ticket, do they call the cops? I've seen several news stories concerning individuals who are complaining that they were denied a ticket, but they don't seem to be protesting from a jail cell. Are we trying to apprehend them or just harass them?
3575. iiibbb - 5/15/2007 9:21:14 AM
Fairly lucid review of the Virginia Tech thing.
3576. iiibbb - 5/15/2007 9:22:06 AM
I have been told I should not worry about gangs.
3577. clydefo - 5/15/2007 12:04:40 PM
Was it the NRA that told you that?
...Offenses committed by people using firearms pose a major threat not only to communities, but also to police. So-called “straw purchases,” where gun owners buy their firearms through a go-between is an area of concern.
The Justice Department plans to distribute $18 million in grants nationwide this year to prevent and reduce illegal gun sales and other firearms crimes.
3578. wonkers2 - 5/15/2007 1:45:32 PM
What about the Second Amerdement? Don't gangs need guns to protect themselves aginst other gangs?!
3579. iiibbb - 5/15/2007 2:23:49 PM
Is that what you really think I base my views on?
Gangs almost by definition use their guns to commit crimes.
3580. wonkers2 - 5/15/2007 2:43:06 PM
Well, I wonder how many of them are able to buy them legally or because even the sieve-like laws aren't being enforced. NY City is flooded with guns from dealers in Virgina, I've read/
3581. wonkers2 - 5/15/2007 2:45:05 PM
Terrorists apparently have much trouble buying guns either, not to mention the survivalists, the Michigan Militia and other nutball groups. Apparently they're just exercising their so-called 2nd Amendment rights.
3582. concerned - 5/15/2007 3:01:12 PM
Good news for you, wonkers: gang members are mostly Democrat.
3583. wonkers2 - 5/15/2007 4:00:10 PM
Ha! Most of them don't vote because they're too young, not interested or weeded out from registering by GOP suppress the inner city vote guys in long black coats.
3584. wonkers2 - 5/15/2007 4:00:52 PM
Correction: Terrorists DON'T have much trouble buying guns either, etc.
3585. concerned - 5/15/2007 4:20:20 PM
Re. 3582 -
No they wouldn't. The gang bangers would just shoot them if they tried.
3586. clydefo - 5/15/2007 5:52:43 PM
I'll wager that not one in ten gang members would be able to name a Democratic politician and that over fifty percent would guess that Bush is a Democrat.
3587. iiibbb - 5/16/2007 3:43:58 PM
Guns are easy to get because stolen guns are easy to buy. Ironically in Blacksburg, but no doubt there are many opportunitites in every state to get a gun from someone like this.
No doubt this is where gangs get guns... illeagally.
3588. wonkers2 - 5/19/2007 5:33:33 AM
Here's one, finally, for iiibbb after 500 gun killings by the bad guysman with gun permit kills would-be car jacker
3589. iiibbb - 5/19/2007 6:54:09 AM
one in 500 huh?
I guess your requirement for a defensive gun use is that someone actually be shot and die?
Even using conservative values, the total number of defensive gun uses is hardly that insignificant.
3590. wonkers2 - 5/21/2007 7:15:09 AM
Here's a much more common scenario from my morning paper. Bad combination, guns, alcohol, road rage
3591. iiibbb - 5/21/2007 6:18:50 PM
Another 1 in 500 for you Wonks
BESSEMER, Ala. (AP) — Law officers have praised a bank customer who pulled his gun and helped deputies capture a gunman who opened fire during a robbery of a Wachovia branch, killing two tellers and wounding two.
Chris Chappell, who was in the bank Monday morning getting $40 in change on the way to his job in Adger, fled the bank when gunshots rang out, drew a gun for which he has a concealed weapon permit, took cover by his sport utility vehicle and alerted deputies who came up.
3592. wonkers2 - 5/21/2007 7:19:42 PM
Well, that's okay, but it sounds like his contribution was not great. Now, if he'd stayed in the bank and shot it out with the robbers that would really be a counter.
3593. iiibbb - 5/21/2007 8:59:05 PM
Ummm... that's a whack standard. How many times do cops sit outside a crime scene. They don't rush the bad guy... why should he.
It was more than he had to do. Technically, the gun is only for his protection, so he wasn't even obligated to do what he did.
3594. wonkers2 - 5/23/2007 7:33:30 PM
Second son lost to gun violence The odds may be better in Baghdad than Detroit!
3595. wonkers2 - 5/24/2007 5:38:16 AM
Detroit Bus Drivers Strike for Police Protection
3596. wonkers2 - 5/24/2007 5:40:42 AM
Guns Stop the Buses and Pit Bulls Stop the Mail in Detroit
3597. wonkers2 - 5/24/2007 5:43:46 AM
Maybe the mailmen should carry Glocks?
3598. iiibbb - 5/24/2007 7:13:37 AM
I think a tazer would work well enough for that.
Oh.. but less-than-lethal weapons might result in death... unlike firearms.
3599. iiibbb - 5/24/2007 7:16:10 AM
Why don't they just call the police when something happens? The police will stop a crime, right?
That's what some of you have said I'm supposed to do if something happens to me.
3600. iiibbb - 5/24/2007 7:16:45 AM
I'm sure if we just do what the criminals tell us to, no one will get hurt.
3601. wonkers2 - 5/24/2007 7:50:17 AM
What about arming the bus drivers?
3602. wonkers2 - 5/24/2007 7:50:47 AM
I think you fail to appreciate the problem in cities like New York and Detroit.
3603. iiibbb - 5/24/2007 1:24:31 PM
And many fail to appreciate my situation and the situations I have found myself.
3604. wonkers2 - 5/24/2007 3:22:31 PM
You are a member of a minority which expects the majority to cater to your assessment of the dangers you face. And in the process you and others are increasing the danger you and everyone faces.
3605. iiibbb - 5/24/2007 8:12:06 PM
So, we shouldn't pay any attention to people in minorities, no matter what they beleive?
3606. iiibbb - 5/24/2007 8:14:53 PM
Responsible gun ownership does not increase public danger BTW.
3607. wonkers2 - 5/25/2007 4:56:02 AM
Of course we should pay attention to minoritites, but we should not sacrifice the interest of the majority in order to cater to the minority. That is what we have been doing wrt gun control. We have allowed the gun lobby to distort the political process. Responsible gun ownership, depending how one defines it and what types of guns you're talking about, may not increase public danger. However, there's a lot of irresponsible people running around and creating mahem with handguns because the gun laws are weak and not enforced effectively.
3608. wonkers2 - 5/25/2007 6:10:35 AM
3609. thoughtful - 5/25/2007 6:47:35 AM
Of course we should pay attention to minoritites, but we should not sacrifice the interest of the majority in order to cater to the minority.
That is extremely dangerous thinking.
That's why our founding fathers created not a democracy, but a constitutional republic based on individual rights. Remember our past discussions on racism? What about the interests of the majority of southern whites to not be forced to eat with blacks or ride on buses with them or send their children to schools with blacks or have blacks in their neighborhood? Whites were clearly the majority. It was clearly in their interest, for whatever reason, to maintain a segregated society. Did they not view integration as catering to the minority?
What if the majority find it in their interest to eliminate you, wonks?
This is an issue of inalienable rights: the right to self defense. If you are not allowed to defend yourself, your home, your family, your property, how do any of your other rights even matter?
3610. iiibbb - 5/25/2007 7:09:50 AM
Message # 3607
Of course we should pay attention to minoritites, but we should not sacrifice the interest of the majority in order to cater to the minority.
That's weasel wording.
And yes, the majority can rule; if they can get an amendment to the constitution passed, but I the kind of thinking in your statement cannot apply to a simple majority (even if public opinion agreed with you, which it doesn't).
For instance, there has never been a majority in favor of the Roe vs. Wade decision. Does that mean we should dump abortion rights?
How about whether it should be a crime to help people who are illegal immigrants? 52% of Americans apparently think it should be. Should it be?
3611. iiibbb - 5/25/2007 7:13:40 AM
P.S.
You're the one who brought up the idea of arming Bus Drivers.
Maybe we should just apply one of your prior suggestions. That the bus drivers should just not go into the parts of town that are dangerous. Problem solved.
3612. thoughtful - 5/25/2007 8:05:56 AM
I still don't see how anyone can argue about gun crime without discussing the key sources of the problem...drugs and gangs. It is the drug dealers who arm their mules to the teeth so they can protect their merchandise and their cash. It's not exactly like their dealers can call the cops if a rival gang or a druggie manages to rip them off.
3613. wonkers2 - 5/25/2007 9:56:34 AM
My understanding is that a majority of Americans support Roe v. Wade at least so far as early abortions are concerned, and a majority of Americans support stricter gun control legislation, especially for handguns or other weapons not designed for hunting or target shooting competition.
If staying out of the inner city is your idea of a solution we are far apart. School children depend on city buses to get to school and workers depend on the service to get to work. I assume your suggestion was no more serious than mine to arm bus drivers.
And, thoughtful, of course, drug dealers and gangs are a big source of the problem. Dealing with illegal drugs is another whole subject. However, drug gangs are not the only source of needles gun mayhem--car jackings are an increasing problem, and of course armed robberies of convenience stores. Road rage incidents involving guns are increasingly common. And of course about once a month an accidental shooting, often by children playing with a parent's handgun, is reported. So, there are many reasons for more effective handgun control laws and more effective enforcement. The gun lobby so far as I know has opposed all such legislation.
3614. thoughtful - 5/25/2007 10:41:00 AM
Wonks, you can check the data yourself.
Deaths by firearm, all causes:
2001 29573 death rate 10.3
2004 29569 death rate 9.95
Deaths by firearm, homicide:
2001 11348 death rate 3.93
2004 11624 death rate 3.92
Deaths by firearm, suicide:
2001 16869 death rate 5.90
2004 16750 death rate 5.63
Deaths by firearm, unintentional:
2001 802 death rate 0.28
2004 649 death rate 0.22
3615. wonkers2 - 5/25/2007 3:53:09 PM
Thanks, thoughtful. I'll study it later. I'm on my way to Lake St.Clair.
3616. wonkers2 - 5/25/2007 7:09:00 PM
It's interesting that the largest rate of deaths by firearm is apparently by suicide. I knew that it is not uncommon, but I wouldn't have guessed it was the most common cause of death by firearm.
3617. iiibbb - 5/26/2007 4:36:22 PM
Speaking of hunting with handgun, boy kills 1060 lb boar in Alabama.
3618. wonkers2 - 5/26/2007 5:02:44 PM
I saw the kid on television and as the article indicated he had to shoot the hog 8 times and chase it for 3 hours. I think you agree that the pistol he used wasn't the correct weapon to use when bagging a 1000# wild hog.
3619. wonkers2 - 5/30/2007 9:02:04 AM
Here's another one from my morning paper. Man on bike gunned down
3620. iiibbb - 5/30/2007 12:05:51 PM
From reading the comments that sound like the kind of neighborhood you'd tell me I have no business going.
3621. wonkers2 - 5/30/2007 2:56:40 PM
Any ideas on how to keep these guys from getting guns? Or how to get the ones they already have away from them. Thanks to NRA and the rest of the gun lobby the job is like picking fleas off a hound dog.
3622. robertjayb - 5/30/2007 3:48:18 PM
From the recently adjourned Texas legislature:
PASSED, SIGNED INTO LAW BY GOV. RICK PERRY
_Castle Doctrine: Allows Texans to defend themselves with deadly force in their homes, cars and workplaces.
_Firearms in Disaster: Prohibits law officers from confiscating firearms and ammunition during a state of disaster, such as a hurricane, except in cases of a clear threat.
Handgun Records: Reclassifies as nonpublic records the state licenses granted to residents to carry concealed handguns.
Guns 'R Us!
3623. wonkers2 - 5/30/2007 4:19:57 PM
Yep! That'll help solve the problem. Fewer Texans with guns. Half'll be dead.
3624. iiibbb - 5/30/2007 4:46:06 PM
http://www.ncpa.org/ba/ba324/ba324.html
You'd think you'd guys be pretty keen about Texas. Of the shall-issue states it is among the most stringing in it's requirements that I've seen.
One must be at least 21 years of age, submit a photo and fingerprints for a background check, pay a $140 fee and take ten to fourteen hours of coursework. In addition, applicants must pass both a written test covering laws pertaining to deadly force and gun safety and a shooting accuracy test. Even with all of these hurdles, more than 200,000 Texans have received concealed carry permits.
And, those who do have permits are more law-abiding.
Go-figure.
3625. iiibbb - 5/30/2007 4:48:41 PM
As to how to prevent assholes from getting guns in the first place?
Like I've said in the past there are lots of things that need to be done... from improving peoples' economic situations, cracking down on predatory criminals (abandon the war on drugs), to education programs.
That seems to be step 1 at least... not innane prohibitions of guns when you know that doesn't work.
3626. wonkers2 - 5/30/2007 6:06:54 PM
"That doesn't work"? I'ts never been tried.
3627. iiibbb - 5/30/2007 8:11:58 PM
It's been tried all over the place.
Most proposed measures don't go far enough, and the ones that might go far enough are too anti-constitution.
3628. wonkers2 - 6/4/2007 6:08:39 AM
Bloomberg is Number One Enemy of Gun Lobby
3629. wonkers2 - 6/4/2007 6:15:47 AM
3630. arkymalarky - 6/10/2007 10:56:44 AM
3631. wonkers2 - 6/10/2007 3:57:46 PM
Even though it doesn't go nearly far enough, it will be good for the Dems to make their peace, however fragile, with the NRA.
3632. arkymalarky - 6/10/2007 4:05:14 PM
Plus, it plugs a hole that needed plugging, so to speak. IOW, they actually get some positive legislation out of it, where they wouldn't have before--and in fact couldn't before, according to that article.
3633. iiibbb - 6/12/2007 11:08:06 AM
I think the petitioning process is important. As I said before, you can't just be stuck on some list.
I've no quarrel with mental and criminal background checks whatsoever.
3634. wonkers2 - 6/22/2007 6:13:46 AM
3635. wonkers2 - 6/22/2007 6:50:54 AM
Killings surged in Oakland last year. The shootings are part of a cresting wave of violence in Oakland which recorded 149 homicides in 2006, a 57 percent increase over 2005 and the highest number in 11 years. Oakland killings surge
3636. iiibbb - 6/22/2007 8:29:30 AM
http://www.vpcla.org/factGang.htm
* In Los Angeles County, law enforcement officials are aware of more than 1300 street gangs with over 150,000 members. In the City of Los Angeles alone, there are approximately 407 gangs and over 56,000 members.
* Gangs account for approximately 51% of all homicides in Los Angeles County. Of the 1156 homicides in 2001, 587 were gang-related. The majority of all gang homicides are committed with handguns.
Of course some of their "facts" seem dogmatic and not really backed by data, but those two did have sources.
If you are in a gang (in L.A.), you have just over 1% chance of dying from gang violence. That's 1,000 deaths per 100,000, or two orders of magnitude greater than the worst crime indexes for the entire US in the past 45 years (10.8 being the worst in 1980, and about 5 being more common).
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm
So... what to do about gangs and guns? Already illegal for any of them to own or carry their weapons. I'm not sure how licenses and registrations for me helps.
Again, I'd place my bets on improving their social-economic situations and opportunities. Of course that requires them to want those opportunities.
3637. thoughtful - 6/22/2007 10:31:24 AM
See page 4 for a chart showing the 'carrot & stick' approach is successful in reducing gang activity and violence.
3638. iiibbb - 6/24/2007 6:50:29 PM
3639. jexster - 7/2/2007 4:16:48 PM
Rock on i3...rock on!
MG42 Heavy
The Video
3640. Ms. No - 7/2/2007 4:53:47 PM
Do we have any figures broken down by legal v illegal firearms?
Seriously, if better than half of gun violence is being perpetrated with illegal guns wouldn't that argue to the point that passing laws which only those who don't commit crimes in the first place are going to follow is pointless not to mention costly?
To the best of my understanding gang-bangers don't apply to or belong to the NRA.
3641. wonkers2 - 7/2/2007 6:03:05 PM
3642. wonkers2 - 7/2/2007 6:12:14 PM
The N.R.A.’s Senate
Published: July 2, 2007
Given a choice last week between helping local police combat illegal gun trafficking and helping the National Rifle Association protect rogue gun dealers responsible for arming violent criminals, the Senate Appropriations Committee made the outrageously wrong choice.
Bowing to the politically powerful gun lobby, the committee set back the effort spearheaded by Mayor Michael Bloomberg and leading law enforcement groups to repeal the reckless Tiahrt amendment. First passed in 2003, it denies police and local governments access to essential information about guns used to commit crimes.
In a bipartisan collapse to the N.R.A., the Senate committee, by a vote of 19 to 10, also approved new language that actually threatens law enforcement officials with jail time if they dare use federal gun-purchasing data to try to systematically address the problem of gun trafficking.
Under the nefarious new amendment proposed by Senator Richard Shelby, Republican of Alabama — and backed by all 14 G.O.P. committee members and five Democrats — police would have to certify, under penalty of criminal sanctions, that every trace requested from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms was for a specific criminal investigation. Use of trace data for broader purposes, like identifying trafficking patterns, targeting interdiction points and allocating law enforcement resources, could subject police officers to five years in prison. A year ago, even the Gonzales Justice Department said imposing such criminal penalties would be too extreme, citing the “chilling effect” on legitimate police investigations.
The measure would explicitly ban disclosure of trace data to mayors and other officials with crime-fighting duties. In a further slap to Mayor Bloomberg, the provision seeks to quash New York City’s ongoing litigation against bad gun dealers by making retroactive the Tiahrt amendment’s ban on courtroom admissibility of trace data.
Striking this despicable provision is now a crucial order of business for the full Senate. And in the House, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who has pledged to try to repeal the original Tiahrt amendment, urgently needs to take up the fight.
If local law enforcement leaders have the courage to go after shady gun dealers and traffickers, Congress should, finally, have the courage to stand up to the gun lobby.
Next Article in Opinion (3 of 17) »
3643. iiibbb - 7/3/2007 8:56:02 AM
The ATF has said itself that the trace data Bloomberg wants to use is misleading and doesn't help solve crime.
3644. Ms. No - 7/3/2007 9:39:34 AM
Has Philadelphia suddenly got more guns this year and New York fewer? Is that what they're blaming the rising death toll on? That a flood of guns came into Philly and drove everyone nuts?
3645. wonkers2 - 7/3/2007 6:46:44 PM
Guns flow into all the big cities from Virginia and other states who don't have or don't enforce handgun laws. Gun violence is a problem in every urban area.
3646. wonkers2 - 7/3/2007 6:47:32 PM
In the U.S., that is. Other civilized countries seem to be on top of the situation.
3647. jexster - 7/3/2007 8:37:13 PM
Bush Persecutes Vet for Exercising Right to Arm Bears
Similarly, in a case decided two weeks ago by the United States Supreme Court and widely discussed by legal specialists in light of the Libby case, the Justice Department persuaded the court to affirm the 33-month sentence of a defendant whose case closely resembled that against Mr. Libby. The defendant, Victor A. Rita, was, like Mr. Libby, convicted of perjury, making false statements to federal agents and obstruction of justice.Mr. Rita has performed extensive government service, just as Mr. Libby has. Mr. Rita served in the armed forces for more than 25 years, receiving 35 commendations, awards and medals. Like Mr. Libby, Mr. Rita had no criminal history for purposes of the federal sentencing guidelines.
The judges who sentenced the two men increased their sentences by taking account of the crimes about which they lied. Mr. Rita’s perjury concerned what the court called “a possible violation of a machine-gun registration law”; Mr. Libby’s of a possible violation of a federal law making it a crime to disclose the identities of undercover intelligence agents in some circumstances.
As someone with both a machine gun and tank fetish I3, I am outraged. OUTRAGED I tell ya!
3648. Ms. No - 7/3/2007 8:47:19 PM
Guns flow into all the big cities from Virginia and other states who don't have or don't enforce handgun laws. Gun violence is a problem in every urban area.
I'm not disputing that gun violence is a problem, what I'm disputing is the implication that the sudden rise in violence in Philly has to do with an influx of guns rather than some other cause.
3649. wonkers2 - 7/4/2007 9:25:43 AM
I don't have any knowledge about the situation in Philly other than what was in the article. I've read other articles where New York officials have complained about Virginia gun dealers selling guns which end up in New York. There is no shortage of guns of all types in Detroit from what I've observed from reading the local paper every day. It's an exceptional day when there's not a report of a shooting.
3650. Ms. No - 7/4/2007 10:23:32 AM
I think you're missing my point, Wonk. The article implies --- erroneously --- that a sudden influx of guns is what has caused the violence in Philly. It's spin. The cargo-cult wisdom is that a gun brings violence of its own to any situation and therefore a bunch of guns bring a bunch of violence. The truth is that violent people seek weapons. What makes them violent is far more complex than "they had access to guns". Guns make some people more successfully violent, but they do not make peaceful, law-abiding citizens in to maniacs.....unless they happen to be lobbying for stricter gun laws. ;->
3651. wonkers2 - 7/4/2007 11:22:13 AM
I re-read the article and didn't find mention of a "sudden influx of guns." The article mentioned a variety of causes of the gun violence. What's your explanation for the 22% increase in homicides last year. It's pretty clear that the lack of effective handgun controls is the main factor causing gun violence in most of our cities across the country. Nothing complicated about it--more guns = more gun crime, gun accidents, more dope gang wars, more road rage shootings, etc. Other countries, aside from Iraq, seem to have much less of a problem. I live across the river from Windsor, Ontario, where handguns are strictly controlled, and I rarely read or hear of a shooting there. Windsor, in a way is like a suburb of Detroit--many people cross the bridge every day to work in Detroit and vice versa--but without guns. Lots of people without guns are violent, but guns make them lethally violent.
3652. Ms. No - 7/5/2007 8:51:54 AM
Wonk,
We have more crime here of all kinds that other Western nations. We have more rapes, more stabbings, more beatings, more burglary, more muggings, more everything and not one of those crimes has anything at all to do with handguns or rifles or projectile weapons of any kind.
Why do we have a higher crime rate than Canada or the UK or Germany or France or Switzerland? Off the top of my head my thoughts are:
- the hopelessness of life at the poverty level
- 400 years of slavery and the subsequent ghetto-ization of African Americans
- lack of competent public infrastructure to address issues of poverty
- the inability of most people to truly achieve the American Dream they're told belongs to us all
We have minds that turn to violence in a way not found in other Western nations. Canada doesn't have any fewer guns than we do and their laws aren't any different and yet they don't have the gun violence we do. They also don't have anything near the rates of other crimes that we do.
It's because they're Canadian and we're not. What makes America and Americans different from everybody else? Well, there's your answer to why we have the violent crime rates we do. It's as simple and as complex as that.
3653. iiibbb - 7/5/2007 9:42:37 AM
Could be the metric system... of all the "first-world" countries... we don't use the metric system.
.. and I use it all the time at work, that's why I'm less violent and therefore safer with guns.
We're also closer to Kansas than anywhere else in the world. Indians used to kill each other before we got here. They also didn't have the metric system and lived close to present-day Kansas.
3654. Ms. No - 7/5/2007 10:12:31 AM
Could be that we don't drink enough good beer.
3655. alistairconnor - 7/5/2007 10:26:57 AM
Well, many years ago on the Fray, I looked up some actual statistics. I used Australia as a control, as being very culturally similar to the US.
For most categories of crime, the rate was indeed higher in the US, in fact in general you double (I think) the Australian rate of burglary, rape, assault etc to get the US rate.
But the murder rate is like 10 times higher. The gun ownership rate too.
But it's true that the beer's better there.
3656. alistairconnor - 7/5/2007 10:28:00 AM
And I can't tell you how much it hurts me to say that.
But NZ has much better beer, and I think, a higher murder rate than Australia. (higher gun ownership too.)
3657. wonkers2 - 7/13/2007 10:47:04 AM
This is inexcusable! House Panel Supports Limiting Access to Gun Data
3658. wonkers2 - 7/13/2007 10:50:44 AM
3659. wonkers2 - 7/13/2007 10:59:40 AM
How the Tiarhart amendment is undermining illegal gun control efforts
3660. iiibbb - 7/13/2007 1:23:20 PM
Message # 3657
A statement from Mayor Bloomberg called the vote “a profound disappointment.” “While I was hopeful that the Congressional committee would stand up to the special interests,” the statement read, “at least this measure was given public consideration and was debated for several hours instead of being inserted into an appropriations bill in the dead of night.”
Why are gun rights a "special interest"? More specifically, why isn't gun control a "special interest"?
Given Bloomberg's, the ATF's track, and the press' track records of harassment of individuals, I'm not so sure I'm keen on them having this kind of information. The tacking info only goes back as far as the last legal sale, and doesn't finger the actual criminal market for firearms.
3661. wonkers2 - 7/13/2007 2:49:42 PM
Not allowing police access to the ATF information is indefensible. The gun lobby is a special interest group because it, like the oil industry, perverts the will of the majority who support stricter handgun control,i.e., in the PUB LIC INTEREST.
3662. iiibbb - 7/13/2007 7:10:18 PM
My understanding of the rules is that they can't just fish in the database. I don't think it prevents them from investigating a specific crime.
3663. wonkers2 - 7/14/2007 5:46:23 PM
You could improve your understanding if you read the link above in #3659 which explains that one percent of the gun dealers are responsible for the vast majority of illegal gun sales. Allowing access to the data would make it easier to put these guys out of business.
3664. iiibbb - 7/17/2007 7:12:46 AM
Why?
If the police can already find them investigating legitimate crimes, they can already find them. If those stores are making illegal sales, take their license. If the black market is using these stores then set up a sting.
But I can't understand that if this 1% of stores is the problem why the ATF isn't already cracking down on them.
3665. Ulgine Barrows - 7/18/2007 2:46:46 AM
Guns, stuns, knives, schnives.
I get really tired of these guystuff killing things.
A fresh lipstick color does it, for me.
And if that doesn't work, go play a sax at a mountain when the sun is setting.
3666. Ulgine Barrows - 7/18/2007 3:11:51 AM
Blue river running slow and lazy
I could stay with you forever
And never realize the time.
~Dylan
3667. wonkers2 - 7/18/2007 7:19:49 AM
The article linked above in #3659 above explains the situation pretty well. "The likelihood of the ATF showing up at an negligent gun dealer in Buffalo is about the same as an Ivory Billed Woodpecker." The Tiahart amendment denies state law enforcement agencies from the information needed to pick up the slack left by ATF. Moreover previous legislation immunized the gun industry from lawsuits over the mayhem resulting from illegal gun sales.
3668. Ms. No - 7/18/2007 7:57:55 AM
So the problem isn't that we don't know who the badguys are or that we can't find them or that we can't prosecute them when we find them. The problem is the ATF not doing its job.
That's not an argument for new gun legislation or for relaxing current legislation to make up for some failing on the part of the ATF. That's an argument for a crackdown on a government agency.
3669. wonkers2 - 7/18/2007 5:54:07 PM
True, but gun sale enforcement is not solely an ATF matter. Thanks to the Tiahart bill the ATF is prohibited from cooperation with state and local law enforcement agencies. What needs to happen is for the Tiahart amendment to be repealed so that ATF can pass its information on to the cities and states who are suffering from the illegal gun sales.
The gun manufacturers lobby is responsible for the Tiahart law. They sell a lot of guns through the rogue dealers. Also, they don't want to be sued for negligence in the way they market their guns.
3670. wonkers2 - 7/25/2007 6:42:23 AM
Who's going to take care of our "babies?"
3671. wonkers2 - 7/25/2007 6:48:26 AM
Arrest made in road rage shooting
3672. wonkers2 - 7/25/2007 9:01:53 AM
Jered Townsend, Michigan gun "enthusiast" YouTube video
3673. jexster - 7/25/2007 9:18:42 AM
Biden thinks he ought to have his head examined.
I think Biden needs to have his hair transplant examined.
I want my tank goddammit
3674. wonkers2 - 7/25/2007 3:28:47 PM
When I was in D.C. he was in the middle of getting his plug job, and a wag likened it to a Chia Pet.
3675. jexster - 7/25/2007 4:56:30 PM
I was in DC then as well Wonks..so you were busy becoming a legacy millstone for US auto manufacturer?
3676. wonkers2 - 7/25/2007 5:13:54 PM
Yep! But not for the U.S. taxpayers. I didn't stay the required 5 years to qualify to be double dipper.
3677. wonkers2 - 8/22/2007 5:31:52 AM
Editorial
Virginia’s Gun Market
E-Mail
Print
Save
Share
Digg
Facebook
Newsvine
Permalink
Published: August 22, 2007
The “Iron Pipeline” of Interstate 95 remains alive and deadly, as a new federal study grimly confirms. Saddest of all is the evidence that some of the most far-reaching shady gun marts continue to operate in the state of Virginia, where the suicidal Virginia Tech student shot 32 people to death only four months ago. Virginia dealers have been a standout source for guns used in crimes up and down the seaboard, according to the federal study. They accounted for half of the 10,000 guns tracked by the study in the metropolitan Washington, D.C., area, and one in 11 in New York City.
Richmond officials deny their gun control laws are porous, particularly now that the state announced it was closing the loophole that allowed the Virginia Tech marauder to legally buy guns despite his documented history of mental disturbance. But for every loophole closed in the wake of the nation’s latest gun mayhem — from Columbine to the D.C. sniper, ad infinitum — others beg attention in the crazy quilt of state and federal regulations cynically manipulated by the gun lobby.
For all the official dedication to closure in Richmond these days, the State Legislature rejected a proposal to close the egregious loophole by which “private” (i.e. unlicensed) dealers sell weapons at weekend gun shows free of the federal obligation to conduct background checks on buyers. More than a quarter of the dealers have been found selling guns as easily as midway trinkets. Their lethal marts should be flying the skull-and-bones of pirates — the better to attract sportsmen shoppers.
Virginia is hardly alone in following the gun lobby’s diktat to protect laissez-faire gun shows. But political cowardice only compounds the grief at Virginia Tech over its contribution to the domestic gun toll of 30,000 lives a year. In Richmond, where pressure from the bloody campus was greatest, the vote to retain the gun show loophole was close. But now a legislative battle looms over the gun lobby’s brazen counterinitiative to legalize concealed weapons on campus.
3678. jexster - 9/18/2007 4:51:10 PM
The NRA Are "Extremists" - Rudy 3 Pussies
3679. alistairconnor - 11/7/2007 10:49:49 AM
At least seven dead in Finnish high school massacre
Prime minister Matti Vanhanen described the situation as "extremely tragic" and said the government would hold an emergency meeting. Despite having the third-largest per capita ratio of handgun ownership in the world, violent incidents are rare at Finnish schools.
3680. jexster - 11/8/2007 11:10:50 AM
He just needed some jexsterly guidance!
3681. jexster - 11/8/2007 1:29:37 PM
RIP
3682. jexster - 11/9/2007 2:20:57 PM
Sturmgewehr
3683. wonkers2 - 11/25/2007 10:19:30 AM
Typical Gun Owner
"After Myrdini's body was extricated from the car, police found the AK47, three samurai-style swords, a meat cleaver, a hatchet, a carving knife and two fake hadguns in the car."
3684. wonkers2 - 12/4/2007 7:37:41 AM
3685. wonkers2 - 12/8/2007 4:31:16 PM
Fake cops in Detroit armed with assault weapons, sniper rifles, AK47s Seems to me we're capable of putting a stop to this stuff?
3686. jexster - 12/8/2007 5:20:16 PM
No one cares about what happens in Dee-troit. Haven't you figured that out?
Meanwhile back Honkie's Homies are at it again in Omaha
3687. David Ehrenstein - 12/18/2007 12:12:42 AM
And Now a VERY Special Christmas Greeting.
3688. wonkers2 - 2/15/2008 9:43:25 PM
From my morning paper:
"4th Shooting in a Week--Thursday's shooting (rampage which killed 5 and injured 16) was the fourth at a U.S. school within a week.
"On Feb. 8 at Louisiana Technical College in Baton Rouge a woman sho two fellow students to death and killed hersellf. In Memphis, Tenn., a 17-year-old is accused of shooting and critically wouldning a fellow student during a high school gym class.
"A 15-year-old victim of a Tuesday shooting at an Oxnard, Calif., junior high school had been declared brain dead."
The people who are brain dead are the 2nd Amendment zealots who oppose effective gun control measures. The people who sold or supplied the weapons for these killings should be tracked down and held responsible.
3689. jexster - 3/6/2008 11:49:49 AM
Just learned that my brother has his late father-in-law's WWII LUGER!
If I can't have the right to bear a LeClerc
my second choice!
3690. iiibbb - 3/16/2008 6:43:53 PM
Heller vs. DC will be heard this week.
Scotusblog
3691. robertjayb - 3/19/2008 9:21:05 AM
Follow iiibbb's link (above) for updates on the DC guns case. It seems the Supremes may be preparing to decide, according to the dictates of common sense and the English language, that the 2nd amendment makes gun ownership an individual right.
About time.
Maybe jexster can get his tank.
3692. wonkers2 - 3/19/2008 9:32:07 AM
From the NYT article on the Supreme Court hearing yesterday morning the outlook is not good for gun control.
3693. iiibbb - 3/19/2008 9:53:24 AM
Pretty hard to tell at this point. Prohibitions are in trouble, but there will be room for "reasonable" restrictions.
I'd actually be surprised if very much changes, except that the "individual right" interpretation will probably prevail... but that's what I've been telling you all along. The Bill of Rights are rights of "the people" and "the people" means individuals.
This case is pretty narrow. It really only addresses outright prohibitions like DC's law. I'm not sure it addresses administrative prohibitions where you can have one if you have a permit, but the locality won't give you a permit.
3694. iiibbb - 3/19/2008 9:54:26 AM
Also, given the continuing erosion of the Republican power, I doubt there will be a rapid expansion of gun rights.
3695. iiibbb - 3/19/2008 10:08:13 AM
What got DC in trouble, and what will get other localities in trouble, are prohibitions. DC even tried to argue that a disassembled shotgun is a reliable means of self defense.
I bet all they would have had to do was legalize revolvers, which are generally considered safer for novices and still effective for most home defense scenarios.
But when "reasonable" gun laws aren't actually reasonable you get what you get.
3696. iiibbb - 3/19/2008 10:29:03 AM
I fall back to my usual statement. Reasonable is whatever a beat cop has for his protection: a sidearm, shotgun, and/or a rifle.
3697. iiibbb - 3/25/2008 3:33:28 PM
So the word is that it'll be about June or July when we get the decision.
I'm predicting 6-3 or 7-2 on a narrow interpretation that it's the individuals right within the home. I'm sure the decision will also be carefully crafted as to not threaten the bans of the National Firearms Act 1986.
Pretty much the only constituancies that will be affected are those that either have outright bans or administrative bans (i.e. permits exist, but average people can't get them).
Current laws in most states therefore will be unaffected... although challenges to gun rights are likely to be greatly affected (at least framed in the context of collective rights).
3698. robertjayb - 3/27/2008 5:26:22 PM
Woman needs gun control lessons...(HouChron)
An east Harris County woman shot and killed an armed man, but also accidentally wounded her husband, as she foiled an apparent home-invasion robbery at their apartment, authorities said.
The dead man, identified as Charles Freeman, 21, was found at the bottom of a flight of stairs about 11:45 p.m. Wednesday when sheriff's deputies arrived at the apartment in the 300 block of Audrey.
Freeman was wearing all-black clothing with a bandana pulled over his face when he forced his way into the apartment, authorities said.
"He came in and demanded money and the TV," said sheriff's Lt. John Legg.
After her husband began struggling with the intruder, the woman grabbed a pistol that the couple kept in the apartment, Legg said. She fired at least two shots, wounding both men.
Freeman fled and collapsed as he ran down the stairs leading to the apartment, investigators said. The woman's husband was treated at a hospital for a wound in one arm, authorities said.
Detectives are still questioning a woman they found waiting in a car nearby.
Of course, cops probably would have fired dozens of rounds and killed everybody in the house and a few neighbors as well.
3699. jexster - 4/11/2008 10:20:29 AM
3700. wonkers2 - 4/11/2008 10:58:31 AM
Ho hum! Teen dies in drive-by shooting
3701. jexster - 4/11/2008 11:12:35 AM
More black on black violenc in Dee-troit
Ho hum indeed!
3702. jexster - 4/13/2008 8:43:15 AM
Top ten states the country, by percentage of gun ownership.
1. Wyoming 59.7%
2. Alaska 57.8%
3. Montana 57.7%
4. South Dakota 56.6%
5. West Virginia 55.4%
6. Mississippi 55.3%
7. Arkansas 55.3%
8. Idaho 55.3%
9. Alabama 51.7%
10. North Dakota 50.7%
3703. robertjayb - 5/20/2008 8:59:41 AM
Dangerous Glocks should be banned for police...
NEW BEDFORD, Mass. — A firearms instructor in southern Massachusetts has been assigned to other duties after his gun accidentally went off while he was teaching a class on weapons safety.
Officials say the Glock handgun discharged while Maj. Donald Lamar was demonstrating to Bristol County deputy sheriffs how to safely holster the weapon.
The bullet ripped a hole in Lamar's pants but missed his leg and foot.
3704. iiibbb - 5/20/2008 1:39:27 PM
I really don't understand how people manage to do that. There must be something wrong with their holsters or something. Cop holsters usually require thumb breaks... they may get snagged or something. That or he screwed up. But whatever... there are a lot of new designs out there
Or, a little old school, but maybe they should all get HK P7's. That is a pretty difficult gun to get to go off unless you mean it (They have a squeeze cocker. Really accurate. Relatively high capacity. Their only knock is the expense of them.
But as far as Glocks go... I like and trust mine.
3705. iiibbb - 5/20/2008 1:40:08 PM
OF course by trust I mean that as long as I am diligent.
3706. thoughtful - 5/20/2008 2:19:18 PM
isbs, maybe that's what they mean by gun control...you really ought to be in control of your own gun!
i was never comfortable with my husband's walther ppk...i didnt' like it as i was never sure if a round was in the chamber or not. so i'm happy with my little .38 revolver. i know exactly when it's loaded and when it's cocked. no one should have more gun than they know how to handle, cops included!
3707. iiibbb - 5/20/2008 2:38:06 PM
Revolvers are very good. Most people underestimate them. There were several people who used them a the pistol competitions I used to go to that I would be lucky if I ever got that proficient with a gun. I'm sure they shoot many times a week and have more practice than I can afford to take, but revolvers are about as close to bungle-proof as you can expect a gun to be.
I've read that many cops are only required to qualify with their weapon once a year. And besides that everyone makes mistakes.
3708. iiibbb - 5/20/2008 2:38:50 PM
And then you have the moron who shot himself in the back using his revolver for a back scratcher.
3709. thoughtful - 5/20/2008 3:35:45 PM
It's amazing guns don't come with warning labels for the darwin award winners. After all, our woodstove even has a label that says "caution. hot while in operation."
3710. iiibbb - 6/7/2008 7:53:02 AM
The evolution of sensible gun control.
3711. wonkers2 - 6/9/2008 8:05:12 AM
Gun contol's evolution has a way to go
3712. iiibbb - 6/9/2008 8:18:05 AM
It does at that. Unfortunately most of the "sensible" laws that are proposed would not have prevented that incident.
3713. robertjayb - 6/23/2008 11:58:46 AM
Enough of this wimpy concealed-carry rigamarole...
FORT WORTH — Despite the Lone Star State's love affair with the gun, there's at least one firearms restriction that some Texans want lifted.
Texas is just one of six states in which handguns can't be worn in plain view. The other 44 states, in the parlance of gun advocates, are known as "open-carry" states.
More than 3,500 people have signed an online petition asking Gov. Rick Perry and the Legislature to permit Texans to wear their handguns without concealing them.
3714. wonkers2 - 6/23/2008 12:11:00 PM
Wow! No six guns in double holsters on the belts in Texas? Who'd a thunk it?
3715. wonkers2 - 6/23/2008 12:11:40 PM
How about 30-30s in open racks in pick-up trucks?
3716. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 6/23/2008 2:12:49 PM
3717. robertjayb - 6/26/2008 9:06:13 AM
Supremes uphold individual gun rights...
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled today that Americans have a right to own guns for self-defense and hunting, the justices' first major pronouncement on gun rights in U.S. history.
The court's 5-4 ruling struck down the District of Columbia's 32-year-old ban on handguns as incompatible with gun rights under the Second Amendment. The decision went further than even the Bush administration wanted, but probably leaves most firearms laws intact.
The court had not conclusively interpreted the Second Amendment since its ratification in 1791. The amendment reads: "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."
The basic issue for the justices was whether the amendment protects an individual's right to own guns no matter what, or whether that right is somehow tied to service in a state militia.
Writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia said that an individual right to bear arms is supported by ``the historical narrative'' both before and after the Second Amendment was adopted.
3718. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 6/26/2008 9:17:14 AM
3719. wonkers2 - 6/26/2008 1:25:58 PM
Beautiful!
3720. robertjayb - 6/26/2008 1:32:47 PM
Decision prompts quick-draw on Chicago gun ban...
CHICAGO (CBS) Ż The U.S. Supreme Court says Americans have a right to own guns for self-defense and hunting, and the ruling will likely invalidate the 26-year-old ban on handguns in the City of Chicago.
In fact, the Illinois State Rifle Association has already filed a lawsuit challenging the Chicago ban. They filed the suit within 15 minutes of the high court's ruling.
3721. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 6/26/2008 2:45:49 PM
3722. concerned - 6/26/2008 3:12:13 PM
Howler of the millennium:
"Outside of the killings, Washington has one of the lowest crime rates in the country" --former D.C. Mayor Marion Barry
3723. Wombat - 6/26/2008 3:18:33 PM
Darn those activist justices!
3724. concerned - 6/26/2008 3:27:35 PM
Next they'll be arming bears.
3725. concerned - 6/26/2008 3:28:17 PM
Why can't inner city murdering thugs all just 'get along'?
3726. iiibbb - 6/27/2008 7:44:53 AM
This rulling came out as I expected. I was a little surprised about the 5-4. In my mind the meaning of the 2nd is pretty obvious, and that if society has changed and the Constitution is this "living document" we hear about from the liberals, then the appropriate way to achieve their gun control agenda is to amend the Constitution.
I haven't read the decision yet, but some of the snippits I heard from the descent were a little silly.
I feel this 4 on the opposing side are trying to say what they think the law should be... not what the Constitution says it is. I would have thought the vote would've gon 6-3 at worse.
I was listening to the Sirus Left channel yesterday and people were off the hook declairing that there would be blood on the streets etc etc. Pure hyperbole.
I think it is pretty clear this ruling will have little effect on the status quo except to ban outright prohibition of guns (or effective prohibitions like mandating the weapon be disassembled).
The decision clearly left the door wide open for states to continue to mandate where and how a guns may be carried in this society. Specifically, this doesn't mean that people can suddenly conceal carry without a permit. It doesn't mean a state can't declare certain areas off limits. It doesn't mean that states can't limit the number of gun purchases. It doesn't disqualify short waiting periods. It doesn't disqualify training requirements. It doesn't even seem to disqualify an AWB if congress took the time to "standardize" militia arms.
The only thing it disqualifies is outright prohibition.
3727. alistairconnor - 6/27/2008 8:56:11 AM
What I find hilarious about the ruling is that this appears to be an activist SC, legislating from the bench.
Interpreting the historical narrative, indeed! In which case, they better start striking down laws against men who beat their wives.
3728. thoughtful - 6/27/2008 10:40:51 AM
It will be most interesting to see what in fact happens to the crime rate in DC...esp if it goes down!
3729. iiibbb - 6/27/2008 10:56:34 AM
How is the court saying the 2nd amendment means what it means the act of an activist court?
If society feels that guns are obsolete, the amendment process is well laid out.
Activist court, indeed. It is no more activist than Roe v. Wade... the majority had passed laws banning abortions... the court said "no". If anti-abortion groups want to get rid of abortions they have the amendment process at their disposal. If anti-gun groups want to get rid of guns, they have the amendment process at their disposal.
The amendment process is the standard "check and balance" that congress has to override a court decision.
3730. iiibbb - 6/27/2008 10:58:25 AM
Message # 2738
It will be very difficult to ascribe any change in the crime rate to this decision. The fluttering economy, poverty, and the war on drugs has more of an effect on gun crime than the DC ban or its removal will.
3731. Wombat - 6/27/2008 3:01:27 PM
By not defining what "reasonable" regulation is, the Supremes have now opened up a potential Pandora's Box of litigation against many state and local gun control ordinances. Just what cash-strapped governments need.
iiibbb omits the easy availablity of guns in Virginia and to a lesser extent Maryland on the gun crime rate in DC.
3732. wonkers2 - 6/27/2008 3:21:13 PM
Landmark Ruling Enshrines Right to Own Guns
In a radical break from 70 years of Supreme Court precedent, Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, declared that the Second Amendment guarantees individuals the right to bear arms for nonmilitary uses, even though the amendment clearly links the right to service in a “militia.” The ruling will give gun-rights advocates a powerful new legal tool to try to strike down gun-control laws across the nation.
This is a decision that will cost innocent lives, cause immeasurable pain and suffering and turn America into a more dangerous country. It will also diminish our standing in the world, sending yet another message that the United States values gun rights over human life.
There already is a national glut of firearms: estimates run between 193 million and 250 million guns. The harm they do is constantly on heartbreaking display. Thirty-three dead last year in the shootings at Virginia Tech. Six killed this year at Northern Illinois University.
On Wednesday, as the court was getting ready to release its decision, a worker in a Kentucky plastics plant shot his supervisor, four co-workers and himself to death.
Cities and states have tried to stanch the killing with gun-control laws. The District of Columbia, which has one of the nation’s highest crime rates, banned the possession of nearly all handguns and required that other firearms be stored unloaded and disassembled, or bound with a trigger lock.
Overturning that law, the court’s 5-to-4 decision says that individuals have a constitutional right to keep guns in their homes for self-defense. But that’s a sharp reversal for the court: as early as 1939, it made clear that the Second Amendment only protects the right of people to carry guns for military use in a militia.
In his dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens was right when he said that the court has now established “a new constitutional right” that creates a “dramatic upheaval in the law.”
Even if there were a constitutional right to possess guns for nonmilitary uses, constitutional rights are not absolute. The First Amendment guarantees free speech, but that does not mean that laws cannot prohibit some spoken words, like threats to commit imminent violent acts. In his dissent, Justice Stephen Breyer argued soundly that whatever right gun owners have to unimpeded gun use is outweighed by the District of Columbia’s “compelling” public-safety interests.
Cont'd
3733. wonkers2 - 6/27/2008 3:24:26 PM
In this month’s case recognizing the habeas corpus rights of the detainees at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, Justice Scalia wrote in dissent that the decision “will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed.” Those words apply with far more force to his opinion in this District of Columbia case.
The gun lobby will now trumpet this ruling as an end to virtually all gun restrictions, anywhere, at all times. That must not happen. And today’s decision still provides strong basis for saying it should not.
If the ruling is held to apply to the states, and not just to the District of Columbia — which is not certain — there will still be considerable dispute about what it means for other less-sweeping gun laws. Judges may end up deciding these on a law-by-law basis.
Supporters of gun control must fight in court to ensure that registration requirements and background-check rules, and laws against bulk sales of handguns — a major source of guns used in crimes — are all upheld.
The court left room for gun-control advocates to fight back. It made clear that there were gun restrictions that it was not calling into question, including bans on gun possession by felons and the mentally ill, or in “sensitive places” like schools and government buildings.
That last part is the final indignity of the decision: when the justices go to work at the Supreme Court, guns will still be banned. When most Americans show up at their own jobs, they will not have that protection.
This audaciously harmful decision, which hands the far right a victory it has sought for decades, is a powerful reminder of why voters need to have the Supreme Court firmly in mind when they vote for the president this fall.
Senator John McCain has said he would appoint justices like Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito — both of whom supported this decision. If the court is allowed to tip even further to the far right, there will be even more damage done to the rights and the safety of Americans.
More Articles in Opinion »
NY Times Editorial 6-27-08
3734. concerned - 6/27/2008 3:28:06 PM
Re. 3727 -
What I find hilarious is that AC is dumbing down his already stupid position on guns.
3735. concerned - 6/27/2008 3:30:15 PM
This is a decision that will cost innocent lives, cause immeasurable pain and suffering and turn America into a more dangerous country.
How is that?
3736. concerned - 6/27/2008 3:36:38 PM
In the USA, criminals generally already have as many guns as they can use.
3737. jexster - 6/28/2008 8:38:18 AM
NRA sues S.F. over guns in public housing
A day after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Americans have a constitutional right to possess guns for self-defense, the National Rifle Association sued San Francisco and its Housing Authority for banning firearms in the authority's public housing.
The NRA filed in federal court Friday on behalf of an unidentified gay man living in Valencia Gardens Housing in the Mission District, who said he keeps a gun in his home for protection against hate crimes even though his Housing Authority lease forbids possession of guns and other weapons.
The suit said the Housing Authority policy was based on a 2007 San Francisco ordinance prohibiting guns on city property. The ordinance applies only to city-owned property such as parks and playgrounds and not to the independently managed, federally funded Housing Authority.
City Attorney Dennis Herrera reflected that outlook in a statement promising a vigorous defense of San Francisco's gun laws.
"While nothing in (the Supreme Court ruling) invalidates or even endangers gun restrictions in San Francisco, I'm deeply concerned about this court's direction and how it may affect laws intended to protect public safety in the future," he said.
Mayor Gavin Newsom struck a defiant note in a news conference at which, flanked by a cadre of federal, state and local law enforcement leaders, he announced a series of new anti-gun initiatives.
"To the NRA, we just say, 'Stay away. ... Let us protect our citizens,' " Newsom said. He also said the gun organization should direct some of its attention to the Bush administration, since the federal government approves Housing Authority leases.
...
During the news conference at the city's Northern police station, in the violence-plagued Western Addition neighborhood, Newsom, joined by Police Chief Heather Fong and other law enforcement leaders, announced measures they hope will help remove illegal guns from city streets.
One program, modeled after a successful effort in New York City, will offer a $1,000 reward to callers who provide information leading to the arrest of anyone who has an illegal firearm and a $500 reward for tips leading to the seizure of an assault weapon. The phone number is (415) 575-4444.
Police and prosecutors also said they would start assigning at least four investigators to each homicide, and increase staffing of the Police Department's Gun Reduction Unit, which works with federal investigators to identify illegal gun traffickers and their methods.
City officials said 80 percent of San Francisco's 52 homicides so far this year were gun-related.
3738. jexster - 6/28/2008 8:45:50 AM
Eighty percent...
If your landlord can lawfully prohibit you from having a poodle, he should be able to prohibit pit bulls and handguns on the premises..
Meet MS13
Danielle Bologna can't go back home.
Just a week ago, her two-story house on a quiet street in San Francisco's Excelsior district was a bustling place, crammed with sports gear and trophies and team portraits, where she and her husband of 21 years were raising their four children.
But in just seconds on Sunday, her family was torn apart: Her husband, Tony, 48, and the couple's sons Michael, 20, and Matthew, 16, were shot and killed as they drove home from a family barbecue in Fairfield.
What is left at home, for Danielle Bologna, is only stark silence.....
Danielle Bologna, 47, an educational adviser and coach at Rooftop Elementary, recalled how her husband spent his days coaching sports with his four kids and nights as a supervisor at Draeger's market in San Mateo.
Michael, a standout athlete, was their eldest son at 20 and was attending the College of San Mateo. Matthew, their youngest son, was 16 and attending Lincoln High in San Francisco.
On Sunday, the Bolognas - she, her husband and their three sons and a daughter - joined other relatives and friends for a barbecue in Fairfield. It was the last time the family was together.. He was driving on Congdon Street only blocks from home, police said, when he encountered a Chrysler 300 as it was trying to get by his car after making a left turn. Tony backed up, but soon shots were fired, fatally wounding him and two sons, who were riding with him in the car.
"There was no altercation between this maniac man and my husband," she said. "My husband would never put his own children in jeopardy.
"My husband moved back to let the guy go. Instead, he had blocked my husband and opened fire. There was not a peep or a word out of my husband's mouth."
With the help of a tip from a man arrested after the slayings, police quickly made an arrest of a member of a notoriously violent street gang, MS-13.
....
"All I can tell you - this was a senseless crime. I never in a million years thought I would have to live this life and lose my family.
"To be so senseless, to have people on the streets, shooting people. We have to take our city back - this shouldn't happen. We all need to stick together. To be strong against guns, we need to get those off the streets.
"I just feel like, we are not getting it. They are winning. These criminals are winning. I'm the one who has got to live this. But this is not just about me. It is about other people being hurt. This was my turn to have lost a beautiful husband and two beautiful kids....
3739. iiibbb - 6/28/2008 9:37:18 AM
I thought gangs weren't something to fear Jex. You are one who has castigated me for bringing them up as a reason I might want to protect myself.
I thought we were supposed to rely on cops to protects us. Why didn't they protect this woman's family?
Re- Landlords?
Should they be able to say Blacks can't live in their places either? Pets aren't allowed because they pee on things and can cause property damage. Guns are not any more likely to cause property damage than someone with a hammer putting up a picture.
If I ever had a lease in front of me, and the landlord never brought up the gun issue before they had me in the office, I would sign it and keep it secret. The landlord isn't going to guarantee my safety. Why should I respect such a clause?
3740. iiibbb - 6/28/2008 9:38:47 AM
Actually... I'm pretty sure the place I was staying when I bought my first gun had some kind of rule about it.
Screw them.
3741. jexster - 6/28/2008 10:09:54 AM
Reasonable restriction. Obviously never lived in a public housing project
The City has the right to defend its citizens including especially its tenants
3742. jexster - 6/28/2008 10:12:29 AM
Oh have you ever heard of anyone who said they were carrying a glock for anything OTHER than self defense.
If you could guarantee MY safety from your SigSauer maybe you'd have a leg to stand on
But you can't even guarantee your own
3743. jexster - 6/28/2008 10:13:23 AM
A poodle only pees...
3744. iiibbb - 6/28/2008 8:34:11 PM
Message # 3741
Yet every day cities completely fail in this endeavor. So they create environments where only the bad guys are empowered.
3745. iiibbb - 6/28/2008 8:37:01 PM
Message # 3742
That argument is as easily made from my perspective.
If you could guarantee my safety from the bad guys' Glocks you'd have a leg to stand on. But you can't. The courts don't even back that up.
The police only investigate crimes after the violence... they rarely intercede.
3746. iiibbb - 6/28/2008 8:49:19 PM
Now...
Again I should point out that the SCOTUS decision really doesn't drastically change anything except the outright prohibition of guns. States can still control when/where/how guns may be carried in public. By this decision the rule of the state ends at the door of someone's abode... specifically, people have a right to keep a gun in their home for defense. Why is this such a big deal?
Maybe we could try and discover what might constitute reasonable gun control?
Would I agree to more formalized training? -- Probably yes... less so for home defense, but certainly I'd go along with it for carrying one in public.
Do I agree that states can make their own determinations what level of carry is allowed? -- Generally yes, barring prohibition. I certainly have no problem with some states having carry laws, and others not. As long as there are provisions for me going to/from a range so that I can train I am generally happy.
Would I agree to tax credits for buying safes? -- Yes. Don't we all think society would benefit if those with guns locked them up? I am also for free education programs.
Limits on gun ownership? Personally, I'd probably not care if I were limited to 5-10 guns per adult. As long as I have a pistol, hunting rifle, shotgun, and a couple of target rifles I can keep myself entertained and defended. I'm an outlier saying it... and most gun rights people would flip for me even suggesting it.
3747. wonkers2 - 6/29/2008 6:50:20 AM
Mitch Albom: Every home a gun, everyone a shooter?
3748. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 6/29/2008 11:22:56 AM
3749. jexster - 6/30/2008 7:47:02 PM
FBI Chief Criticizes Supreme Court's Gun Ruling
HARTFORD, Conn. — Last week's landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling that upheld a constitutional right to own guns for self-defense and hunting may harm efforts to deter violent crime in communities and college campuses, the FBI Director, Robert Mueller, said today.
There's a reason that law enforcement doesn't want I3 to guarantee his own security much less ours
3750. iiibbb - 6/30/2008 8:56:26 PM
Face it, the decision was pretty narrow. It left any number of legislative controls wide-open. There is no reason to think it will have any substantive effect on crime.
Fact -- the case only eliminated prohibition.
Fact -- It did not legalize carrying on college campuses.
Fact -- It did not deter efforts to deter violent crime.
In all likelyhood, nothing will change except that gun control efforts will have to be conducted at the state level.
No big whoop... unless you were hoping to have a sweeping federal law.
There is always the amendment process.
3751. OhioSTOPAS - 7/1/2008 4:40:55 AM
If the NRA is right (Message # 3737), would a state university have to allow possession of handguns in dorms?
3752. iiibbb - 7/1/2008 7:45:21 AM
The short answer is I don't think so.
At least they don't allow them on universities in any of the last 3 pro-gun, pro-carry southern states I have lived.
Where I've lived possession and carry is treated as a state-issue; specifically, they have preemption laws that prevent municipalities etc. from devising different rules than the state has made. I think the state-level approach is the correct approach because it gives a gun owner a central place to find the laws that apply to them. I think it is important that a gun owner be able to follow the law. If I had to memorize and track the individual gun laws for the 10-20 cities/towns I frequent that would be unreasonable.
Most college students are barred from owning handguns anyway (most states don't allow handgun purchase to those below age 21). This means that only a junior or senior is going to be of age, and more than likely they'll live off-campus. Most states than I'm aware of do not allow concealed carry on campuses. Many universities also have students sign a conduct agreement to enroll... and I think a lot of universities have clauses about gun possession in these agreements.
3753. wonkers2 - 7/1/2008 10:44:53 AM
The grand jury decision in Texas, in effect, ratified the private execution of a couple of fleeing petty burglars by a Texas redneck with a 12 gauge loaded with 00 buckshot. Way beyond self protection!
3754. jexster - 7/2/2008 3:01:39 PM
3755. wonkers2 - 7/2/2008 3:06:24 PM
Achtung!
3756. wonkers2 - 7/2/2008 3:08:13 PM
Shoot to Stun Makes a Lot of Sense
3757. iiibbb - 7/2/2008 3:47:59 PM
On this we certainly agree Wonkers... unfortunately, less-than-lethal options are often not a legal option. I think they're still illegal in some cities on the premise that badguys can use them to incapacitate victims.
Tasers only work on one person... so all badguys have to do is team up. In Canada (not that I care what they think) they're actually trying to classify tasers as firearms. I guess they're pretty much against people fighting back at all.
I did see a pretty cool device once that had 2 electrodes in a glove. All you had to do was arm it and then grab your adversary and 'zap'... pretty slick.
Pepper sprays are good, but don't work on everyone, and they're indescriminate. If it's windy or you're in your car you might very well get a facefull and incapacitate yourself. Pepper spray also requires a pretty close proximity to your adversary.
However, I would love to see developments in less-than-lethal options.
3758. iiibbb - 7/2/2008 3:52:48 PM
DC apparently released a draft of their registration program.
Shotguns, rifles, and revolvers only. Nothing semi-auto in pistols. Nothing with more than a 12 round capacity. Picture ID and fingerprents and $25 or something to that effect.
There are some on the gun-side that are whining about it. I'm probably ok with it as a compromise... certainly beats prohibition.
3759. robertjayb - 7/2/2008 4:40:03 PM
Revolvers only is a very good idea, particularly if made applicable to police.
3760. iiibbb - 7/2/2008 6:51:42 PM
Genie is out of the bottle WRT semi-auto pistols. Probably won't get it back in the bottle in most of the rest of the country... unless you did dial back police to revolvers, but that isn't going to happen.
3761. Ms. No - 7/6/2008 10:32:34 AM
How does pointing out instances of violence and death caused by the use of illegal firearms have any bearing on the legitimacy of legal firearms?
I mean, that's sort of like saying we should ban cars since some kid stole one to joyride and mowed down a bunch of pedestrians.
Specifically, the murder rate in D.C. is already the highest in the nation DESPITE a gun ban. These murders are not being committed by legally owned and obtained guns.
3762. iiibbb - 7/6/2008 11:07:50 AM
DC will claim that their ban isn't working because weapons are so easily obtained in Virginia by way of straw purchases. I think we've seen news items in here about gun rings being a major pipeline. However, if we know that these rings exist, I am perplexed why we haven't busted them. Instead of the ATF working on this problem, I more often read about them harassing other citizens.
3763. Ms. No - 7/6/2008 2:22:19 PM
Yeah, but that dog won't hunt.
D.C. is not the only city, or even the largest city in America with a gun ban that is also surrounded by areas with less strict gun laws. Hello Boston, Baltimore, New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, Atlanta, Seattle etc. etc. Clearly it isn't the gun laws or lack thereof which are the cause of D.C.'s murder rate.
The answer is that D.C. has more people willing to commit murder than any other city in the nation.
3764. Ms. No - 7/6/2008 2:24:27 PM
On a bit of a tangent:
Not to sound like too much of a tin-foil hat, conspiracy theorist, but the obvious answer that presents itself to me when faced with the question of why we can't keep cocaine out of the country and why we can't seem to shut down illegal gun sellers when we know who they are is because someone whose job it is to do those things makes more money from not doing them.
And to tighten that tin-foil hat a bit more I don't think it's the NRA or gun lobbyists. I have a feeling it is more to the advantage of totalitarian interests to be able to keep pointing out how much safer and better off we'd all be if we'd just let the governement take our guns, keep control of the drugs and continue to prosecute people for personal sexual decisions.
There's no money in peace. If we tell the truth about just how little danger most people are in then there's no incentive for people to give lots of money to those who want to curtail their freedoms.
But that's all just crazy-talk, of course. ;->
3765. iiibbb - 7/6/2008 6:25:53 PM
As Franklin said
"He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security"
3766. iiibbb - 7/6/2008 6:27:02 PM
However it's a simple fact that government can't deliver on these so-called securities.
3767. wonkers2 - 7/7/2008 8:52:22 AM
I watched a symposium on recent Supreme Court decisions yesterday on CSpan. The lawyers on both sides of Heller v DC agreed that the recent decision left a lot of issues to be decided. One of the lawyers pointed out that, even if the original intent interpretation is correct, a lot of questions remain about the reasonableness of municipal and state regulations remain in view of the fact that when the amendment was written there were no large cities with their current problems. The country was pretty much populated by farmers and people who lived in small towns. They also mentioned an equal protection isssue over the reasonableness of gun registration fees analgous to poll tax. That is, if the fees are unreasonably high, the poor will be denied their rights. NYC charges $350 to register a handgun. One of the lawyers pointed out that the original intent of the law was to guarantee the right of slave owners to bear arms in order to deal with rebellious slaves. It's pretty clear that weapons have changed considerably as well as social conditions. The original intent has to be interpreted in a way that makes sense today.
3768. iiibbb - 7/7/2008 9:29:13 AM
I disagree that you mold the interpretation to fit the times... especially if it involves curtailing a right. The problem with interpretations is that they change from administration to administration. A function of the courts is to ensure they work within the constitution.
If society has changed, be it big cities or whatever, the correct process to account for this change is the amendment process. We had to pass amendments for no-brainers like allow Blacks and Women the vote. If guns, abortion, or gay-marriage are such a threat to our society... the only correct manner to control them is by constitutional amendment.
3769. wonkers2 - 7/7/2008 10:12:52 AM
Well, I'm not a lawyer, but that's my impression of how the law works. For example, Brown v. Board of Education ruled that separate but equal violated previous interpretations of the 14th amendment.
3770. iiibbb - 7/7/2008 10:16:51 AM
I'm not a lawyer either... I think there is some wiggle room with "interpretation" but you have to admit it is a pretty slippery slope.
I'm usually ok with "interpretation" when it broadens our rights.
It's another matter if it means constricting them.
In my opinion of course.
3771. wonkers2 - 7/7/2008 1:28:40 PM
Think Again The lawyer I heard must have been expressing Breyer's argument.
3772. thoughtful - 7/7/2008 2:12:38 PM
Of course the fact that we didn't have large cities (or 911 to call) when the amendment was written, in my mind, means that guns were so essential to survival...from self defense to hunting to protecting property...that the idea of eliminating gun ownership wouldn't have occurred to them. I remember visiting old williamsburg and noting that 'main street' was shorter than the driveway at my office building. Gun ownership to me clearly falls under the category of life...as in life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.
3773. wonkers2 - 7/7/2008 3:39:47 PM
Well, we don't agree on that. You might change your mind if you lived in Detroit or L.A.
3774. concerned - 7/7/2008 3:59:31 PM
Need to flush the whole gangsta/rapper/tribal subculture that glorifies armed violence.
3775. wonkers2 - 7/7/2008 4:55:30 PM
Great idea! But how?
3776. concerned - 7/7/2008 4:58:26 PM
You probably won't like this, but start pushing the two parent family unit big time:)
3777. Wombat - 7/7/2008 5:02:29 PM
Let's also flush elements of US historiography that glorify gun violence. "Gangstas" didn't come out of nowhere, you know.
3778. arkymalarky - 7/7/2008 5:02:33 PM
What about the redneck culture?
In the country it's impractical not to have some kind of gun. But the question is what positive changes in the law can be agreed on? It's a waste of time to call for bans on types of guns that are already all over the place. Actually, I thought Carter had the right idea by adding to the punishment of any crime committed with a gun.
3779. wonkers2 - 7/7/2008 5:03:56 PM
I couldn't agree more. But that begs the question of how to push it. That's something that just about all the black leaders agree on and are preaching on with little noticeable effect. As somebody pointed out the high school dropout rate in Detroit is 70 percent. And we learned last week that next year's budget is $400 million in the hole. And of course the Mayor is under a big cloud thanks to his affair with his assistant. And the FBI is investigating four city council members for taking bribes from a trash compacting company on a city contract.
3780. Wombat - 7/7/2008 5:09:04 PM
I say we should force people to marry...starting with Concerned.
3781. arkymalarky - 7/7/2008 5:16:26 PM
Some of our best friends live in Detroit, a married couple I've talked about here before. I forgot to ask them when they were down visiting a few weeks ago about y'all's mayor.
Years ago the guy, Louie, was sitting out on the porch with Bob--this was before we were even dating, and Bob lived up the road from his parents out here. It was late at night/early morning and Louie was going on about how peaceful and quiet it was here, and how where he lived at that time of night you'd be hearing guns and sirens. As if on cue, BLAM!! from up the road at Bob's parents' house. The next day they asked Bob's dad about it, and turned out a mockingbird had been keeping him awake outside the window and he was trying to deal with it.
People never really want to get at the source of why things are the way they are in Detroit and elsewhere. Instead they're funneling people's tax money into pet corporations who further undermine what government services there are. It's disgusting and sad. It's become an--I believe intentional--self-fulfilling prophecy of failure that no one individual who tries to go inside to make things better can improve. The success stories remain isolated and never seem to develop beyond a single classroom or school.
3782. thoughtful - 7/7/2008 6:35:07 PM
The lack of men in black families is really stunning. I'm a fan of what not to wear, and so often, if the woman is white or asian, the 'friends and family' who great the recently redone woman are a mix of men and women. But when the woman is black, it is not unusual for there to be no men in the room...none...nada...not one.
3783. arkymalarky - 7/7/2008 6:54:35 PM
It's a problem in rural areas, but far, far less of one. Interestingly, it's a problem among white rural families, as well. There's something to be said for community and old-fashioned cultural pressure, as opposed to peer pressure, that comes from small conservative communities.
3784. jexster - 7/7/2008 7:18:52 PM
Last night the natives were still celebrating the Fourth and their 2d amendment liberties
Pow....pow.pow..pow..pow
3785. wonkers2 - 7/16/2008 4:38:30 PM
Who needs guns? Wasp knife
3786. concerned - 7/16/2008 7:38:10 PM
Here's an idea that probably needs a bit of tweaking. Not saying I support it - it just occurred to me. Require most gun owners (unless they meet special stringent requirements) to have some sort of RFID chip implanted or worn on their person without which their gun(s) won't fire if beyond a certain distance of the RFID chip (say 4 feet).
3787. iiibbb - 7/16/2008 8:47:20 PM
The problem with smart gun technology is that it hasn't been proven to stand up to all of the shocks associated with a gun going off. A gun is the last thing you want to have not go off when you need it to go off. Also I'll bet there's a way to jam an RFID link and render the gun unusable.
Pretty much the tell-tale is that places like NJ which are pushing RFID have exempted police firearms. If they don't trust it, why should I have to?
I prefer simple. For instance, my Glock is so simple I can service the whole thing myself. I need no special tools or ability.
3788. concerned - 7/16/2008 9:53:23 PM
Thanks for the to the point & factual response, iiibbb. Your concerns as regards personal security appear valid to me.
3789. wonkers2 - 7/19/2008 1:56:13 PM
3790. alistairConnor - 7/21/2008 2:21:28 PM
Message from Her Majesty the Queen
To the citizens of the United States of America from Her Sovereign Majesty Queen Elizabeth II
In light of your failure in recent years to nominate competent candidates for President of the USA and thus to govern yourselves, we hereby give notice of the revocation of your independence, effective immediately.
Her Sovereign Majesty Queen Elizabeth II will resume monarchical duties over all states, commonwealths, and territories (except Kansas , which she does not fancy).
Your new Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, will appoint a Governor for America without the need for further elections.
Congress and the Senate will be disbanded.
A questionnaire may be circulated next year to determine whether any of you noticed.
To aid in the transition to a British Crown dependency, the following rules are introduced with immediate effect:
(You should look up "revocation" in the Oxford English Dictionary.)
1. Then look up aluminium, and check the pronunciation guide. You will be amazed at just how wrongly you have been pronouncing it.
2. The letter 'U' will be reinstated in words such as "colour", "favour", "labour" and "neighbour." Likewise, you will learn to spell "doughnut" without skipping half the letters, and the suffix '-ize' will be replaced by the suffix '-ise'. Generally, you will be expected to raise your vocabulary to acceptable levels. (look up "vocabulary").
3. Using the same twenty-seven words interspersed with filler noises such as "like" and "you know" is an unacceptable and inefficient form of communication. There is no such thing as US English. We will let M*crosoft know on your behalf. The M*crosoft spell-checker will be adjusted to take into account the reinstated letter "u" and the elimination of -ize.
4. July 4th will no longer be celebrated as a holiday.
5. You will learn to resolve personal issues without using guns, lawyers, or therapists. The fact that you need so many lawyers and therapists shows that you're not quite ready to be independent. Guns should only be used for shooting grouse. If you can't sort things out without suing someone or speaking to a therapist then you're not ready to shoot grouse.
6. Therefore, you will no longer be allowed to own or carry anything more dangerous than a vegetable peeler. Although a permit will be required if you wish to carry a vegetable peeler in public.
7. All intersections will be replaced with roundabouts, and you will start driving on the left side with immediate effect. At the same time, you will go metric with immediate effect and without the benefit of conversion tables.
Both roundabouts and metrication will help you understand the British sense of humour.
8. The former USA will adopt UK prices on petrol (which you have been calling gasoline) of roughly $10/US gallon. Get used to it.
3791. alistairConnor - 7/21/2008 2:21:38 PM
9. You will learn to make real chips. Those things you call French fries are not real chips, and those things you insist on calling potato chips are properly called crisps. Real chips are thick cut, fried in animal fat, and dressed not with catsup but with vinegar.
10. The cold tasteless stuff you insist on calling beer is not actually beer at all. Henceforth, only proper British Bitter will be referred to as beer, and European brews of known and accepted provenance will be referred to as Lager. South African beer is also acceptable as they are pound for pound the greatest sporting nation on earth and it can only be due to the beer. They are also part of the British Commonwealth - see what it did for them. American brands will be referred to as Near-Frozen Gnat's Urine, so that all can be sold without risk of further confusion.
11. Hollywood will be required occasionally to cast English actors as good guys. Hollywood will also be required to cast English actors to play English characters. Watching Andie MacDowell attempt English dialogue in "Four Weddings and a Funeral" was an experience akin to having one's ears removed with a cheese grater.
12. You will cease playing American football. There is only one kind of proper football; you call it soccer. Those of you brave enough will, in time, be allowed to play rugby (which has some similarities to American football, but does not involve stopping for a rest every twenty seconds or
wearing full kevlar body armour like a bunch of nancies). Don't try rugby - the South Africans and Kiwis will thrash you, like they regularly thrash us.
13. Further, you will stop playing baseball. It is not reasonable to host an event called the World Series for a game which is not played outside of America. Since only 2.1% of you are aware there is a world beyond your borders, your error is understandable. You will learn cricket, and we will
let you face the South Africans first to take the sting out of their deliveries.
14. You must tell us who killed JFK. It's been driving us mad.
15. An internal revenue agent (i.e. tax collector) from Her Majesty's Government will be with you shortly to ensure the acquisition of all monies due (backdated to 1776).
16. Daily Tea Time begins promptly at 4 pm with proper cups, with saucers, and never mugs, with high quality biscuits (cookies) and cakes; plus strawberries (with cream) when in season.
God Save the Queen!
PS: Go ahead and share this with your friends in the USA (those with a good sense of humour and NOT humor.)
3792. iiibbb - 7/21/2008 2:43:08 PM
All I can say is I've had food cooked by brits and it sucks.
3793. wonkers2 - 7/25/2008 6:59:23 AM
Gun owners in tiny, rural Hastings, Michigan take their Second Amendment rights out and walk them around the block. Second Amendment
3794. wonkers2 - 7/25/2008 7:01:36 AM
Expect a warm welcome in Hastings!
3795. iiibbb - 7/25/2008 7:53:45 AM
The irony is that the guy from Brady said that this group was "pushy and aggressive", and that their only reason for doing it was to "make people feel uncomfortable".
I'm sorry. Yes, some people may feel uncomfortable, but I'm certain their objective was to a) show their numbers, and b) show that people like them can get together and nothing happens.
I mean, what does Brady want? If people carry in the open they're being "pushy and aggressive." Yet they're against concealed carry, and they label those with permits as "paranoid" or "trigger happy" or [insert derogatory phrase here].
Which do you want? I agree that concealed is more polite... so why fight the expansion of CC laws? Why not go to Florida's system where open carry is illegal and CC is the norm?
The fact of the matter is the BC is against people carrying guns, period... but they can't come out and say it because they know they'll get labeled as against the right altogether.
3796. wonkers2 - 7/25/2008 10:03:10 AM
Well, I don't have any statistics to prove it, but I doubt anybody can even remember the last time in Hastings that anybody needed a gun for self protection. Strikes me as pretty silly.
3797. iiibbb - 7/25/2008 1:16:53 PM
And given that an incident like that can happen peacefully... it's also silly to fret about people making a political statement.
They wouldn't be having rallies like this if Brady weren't trying to screw with peoples' rights.
3798. wonkers2 - 7/26/2008 7:25:48 AM
I'm not "fretting" about it but merely poking fun at the old rednecks marching around a sleepy little town with pistols on their belts. The gun issue is not in Hastings but in L.A., NYC, Detroit where gun mayhem occurs daily.
3799. iiibbb - 7/26/2008 8:55:22 AM
But it is in Hasting. If the laws are written at a national level, then they affect those poeple at Hastings... and probably don't help the people in LA or Chicago.
There was a gun-control advocate lamenting that 50% of all suicides are done with a gun... as if banning guns would suddenly make those people not want to commit suicide.
We never address the problems... Guns are the "easy" laws to past. We never go after the root causes.
3800. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 7/26/2008 9:31:29 AM
I love the way fear-mongering-destruction-junkies jujitsu the right to bear arms into the right to have truckloads of easy-to-get, overly efficient devices for mass mayhem distributed among fools and adolecents.
Praise Jesus and pass the automatic weapons, my Brother!
3801. iiibbb - 7/26/2008 11:02:38 AM
Since when is this about automatic weapons?
That is what is typical of the gun-control wahoos. Instead of having a discussion about rights, they throw in issues that are pretty much not in question in hopes to blur the lines.
You're the one who's fear-mongering. Automatic weapons aren't an issue in this country at all.
3802. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 7/26/2008 2:59:54 PM
Okay then let's adjust it to your point: Praise Jesus and pass the the incredibly efficient weapons of mass mayhem, my Brother!
You're the one who didn't address the the real issue. The right that the constitution spoke about was the right to carry a single-shot and hand reloading musket- the weapon of a light infantryman in the 18th century.
You're just another obfuscating gun-nut promoting mass mayhem so YOU can feel safe and secure--rather than the countless innocent by-standers, throughout the world, who get caught in the crossfire of fools with easily accessible guns.
3803. iiibbb - 7/26/2008 3:58:30 PM
The right is that "The People" can form a militia for the purpose of defense against government, and self defense.
The founding fathers wanted the militia to be an equal to a modernly equipped army. You can't honestly believe they meant us to only have muskets for perpetuity. So do you think blacks and women shouldn't vote either?
That kind of dishonesty is exactly the problem with having a reasonable debate on the issue.
As a indicator of my restraint... I've always said that it's reasonable for the public to be as well equipped as a policeman. There is nothing unreasonable about that no matter what you say.
People like Cho will find a way to make mayhem whether they have access to guns or not. Additionally, you can thank our court system for failing to have him red-flagged during the background checks.
At the end of the day you are at no risk by the guns that I own. My neighbors are at no risk by the guns that I own. Trying to label me as a "nut" just goes to show just how unwilling you are to be "reasonable" about guns...
If you want to do what is required to change the Constitution to reflect your views... more power to you.
3804. iiibbb - 7/26/2008 4:32:12 PM
Arguing that we only have rights to muskets is like arguing the freedom of the press only applies to the hand cranked printing press, and that freedom of speech only applies to language used at the time.
3805. iiibbb - 7/26/2008 4:35:21 PM
All of your artwork should be censored. Our founding fathers could never have envisioned Photoshop... think of all of the damage it could cause to reporting the truth!
3806. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 7/26/2008 8:28:27 PM
The gapping hole in your logic (as well as your soul) is the fact that printing presses and Photoshop can't kill anyone. And if everyone was as "reasonable" as you, this wouldn't be the real world we exist in.
You keep evading the facts about out-of-control murder rates, mayhem and the ubiquitous suffering of gun violence. You always ignore it in your lame rationale--and it's just ignoreance, plain and simple!
3807. iiibbb - 7/26/2008 8:51:15 PM
You're kidding yourself if you think free speech has never led to the death of some people.
You also willfully ignore the holes in your argument... which is that your attempt to address "out-of-control" murder is by passing ineffective laws without addressing the root causes of of firearms deaths.
By declaring me the enemy is it any wonder why gun owners don't trust gun-control advocates. I'm a wacko... not even worth talking to. Pretty much only worth talking down to.
Yet for all of your rationale... gun control hitches its wagon to things like the AWB which address cosmetic features. It rails against the non-existent machine gun problem. It rails against "gun nuts" like me who are not the problem and hope that by calling into question my character somehow makes your argument better than mine. It willfully refuse to accept that people have used guns to either save their lives or prevent serious bodily harm.
Sorry. You lost.
Change the Constitution like a real American.
3808. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 7/26/2008 9:48:32 PM
Guns = profits. Guns = false security.
Guns = mass murder. Guns = toys.
Guns = distraction from fears.
Guns = a bigger penis. Guns = death.
Guns = holes in people--not in arguments.
Guns DON'T equal survival, they equal destruction.
I take issue with your rationale, not your character and if you read my first post, it never mentioned you specifically. From what I have read of your posts, you're a nice guy who's nuts about guns--so I called you a gun-nut.
If you took offense then the truth must hurt somewhat. You seem fanatical about your guns and your so-called rights, but your argumentation is ludicrous.
Guns are a relatively unregulated curse on humanity and if you can't admit that then you are the deluded one--not me.
3809. iiibbb - 7/26/2008 10:28:10 PM
Gun have equaled survival for several people I know.
And may I ask why do control nuts always have to bring penises into it? It's just more smoke and mirrors from you. You attack my character... my penis... whatever other imaginary thing you can conjure.
In the grand scheme of things guns pose no greater threat on individuals than any number of threats that exist. So what is it about guns that warrants your outrage over these numerous other things?
Profits are not unique to guns.
Guns are not the only thing that provide false securit.
Guns are not the only thing that have caused mass murder.
Guns are not the only distractions in life that are dangerous.
You obsess.
Let's do something about poverty. Let's do something about education. Let's do something about depression. There are dozens of things we should be doing instead of trashing legitimate gun owners.
3810. wonkers2 - 7/27/2008 1:45:38 PM
"Guns have equaled survival for several people I know."
Why do I wonder about that statement? Because I'm probably three times your age and have traveled widely in the U.S. and abroad and and I don't know anyone who has saved himself with a gun. I did witness a gun fatality on the target range when I was in Army basic training, however. The usefulness of handguns for self defense is vastly over-rated by gun advocates in my opinion. And it's outweighed many times over by accidents, suicides, anger shootings, gangbangers, etc.
If I'm not mistaken NRA's biggest source of funding is from gun manufacturers and dealers, not hunters or target shooters.
3811. iiibbb - 7/27/2008 4:11:58 PM
I don't know why you wonder about it Wonks... maybe you don't associate with people with oversized penises.
One was a close friend of mine who was in a bad marriage. He got violent for the last time and she used a pistol to convince him to leave. She felt in mortal danger... I don't doubt her.
Another was in a rest stop late. Because it was late he put a revolver in his pocket. While he was attempting to leave the restroom a man with a knife tried to coerce certain favors from him. He pulled out the gun and convinced the man this was not a good idea. I have no reason to doubt him.
I have been robbed myself. While working in the woods miles from anywhere. I was able to evade the person, but he got my bookbag with wallet and other valuables. It took about 3 hours for me to meet a sheriff's deputy.
So Wiz can talk all he wants about my enlarged member... but these events happened. If you want to rely on gov't for your protection that's yours and Wiz's business. I have made my own decisions. I am not remotely part of the gun problem.
I understand that guns have negative societal impacts. So does abortion. So does freedom of speech. That's the cost of living in a free society.
3812. iiibbb - 7/27/2008 4:19:49 PM
I would like to see a citation to back your claim that the NRA gets most of its funding from manufactures.
A long time ago on this thread I counted the number of NRA members and multiplied it by the dues (actually less than the dues) and it was pretty close to that annual number. I'm not going to go back and find it for you.
3813. iiibbb - 7/27/2008 4:22:23 PM
Your assessment of the usefulness of handguns is really just opinion. The short question is that if they are so useless for defense, why do police carry them?
Personally handguns offer size, portability, and lower power. These are important considerations over a shotgun or rifle which may not be usable by a lot of people, or useful in your home due to the close quarters.
3814. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 7/27/2008 4:25:51 PM
The penis bit was a stereotype joke and I knew I shouldn't have included it because it provided you with the chance to ignore the serious and factual parts of the issue.
Guns were invented to destroy flesh and seize power. You can't admit it and your adamant denial is indeed a character flaw, imo. And btw, everyone has character flaws and it's another good reason for stricter gun-control.
In a world of angry, immature and irresponsible people who have access to a super-glut of destructive toys, countless innocents have and will continue to suffer and die.
In fact, that is what your position really promotes and continues to condone. It has nothing to do with the other severe problems (like hunger and education) of the world--no matter how much you try to shoehorn them into your argumentation.
There's a lot of blood spilled and more to come because of the greedy gun industry and the unempathic troglodytes who defend and support it.
You're full of misguided and selfish thinking and all I can do is hope that gun-fools, like you, who persist in their folly become enlightend somehow.
But as the saying goes: "Never try to teach a pig to sing; it will only waste your time and irritate the pig!"
This debate is over for me, iibbb, but I have no ill will and wish you every good wish in spite of our differences.
3815. iiibbb - 7/27/2008 6:50:25 PM
Yes. Guns are used as a weapon. What's your point? They are used to seize power... yet they are also used to defend. They are an equalizer as well, a 120 lb female can take on a 250 lb male. What's your point?
People have character flaws is another reason they shouldn't be allowed out of their homes. They shouldn't be allowed to drive a car. etc. etc. etc. I don't believe in a nanny state.
In a world of angry, immature, and irresonsible people... I should have access to the means of defending myself. The police are not there to protect me. I've lived that.
There is a lot of people dying for lots of reasons. Guns are a blip. I don't understand why they warrant the level of outrage that you generate. You claim I ignore the social costs. I don't. Yet you are continually dismissive of their legitimate uses.
I've got nothing against you either. I just get annoyed when you project these gun-owner sterotypes you have on me that have little basis in reality. I get tired of gun-control proponents who's idea of compromise is for me to give up all claims to the rights that I have. Sorry if I don't feel sorry about it. It's the libertarian in me I'm afraid. I just don't think that people should use government to browbeat others into living within their views. The constitution has a process for you to get your way. I suggest you pursue it.
Regardless, I suspect you've rarely been in here reading my positions on gun ownership. I've frequently shown areas where I'm willing to compromise on issues. For instance upon lifting the DC ban, DC decided that the only handguns that would be allowed are revolvers. I basically said that was an acceptable compromise. I'm for licensing... I just insist that it mean something. I'm generally against gun registration because I think it is pointless.
These are not the positions of your sterotypical "troglodyte".
So you can disavow yourself of the discussion. Whatever.
3816. wonkers2 - 7/28/2008 6:59:12 AM
Apparently the NRA is not required to reveal the sources of its funding and does not do so. NRA funding
3817. wonkers2 - 7/28/2008 7:02:24 AM
Obviously, police in the U.S. carry handguns because they sometimes need them when carrying out their duties--arresting criminals, etc. Moreover, they are trained in the proper, safe use of handguns, although, they don't always follow the rules. I'm not aware of any training requirement for citizen handgun owners.
3818. iiibbb - 7/28/2008 8:00:23 AM
First... If police officers need a handgun to arrest criminals. What do I need when I have the opportunity to interact with a violent criminal?
Second... There were training requirements for my carry permit. Albeit the class and training was no harder than Driver's ed. Some states are more stringent than others WRT the training requirements.
According to the National Shooting Sports Federation (the organization a lot of hard-core gun rights people consider traitors). There is not the maelstrom of gun violence and tragedy that Wiz alluded to. Despite gun ownership being way up (27.7%) since 1998, firearm crimes are down 2.4%, firearm suicides are down 1.1%, accidental fatalities are down 19.2% (grand total of 700... that's out of 300 million people... 100 million gun owners), child fatalities are down 50.4% (grand total of 60... that's out of 73 million people under 18).
Hardly an epidemic.
An epidemic would be obesity for instance. Wiz should be picketing McDonalds. Obesity will lead to 400,000 deaths a year. Obesity rates are obscenely high.
These people are just as dead, but where's Wiz's outrage?
Should the government do a better job training these people to eat? I always liked the idea of you having to stand on a scale at a restaurant and the menu lights up things you're allowed to order.
What about alcohol... 100,000 deaths per year?
How can alcohol be blamed for 100,000 deaths each year?
# 5% of all deaths from diseases of the circulatory system are attributed to alcohol.
# 15% of all deaths from diseases of the respiratory system are attributed to alcohol.
# 30% of all deaths from accidents caused by fire and flames are attributed to alcohol.
# 30% of all accidental drownings are attributed to alcohol.
# 30% of all suicides are attributed to alcohol.
# 40% of all deaths due to accidental falls are attributed to alcohol.
# 45% of all deaths in automobile accidents are attributed to alcohol.
# 60% of all homicides are attributed to alcohol.
Comparing these statistics against guns... shouldn't we bring back the 18th amendment? Should we put everyone on a government issued diet?
3819. iiibbb - 7/28/2008 8:03:22 AM
I'm sure the founding fathers never could have conceived our ability to produce liquor in the quantities we do today. I'm sure they would have expected us to grow and ferment it all ourselves.
3820. concerned - 7/28/2008 2:06:30 PM
The militias envisioned by the framers of the Constitution were essentially comprised of private gun owners. The idea of restricting private ownership of arms in colonial America was so at odds with the requirements for survival of the day as not to be seriously considered.
3821. concerned - 7/28/2008 4:49:38 PM
In a world of angry, immature and irresponsible people who have access to a super-glut of destructive toys, countless innocents have and will continue to suffer and die.
Most of both groups that WoW refers to here are Democrats, unsurprisingly enough.
3822. wonkers2 - 7/29/2008 7:21:04 AM
Rightwingnut,driven by hatred for liberals and gays, runs amok, shoots eight in Unitarian church. Mr. Adkinson admitted to the shooting and said "he had targeted the church because of its liberal leanings and his belief that all liberals should be killed because they were ruining the country." A member of the NRA no doubt!
3823. iiibbb - 7/29/2008 8:40:19 AM
A tragedy for sure... but I want to see his NRA card.
I've been a member of the NRA. I can tell you plainly that they never sent me anti gay, anti liberal propaganda. It was strictly gun rights, gun education, or membership renewal related.
They're like the Sierra Club. They spend way too much money on thick mailings.
I also ask. How many people were killed/injured by drunk driving in the past year in Knoxville.
Bring back prohibition.
3824. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 7/29/2008 9:27:39 AM
Hate For Liberals Cited In Shooting
KNOXVILLE, Tenn. Ń - An out-of-work truck driver accused of opening fire at a Unitarian church, killing two people, left behind a note suggesting that he targeted the congregation out of hatred for its liberal policies, including its acceptance of gays, authorities said Monday.
A four-page letter found in Jim D. Adkisson's small SUV indicated he targeted the Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church because, the police chief said, "he hated the liberal movement" and was upset with "liberals in general as well as gays."
Adkisson, 58, who was on the verge of losing his food stamps, had 76 rounds with him when he entered the church and pulled a shotgun from a guitar case during a children's performance of the musical "Annie."
The Knoxville News Sentinel reported Monday that Adkisson may also have chosen the church because his ex-wife was a former longtime member of the congregation.
A four-page letter found in Jim D. Adkisson's small SUV indicated he targeted the Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church because, the police chief said, "he hated the liberal movement" and was upset with "liberals in general as well as gays."
Adkisson, 58, who was on the verge of losing his food stamps, had 76 rounds with him when he entered the church and pulled a shotgun from a guitar case during a children's performance of the musical "Annie."
The Knoxville News Sentinel reported Monday that Adkisson may also have chosen the church because his ex-wife was a former longtime member of the congregation.
. . . In Adkisson's letter, which police have not released, "he indicated ... that he expected to be in there [the church] shooting people until the police arrived and that he fully expected to be killed by the responding police," Owen said. "He certainly intended to take a lot of casualties."
Using iiibbb's logic, the pastor should have been packin' in order to protect his congregation. And if that were the case, I wonder how many innocents would have been killed in the crossfire.
3825. iiibbb - 7/29/2008 9:47:31 AM
No-- using iiibbb's logic, the Pastor could have been packing... or another person could have been packing... but nothing is forcing them to.
Odds are that this will never happen to you, me, or anyone.
Wondering how many would've been killed in the crossfire is the same as wondering how many wouldn't have been killed at all... but I'm not so bold as to claim a gun held by the 60 yr old man who stood unarmed in front of this lunatic would with 100% certainty prevented this... but can tell you that declaring Churches "gun free zones" (which they are in TN) and relying on calling 911 wouldn't do diddle to help the two people who died.
Even limit this nutcase to muzzle loaders and he still could have killed several people.
I notice that the man was also on the verge of losing his food stamps... where supports my viewpoint that if we did about poverty we'd be doing as much about gun violence as any "common sense" measure like declaring places "gun free zones"
Bring back the 18th. I don't drink so it doesn't affect me.
3826. iiibbb - 7/29/2008 10:28:21 AM
Libertarian logic... Importance of the gun <<< Importance of the Freedom.
Just like
Importance of Religious Views on Life <<< Importance of Choice.
Importance of government to catch Terrorists <<< Importance of civil liberties.
Importance of punishing criminals <<< Importance of protecting the innocent.
I rarely deviate from this model.
3827. iiibbb - 7/29/2008 10:29:05 AM
"<<<" means much less than just in case you suck at math.
3828. iiibbb - 7/29/2008 10:31:41 AM
Bring back the 18th amendment. End alcohol tragedy.
3829. iiibbb - 7/29/2008 11:03:39 AM
These are the guys you say should have the guns
Surely law-abiding gun-owner misbehavior is no more prevalent than police aggression... but these are the guys you think should be armed... based on all of your logic we should hold all police in contempt based solely on the behavior of officers who engage in brutality.
3830. iiibbb - 7/29/2008 1:13:52 PM
I freaked a friend of mine out once while watching an ADT commercial where a woman is getting ready for her date and a badguy breaks into her home. The alarms go off and then the ADT operator calls the woman and asks if she's ok and the cops are on their way... and she is so scared and grateful and everything is wonderful.
Meanwhile I'm saying darkly because commercials like that annoy me, "stab, stab, stab, gurgle, gurgle, gurgle".
I made her mad at me... hit a little too close to home. But what does Whiz have to offer people?
If someone invents a flower puppydog no-hurt cancer-free freeze ray... I'll be the first in line to buy one.
3831. wonkers2 - 7/29/2008 8:29:41 PM
Great video. NYPD cops are the worst in the country outside of Texas. They should not be allowed to carry guns. Night sticks should be the limit. I hope the put Pogan in jail for a long time. But of course they won't.
3832. wonkers2 - 7/29/2008 8:30:13 PM
They played the video several times on various TV shows tonight.
3833. jexster - 7/30/2008 5:51:24 PM
Kill Unitarians
3834. wonkers2 - 7/30/2008 7:06:02 PM
Killing Unitarians would be the equivalent of killing Hummingbirds or Mourning Doves. Unitarians and Quakers are among the most benign of all religious people.
3835. wonkers2 - 8/2/2008 5:10:40 PM
Another needless shooting by a nutcase who shouldn't have been able to get his hands on a BB gun, let alone an assault weapon. Maybe it was that YouTube guy from Michigan who submitted a question to a Dem candidates' townhall about who was going to protect his "baby," an assault weapon style rifle. Our gun laws are inadequate and not well enforced.
3836. wonkers2 - 8/2/2008 5:11:29 PM
Another needless shooting by a nutcase who shouldn't have been able to get his hands on a BB gun, let alone an assault weapon. Maybe it was that YouTube guy from Michigan who submitted a question to a Dem candidates' townhall about who was going to protect his "baby," an assault weapon style rifle. Our gun laws are inadequate and not well enforced.
3837. Ulgine Barrows - 8/2/2008 10:25:02 PM
How horrible!
3838. wonkers2 - 8/3/2008 7:08:43 AM
One nutter with an assault rifle
3839. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 8/4/2008 9:28:54 AM
Armed America - Photos of Gun Owners in Their Homes . . .
3840. iiibbb - 8/4/2008 11:29:19 AM
No black people... no minorities.
Probably because they know better than to let a stranger into their home to look at their guns.
3841. wonkers2 - 8/4/2008 3:02:13 PM
I think the NRA has mostly white members. That statistic would be interesting.
3842. iiibbb - 8/4/2008 4:02:19 PM
I suspect that may be true as well... However, perhaps not because of any active measure to discriminate. Not to stereotype, but a lot of Blacks I know just don't spend money on things that aren't "necessary". Just as one example, my Black neighbor and I were talking lawns (we just had our lawn seeded), and he said "I have a hard time spending money on stuff that should be free".
I had to concede the point to him, but we also might sell this house soon so we had to accelerate the lawn growing process.
3843. iiibbb - 8/4/2008 4:06:34 PM
But it wouldn't surprise me if there was a racist vein in them either.
I've been a member, but at the minimal 10$ level and only to gain access to a local gun club/range I was a member.
3844. iiibbb - 8/7/2008 6:52:43 PM
More activity from the guys you think should be armed instead of me.
3845. wonkers2 - 8/7/2008 8:21:53 PM
Well, here's the kind of individual who shouldn't be able to ammass an arsenal.
3846. wonkers2 - 8/7/2008 8:23:56 PM
3847. concerned - 8/7/2008 11:52:23 PM
I think the NRA has mostly white members. That statistic would be interesting.
Well, not really. It's just that most gun-toting blacks would rather shoot your ass than talk about it.
3848. concerned - 8/7/2008 11:53:21 PM
The ones that commit most of the murders in the USA - you know. The 95% Hussein supporters.
3849. concerned - 8/7/2008 11:56:21 PM
Besides, NRA members are all legal. Most gun owning Democrats (who commit most of the armed violence) are not.
That pretty much explains it.
3850. concerned - 8/7/2008 11:59:09 PM
Wonkers -
Huge difference there, wouldn't you agree? Legal gun owners are many times less likely to commit armed violence than illegal gun owners.
How come that truly fundamental fact doesn't have more visibility on your side of the debate?
3851. iiibbb - 8/8/2008 6:32:14 AM
Framing the gun debate in the context of whites and minorities isn't effective. There are more reasons Blacks wouldn't join the NRA than they're all criminals.
As you may recall... there has been a lot of violence directed toward them in the past. I would expect the legal sorts to keep as low a profile as possible lest the be lumped in with the illegal sort as you are now doing.
3852. wonkers2 - 8/8/2008 6:35:10 AM
Why should nutters like this be able, legally, to buy guns?
3853. wonkers2 - 8/8/2008 6:38:01 AM
NRA members are all legal? Sez who? Does NRA screen out criminals, wingnuts, mental defectives, and paranoids-schizophrenics?
3854. iiibbb - 8/8/2008 8:07:37 AM
Why should nutters like that be allowed out on the streets at all Wonks? It's not like guns are the only destructive or potentially destructive device nutters have access to.
3855. iiibbb - 8/8/2008 8:13:30 AM
You really have to ban an awful lot of stuff to protect us from nutters
3856. jexster - 8/8/2008 9:10:58 AM
I'm a big fan of AE's First 48. Miami homicide says this thing has only one purpose - KILL PEOPLE
Could say the same for any handgun so why not carry a REAL Man's side arm I say
]
3857. wonkers2 - 8/8/2008 9:42:01 AM
Every home should have on. Desert Eagle .50
3858. wonkers2 - 8/8/2008 9:44:24 AM
An important difference between guns and other instruments of mayhem and killing is that for profit gun manufacturers are spending a lot of money lobbying against the banning or effective regulation of their weapons, many of which have absolutely no use for organized target shooting or hunting.
3859. wonkers2 - 8/8/2008 9:45:50 AM
And the lobbying and electioneering by NRA and gun manufacturers has the side effect of electing a bunch of nutter congressmen other public officials.
3860. iiibbb - 8/8/2008 9:45:51 AM
Message # 3857
I don't agree. Every home should evaluate for themselves. "No gun" is one of the options.
The Desert Eagle is a highly impractical weapon. It doesn't fit any niche well. Which is why it's probably not even used in crimes.
3861. iiibbb - 8/8/2008 9:49:18 AM
According to this source, the .50 AE is looking cool.
Because being cool is what emboldens criminals.
3862. iiibbb - 8/8/2008 9:49:44 AM
is for looking cool
3863. jexster - 8/8/2008 9:50:35 AM
It was used in a REAL crime..on First 48!
See those melons...that's what was left of the guy's head
3864. jexster - 8/8/2008 9:51:13 AM
I don't want no pissant SigSauer
I want a man's gun to defend my family
3865. iiibbb - 8/8/2008 10:15:42 AM
Get what you want.
But you are better off following most peoples' lead by opting for a more controllable handgun or a shotgun.
3866. iiibbb - 8/8/2008 10:16:33 AM
Most police use 9mm and .40SW. Some opt for .357 or .45ACP.
That's good enough for me.
3867. jexster - 8/8/2008 10:21:34 AM
Yea shotgun!
Makes an even bigger mess
3868. jexster - 8/8/2008 10:22:13 AM
Cole slaw bitch
3869. jexster - 8/10/2008 5:26:56 PM
Watching the trap competition today (used to be a trap and skeet wunderkind in my youth) it occured to me as it does EVERY four years that Americans can't shoot for shit and should not be allowed to own any firearm
3870. wonkers2 - 8/13/2008 3:31:05 PM
Assault Weapon Shootout in Detroit Suburb as Police Drug Sting Goes Awry
3871. jexster - 8/13/2008 3:34:43 PM
Gunman kills AR state demo party chair.
One day those Dems and unitarians will listen to me and I3..start walkin around heavy
3872. wonkers2 - 8/13/2008 3:43:52 PM
Another needless death (Democrat chair in Arkanas)thanks to inadequate and unenforced handgun laws.
3873. jexster - 8/13/2008 4:04:48 PM
Says you
3874. jexster - 8/17/2008 11:26:37 AM
Too much gun for i3
for men only
3875. iiibbb - 8/17/2008 2:09:52 PM
Says you.
3876. jexster - 8/17/2008 5:31:11 PM
That's my sport!
SKEET SHOOTING
G.I. makes his mark
Army instructor holds off co-record holder in sudden death
How come I don't get to see a real man instead of that steroidal cheater, Phelps!??!
3877. jexster - 8/17/2008 5:45:22 PM
Didn't use no wussie over/under either.
12 or 20 ga pump baby....a man's game
3878. wonkers2 - 8/18/2008 6:09:01 AM
iiibbb, This is what you are protecting: Gunshots, then silence
3879. iiibbb - 8/18/2008 7:14:38 AM
Actually... that's not what I am protecting.
3880. wonkers2 - 8/18/2008 7:53:57 AM
Well, it seems to me that your opposition to effective gun control laws is perpetuating these kinds of problems. And you vastly overestimate the need and value of handguns for self protection.
3881. iiibbb - 8/18/2008 8:17:23 AM
Please let me know which "effective" gun control law would have prevented the specific problem of a spurned psycho from murdering a woman who rejected him. Keep in mind that he could have also gone and knifed them all.
3882. jexster - 8/18/2008 9:50:59 AM
There are lots of ways to kill. But you don't rely on knives do you.
The other fallacy the gun lobby keeps perpetrating is the fallacy of the individual. No man's an island and nowhere is that more readily seen than in big city murder stats.
That's why police favor gun control. Because they know that guns kill people very effectively. And all guns start out legal even in the hands of most murderers
It's bullshit i3
3883. iiibbb - 8/18/2008 10:20:59 AM
What gun control law would have prevented the outcome of Wonker's article from happening?
If the police are so effective in protecting us, why didn't they protect these people from this guy? Where were they?
Where were the police when I got robbed?
Where were the police when my friend was attacked by her husband?
Sensible gun control. What is it? How does it stop these things from happening? Keep in mind that I don't count swapping one method of killing for another.
Most "sensible" gun control proposals prevent _nothing_.
3884. jexster - 8/18/2008 10:24:36 AM
You still don't get it. What part of my message are you having trouble with
Analysis by individual anecdote is meaningless. It is bullshit.
Why don't you just say you want everyone to be forced to carry weapons 24/7
It's total bullshit.
Where were the police when any of the gun slaughters were committed?
Bullshit...on its face
3885. jexster - 8/18/2008 10:24:52 AM
Try honesty
3886. jexster - 8/18/2008 10:25:34 AM
The police don't know what they are talking about.
You do.
OK
3887. jexster - 8/18/2008 10:28:35 AM
We are awash with guns all of them legal at one point and most of them legal when used to kill.
Your logic is totally circular. Not logic at all. It's a logical fallacy, a tautology.
3888. iiibbb - 8/18/2008 10:47:56 AM
Answer the question... how do the "sensible" gun laws prevent these results?
It's still incumbent upon you to demonstrate why I should give up my constitutional right. My only requirement is that any action actually accomplish something. You have failed. In the 2-3 years this thread has been open the only thing you can come up with is ban X or Y weapons... which still wouldn't solve the problem of people murdering people.
You want licensing and registration... but you don't want licensing and registration to mean anything...
etc etc.
My arguments are circular... yours are really just dead ends.
3889. jexster - 8/18/2008 10:50:55 AM
Tautology
reasoning in a circle. The thing to be proved is used as one of your assumptions. For example: "We must have a death penalty to discourage violent crime". (This assumes it discourages crime.) Or, "The stock market fell because of a technical adjustment." (But is an "adjustment" just a stock market fall?)
3890. jexster - 8/18/2008 10:52:27 AM
You aren't making an argument at all is the point i3. You are stating a conclusion that you dress up to look like an argument.
Fool yourself but you can't fool me
3891. iiibbb - 8/18/2008 12:58:20 PM
zzzz
3892. jexster - 8/18/2008 1:07:56 PM
Step aside I3...for a MAN whose uses MAN guns
Fuckin wussie
3893. iiibbb - 8/18/2008 1:25:34 PM
zzzzz
You are perpetuating a myth which is a projection of your own imagination as to my motives or arguments. I'm a libertarian on this issue. I don't deny the social costs of firearms ownership... as you deny their social value. The social benefit of self-described "sensible" legislation is limited and basically undemonstrated. Thus, the burden is on those who would change the constitution to do the convincing. However, for every anecdote of gun violence that you or Wonks wants to bring in here, there are a dozen that can be found showing guns in a non-negative (even positive way).
3894. jexster - 8/18/2008 1:35:26 PM
When you learn the difference between logical fallacy and argument and show proof that you can handle a man's gun, then we'll talk
Charlton Heston's rolling over in his grave but I broke 23/24 once with a 20 gauge pump
3895. jexster - 8/18/2008 1:35:48 PM
When you're ready little girlie, PULL
3896. jexster - 8/18/2008 1:36:30 PM
Meanwhile, you go play with Wonkers and I'll look for a manly gun advocate
3897. jexster - 8/18/2008 1:39:08 PM
The Olympic Skeet shooting triggered (!) old childhood memories, back when I was 12 or so shooting skeet at the False River Gun Club on Joe Beaud's sugar cane plantation....I checked the assn membership and sure enough there was Joe Beaud Jr - sugar cane farmer!
Still shooting clay pigeons after all these years
3898. alistairConnor - 8/18/2008 3:04:43 PM
Answer the question... how do the "sensible" gun laws prevent these results?
OK iii, I'll take on the question...
1) Do sensible gun laws allow these young punks to own AK-47s? On what justification? Constitutional rights? Who are they defending, with their constitutional arms, against whom? Perhaps more sensible laws are required.
2) Assuming their AK-47s were illegal. It doesn't seem that they were a secret. Local law enforcement doesn't seem to have been interested, or resourced, to confiscate such illegal weapons. Perhaps more sensible laws are required.
3) You mention above that she could have been knifed. According to the article, she was killed in the crossfire. I've never heard of anyone killed in the crossfire of a knife fight.
3899. iiibbb - 8/18/2008 6:10:17 PM
1) Yes... a sensible law might be helpful. Make a proposal. Show me the mechanism.
However, concentrating on a specific weapon is misguided. People don't have easy access to AK-47s without a pretty intense background check and paying certain fees. They have 'easy' access to semi-auto cousins of AK-47s. These are not practically different in function to semi-auto hunting rifles... except they use less powerful ammunition.
2) It is apparent that local and national law enforcement don't have the resources. Is this a justification for more gun laws they can't enforce, or is it a justification for me arming myself in the event the police are not there to help me?
It also seems that the police and authorities invest an inordinate amount of time harrassing the law-abiding, rather than hunting down those in the illegal gun trade. I remember in Richmond VA the ATF were going to the neighbors of gun purchasers to ask if they knew their neighbor was in the process of buying a gun. Not only is this disrespecting their privacy, but it also seems like a completely ineffective way to catch someone.
My gov't is also not particularly trust worthy in my opinion. With all of these assaults on my civil liberties (real ID, patriot act, hone tapping, etc)... this doesn't seem like a particularly great time for me to start surrendering more rights to them.
3) Maybe he bombs their house. Maybe he runs down her and bystanders with a car. People taken down in crossfire are minimal relative to other hazards in this country. Guns just seem to get an inordinate amount of outrage.
3900. alistairconnor - 8/19/2008 4:13:12 AM
1) Good. You seem to be agreeing that these punks should not have had legal access to these guns. I'm not an American, so I'll refrain from proposing specific legislation for Alabama.
2) It seems to me that if people are getting killed because law enforcement agencies are inadequately resourced to enforce gun laws, and/or target the wrong groups, then the answer is more resources, guidelines and training for law enforcement agents to make them effective.
However, you seem to be advocating something else entirely : you are reluctant to grant a monopoly of violence to government agencies, on the contrary you advocate arming the population so that they may resist government, and you accept collateral damage such as the death of this girl as an acceptable cost of this "freedom".
That's what it comes down to; if that is your philosophical principle, then you are condemned to defending the right of these punks to create mayhem. Which you do bravely.
3901. wonkers2 - 8/19/2008 6:02:33 PM
How can Europeans possibly manage to defend themselves without being permitted to carry concealed weapons and have sophisticated semi-automatic weapons in their homes and cars?
3902. jexster - 8/19/2008 8:10:46 PM
I've been meaning to ask you I3
Do you hold your weapon like Wonkers's people????
3903. thoughtful - 9/3/2008 6:35:55 AM
why guns? Because swords won't do...
Police said they are searching for a man in his 20's who broke into an apartment on Wethersfield Avenue in Hartford this morning and shot the resident more than once.
The victim was taken to Hartford Hospital with three bullet wounds. He is in critical condition, police said.
The home invasion at 469 Wethersfield Avenue, a multi-family dwelling, was reported after midnight today. The suspected knocked on the door of apartment A2 and kicked it down when no one answered, police said.
The victim tried defending himself with a sword and was shot. The suspect fled in an unknown direction.
3904. iiibbb - 9/4/2008 6:44:26 PM
Botched gun sting
More keystone cops.
3905. wonkers2 - 9/19/2008 8:36:47 AM
3906. iiibbb - 9/19/2008 1:27:23 PM
There's mischief on both sides. Contrary to what that article says, DC Council was up to it's own mischief.
3907. iiibbb - 9/19/2008 1:38:13 PM
Lifted from one of the comments but it's nailed it.
This new DC hand gun law is similar to various old voting rights laws.
No one was denied the right to vote as long as a poll tax was paid.
No one was denied a right to vote as long as one could pass a literacy test on election day.
No one was denied a right to vote as long as the voter could locate their voting precinct which could be located miles from their home.
No one was denied the right to vote because voters were required to follow Federal election rules during Federal elections. States merely changed state and local elections to odd numbered years when there were no Federal elections.
The point is that states and local juridictions could deny people the right to vote by making the process so difficult or expensive that people choose not to vote. Yet election officials could say that they were complying with the law.
It appears that the DC Council and its Mayor are just following in the foot steps of pre-civil rights Southern politicians: Make hand gun ownership so expensive and as complicated and difficult a process as possible so no one will participate. Yet the elected officials can say DC is in compliance with the Supreme Court decision.
3908. iiibbb - 9/19/2008 1:41:23 PM
This mess in Wall Street is a godsend for Obama. The legacy of Democratic gun control efforts has burned them bad. The lost Congress in 1996... Gore lost TN in 2000... Kerry was a fool who ran a horrid campaign...
But... a pretty cursory examination of junior Democrats in Congress reveals that they got their because they have RKBA platforms.
3909. wonkers2 - 9/24/2008 1:40:41 PM
3910. wonkers2 - 9/24/2008 1:44:24 PM
Two teens killed, one shot by family member who mistook him for somebody else.
3911. wonkers2 - 9/25/2008 6:23:04 AM
Just a normal little argument between a teen and his parents plus a gun It's funny how I read about these gun tragedies every day, but I don't recall ever seeing one where a gun helped avert one.
3912. iiibbb - 9/25/2008 9:07:39 AM
Because you don't look for them Wonkers. That kind of stuff typically doesn't make the papers.
You and I have gone back and forth on this numerous times. You post a few and I have posted multiple defensive gun uses from around the country.
I'd do it again for you, but I don't have the spare time.
I truly am sorry that these things occur. It is always a tragedy. Unfortunately, personal experience has taught me that guns have a place in this world. So I want the government to start by addressing root causes... like poverty and education.
3913. thoughtful - 9/25/2008 12:10:23 PM
Try this wonks.
In March 1982, 25 years ago, the small town of Kennesaw – responding to a handgun ban in Morton Grove, Ill. – unanimously passed an ordinance requiring each head of household to own and maintain a gun. Since then, despite dire predictions of "Wild West" showdowns and increased violence and accidents, not a single resident has been involved in a fatal shooting – as a victim, attacker or defender.
The crime rate initially plummeted for several years after the passage of the ordinance, with the 2005 per capita crime rate actually significantly lower than it was in 1981, the year before passage of the law.
Prior to enactment of the law, Kennesaw had a population of just 5,242 but a crime rate significantly higher (4,332 per 100,000) than the national average (3,899 per 100,000). The latest statistics available – for the year 2005 – show the rate at 2,027 per 100,000. Meanwhile, the population has skyrocketed to 28,189.
More people, more guns, less crime. Who knew?
3914. iiibbb - 9/25/2008 12:13:22 PM
I'm not necessarily willing to say that more guns = less crime... but I am pretty confident that more guns does not = more crime.
3915. wonkers2 - 9/25/2008 4:33:26 PM
Comparing Kennesaw with Detroit, Washington, D.C., Cleveland, NYC, LA, Oakland, Chicago is pretty meaningless.
3916. wonkers2 - 9/25/2008 4:38:49 PM
iiibbb, you're right I don't look for them outside the three papers I read every morning. I don't ever recall seeing a report of how someone with a legal gun in their home or on their person saved the day. However, just about every day I read about a gun robbery, dope gang war, accidental shooting or gun suicide. Upon reflection I guess I do recall one or two gas station/convenience store robberies where the cashier shot or stopped an armed robber. I guess I don't read the same things you do, i.e. NRA publications. :-)
3917. iiibbb - 9/25/2008 4:58:53 PM
I don't read NRA publications. The stuff I've posted in here are usually from local tv stations.
3918. iiibbb - 9/25/2008 9:06:00 PM
Police may just stop responding FL
3919. thoughtful - 9/26/2008 6:46:39 AM
If you read the article I posted above, it went on to say:
By comparison, the population of Morton Grove, the first city in Illinois to adopt a gun ban for anyone other than police officers, has actually dropped slightly and stands at 22,202, according to 2005 statistics. More significantly, perhaps, the city's crime rate increased by 15.7 percent immediately after the gun ban, even though the overall crime rate in Cook County rose only 3 percent. Today, by comparison, the township's crime rate stands at 2,268 per 100,000.
3920. thoughtful - 9/26/2008 6:47:54 AM
That is not a comparison with Detroit or DC.
3921. wonkers2 - 9/26/2008 7:00:40 AM
More guns, less crime. Is that what you're saying. How about some comparisons with Canada which has much stricter gun laws or UK or any other civilized country of your choosing. Also, the study says the crime rate increased but doesn't specify what types of crime. Seems to me the relevant statistic would be crimes involving guns--shootings, armed robberies, etc. I assume the overall crime rate includes drunk driving, littering, fraud. I don't find your argument very convincing.
3922. wonkers2 - 9/26/2008 7:08:11 AM
I guess I don't get your point. I read the article you linked, and I didn't find anything indicating that the claims are based on any remotely scientific study. In my opinion, the Supreme Court was wrong in striking down the D.C. gun law. What happens in Kennesaw is not relevant to D.C., et al. Perhaps you are not claiming it is. What are you claiming?
3923. wonkers2 - 9/26/2008 7:30:40 AM
NRA Mischief
Ralph --
The NRA is currently attacking Barack Obama with TV ads that are so deceptive they are not fit for broadcast.
The ads purposefully misrepresent Barack's position on illegal guns to scare and mislead voters -- the non-partisan Factcheck.org concluded that claims in the ads are simply "false."
TV stations airing them have the legal authority to prevent the broadcast of false and misleading advertising, and they will respond if their viewers apply enough pressure.
You're receiving this message because these ads are running on TV stations in your community.
Send an email to TV advertising representatives in your local media market and demand they take down the NRA's false attack ads.
Barack Obama has consistently maintained that he believes the Constitution creates an individual right to bear arms, and he greatly respects the rights of hunters and sportsmen.
But that hasn't stopped the NRA from attacking, and there are too many worried voters who might be swayed by watching these lies.
Obama for America's lead attorney just sent the stations running these ads a legal memorandum establishing the ads as false, misleading, and deceptive and requesting they immediately cease airing.
But the stations will feel the pressure much more strongly if they start receiving emails from their viewers like you.
Once the lies in these ads get established in people's minds, it will be very hard to reach them with the truth about Barack's position. That's why we need to act now to push back.
With our easy-to-use letter writing tool, it's simple to write and send an email to your local TV ad rep. Check it out now and stand up for the truth:
http://my.barackobama.com/falseNRAads
Keep fighting the good fight,
Obama Action Wire
3924. thoughtful - 9/26/2008 8:25:27 AM
wonks, you get my point, but you don't want to.
You posted that you don't recall ever seeing an incident where guns saved someone. It made me wonder what happened to that Georgia town where, instead of banning guns, they passed a law requiring gun ownership. Despite dire predictions of rampant crime waves, shoot outs galore etc, the town has grown by a lot and the crime rate has fallen.
I also think that as the story cites, the short run shift toward a significantly lower crime rate where gun ownership was required vs. a short run significant increase in crime rate where gun ownership was banned is suggestive and worthy of greater investigation.
I'm not suggesting a single data point allows one to draw significant conclusions, but I am suggesting that the predictions of what would happen in Georgia were simply wrong. I am suggesting that the reduced crime rate may be related to the large legal gun ownership, and, if not, then there are clearly other more important factors that need to be focused on besides gun ownership if one wants to reduce crime...be they economic, educational, drug trade, etc. But the conclusion that banning legal guns will eliminate violent crime is at the very least inadequate in this multi-variate world, if not outright wrong and harmful.
And more to your point, if the requirement for gun ownership has even only had a short-run impact on reducing crime in Kennesaw, then there are not one, but multiple examples of where gun ownership saved someone/something.
3925. wonkers2 - 9/26/2008 9:37:55 AM
The Kennesaw story is meaningless and it's action ridiculous. Moreover, an objective study might be more convincing than anecdotes from the rednecks responsible for the ridiculous law
which may be relatively harmless in the little dinky town, but in my opinion would lead to even more mayhem in our cities.
3926. thoughtful - 9/26/2008 10:20:45 AM
Gee. That's a strong argument wonks...you've been going to the concerned school of debating? It's ridiculous because I say it is.
GACK!
3927. wonkers2 - 9/26/2008 1:00:06 PM
I'm surprised that someone like you who is apparently well educated would try to argue based on anecdotal newspaper reports citing information from the nutballs who passed laws requiring every head of household to arm himself. Not very scientific. And, even if it works in little redneck low crime towns in Georgia nobody but nobody--neither mayors nor police nor ordinary citizens think such an approach would work in big cities. It's almost as dumb as Knollenberg's son's proposal in the Michigan house of representatives that school teachers, administrators and janitors be encouraged to carry arms in order to prevent school shootings. Fortunatey his proposal never got off the ground. It was opposed by the state police, local police organizations and just about everybody else with a brain in their head.
BTW, you haven't explained why you think the idea has validity beyond citing a couple of anecdotes. And you haven't said what the implications for gun control policy are. I guess you cited the anecdotes because you agree with the NRA wingnuts. That surprises me also.
3928. wonkers2 - 9/26/2008 1:02:45 PM
Are you saying that what works in Kennesaw would work in D.C?
If so why?
Yech!
3929. Marc-Albert - 9/26/2008 1:51:05 PM
<
As of September 24, 15 homicides in Montreal (pop, 2,5 M.). 31 at the same date last year.
Quebec City was the only cities with 500,000 + population not have registered one single homicide in 2006 in the Americas , and again in 2007.
Yet, there is much poverty in Montreal and Quebec City.
It's a matter of gun culture.
This province also has the lowest personal gun ownership of all 10 provinces.
3930. Marc-Albert - 9/26/2008 1:54:09 PM
I'm not a kid, yet I've never seen a real handgun in this province, except inside a policeman's holster.
3931. Marc-Albert - 9/26/2008 1:56:48 PM
Actually, I've never touched or been near a handgun in my life. And I NOT a pacifist!
3932. iiibbb - 9/26/2008 2:04:26 PM
I'd happily take any of you shooting any time...
The gun-culture that I'm a part of... doesn't murder people.
I've only briefly met the portion of the crime culture that uses weapons...
There probably was once a time when "reasonable" gun laws could have been passed. The 94 "Assault" weapons ban pretty much poisoned that well.
3933. iiibbb - 9/26/2008 2:13:49 PM
Of course I would have to reveal my nearly secret identity.
3934. Marc-Albert - 9/26/2008 2:24:13 PM
When I was a kid, I was more interested in guns than in girls.
In our neighborhood, I had the most impressive array of fake revolvers (including an exact replica of Hopalong Cassidy's gun) of all my friends. I even had a fake Beretta pistol! Plus a crossbow and several bows I made myself.
Then I totally lost interest. Lack of a sustained gun culture for adults....
3935. thoughtful - 9/26/2008 2:33:03 PM
wonks, I was very clear in #3924 as to what conclusions can or can't be drawn by the Kennesaw policy and as it compares to the Morton Grove policy.
I find your repeated reference to Kennesaw as 'redneck' and 'nutballs' offensive. The fact that you consider people who are supportive of legal gun ownership rednecks and nutballs is illustrative of your irrational bias in this regard. I support civil rights including the right to self defense and I am neither a redneck nor a nutball. Neither is my husband. I don't believe IsBs is either.
I find your repetition of misstatements disturbing:
* it was a higher than national average crime rate town that became a lower than national average crime rate town after they passed the policy
* it grew from a small town of 5200 people to a decent sized town of 28,000 after they passed the policy
If I didn't know you better, I'd swear I was arguing with a republican ... they frequently resort to slander when the facts aren't on their side.
And you can claim that nobody but nobody says anything you'd like, but that doesn't mean they are right. As is often the case in public policy issues, you can't run controlled experiments to see which policy is more effective. With so many with attitudes like yours, the odds of running another experiment like Kennesaw are very low indeed, regardless of how effective the policy might prove to be.
Further, with overreactions like yours to this issue, it makes it even less likely that potentially more effective public policy issues that focus on the root causes of gun violence will be derailed by the easy, popular, yet ineffective choice to ban all guns.
3936. iiibbb - 9/26/2008 2:35:34 PM
I was mostly uninterested in guns except for the standard "army" play with the neighborhood kids.
Then a friend took us to a shooting competition when I was in college. That was ok. I met a guy in college that had them, and we'd go out... and that was ok.
I didn't own one until I got stuck in a hurricane... and realized at that point that sometimes the gov't didn't have things under control. I didn't live in a great neighborhood at the time.
Later I got robbed in the woods while cruising timber for work... didn't have a gun with me, but still made feel pretty exposed. If that person had decided to hurt me, or kill me, it could've been a few days before I would've been found or helped.
3937. iiibbb - 9/26/2008 2:40:23 PM
Ironically, after the hurricane thing, I bought the gun and then found the Mote and made a long post about it and my reasoning... this seemed like a place where I was going to be challenged about it... I was hacked at pretty hard by Cellar Door and some others...
Later I got my CCW permit. Mostly because the police can be pretty subjective about whether to give you a hard time if there's a gun in your car (even if it store properly). With the permit, it eliminated that problem to a degree.
I've only ever carried one rarely. Just to get the feel for it, but ultimately decided that where I lived at the time the hassled outweighed the risk (not that I don't want the option).
3938. wonkers2 - 9/26/2008 2:47:01 PM
I certainly am not claiming that "nobody but nobody says anything I'd like" makes it right. You are the one who has a hard time with people who disagree with you. And you, not I started in with ad hominem comments. You took my disagreement with you as ad hominem. I didn't call you a redneck, but if the shoe fits....I do agree that controlling handguns and Ak47s won't solve the problems associated with poverty, drugs, discrimination, etc. I would even agree that guns are not the most important issue. However, there usefulness in self defense is greatly overestimated and certainly not a justification for requiring every househould in a little redneck town to be armed.
3939. wonkers2 - 9/26/2008 2:53:14 PM
Moreover, I'm not even saying that little redneck communities should not be allowed to pass ridiculous gun rules. However, their experience should not be cited to justify prohibiting D.C. or Detroit from dealing with gun violence in the way they see fit. I suspect that gun violence was not a big problem in Kennesaw either before or after the law was passed, and I could not care less. I do care about the shootings I read about in my morning paper nearly every day.
3940. iiibbb - 9/26/2008 2:58:39 PM
I certainly recognize their limited utility for self defense... but there are still certain self-defense situations where it's the only thing that's going to help you... maybe.
That's why I come down on choice. Any proposal which removes peoples choice is not acceptable. Any proposal which limits weapons based on superficial cosmetics is not acceptable.
I'd like to see the government do a few things before gun control.... for instance dumping this inane war on drugs. Let the potheads out of jail for God's sake. Then there should be a war on violent crime... commit a crime with a gun, 1-strike you're out.
I think that would do a lot.
3941. wonkers2 - 9/26/2008 3:15:51 PM
We aren't too far apart, but what about the choice of communities that suffer from rampant gun violence? What about strengthening and enforcing the laws covering the procedures for legal gun sales? What about some kind of sensible limit on weapons whose only purpose is killing people--automatic and semi-automatic weapons with large magazines which have no self-defense, hunting or organized target sport purpose? What about requiring careful checks on individuals buying handguns to keep them out of the hands of the mentally ill, people with violent felony and drug sales convictions, etc. Seems to me that the NRA opposes any further restrictions or even more effective enforcement of current laws. Moreover, the NRA spends a lot of money helping to elect right wingnuts to Congress and state houses. That may be their single biggest downside for the country.
3942. thoughtful - 9/26/2008 3:20:14 PM
I do not have a hard time with people who disagree with me. I do have a hard time with arguments that suggest I said things I didn't, that I am things I'm not, and that I implied things I didn't.
No where did this ever involve DC or any other large city...you brought that in. This was all about the initial comment you made that you could recall no instance where legal gun ownership prevented tragedy. IsBs has posted many many articles from around the nation where legal gun ownership has prevented tragedy and has resulted in criminal prosecution of the wrong-doers. But you (selectively or not) do not remember them. I thought perhaps something policy-based and town-wide might make a bigger impression.
But if dismissing the experience of this town for whatever biased reason (red neck, small, nutball) alleviates your cognitive dissonance, so be it.
3943. wonkers2 - 9/26/2008 3:39:39 PM
Well, you've managed to get into pissing matches every once in a while with people who disagree with you.
My reason is based on pure reason, not bias. The point is that the experience in Kennesaw is not relevant to Detroit or DC and the Supreme Court was, in my opinion, wrong to strike down the DC statute.
I didn't call you a red neck, nutball or accuse you of "cognitive dissonance," and I didn't accuse you of anything other than faulty reasoning. The discussion began when I cited several recent cases of needless teen gun deaths in Detroit. {Jexter had previously mentioned the murder of the Arkansas Democratic Party Chairman.] Then iiibbb responded with a comment sympathetic to the teens who were killed.
Then you brought up the Kennesaw anecdote. Then I replied that this alleged experience is not relevant to our situation in Detroit. You have yet to explain how it was pertinent to my discussion with iiibbb. It wasn't a great leap for me to assume that you cited Kennesaw as something contrary to my advocacy of more stringent gun laws and more effective enforcement in Detroit. Then you acted as if I had insulted you simply by pointing out that your little Kennesaw anecdote was irrelevant to our situation in Detroit. If you consider yourself a redneck, I apologize for using the term. My intention was certainly not one of applying it to you.
3944. iiibbb - 9/26/2008 10:14:29 PM
Message # 3941
Wonkers... you've been a pretty fair adversary on this issue for a long time. We both have are moments, and I'm sure we have equal desire to see violence lessen.
To your points...
What about strengthening and enforcing the laws covering the procedures for legal gun sales?
No argument here. Make the background check system as strong as you like. Integrate state systems. Conduct measures to prevent straw purchases. You've often brought up crooked gun dealers... if we know who these dealers are, then we should just bring the hammer down and revoke there licenses.
What about some kind of sensible limit on weapons whose only purpose is killing people--automatic and semi-automatic weapons with large magazines which have no self-defense, hunting or organized target sport purpose?
I just think that description is too broad of a brush. All guns are capable of killing people. Even the venerable .22 is lethal.
Automatic weapons are highly regulated already.
Semi-automatic weapons have been around for over 80 years. Even in unpracticed hands there is very little difference between a semi-auto handgun and a revolver in terms of speed and lethality. The is a 2 second difference between a magazine that carries 10 rounds and one that carries 15. Handguns do have a legitimate self defense capacity; it's why police officers carry them.
I just don't know how you regulate the functionality of guns or separate the lethality, from the legitimate uses. It's a gun. Few gun rights people advocate automatic weapons (although I wouldn't be able to tell you the proportion).
What about requiring careful checks on individuals buying handguns to keep them out of the hands of the mentally ill, people with violent felony and drug sales convictions, etc.
Absolutely... and I would have no problem expanding the background check system.
3945. iiibbb - 9/26/2008 10:14:36 PM
Seems to me that the NRA opposes any further restrictions or even more effective enforcement of current laws.
I would agree with that statement. The NRA has long advocated enforcing current laws. It's not like there's anything bad you can do with a gun out there that isn't already breaking multiple felony laws.
Moreover, the NRA spends a lot of money helping to elect right wingnuts to Congress and state houses. That may be their single biggest downside for the country.
The NRA has lost it's way to a degree. However, I believe that the monster they have become is a direct response to the gun-control advocates who've gone beyond reasonableness. They have attacked myths like cop-killer bullets, Saturday night specials, so-called assault weapons based purely on cosmetic features with really no functional difference. By pursuing that ground, they have lost the opportunities that may have existed for licensing or registration proposals. The NRA is just going to blindly fight that stuff now and concede no points, just as Handgun Control concedes nothing either.
Again, I deviate from the average gun-owner on licensing and registration. I don't find it particularly offensive; however, I do insist that it mean something. My interest is mediating the subjectivity that a police officer may treat the information that I have a gun. Licenses should also mean something outside of state boarders... just like drivers licenses. If licensing and registration is just going to follow DC's approach of hassling legitimate owners and not even allow them to protect themselves in their own homes... or in Illinois, where failure to renew your FOID card can result in major legal hassles.
Why would I, or the NRA, agree to that kind of treatment?
So... obviously we agree that we can strengthen background checks. We can probably agree that enforcement of current laws should be strengthened especially with regards to violent crime. There may be compromise on licensing and registration, but I am very much an outlier compared to other gun owners. The gov't just doesn't have any credibility on that front. We probably will not agree on limiting weapons that are available to your average police officer, with the exception of fully automatic weapons, which are already regulated (but if people wanted to regulate them more...fine... but don't expect it to affect crime).
Finally, any outright ban, in my opinion, requires the modification of the US Constitution. Nothing else is going to satisfy me except to redefine the 2nd amendment directly.
3946. wonkers2 - 9/29/2008 10:37:54 AM
Wayne County news in brief: 3 men found shot dead in vacant lot
September 26, 2008
DETROIT: 3 men found shot dead in vacant lot
Detroit police officers are investigating the shooting deaths of three men on the city's west side, officials said.
Advertisement
The men were discovered dead at 5:30 a.m. Thursday in a vacant lot near Central Street and Joy Road, police spokeswoman Yvette Walker said. Neighbors heard shots at 2:30 a.m., but the bodies were not discovered until later.
Investigators were still trying to determine the men's identities Thursday, Walker said.
3947. wonkers2 - 9/29/2008 10:40:32 AM
Pontiac police arrest man in shooting
BY KORIE WILKINS • FREE PRESS STAFF WRITER • September 22, 2008
Police in Pontiac have arrested a man for a shooting that left a Waterford resident paralyzed and are searching for another man who allegedly shot and killed another man.
Advertisement
Malcolm Shabazz Wallace, 21, of Pontiac, was charged today with attempted murder and armed robbery in connection with the shooting of a 29-year-old Waterford man on Sept. 9 on Dwight Street. Wallace, who is a member of a gang called the “Goon Squad,” remains in custody on a $500,000 bond.
And police have an arrest warrant for Melvin Vito Dalton, 29, of Pontiac, in connection with the shooting death of 21-year-old Sean Christopher Taylor of Clarkston. Taylor was killed Sept. 16 near Raeburn and Jessie streets. Dalton is not in custody; police say he is armed and dangerous.
Police have said Taylor was trying to buy some Vicodin when he was shot.
Anyone with information on Dalton should call 248-758-3341 anytime.
3948. wonkers2 - 9/29/2008 10:42:20 AM
Detroit Police sergeant found dead in Sterling Heights park
By BEN SCHMITT and SUZETTE HACKNEY • FREE PRESS STAFF WRITERS • September 27, 2008
A suspended Detroit police sergeant whose wife was shot to death in December was found dead near a bike path in Dodge Park in Sterling Heights on Friday night.
Advertisement
Sgt. David Cobb, 38, hanged himself, Detroit police spokesman James Tate and Sterling Heights police told the Free Press.
Cobb's wife, Rose Cobb, 47, was fatally shot as she sat in her car in the parking lot of a CVS in the 12000 block of East Jefferson in Detroit the day after Christmas. David Cobb was inside shopping at the time. Vincent Smothers, 27, a confessed hit man, told police Cobb hired him to kill his wife. He claimed Cobb was having an affair and that Cobb wanted his wife's life insurance money.
Smothers was arrested in April and is awaiting trial.
Cobb was arrested a day after Smothers, but Wayne County Prosecutor Kym Worthy said there was not enough evidence to charge him, and he was later released.
Cobb was suspended without pay pending the investigation into his wife's slaying, Tate said.
Detroit police sources told the Free Press on Friday night that investigators were making significant progress toward presenting new evidence against Cobb to prosecutors.
Maria Miller, a representative of the Wayne County Prosecutor’s office, had no comment.
3949. wonkers2 - 9/29/2008 10:48:01 AM
This one takes the cake!
Sleeping 4-month-old boy killed by bullet in Detroit
BY CHRISTINA HALL AND BEN SCHMITT • FREE PRESS STAFF WRITERS • September 28, 2008
A sleeping 4-month-old boy was killed early this morning by one of multiple bullets fired into an apartment on Detroit’s west side, city police said.
Advertisement
Walter Bogan III was shot about 4:30 a.m. inside a second-floor apartment at 18300 Lahser, said Detroit Police Deputy Chief Marshall Lyons. A couple of armed men went up an outside staircase outside the second floor apartment and opened fire, shooting 10 to 15 shots into the apartment.
The boy and his 25-year-old mother were the only ones inside the apartment. They were on a couch near the front window when the boy was struck in the head, Lyons said.
The boy was taken to Sinai Grace Hospital in Detroit, where he was later pronounced dead.
The deputy chief said the shooting is believed to be the result of an argument between two groups of men. They don’t know who the men are or what the argument was about, Lyons said, but evidence indicates at least two different caliber guns were fired.
At a press conference held outside the building this afternoon, the window to the apartment was boarded up and there were bullet holes in the front door.
Neighbors told the Free Press they heard several shots, then people running down a staircase and around back to a vehicle that drove off. But police said they have no eyewitnesses.
Anyone with information on the shooting is asked to call Detroit Police any time at 313-596-2260 or CrimeStoppers at 800-SPEAK-UP (or 800-773-2587), which takes anonymous tips and offers cash for the arrest and conviction of criminal suspects.
3950. iiibbb - 9/29/2008 12:11:04 PM
Woman "protected" by restraining order, requires a gun instead
There's lots of stories like this out there Wonks... maybe they don't get reported in the Detroit news... but guns are used for defense. I don't think that guns used in defense when the weapon isn't even fired get reported at all.
3951. wonkers2 - 9/29/2008 2:09:23 PM
That's a great story. But it's a far cry from passing a law requiring every household in the town to be armed. This woman was in a special situation which appears to justify her having a permit to carry a handgun. She had good reason to take steps to protect herself. I wouldn't object if anyone who has a protective order was given a permit to carry. I don't dispute the fact that having a handgun can save the day. However, these cases are far outnumbered by the use of guns for armed robberies, by suicides, drug gang shoot-ups, accidental shootings and the like. So, by having lax gun laws and enforcement we create more mayhem than we solve by allowing just about anybody to carry guns.
What do you think about the Texas law (forget what they call it) which was used to justify the shooting of a thief who was breaking into a neighbor's car on the street (not sure I remember the facts correctly)? Seems to me the law in most jurisdictions requiring actual entry into one's home before it's okay to shoot. I'm sure you know the law better than I. I don't think broadening the circumstances when it's okay to shoot is a good idea.
3952. jexster - 9/29/2008 2:15:09 PM
I think it is high time to bear arms
3953. iiibbb - 9/29/2008 4:37:34 PM
Message # 3951 When have I ever said every household should be required to have a gun?
It should just be a choice.
3954. iiibbb - 9/29/2008 4:38:18 PM
Message # 3952
I'm certainly happy that I've got a few items.
3955. wonkers2 - 9/29/2008 4:50:48 PM
I was referring to the Kennesaw anecdote offered by Thoughtful in response to my pointing out the gun carnage in Detroit.
3956. iiibbb - 9/29/2008 5:22:27 PM
I think the Kennesaw thing is bravado and basically as useless as the AWB.
3957. thoughtful - 9/30/2008 2:48:23 PM
wonks, I don't dispute the fact that having a handgun can save the day. However, these cases are far outnumbered by the use of guns for armed robberies, by suicides, drug gang shoot-ups, accidental shootings and the like.
Stats, please.
You can't go by appearance of articles in newspapers as they tend to report the bad news not the good. E.g., if you looked to newspaper reports, you'd think that 100% of the vehicles going down the road every day are in accidents as they never report how many go by without incident.
Further, I don't think you should include suicides as part of the gun violence statistics in that there are no unwilling participants in that activity. For example, in 2003 in the US, there were 31,484 suicides but only 17,732 homicides. That is a total number...I don't have the statistics broken down to firearms as the method.
Also, by way of comparison, in 2003, accidental deaths due to discharge of a firearm were 730 vs. 3,306 due to drowning, 3,369 due to smoke/fire/flames and 19,457 due to poisoning/exposure to noxious substances.
3958. thoughtful - 9/30/2008 2:49:33 PM
Ban swimming pools and beaches!
3959. wonkers2 - 9/30/2008 3:38:22 PM
I'll be happy to consider any statistics you wish to cite. I'm not inclined to research your argument against my point that the incidence of various types of misuse of firearms far exceeds the incidence of cases where firearms are used successfully for self-defense. I can recall only a couple of reports of such cases in Michigan in contrast to daily reports of gun homicides, armed robberies, drug wars, drive by shootings, accidents and the like. Moreover, I recall reading of more than one case where a cashier at a 7-11 when faced with an armed robber when for a gun under the counter and was killed by the robber. So much for self defense.
We can quibble about suicides with guns or not. I would only point out that spur-of-the-moment suicides with guns are usually fatal while drug overdoses are more likely to be susceptible to emergency treatment. Many depressed people have unsuccessfully attempted suicide and gone on to live long and productive lives. This is not the case for those who shoot themselves in the head or jump off the Golden Gate Bridge.
3960. wonkers2 - 9/30/2008 3:39:00 PM
Drowning statistics are irrelevant to our discussion.
3961. iiibbb - 9/30/2008 3:51:20 PM
The statistics probably are not relevant... but not the emotional response to the statistics.
3962. thoughtful - 9/30/2008 4:15:04 PM
Well, no surprise, I disagree.
I think drowning statistics and other accidental deaths are relevant in that it puts the relative risks in perspective...especially when you consider that guns are designed to be deadly where as swimming pools are not.
Your recollection or lack thereof of anecdotes is irrelevant as is the number of articles in newspapers about such incidents for the reasons I stated above. The plural of anecdotes is not data. If you are unwilling to present actual data to support your assertions, then at least admit that they are personal suppositions as opposed to statements of fact.
Bias is evident here in that you dismiss my anecdotes, but continue to cite your own as if they carried more weight.
3963. thoughtful - 9/30/2008 4:19:17 PM
Here's a little different take on your "rednecks"
3964. thoughtful - 9/30/2008 4:20:13 PM
Here's a little different take on your "rednecks"
3965. thoughtful - 9/30/2008 4:20:52 PM
darn....i don't understand why half the time these youtube videos come back as no longer available and other times they don't.
Grr.
3966. wonkers2 - 9/30/2008 4:55:08 PM
Well, that one didn't impress me. Not sure what your point is.??? Everybody should have a handgun in their glove box?
3967. Marc-Albert - 9/30/2008 5:47:27 PM
You hear those people sayin' that many more people die from natural death than from gunshot wounds.
Typical NRA propaganda!
3968. iiibbb - 9/30/2008 6:27:36 PM
The people in the BMW made a lot of mistakes with regards to the self-defense spectrum of options.
... but even if you did the right things like not talking back to them... not giving them the finger... etc. etc. It doesn't stop some people.
So... I'd still want the gun.
But the far better response to the situation would've been to get their license number, call 911, and make your way to some sort of busy commercial property.
3969. iiibbb - 9/30/2008 6:32:38 PM
Of course... then there is the totally random... not that this woman needed to shoot the guy in this case either. However, if this kind of thing happened somewhere remote.
3970. anomie - 9/30/2008 6:38:30 PM
A BMW, a babe, and some "Deliverence" danger and suspense!That's a fair attempt at a movie short for film school 101.
3971. wonkers2 - 9/30/2008 6:41:01 PM
Think what the result might have been if the rednecks also had guns! The guy in the BMW had no way of knowing what they had when he lured them down the dirt road. The obviously staged video was not a commercial for carrying a gun, IMHO.
3972. wonkers2 - 10/6/2008 2:59:23 PM
More Gun Violence 6 miles from where I live.
3973. wonkers2 - 10/17/2008 8:11:53 AM
Three teens used an assault rifle to end a school day fight...It all stemmed from a fight between one of the suspects and one of the victims...I looked out today, and I saw two bodies on the grass. I heard pap, pap, pap and I didn't know what it was so I looked out the window... and then I saw the bodies just lying there on the grass, not moving, nothing.
3974. wonkers2 - 10/17/2008 8:17:40 AM
Two Detroit women shot dead in their cars A Detroit woman was killed when two people wearing ski masks in a blue van shot into her vehicle as she drove her daughter to school...Catherine Marie Blain, 21, was shot in the head through the driver's side window as she sat behind the wheel of her car outside the Rib Rack restaurant of which she was manager.
3975. wonkers2 - 10/17/2008 8:22:19 AM
The Rib Rack is on a major thorofare about 3 miles from my house. There must be a way to stop this madness.
3976. iiibbb - 10/17/2008 9:23:44 AM
One of those seems like a hit... her husband was killed in a separate incident.
3977. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 10/17/2008 10:30:54 AM
You'll enjoy this, iiibbb . . .
Dances With Wolves
3978. wonkers2 - 10/17/2008 10:46:36 AM
At last an example where packing saved the day!
3979. iiibbb - 10/17/2008 11:33:25 AM
Sorry Wiz... didn't enjoy.
Is that how you think that I think I'd be using my gun? Do you think that's how a crime is perpetrated? That scene is all show.
Here's how it would really go down... as soon as Kirk says that racist shit they both get shot in the face and the black dude runs off.
Second... I think it's relatively unlikely that a single armed assailant would take on two victims at once because he wouldn't be able to cover them both at the same time.
Third... when you use a gun to defend yourself... you don't shoot people in the knee or feet.
Fourth... I never want to be in that situation.
3980. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 10/17/2008 12:13:46 PM
Sorry iiibbb, didn't mean to step on any toes, but essentially, it's a dramatic characature of the basic thinking of the majority of people who want to pack weapons. Your position is more thoughtful, maybe, but your argument is still a bit simplistic.
An armed assailant would probably get the wallets and watches and leave because most lawyers (even if their packin') would probably realize that their lives are more valuable than their jewelry and credit cards.
3981. iiibbb - 10/17/2008 12:23:19 PM
I don't agree with your assessment on it being the predominant vision of people with permits.
I won't deny there isn't a mall-ninja component out there who have some grandiose vision that rivals that clip, but to say they are a significant component I think is a bit whimsical... but you are the wizard.
At the end of the day only about 1-2% have permits, and only about half of those actually carry. Take the probability of a violent crime... then the probability that the weapon would be deamed necessary... and you can see why legal permit holders aren't everywhere in the news in both good and bad ways.
That being said. I still want to be the one making these sorts of calls for myself. I'm a responsible member of society... certainly as responsible as any cop. I've taken the time to train myself.
I'd rather see us spend time trying to devise solutions to the problems that Wonkers posts, but in a way that doesn't inhibit my own rights... and we've recently established some of our common ground. Let's start there.
3982. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 10/17/2008 12:43:53 PM
Okay, I appreciate your points and attitude--but in our predominantly irresponsible culture, filled with whack-jobs and ignorant poor people, you are more rare than you seem to know.
3983. iiibbb - 10/17/2008 1:16:48 PM
I think the discontinuity between what I'm saying and what you're saying is that I don't think the whack jobs get the permits or carry legally.
I am not opposed to qualifying standards being set to get the permits. My permit was pretty easy to get in the grand scheme of permitting.
3984. iiibbb - 10/17/2008 1:25:02 PM
I'm also one of the people who almost never carries. For one, many of the places that I spend my day they are not allowed. Carrying is inconvenient to me, and the risk where I work is fairly minimal.
I most want to carry when I'm in the woods... particularly when I'm in the woods alone. I've had run-ins with people there. One of which was particularly uncomfortable and the source of a lot of my resistance to people telling me that the police will handle my safety.
3985. iiibbb - 10/17/2008 1:29:09 PM
Based on what I would equate to straw poles... most people who carry permits are quite concerned about keeping their permits. Even though it's easy to get them in my state, it's also pretty easy to get them revoked.
3986. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 10/17/2008 1:33:44 PM
That makes sense to me and I'm not unsympathetic to your concerns. We are still planing an RV trip across country through the Southwest and I've been wondering if I should have some kind of "deterrent" in the vehicle for when we are in isolated areas where law enforcement is nonexistent. Can tazers be carried across state lines?
3987. iiibbb - 10/17/2008 1:53:38 PM
Gun laws are tricky as you cross state lines. If you were to go that rout. It is legal to transport them in a locked box inaccessible from the passenger compartment, with ammo in a locked container. Then carry a copy of this law with you. This does not guarantee you won't get hassled, as there is some subjectivity about the word "Destination" when stopping in a hassle-state vacation wise (e.g. NY, MD).
Out west... probably not a problem, unless you're going to Park Service land. In that case I wouldn't bring a gun at all.
I don't think tazers are regulated most places... but I don't know much about them. I would do some research, or call ahead.
My preferred non-lethal deterrent is pepper spray. It is legal almost everywhere (some exceptions include Boston, NYC, and MA(permit needed)) and works on animals too. It causes an involuntary reaction... so even if the guy is high or something it works. Hard to hurt you if they can't see or breath.
Foxlabs dot com is what I would recommend... fog or stream (I like stream) 2 oz can is ample. Get some of the cleanup wipes. Effect wears off in about 15 minutes
3988. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 10/17/2008 2:43:46 PM
Pepper Spray--thanks iiibbb, I hadn't even considered it and it sounds like the perfect solution for me--if not for Boston Legal big shots!
3989. wonkers2 - 10/18/2008 6:43:58 AM
Shooting Suspect is Son of Detroit Homicide Cop
3990. iiibbb - 10/19/2008 10:34:41 AM
Police response times to various crimes
The ones about aggravated assault are the ones that bother me.
3991. wonkers2 - 10/23/2008 8:00:47 AM
Here's another one! Teenager shot near Kettering high school
3992. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 10/27/2008 2:37:18 PM
Ashford Boy, 8, Shot To Death In Mass. Gun Show Accident
An 8-year-old boy died after accidentally shooting himself in the head during the fair.
3993. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 10/27/2008 2:37:37 PM
toys?
3994. wonkers2 - 10/27/2008 4:32:56 PM
That's really sad. The boy's father should have his head examined!
Two Campus Killings in Little Rock today
3995. iiibbb - 11/7/2008 11:28:31 PM
3996. wonkers2 - 11/11/2008 1:23:34 PM
Another needless killing iiibbb, I'm still watching for reports of where packing saved a potential victim. Not finding any. Maybe the NRA needs to change to another PR agency??
3997. iiibbb - 11/11/2008 6:40:12 PM
I suspect you're looking for cases where someone uses a gun away from their home or business to defend themselves, rather than the plethora of general cases where people defend themselves in their home or place of business.
There are reasons to think that such stories are hard to find.
1) The people carrying legally constitute a fairly small proportion of the total population (~2-20% depending on your location), and are generally people not selected as victims (middle aged males).
2) Many self defense cases don't involve a shot being fired, just presented. I believe a lot of those sorts are not going to hang around at the scene in order talk to the police... once you leave the scene, what's the point in calling them? What are the police going to do to you when you say you were mugged, but the guy left when you pulled out your gun. Can one necessarily believe that the police won't then harass you for brandishing or something?
But whether guns are effective in public is irrelevant. Can you show me many cases where a permit holder committed a crime? If you acknowledge that people use guns in self defense in their home... what's to keep a criminal from taking one outside their home? Any laws you pass aren't really going to dissuade them.
3998. wonkers2 - 11/11/2008 7:16:11 PM
Well, there are plenty of accidental shootings, suicides and murders of other family members, as in the recent case of the 8-year-old boy killed his father and roomer in Arizona. He is reportedly being charged as an adult with murder. He shot his father and the roomer several times, stopping to re-load a single shot .22.
3999. Marc-Albert - 11/12/2008 10:12:53 AM
Zee Second Amendment in action.
Speaking of 8-year-ols and guns, I suppose you read about Christopher killed accidendally while firing with a machine gun at an upscale machine gun fair (sigh..) held by the Westfield Sportsman's Club in Massachusset. Under the watchfull gaze of his physician dad.
His dad:
"I gave permission for him to fire the Uzi," Bizilj said. "I watched several other children and adults use it. It's a small weapon, and Christopher was comfortable with guns. There were larger machine guns with much more recoil, and we avoided those."
(sigh)
4000. wonkers2 - 11/12/2008 10:31:01 AM
What happened to cap pistols for kids? The father was a moron. All UZi's should be melted down and made into something useful.
4001. wonkers2 - 12/5/2008 12:58:20 PM
Another needless gun death--an eight-year-old boy from a sub-machine gun he was firing at a gun club. Police chief Among 4 Indicted in Boy's Death at Massachusetts Gun Show
4002. wonkers2 - 12/25/2008 3:02:17 PM
4003. wonkers2 - 1/2/2009 3:35:38 PM
R.I.P. Chucky Lee Jackson Chucky Lee is Dead
4004. wabbit - 2/20/2009 8:17:08 PM
Sorry, iiibbb, I couldn't resist!