Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Bull Gator

Gun nutter sttrikes again

Recommended Posts

...

From the ATF: "Trace information shows that between calendar years 2007 and 2011 the Government of Mexico recovered and submitted more than 99,00 weapons to ATF for tracing. Of those firearms more than 68,000 were U.S. sourced." 99% of the guns traced in Canada during this period came from the U.S.; a significant percentage of guns in the Carribean also were traced to the U.S.

Source: Hoplophobic Gungrabbers Center

 

...

 

And now, for the rest of the story...

 

The Mexicans submit guns to the US govt for tracing if they believe the guns came from the US. Looks like they are right approximately 68 times out of every 99.

 

But "US sourced" does not mean "US retail gun market sourced."

 

 

Looks like Grassley got tired of the disinformation/distraction about guns used in crimes in Mexico and dug into the information that they just (finally) allowed him to see.

In the meantime, in an effort to distract from the investigation Congressman Issa and I are conducting, the ATF released selective statistical data that inaccurately reflects the scope and source of the problem of firearms in Mexico and the drug trafficking organization violence. The implication made by the ATF and various press reports that 70 percent of the firearms found in Mexico come directly from U.S. manufacturers or U.S. Federal Firearms Licensees selling guns to drug trafficking organizations is incomplete and misleading. Not only does this paint a grossly inaccurate picture of the situation, but there’s also evidence that the U.S. State Department doesn’t believe it either.

 

I received additional documentation from an ATF database of firearms, and learned that the actual percentage of firearms found in Mexico and traced back to U.S. based federal firearms licensees in 2009 and 2010 was only 24 percent. It turns out the discrepancy lies in the fact that most of the firearms found in Mexico may actually have been sold between governments in direct military to military transactions or were exported directly from manufacturers approved by our government. In either case, U.S. gun dealers are the last people who should be blamed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ Tom Ray. Regarding ex-NRA suits manning up the ATF.

I don't know the particulars (yet), any concern would depend upon the motivation and agenda (if any) of those hired. But the interests (and cultures) of the two are not exactly compatible, are they?

It probably works out swell if one doesn't mind the fox guarding the henhouse.

For you to say "deaths have levelled off" is disingenous: it is to accept the status quo at a horrific level. As posted previously:

There is an epidemic of gun violence in the US. To put it in perspective, England reports 75 gun murders per year. England’s culture is similar to ours—they hunt, collect guns, value marksmanship; they have gangs, drugs and poverty. Our population is 5 times England’s, 300 million vs. 60 million.


If we had England’s gun laws, which are based on public safety, we could expect 5 times their gun homicides or 375 gun homicides per year. We have 12,000: over 300 times more.

http://gunvictimsaction.org/about-2/overview-of-gun-problem/#goal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gun promotion answered (Post 2100, Gun Nutter Sttrikes)

jocal505, on 01 Oct 2013 - 15:12, said: (Note: black ink is JBSF)

You are not jacked up by guns but own an arsenal, including a sniper rifle and multiple high capacity mags for a half dozen handguns and rifles.

Got it. No, you don't "got it." You still have yet to explain what I'm "promoting". You do A LOT of typing. All of it on the gun threads supports guns. Read your words. You are a gun enthusiast, no doubt about it Jeff. I have steadfastly and consistently promoted responsible gun ownership, expanded background checks, your words and position were weak and qualified, not unlike LaPierre's IIRC keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and whackos, and tougher even draconian penalties for those that break the laws wrt to guns.

Jeff, in the enormity of what you and your elk are promoting, your logic is that more guns and more bullets, and more powerful guns and even widely distributed battle weaponry, are all okay. I'm not promoting anything of the sort. Are you now saying you are against the common distributionn of militarized weapons, as presently allowed? Weigh in again, either way, pls But the fact remains that there are ALREADY powerful guns out there. Yes, thanks to the NRA's defeat of the AW ban, and the tacet or open support of persons such as yourself and Tom Ray There are thousands of machine guns in the hands of private citizens and they are not used in crime. There are .50 caliber sniper rifles out there and they are not used in crime. Not good enough, bro. David Karesh, a wing nut, had two of them , for example There are people with garage full of ammo who do not go out and commit crime or go on shooting sprees. Trust me, you are not going to carry 10K rounds of ammo into a school, or even 5k, or even 1K. It is not uncommon for someone to go through 1K of ammo in a weekend at the range. This shows an unhealthy imbalance of some sort! BUt your average mass shooter is lucky if he is going to have 100 or 200 rounds on his person. Have you ever tried to carry that much rifle ammo? So the amount of ammo one has has fuck all to do with their perceived threat, except in the very rare cases of the David Koresh or Ruby Ridge nutter types. It speaks to a certain gun nut who is overdoing it. Within your brain and the fringey gun culture mentality and the SA Gun Club, it is considered normal behavior, however.

Then you and your buds make the douchebag move to claim a disconnect between the presence of the loaded, ready, danger-prone things, and disturbed, inebriated, depressed and upset people. Not to mention children. When have I ever claimed that a weapon in the hands of a drunk or mentally unstable person is not dangerous? When you let the NRA run with their horrible program. In other words, every day. Or that leaving a loaded gun unsecure around children wasn't dangerous? IN all of those cases, it completely irresponsible. Yet quite common. But how do you stop it? See the model laws of California. Read Hemenway, or Diaz:--after all, I have read LaPierre and Gottlieb. Are we going to have the Minority Report Pre-crime up and running anytime soon? No more than we can stop the drunk driver from getting behind the wheel of 7000lb SUV and killing a busload of school children can we keep the drunk from picking up a weapon (gun, knife, bat, unicorn horn, etc) straw man straw man, and straw man and stopping him from being stupid. Roads are wider, seat belts are mandatorty, chicanes are being constructed, and auto design has changes, all to better effect, I have also long said that we need to harshly hold parents accountable for leaving unsecured guns around for children to find and hurt themselves. Throw them under the jail for all I care.

I'm just calling you on it. Calling me on what exactly? Your body of work, Jeffie, your irresponsible, ignorant, bottom line Again, IF YOU EVER FUCKING BOTHERED TO ACTUALLY READ WHAT PEOPLE WRITE HERE, YOU WOULDN'T SAY THAT. Sorry. I have a problem with the body of gun-industry-driven legislation, As do I in some cases and the sub-culture of constitutional fear which has resulted. You fight for guns? Well I fight against 'em. I'm not fighting FOR guns Bullshit, you spend a lot of time every day doing so , you are afraid of the Brady Bunch for good reason..... I'm fighting for constitutional rights or just rights in general. They are ALL equally important, even the 2A. Lose one, lose all. Just tweak the Second= turn the idiots loose with guns If you don't like it, then change it. Good idea. And so I speak up on SA PA to give some rabid gunboys pause for thought. There IS a mechanism for that in case you weren't aware.

Your energetic, gung-ho position for the gun culture is degenerate, dude, and has foul ramifications, IMO. Fuck you, we've had this discussion about your so called "gun culture" and you continually ignore what anyone has to say. Am I ignoring the ignorant, sir? Sometimes. Because they ignore the carnage in our country, which has 19.5X the gun damage in the other high-income coun tries If ????? there is a gun culture - it exists with the thugs in the inner cities, the rappers, the media, the video games, the movies and TV. The solution, the recognition, and the understanding of the gun culture, will be found among the educated, middle-classes. That be US, Jeff. In fact if you want to talk "gun culture", I would say you should be embracing MY gun culture, rather than railing against it. Because us citizens who own guns, use them responsibly every day, and aren't out pounding our chests about all the shit you spew - WE are the ones you ought to be begging your congress critters to talk to rather than alienating us. WRONG. Because you are accepting a destructive gun sport leadership emanating from the gun industry lobby.

My position (to avoid having a weapons-based daily life in the US) is more sane and healthy than your own. Serious question (which I doubt you'll actually answer - how do you suggest we avoid a "weapons based daily life in the US? Recognize that the 300 million guns we mistakenly allowed are tearing us up and ruining bright lives, that gun proximity amplifies a common argument into lost and maimed lives, déjà vu all over again. And could you better define what that means, please? The arms race proposed by LaPierre and Tom NRAY

Close to home: here we have Tom Ray ,the NRA, and the SAF extolling self defense, a la guns everywhere. You haven't noticed?

Thanks for the chance to look into the thoughts of a gun-fixated person, though. You're welcome. I hope you actually paid attention this time and actually learned something for a change. Likewise. It goes both ways. You have a lot to learn and have not progressed that I can discern in 2012 or 2013. Moral compass and personal standards are suspect.

Pasted from <http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=142774&page=21#entry4341681>

 

 

Gun Culture Answered (Black ink is JBSF)

(Jeff's post begins with pics of rappers with guns; a tallest midget contest to make Jeff look tall indeed)

Jocal, don't let Edward distract you from the question at hand. Is the above the type of gun mentality and gun culture you are speaking of? It is the sort of behavior I am hoping you will be a part of fixing, in words and example. Gun toothpaste needs to be put back in the tube of gun supp;ly; it will follow a change in popular consciousness. Thus, I speak up among smart sailors who gather here. And if so how do they in any way relate to me, Tom and the rest of the generally responsible ???? Sit down, take a deep breath, and stop allowing gun proliferation . Be a leader instead of posing as one while blindly following the destructive behavior of the gun lobby gun-owning public??? Would love to hear your thoughts on this one.......

Pasted from <http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=142774&page=18#entry4261783>

 

 

More gun culture answers (Post 215, Don't Shoot the Thief at 2am) Black ink is JBSF

(more pics of more rappers with guns, making Jeff feel normal by comparison. A smallest midget contest with rappers winning)

So.... how does MY owning a gun, keeping a gun by my bed, and going to the range affect what these guys do???

First, behavior and words don't happen in a vacuum. Secondly, it is an extension of your comfort zone, unfortunately based on the default leadership of the sad-sack NRA: the dangerous, misguided dogma sung regularly by the SA Gun Club Choir.

Pasted from <http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=142774&page=18#entry4260638>

 

 

More answers to your assertions (Post 215, from Don't Shoot the Thief at 2am Thread; red ink is JBSF, who has asked what JoCal thinks is Jeff's bottom line)

I would take your bottom line to be... more guns is better guns, bigger guns is better guns? You would be wrong. I have no desire nor have I ever suggested flooding the market with more guns Not so fast. The status quo, consistently supported by yourself, is in fact just that. Your statement is disingenuous. and bigger guns (what does "bigger" mean anyway? Hmmm. See below, and note your stated public position on the amazing, shoulder-fired Barrett .50 cal. Simply that law-abiding citizens should not be unduly burdened in what weapons they are allowed to purchase. Um, which leads to 300 million weapons and counting, and gun devastation spiraling to, get this, nearly 20X the world norm= the gun status quo which you and Tom Ray, LenP and the El Mariachi character are supporting Or to simply observe that you once posted about a loaded AW under your bed? I've never kept a gun under the bed. Nearby maybe, but never under. So what? Just not indicative of a healthy mindset, my friend. Hello? Normal people, for your information, consider such behavior damned fringey. What does the proximity to the bed have anything to do with it? The subconscious regenerates during the sleep cycle, and ideally finds peace from the strife of daily activity. Are you supercharging your subconscious with ready access to, well, gun crutches, power by gun projectiles etc. during the sleep cycle? Why would you feel that need? Just let the gunpowder and lead be now and then, eh, if you da man Would you feel better if it was a pistol under the bed? Because I happen to think (and most experts agree) that a rifle like an AR-15 is a superior home defense weapon. This bit seems beyond unhealthy, even sick to me. What is your position on the over-perforation of walls with such militarized ammo? Your position on gun overkill in the USA? And the bottom line is that decision is made by ME - no one else. Its is the weapon I am most proficient with aside from the precision bolt rifle (sniper rifle to you) 1200 yards, your stated range of target, is more than half a mile. When is enough enough for you? Such excess speaks to the underlying problem IMO but its not an ideal HD weapon. No offense intended, but in general you are promoting and defending all things gun in American society, "All things Gun"?? Can you expand on that some more. No need. Just read your general, bit, and summarize it yourself. It would be good for you What other ALL things gun am I promoting that is contributory to the crime rate in the US??? Whadda you got? Pick just about any JBSF post, or an honest summary or your own philosophy that be including a total lack of gun registration (Agree - gun registration does not stop crime), You might be surprised, it's pretty basic. Did MADD propose cancelling car registration? the open sale and continued manufacture of high-capacity mags (Agree - we've had this discussion before); you might want fifty-cals sold at Wal Mart the way you go on (I have never suggested .50 cals in Walmart - but so what if they are. Sick sick sick, overkill again. Diaz uses the word evil now and again... I would be interested in the 10 year crime rate in the use of .50 rifles. Let's not go there, mate, but see post 2355 Is it really the problem you think they are, or are you just scared of them because they are mean looking? Okay, let's discuss that specifically in a post which I am prepared to present. You are so driven, so compelled by guns, that you are having fun competing with a sniper rifle, NTTAWWT. But if I was competing with a muzzle loader that would be ok? What does the rifle type have fuck all to do with the conversation? The power and range of the implement is representative of the needs of the shooter; you might address those needs while not drowning the USA in a sea of guns. Just a suggestion. I compete, I enjoy it and I'm good at it. How is that any different from racing sailboats? How does my competing with a "sniper rifle" contribute to crime rates? But bottom line is that you and your buddies sort of define gun compulsion, Totally dishonest bullshit, Jeff, I think you are definitive of such compulsion, that you don't bother hiding it but fib about it at will, and that this post is another broadcast of it. Yet you claim to not be adding to the problem of the U.S. gun culture? How does that work? and you do it here. As someone said, you're not only projecting Oh, I think you are projecting projectiles about 1200 yards, and supporting .50 caliber projectiles in this very post, and using an overpowered AW projecting wall-piercing ammo for "self defense", all stated in this post. Read your own words, pal. but doing some serious imagining. IMAGINE!

Jeff, I've asked you a few well- framed questions recently, but (as observed in your interactions with others) you go all abusive. Your big page of stats could use some of your interpretation and I'm slammed, so go ahead, take it further. Sure, thanks, there are certain positions you have taken which I can see more value in than before (I am appreciating your emphasis that draconian impositions on freedom are plenty effective but need to be somewhat off-limits, given other rights). I noted where you weighed in firmly with the burglar shooting situation, and we agreed. Other stuff too, but keep an open mind, Aviator. Each person has his own perspective, and each perspective has it's own merit. You might be a fine mentor for me as a pilot, but a poor mentor about what the true place of the gun needs to be in present historical or ethical content. Many of your gun rationalizations don't fly for others. Just saying'. My "gun rationalizations" fly with the constitution. Just sayin'. Only as of 2008. Scalia is an imbalanced, avid turkey shooter with personal opinions; Heller was a non-peer-reviewed snow job set up by Gottlieb and the hapless Cato institute. I have facts and names to back this up.

The Todachev shooting in Orlando, related to the surviving Boston Bomber, is now being pursued by a tough, committed state investigator, nice. The FBI is using SYG-specific verbage and Todachev's lawyer Bernie is preparing for an SYG defense, this time claimed by an FBI agent. So Jeff,when do you want to civilly debate about shooting a shirtless tire checker with scary fists? Your position speaks to moral degeneration, to walking the LOWER road. I recognize that one might legally light him up in some states, that 's my objection.

Not familiar with the case at all. Bring me up to speed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

@ Tom Ray. Regarding ex-NRA suits manning up the ATF.

I don't know the particulars (yet), any concern would depend upon the motivation and agenda (if any) of those hired. But the interests (and cultures) of the two are not exactly compatible, are they?

It probably works out swell if one doesn't mind the fox guarding the henhouse.

 

 

It's true that the NRA has a culture of competence not seen at ATF, so in that sense it's no doubt a good idea.

 

Should the ATF hire biologists or artists to regulate the gun industry? Or maybe people actually involved in the industry?

 

Do you assume that a person who once worked for an industry must forever hold their interests dear, even if he takes another job in government? Do you think a person who would work for the government just can't be trusted to actually work for the government? Or what?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gun nutter finds intruder entering his home, shoots him in the back

 

Perfectly appropriate in my view.

 

The homeowner told investigators he confronted a man in his driveway and told him to leave.

 

The man didn’t respond. Instead, he kept walking toward the house. The man’s wife and children were inside the house. Police say the man kept going and went in the front door; the homeowner fired one shot and hit the man in the back.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't normally approve of shooting bad guys in the back, but this fuk-stik seems to have deserved a rather large exit wound out the front of his shirt. And good on the husband for not interupting the local cops during their donut break.

 

Win-win.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't normally approve of shooting bad guys in the back, but this fuk-stik seems to have deserved a rather large exit wound out the front of his shirt. And good on the husband for not interupting the local cops during their donut break.

 

Win-win.....

 

I tried without success to explain this to Cliff one time. There's a difference between "back is to me" and "not a threat." The former usually, but not always, implies the latter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Cue Zeppelin. 'Cuz someone here sure is ramblin' on.....

 

Allman brothers I think mate.

 

No. Rambling Man was the Allman Bros. Ramble On was Led Zep.

 

Face palm. You prolly lean to the Zep because you read his shit. I lean the Allman bros way because I don't.

 

I don't have anybody on ignore. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some reading material for jocal: A few choice excerpts from the Inspector General's report on Fast and Furious. I just looked for "50 caliber" and found lots of results...

Enjoy!

Group VII continued to receive Form 4473s from FFL1 and several other Phoenix-area FFLs for the firearms being purchased by Operation Fast and Furious subjects. In December, Patino purchased 66 firearms, all from FFL1, for over $44,000; in January 2010, he purchased 53 firearms for over $44,000, including the purchase of a .50 caliber Barrett rifle for nearly $9,000.(footnote 92)

(footnote 92) A .50 caliber rifle must be fired mounted on a tripod, fires belt-fed ammunition, weighs over 100 pounds, and is over 5 feet long. According to ATF documents, the purchase of this weapon significantly increases a trafficking organization’s firepower and its financial investment in weapons.
--------
In addition to the evidence agents were obtaining through surveillance, ATF also learned in December 2009 and January 2010 of additional recoveries of firearms tied to Operation Fast and Furious subjects in Mexico and the United States. For example, on December 9, 2009, one day after the Douglas seizure of firearms which had been purchased earlier in the day by Steward, the Mexican Army recovered 900 pounds of cocaine, 132 pounds of methamphetamine, $2 million in U.S. currency, and 48 firearms (46 AK-47 style rifles) in Mexicali, Mexico, a town approximately 240 miles southwest of Phoenix. Twenty of the recovered firearms had been purchased by Operation Fast and Furious subjects Chambers, Moore,  between October 21 and November 19, 2009. According to an ATF report, Mexican authorities believed the firearms were destined for the Sinaloa Cartel to help replenish the loss of hundreds of firearms to the Mexican government and to sustain the drug cartel’s fight with a rival cartel. ATF and the U.S. Attorney’s Office took no action with regard to the straw purchasers of the 20 firearms recovered in Mexico. ATF records indicate that Chambers purchased another 10 firearms on December 11 and Moore purchased another 21 firearms in March 2010, including two .50 caliber rifles....
----------
While Group VII was seeking and obtaining OCDETF designation and wiretap authority for Operation Fast and Furious, several subjects in the investigation continued to purchase firearms at a remarkable pace. According to ATF records, Patino purchased a total of 99 firearms in the month of February for over $76,000, all paid in cash. This included 40 AK-47 style rifles purchased from FFL1 over a 3-day period and a single Barrett .50 caliber rifle for over $9,000. Patino’s purchasing increased in March: 197 firearms for over $143,000 in cash, including 63 AK-47 style rifles purchased from FFL1 over a 3-day period and 2 Barrett .50 caliber rifles for over $9,000 each. Patino spent another $71,000 in April for a total of 35 firearms, including 4 more Barrett .50 caliber rifles, and $43,000 in May for a total of 69 firearms.

Patino was not alone. Montelongo paid nearly $6,000 for 10 firearms in February, and then over $60,000 for 53 firearms in March, including 2 Barrett .50 caliber rifles purchased for over $18,000. ATF records indicate that Moore did not purchase any firearms in January or February, but spent over $40,000 in March on 21 firearms, including 3 Barrett .50 caliber rifles. Jaime Avila spent over $17,000 in the months of April and May for a total of 21 firearms. Other significant purchasers included Hercegovac, identified by ATF in November 2009, who spent over $18,000 on two Barrett .50 caliber rifles in March; and Julio Carrillo, who also purchased two Barrett .50 caliber rifles for over $18,000 in March just days after being identified in the investigation.

In sum, Operation Fast and Furious subjects spent over $608,000 for more than 600 firearms from February 1, 2010, to May 31, 2010. As in the prior months, the firearms were primarily cartel “weapons of choice,” paid for in cash, and bought primarily from FFL1. In addition, over 83 firearms purchased by Operation Fast and Furious subjects were recovered in the United States and Mexico during this period.
----------
We were not persuaded by ATF’s claim that the U.S. Attorney’s Office would not permit agents to seize firearms during most of the investigation because there was a lack of probable cause. We concluded that the prosecutor assigned to Operation Fast and Furious had an exceedingly conservative and questionable view of the evidence required to establish probable cause to seize and forfeit firearms, and that he, like the agents, did not propose arresting any of the straw purchasers for their trafficking activity during the investigation despite sufficient evidence to do so. However, the prosecutor acknowledged to us that there were instances both before (at least with respect to Patino) and after the wiretaps began in March 2010 where agents could have made a case for seizing firearms. We did not find persuasive evidence that agents sought to seize firearms or make arrests during the investigative stage of the case and were rebuffed by the prosecutor, or that absent one incident with a .50 caliber rifle purchased by an individual not connected to Operation Fast and Furious,

ATF agents or management complained during the investigation to anyone at the U.S. Attorney’s Office about unreasonable evidentiary requirements for making seizures or effecting arrests in the investigation. We found that the lack of seizures and arrests was primarily attributable to the pursuit of a strategic goal shared by both the ATF and the U.S. Attorney’s Office – to eliminate a trafficking organization – and the belief that confronting subjects and seizing firearms could compromise that goal.

We also concluded that ATF’s use of cooperating FFLs in this investigation was problematic because, at a minimum, it created at least the appearance that the FFLs were continuing to sell firearms to Operation Fast and Furious subjects in order to further ATF’s investigation. We were not persuaded by the position of ATF and the U.S. Attorney’s Office that the FFLs viewed the sales as legitimate transactions, and that the government did not implicitly encourage the sales to continue. We believe that at a minimum the government’s requests for substantial assistance and its equivocal explanations about what it was doing with respect to the firearms being sold reasonably led the FFLs to believe that ATF and the U.S. Attorney’s Office were taking steps to prevent the weapons’ unlawful transfers and might have caused them to complete sales they otherwise would not have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to the Seattle Times, the documented cost of damage-by-gunfire in our county (King County) is 177 million.

How about YOUR county?

 

GUN FACT #5; NONGUN OWNERS TAXED $5 BILLION/YR FOR GUN OWNERS' HOBBY

Posted OCT 24 2012 by NGAC in BLOG,

COUNTERINTUITIVE GUN FACTS,

WHAT THE NRA DOESN'T WANT YOU TO KNOW


Over $5 billion tax dollars are used each year to cover the cost of U.S. gun homicides. Non-gun owners’ tax dollars pay the lion’s share of this cost. This makes no sense; gun owners should pay 100% of this cost.


(Note: Each gun homicide costs $400,000 tax dollars. On average, there are 12,000 U.S. gun homicides each year at a cost of $5 billon tax dollars.

Supporting cost data provided to media on request.)


The NRA and gun owners will shout and rant that it is not fair for law-abiding gun owners to be paying for the cost of criminal and gang banger gun violence. But that misses the point.


If I do not own a car, my tax dollars are not used to pay for the cost of car driving deaths and accidents. Law-abiding drivers pay for them through their insurance. Additionally, their premiums have a built in excess to cover costs generated by illegal drivers who do not have insurance.


What makes the NRA’s and gun owners’ position even more outrageous is that they oppose and defeat any law that would make it harder for criminals and gang bangers to get guns; this causes far higher rates of gun violence—and consequently far higher tax payer costs.


The NRA relentlessly protects gun industry sales to the criminal market. Studies show sales to criminals represent minimally 25% of annual gun industry sales. Making sure criminals have guns allows the NRA to increase industry sales; their cynical marketing says everyone must be carrying a gun at all times to protect themselves from armed criminals.


A fair solution to cover the cost of gun violence would be for the law-abiding gun owners to carry insurance as do the law-abiding car drivers. Further, there should be a tax on gun and bullet purchases. The gun owners want the pleasure of owning their guns but do not want the responsibility of covering the cost of gun violence. That is patently unfair to the law-abiding citizens who do not own guns and have no interest in gun-related activities.


Over the last 20 years, $100 billion tax dollars have been used to pay for the cost of gun homicides. It is high time for this cost to be fully transferred to the proper party—the gun owners.

Pasted from <http://gunvictimsact...n-owners-hobby/>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...

 

The NRA relentlessly protects gun industry sales to the criminal market. Studies show sales to criminals represent minimally 25% of annual gun industry sales. ..

 

 

I am sure I would have had some fun if the link to those studies worked, but it doesn't.

 

Hey Jocal, doesn't the NRA protect the non-existent "gun show loophole"? When are you going to get around to presenting the facts and proving me wrong on that one anyway?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

$400, 000 per homicide? Sorry but that's pure, unadulterated bull shit.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

$400, 000 per homicide? Sorry but that's pure, unadulterated bull shit.....

 

I don't think you get it, Rico - it's only the GUN homicides that are that costly - the folks killed by other means aren't as dead, and the death/discovery/prosecution/incarceration cycle is cheaper.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

$400, 000 per homicide? Sorry but that's pure, unadulterated bull shit.....

I think its a bit low.

very. You have to consider the lifetime earning potential of each victim of these gun nutters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

$400, 000 per homicide? Sorry but that's pure, unadulterated bull shit.....

I think its a bit low.

very. You have to consider the lifetime earning potential of each victim of these gun nutters.

 

You also have to ignore the lifetime criminal potential of many of the "victims" of gun nutters I have posted about in this thread, both in terms of the property they would have stolen/damaged and the lives they would have taken if not stopped by nutters.

 

Easily done, as ignoring the core lawful purpose of the second amendment comes naturally to some...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

GUN FACT #5; NONGUN OWNERS TAXED $5 BILLION/YR FOR GUN OWNERS' HOBBY

If I do not own a car, my tax dollars are not used to pay for the cost of car driving deaths and accidents. Law-abiding drivers pay for them through their insurance. Additionally, their premiums have a built in excess to cover costs generated by illegal drivers who do not have insurance.

The gun owners want the pleasure of owning their guns but do not want the responsibility of covering the cost of gun violence. That is patently unfair to the law-abiding citizens who do not own guns and have no interest in gun-related activities.

 

 

 

But see jojo...... here's where your little story fails. Owning guns is not a "pleasure", it's a constitutionally protected right. Owning cars is not. And you were giving me shit about "false equivilencies" recently?

 

Let's stick to comparing constitutional rights, shall we? I personally do not like the fact that my tax dollars go to defend scum bag criminals. Why aren't people being forced to carry insurance in the event they get arrested rather than expecting the tax payer to pick up the tab for not only defending you with a court appointed lawyer, but all the huge costs of administering the whole justice system? From the cops to the courts and the jails - you should have an insurance bond that covers all of that if you run afoul of the law. These criminal scumbags want the "pleasure" of exercising their 5th Am rights, but they don't seem to want the responsibility to pay for it.*

 

See how that works jocal?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(*no cut-n-pastes were harmed in the making of this post)

 

Bad days for Midnight Riders

Encouraging News on the Tiahart Amendments

The Tiahrt Amendments, named for their original sponsor, U.S. Representative Todd Tiahrt (R-KS), are provisions attached to federal spending bills that make it harder for law enforcement officers to aggressively pursue criminals who buy and sell illegal guns. Since it was formed in 2006, Mayors Against Illegal Guns has been fighting to reform the Tiahrt Amendments.

In 2007, hundreds of mayors joined with 30 national and state law enforcement organizations to wage a campaign against the Tiahrt restrictions. The campaign's efforts helped to defeat proposals that would have made the restrictions even worse, and also secured certain improvements to the Tiahrt amendments in the FY 2008 appropriations bill. In 2009, mayors and police chiefs successfully pushed revisions to the Tiahrt language in the FY 2010 appropriations bill, which restored full access to crime gun trace data for state and local law enforcement.

Read the May 7, 2009 Statement of the Mayors Against Illegal Guns Co-Chairs on the Tiahrt reforms in the FY 2010 appropriations bill

While the changes made in 2007 and 2009 are a step in the right direction, many of the anti-police provisions in the Amendments remain in place. For example, the Tiahrt provisions still block ATF from requiring gun dealers to conduct inventory checks to detect loss and theft, which law enforcement says is a dangerous back channel source for criminals who are in the market for illegal guns.

How Tiahrt Harms Law Enforcement

While some components of the Tiahrt Amendments were improved in 2007 and 2009, several damaging provisions continue to tie the hands of law enforcement.

  • NICS background check records are still destroyed within 24 hours:

    The Tiahrt Amendments require the Justice Department to destroy the record of a buyer whose NICS background check was approved within 24 hours. This makes it harder to catch law-breaking gun dealers who falsify their records, and it makes it more difficult to identify and track straw purchasers who buy guns on behalf of criminals who wouldn't be able to pass a background check.

  • ATF still does not have the power to require dealer inventory checks to detect lost and stolen guns:

    While dealers must notify ATF if they discover that guns from their inventories have been lost or stolen, the Tiahrt Amendments prevent ATF from requiring gun dealers to conduct annual physical inventory checks to detect losses and thefts . ATF reported that in 2007 it found 30,000 guns missing from dealer inventories based on its inspection of just 9.3% of gun dealers.

  • State and local authorities are still restricted from using trace data to fully investigate corrupt gun dealers and traffickers:

    While the FY 2010 appropriations language restores full access to crime gun trace data for state and local law enforcement, the Tiahrt Amendments continue to restrict what state and local law enforcement can do with trace data they have gathered. For example, state and local law enforcement are still prohibited from using trace data in civil proceedings to suspend or revoke the license of a gun dealer who was caught breaking the law.

The Campaign Against the Tiahrt Amendments

The coalition's campaign against the Tiahrt Amendments has secured incremental but important improvements to the Tiahrt Amendment restrictions.

Key FY 2010 Improvements to the Tiahrt Amendments

  • Full Police Access to Crime Gun Trace Data:

    The FY 2010 budget removes the restriction that limits access to federal crime gun trace data to state and local police investigations of individual crimes. That restriction prevents them from investigating the broader criminal networks that may be behind those crimes. The new language enables state and local law enforcement to have full access to ATF's gun trace database to analyze gun trafficking patterns.

    • Prior to this change, state and local law enforcement could only access crime gun trace data in connection with an individual investigation.

Key FY 2008 Improvements to the Tiahrt Amendments

  • Freedom to Share Data Between Agencies:

    Law enforcement agencies and prosecutors are now explicitly authorized to share with each other any trace data they acquire connected to their criminal investigations.

    • Prior to this change, it was unclear whether law enforcement agencies were permitted to share gun trace data with each other.

  • Authorization to Release Limited Public Reports:

    ATF is now allowed to release limited statistical reports using aggregate gun trace data to analyze firearm trafficking. The scope of these reports, however, remains significantly less extensive than reports published prior to the enactment of the Tiahrt Amendments.

    • Prior to this change, ATF was prohibited from releasing reports using trace data to examine illegal gun trafficking patterns.
    • ATF released reports in late 2007 and 2008 that, for each state, listed which other states were the top sources of guns recovered by law enforcement. These reports provided no information about which dealers were top sources of interstate crime guns.

Read Mayors Against Illegal Guns' May 7, 2009 statement on the improvements to the FY10 version of the Tiahrt Amendment

Read Mayors Against Illegal Guns' December 21, 2007 statement on the improvements to FY08 version of the Tiahrt Amendment

Recent Tiahrt Amendment Press

"Guest column: Vote not to tie cops' hands in fight against illegal guns" Jacksonville.com, April 15, 2009

"Two Early Tests on Guns" The New York Times, February 19, 2009

Read more editorials about the Tiahrt Amendments

Other Resources Related to the Tiahrt Amendment

Download a copy of the letter from law enforcement organizations and executives opposing the Tiahrt Amendment restrictions (in PDF)

Read the text of the FY08 Tiahrt Amendment

Read the text of the FY10 Tiahrt Amendment

Watch President Obama's Campaign Statement on the Tiahrt Trace Restrictions

Learn more about the legislative history of the Tiahrt Amendment

Pasted from <http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/html/federal/tiahrt.shtml>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 5 billion in supposed taxes that result from gun owners is bullshit, of course. What is not bullshit is that gun owners pay 500 million in dedicated taxes a year which support forest and wildlife conservation that benefits everyone. If it were not for gun owners we would no longer have white tailed deer or wild turkey among other things. We would also not have vast swaths of publicly owned and protected forest. So for all you non-gun owners out there, your welcome.... Moochers. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But see jojo...... here's where your little story fails. Owning guns is not a "pleasure", it's a constitutionally protected right. Owning cars is not. And you were giving me shit about "false equivilencies" recently?

 

Let's stick to comparing constitutional rights, shall we? I personally do not like the fact that my tax dollars go to defend scum bag criminals. Jeff, much of the trajedy and chaos is done is by guns held by law abiders, or children using their guns Why aren't people being forced to carry insurance in the event they get arrested rather than expecting the tax payer to pick up the tab for not only defending you with a court appointed lawyer, but all the huge costs of administering the whole justice system? From the cops to the courts and the jails - you should have an insurance bond that covers all of that if you run afoul of the law. These criminal scumbags want the "pleasure" of exercising their 5th Am rights, but they don't seem to want the responsibility to pay for it.* And neither do you, a true gun enthusiast, want the responsibility.

 

See how that works jocal?

 

(*no cut-n-pastes were harmed in the making of this post)

 

 

Look, the Heller decision was relatively recent, was 5-4, was supported by "scholarship" which was not peer-reviewed, and was flakey as hell. It was a decision based on Scalia's personal opinion, something he has written against in other spheres.

 

You guys are bingeing on the Heller decision. SE, BG, and I may be the hangover.

 

Where is your misogyny this morning, Big Jeff?

 

 

  • The Heller Decision: Conservative Activism and its Aftermath by Erwin Chemerinsky

    In his reply to Robert Levy’s lead essay, constitutional scholar Erwin Chemerinsky argues that Scalia’s majority opinion in Heller was based on a shoddy application of Scalia’s own judicial principles and “powerfully demonstrates that Justice Scalia’s constitutional rulings … ultimately are animated by his conservative politics.” According to Chemerinsky, by ignoring a long history of precedent and throwing into question “countless other statutes and ordinances,” the decision “showed that conservative rhetoric about judicial restraint is a guise that is used to oppose rights [the conservatives on the Supreme Court] don’t like.” Chemerinsky further criticizes the court for failing to clarify the level of scrutiny to be applied to gun regulation, and suggests that it should be the “reasonableness” test. Heller will be incorporated, Chemerinsky predicts, but will unlikely affect the coming elections.

Pasted from <http://www.cato-unbound.org/2008/07/29/dennis-henigan/heller-majority-wrong-unprincipled

 

There is no better illustration of the abandonment of neutral principles by the Heller majority, and Bob Levy, than their cavalier disregard of what the Supreme Court has termed “the first principle of constitutional interpretation” — that the Constitution must be read to give effect to every word and that interpretations that render portions of its text “mere surplusage” must be avoided. Neither Justice Scalia, nor Bob Levy, can deny that their interpretation renders the first thirteen words of the Amendment of no effect. The Second Amendment would guarantee a right to have guns in the home for self-defense whether those words were included or not. In place of the “no surplusage” principle, which dates to Marbury v. Madison, we now have a new principle, for which Justice Scalia offers no precedent, that the words of a constitutional provision must have merely a “logical connection” with one another.

It is particularly galling that the Constitutional text rendered “surplusage” by the Supreme Court is the militia language of the Second Amendment since, as the historians have documented, that language underwent several material changes during the deliberations of the First Congress, including moving its placement in the amendment itself. If the militia language were merely “explanatory, not operative,” as maintained by Levy, why was it the subject of such careful editing? The Framers apparently attached far greater importance to it than do Levy and the Heller majority. Nor do Levy and the Heller majority offer any account of why the Framers would place “explanatory, not operative” language in the Second Amendment, but not in any other provision of the Bill of Rights.

On the issue of standard of review, Bob Levy recognizes that “different rights have different purposes and run up against different sets of government and private interests.” This is why the analogy between the First Amendment’s freedom of expression and our new Second Amendment right to private gun ownership must fail.

It is surely true, as he says, that the right to publish a booklet on bomb making has implications for public safety. But surely he would not maintain that this right is constitutionally analogous to the right to possess a bomb. I am not here claiming that Heller created a right to possess bombs, but rather showing that the right to possess lethal weaponry involves a different set of government and private interests than the right to express oneself about lethal weaponry.

For purposes of this discussion of Heller, the appropriate question is whether there is a constitutionally significant distinction between the “right of D.C. residents to keep a handgun in their home,” as Levy puts it, and the First Amendment right to talk about keeping a handgun in the home. I would hope that the answer is obvious, but perhaps not if you are unwilling to recognize the well-established additional risks of more guns in more homes — both for the homes themselves and for the general community.

To mention a few of the risks associated with exercising our newfound constitutional right to have a handgun in the home: (1) accidents with guns are more lethal than accidents with other weapons like knives; (2) a gun in the home is associated with a higher risk of suicide, especially among adolescents with no apparent psychiatric disorder; (3) incidents of domestic abuse involving firearms are far more likely to result in death than such incidents not involving firearms; and (4) because guns are in such high demand from the criminal element, large numbers of guns are stolen from residences, thus fueling the illegal market in guns.

One study of all fatal and nonfatal gunshot injuries involving guns kept in the home during a specific time period in Memphis, Seattle, and Galveston showed that for every time such a gun was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and eleven attempted or completed suicides. Moreover, handguns are disproportionately involved in gun fatalities in the home. Surely it cannot be maintained that the government’s interest in regulating the right to handguns in the home is no different than its interest in regulating the right to speak about handguns in the home.

Pasted from <http://www.cato-unbound.org/2008/07/29/dennis-henigan/heller-majority-wrong-unprincipled>

alongfortheride2.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The rest of the story on Tiahrt amendments...

 

 

For more than five years, cities suing the gun industry and anti-gun organizations have sought access to confidential law enforcement data on firearms traces. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) compiles these records when it traces firearms in response to requests from law enforcement agencies.

Every year since 2003, the U.S. Congress has passed increasingly strong language to keep this information confidential. The legislation—a series of "riders" to the appropriations bill that funds BATFE—is widely known as the "Tiahrt Amendment," after its sponsor, Rep. Todd Tiahrt (R-Kan.).

There are good reasons for keeping this information confidential, and for strengthening the Tiahrt Amendment and making it permanent:

* Releasing the information serves no useful purpose. The Congressional Research Service has repeatedly said "firearm trace data may be biased" and "cannot be used to test for statistical significance between firearm traces in general and the wider population of firearms available to criminals or the wider American public."[1] These limitations exist because the "tracing system is an operational system designed to help law enforcement agencies identify the ownership path of individual firearms. It was not designed to collect statistics."[2]
* Traced guns aren't always "crime guns"; firearms may be traced for reasons unrelated to any armed crime. The BATFE trace request form lists "crime codes" for traffic offenses and election law violations, among many others.
* Trace information remains available for law enforcement use. The FY 2007 version of the Tiahrt amendment ensures that trace data is available to federal, state, and local agencies "in connection with and for use in a bona fide criminal investigation or prosecution" or for use in administrative actions by BATFE—which is, of course, the principal agency responsible for overseeing the conduct of federally licensed firearms dealers.The language and history of the Gun Control Act are clear: Congress always intended to keep this information confidential, and to allow its use only for legitimate law enforcement purposes. The firearms trace database includes information such as the agency requesting a gun trace, the location from which the gun was recovered, and the identity of the dealer and original retail buyer.
* Both BATFE and the Fraternal Order of Police (FOP) oppose release of trace data. In fact, BATFE has fought for years in the federal courts to keep the databases confidential, because they contain information (such as names of gun buyers) that could jeopardize ongoing investigations—not to mention law enforcement officers' lives. For example, a suspected gun trafficker could search databases for names of "straw purchasers" he had used to buy handguns, or for traces requested on guns he had sold. That information could lead him to names of officers, informants and other witnesses against his crimes. (View commentary by FOP President Chuck Canterbury from April 24, 2007)
* Even the current language has allowed too many disclosures of sensitive information. For instance, anti-gun groups and the media have repeatedly received confidential trace data from government "leaks." And Judge Jack Weinstein of the Federal District Court in Brooklyn, who presides over New York City's lawsuit against the firearms industry, has "creatively" ruled that the riders do not protect the information that Congress so clearly intended to protect.

NRA is committed to ensuring confidentiality of sensitive law enforcement information, on two fronts:

* NRA supports continuing and strengthening the annual appropriations riders that prevent abuse of this information outside legitimate criminal investigations.
* In the 109th Congress, NRA supported H.R. 5005 by Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Tex.), which would make the disclosure ban permanent.

 

I support the ATF position on those amendments, for the reasons bolded above, among other reasons related to the fourth amendment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Look, the Heller decision was relatively recent, was 5-4, was supported by "scholarship" which was not peer-reviewed, and was flakey as hell. ...

 

 

There is no better illustration of the abandonment of neutral principles by the Heller majority, and Bob Levy, than their cavalier disregard of what the Supreme Court has termed “the first principle of constitutional interpretation” — that the Constitution must be read to give effect to every word and that interpretations that render portions of its text “mere surplusage” must be avoided. Neither Justice Scalia, nor Bob Levy, can deny that their interpretation renders the first thirteen words of the Amendment of no effect. The Second Amendment would guarantee a right to have guns in the home for self-defense whether those words were included or not.

 

...

One study of all fatal and nonfatal gunshot injuries involving guns kept in the home during a specific time period in Memphis, Seattle, and Galveston showed that for every time such a gun was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting

 

Under the previous misinterpretations of the second amendment, the operative clause was mere surplusage. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" was interpreted to mean the right of the people to keep and bear arms can be infringed at will. These people have no leg to stand on when complaining about rewriting the constitution through the courts.

 

I'd be happy to discuss the "flakiness" of scholarship, if we can agree on a definition.

 

For example, I think "scholarship" that examines only gunshot injuries thereby deliberately excludes many defensive gun uses: those in which no shots were fired and those in which shots were fired but did not hit. Therefore, drawing conclusions about "every time such a gun was used in a self-defense" simply can not be done using such a study, and any study claiming to have done so is flaky.

 

I assume you agree that deliberately excluding a bunch of what you are supposed to be studying is flaky behavior, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

...

The NRA relentlessly protects gun industry sales to the criminal market. Studies show sales to criminals represent minimally 25% of annual gun industry sales. ..

 

 

I am sure I would have had some fun if the link to those studies worked, but it doesn't.

 

Hey Jocal, doesn't the NRA protect the non-existent "gun show loophole"? When are you going to get around to presenting the facts and proving me wrong on that one anyway?

 

Try harder. The link at the top connected me to Myth #6, for example. Or Google the text, it may connect.

 

Tom you are delirious AND disingenuous if you are taking the stance that there is no gun show loophole.

For you to ask me, which you did, to find that law and prove a negative is vaporous: there are 50 states in the union.

You used to be better than that.

 

You want myths? You can't face the myths you publicly support. Here's a different list of 10 pro-gun myths.

 

10 Pro-Gun Myths, Shot Down

Fact-checking some of the gun lobby's favorite arguments shows they're full of holes.

—By Dave Gilson

| Thu Jan. 31, 2013 4:01 AM PST

1426

By cutting off federal funding for research and stymieing data collection and sharing, the National Rifle Association has tried to do to the study of gun violence what climate deniers have done to the science of global warming. No wonder: When it comes to hard numbers, some of the gun lobby's favorite arguments are full of holes.

Myth #1: They're coming for your guns.

Fact-check: No one knows the exact number of guns in America, but it's clear there's no practical way to round them all up (never mind that no one in Washington is proposing this). Yet if you fantasize about rifle-toting citizens facing down the government, you'll rest easy knowing that America's roughly 80 million gun owners already have the feds and cops outgunned by a factor of around 79 to 1.

Sources: Congressional Research Service (PDF), Small Arms Survey

Myth #2: Guns don't kill people—people kill people.

Fact-check: People with more guns tend to kill more people—with guns. The states with the highest gun ownership rates have a gun murder rate 114% higher than those with the lowest gun ownership rates. Also, gun death rates tend to be higher in states with higher rates of gun ownership. Gun death rates are generally lower in states with restrictions such as assault-weapons bans or safe-storage requirements. Update: A recent study looking at 30 years of homicide data in all 50 states found that for every one percent increase in a state's gun ownership rate, there is a nearly one percent increase in its firearm homicide rate.

Sources: Pediatrics, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Myth #3: An armed society is a polite society.

Fact-check: Drivers who carry guns are 44% more likely than unarmed drivers to make obscene gestures at other motorists, and 77% more likely to follow them aggressively.

• Among Texans convicted of serious crimes, those with concealed-handgun licenses were sentenced for threatening someone with a firearm 4.8 times more than those without.

• In states with Stand Your Ground and other laws making it easier to shoot in self-defense, those policies have been linked to a 7 to 10% increase in homicides.

See our full special report on gun laws and the rise of mass shootings in America.

Myth #4: More good guys with guns can stop rampaging bad guys.

Fact-check: Mass shootings stopped by armed civilians in the past 30 years: 0

• Chances that a shooting at an ER involves guns taken from guards: 1 in 5

Myth #5: Keeping a gun at home makes you safer.

Fact-check: Owning a gun has been linked to higher risks of homicide, suicide, and accidental death by gun.

• For every time a gun is used in self-defense in the home, there are 7 assaults or murders, 11 suicide attempts, and 4 accidents involving guns in or around a home.

43% of homes with guns and kids have at least one unlocked firearm.

• In one experiment, one third of 8-to-12-year-old boyswho found a handgun pulled the trigger.

Myth #6: Carrying a gun for self-defense makes you safer.

Fact-check: In 2011, nearly 10 times more people were shot and killed in arguments than by civilians trying to stop a crime.

• In one survey, nearly 1% of Americans reported using guns to defend themselves or their property. However, a closer look at their claims found that more than 50% involved using guns in an aggressive manner, such as escalating an argument.

• A Philadelphia study found that the odds of an assault victim being shot were 4.5 times greater if he carried a gun. His odds of being killed were 4.2 times greater.

Myth #7: Guns make women safer.

Fact-check: In 2010, nearly 6 times more women were shot by husbands, boyfriends, and ex-partners than murdered by male strangers.

• A woman's chances of being killed by her abuser increase more than 7 times if he has access to a gun.

• One study found that women in states with higher gun ownership rates were 4.9 times more likely to be murdered by a gun than women in states with lower gun ownership rates.

Myth #8: "Vicious, violent video games" deserve more blame than guns.

Fact-check: So said NRA executive vice president Wayne LaPierre after Newtown. So what's up with Japan?

United States vs Japan

Per capita spending on video games: $44 vs $55

Civilian firearms per 100 people 88 vs 0.6

Gun homicides in 2008 11,030 vs 11

Sources: Pricewaterhouse Coopers, Small Arms Survey (PDF), UN Office on Drugs and Crime

Myth #9: More and more Americans are becoming gun owners.

Fact-check: More guns are being sold, but they're owned by a shrinking portion of the population.

About 50% of Americans said they had a gun in their homes in 1973. Today, about 45% say they do. Overall, 35% of Americans personally own a gun.

• Around 80% of gun owners are men. On average they own 7.9 guns each.

Myth #10: We don't need more gun laws—we just need to enforce the ones we have.

Fact-check: Weak laws and loopholes backed by the gun lobby make it easier to get guns illegally.

Around 40% of all legal gun sales involve private sellers and don't require background checks. 40% of prison inmates who used guns in their crimes got them this way.

• An investigation found 62% of online gun sellers were willing to sell to buyers who said they couldn't pass a background check.

20% of licensed California gun dealers agreed to sell handguns to researchers posing as illegal "straw" buyers.

• The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives has not had a permanent directorfor 6 years, due to an NRA-backed requirement that the Senate approve nominees.

This article has been updated.

Icons in gun ownership chart: Handgun designed by Simon Child, rifle designed by Nadav Barkan, shotgun designed by Ammar Ceker, all from the Noun Project

Front page image by konstantynov/Shutterstock

1426

DAVE GILSON

Senior Editor

Dave Gilson is a senior editor at Mother Jones. Read more of his stories, follow him on Twitter, or contact him at dgilson (at) motherjones (dot) com. RSS | TWITTER

Advertise on MotherJones.com

IF YOU LIKED THIS, YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE...

Pasted from <http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/01/pro-gun-myths-fact-check>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

....

 

Tom you are delirious AND disingenuous if you are taking the stance that there is no gun show loophole.

For you to ask me, which you did, to find that law and prove a negative is vaporous

 

You said there is a gun show loophole. That's a positive statement.

 

OK, show me the gun show loophole in any of our laws. That's asking for proof of your positive statement.

 

Why you think your assertion that there is a gun show loophole in our laws is a "negative" assertion is beyond me. It is not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Look, the Heller decision was relatively recent, was 5-4, was supported by "scholarship" which was not peer-reviewed, and was flakey as hell. ...

 

 

There is no better illustration of the abandonment of neutral principles by the Heller majority, and Bob Levy, than their cavalier disregard of what the Supreme Court has termed “the first principle of constitutional interpretation” — that the Constitution must be read to give effect to every word and that interpretations that render portions of its text “mere surplusage” must be avoided. Neither Justice Scalia, nor Bob Levy, can deny that their interpretation renders the first thirteen words of the Amendment of no effect. The Second Amendment would guarantee a right to have guns in the home for self-defense whether those words were included or not.

 

...

One study of all fatal and nonfatal gunshot injuries involving guns kept in the home during a specific time period in Memphis, Seattle, and Galveston showed that for every time such a gun was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting

 

Under the previous misinterpretations of the second amendment, the operative clause was mere surplusage. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" was interpreted to mean the right of the people to keep and bear arms can be infringed at will. These people have no leg to stand on when complaining about rewriting the constitution through the courts.

 

I'd be happy to discuss the "flakiness" of scholarship, if we can agree on a definition.

 

For example, I think "scholarship" that examines only gunshot injuries thereby deliberately excludes many defensive gun uses: those in which no shots were fired and those in which shots were fired but did not hit. Therefore, drawing conclusions about "every time such a gun was used in a self-defense" simply can not be done using such a study, and any study claiming to have done so is flaky.

 

I assume you agree that deliberately excluding a bunch of what you are supposed to be studying is flaky behavior, right?

 

Tom, there are literally SCORES of studies, spread over thirty years, which support the devastation relating to the mere presence of guns. Elsewhere, you have painted ALL studies as "disreputable". Your allegation is silly on it's face, based on the education and peer acceptance of the authors. Please isolate the study parameters you describe: such will be found to be limited and finite in scope, based on the definition of science itself.

 

If you are having a problem about gun research, then speak out on Sailing Anarchy for better studies, to be uninhibited by the gun lobby, and to be accepted by the gun owning community (of which I am a member). Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

JokeAwf, what I'm about to say here is the gawd's honest truth. Our family keeps firearms in our home specifically to protect us from criminals.....and from people just like yourself. 'Cuz quite frankly I'm thoroughly convinced that not only are you cliniically insane, but that you pose a huge threat to both law abiding firearm owners AND to the 2nd Amendment.

 

And I mean that sincerely. You're a freakin nutcase, plain & simple. And now I am completely done with you. Have fun arguing with the voices in your head----just please do so far, far away from me & my family. ....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

om, there are literally SCORES of studies, spread over thirty years, which support the devastation relating to the mere presence of guns. Elsewhere, you have painted ALL studies as "disreputable". Your allegation is silly on it's face, based on the education and peer acceptance of the authors. Please isolate the study parameters you describe: such will be found to be limited and finite in scope, based on the definition of science itself.

 

If you are having a problem about gun research, then speak out on Sailing Anarchy for better studies, to be uninhibited by the gun lobby, and to be accepted by the gun owning community (of which I am a member). Thanks.

Good heavens. Devastation from the mere presence of guns? I'll certainly be more careful from now on.

 

Thanks jocal!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 5 billion in supposed taxes that result from gun owners is bullshit, of course. What is not bullshit is that gun owners pay 500 million in dedicated taxes a year which support forest and wildlife conservation that benefits everyone. If it were not for gun owners we would no longer have white tailed deer or wild turkey among other things. We would also not have vast swaths of publicly owned and protected forest. So for all you non-gun owners out there, your welcome.... Moochers. :)

Where would the deer and turkey have gone without gun owners?

 

Which swaths of publicly owned and protected forest were created or protected solely by the efforts of gun owners?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tom, there are literally SCORES of studies, spread over thirty years, which support the devastation relating to the mere presence of guns. Elsewhere, you have painted ALL studies as "disreputable". Your allegation is silly on it's face, based on the education and peer acceptance of the authors. ...

 

I have never made such a statement. Again, a positive assertion by you, so again I will ask you to prove it. I expect the same results as usual.

 

Peer acceptance? Didn't you say this above:

I was hoping you would bite on Kellerman, a name which you introduced to me. What an interesting story. He did a survey which gathered facts, and said at the time the work was not to present any conclusion, but so the facts could be used by others. His early conclusion (about 43:1 mayhem vs. legit self-defense) was criticized not only by the gun lobby (no big deal), but by his peers (a serious problem).

That was decades ago. He adjusted his numbers, yet we still see that 43:1 figure in the press regularly. It's the lie that won't die. Here's an example:

 

 

According to the American Academy of Pediatrics, a gun in the home is 43 times more likely to be used to kill a friend or family member than a burglar or other criminal.

Good grief. The 1980s ended in the 1980s for crying out loud, but not at ABC "news" I guess. :rolleyes:

 

The 43 times myth.

...

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The 5 billion in supposed taxes that result from gun owners is bullshit, of course. What is not bullshit is that gun owners pay 500 million in dedicated taxes a year which support forest and wildlife conservation that benefits everyone. If it were not for gun owners we would no longer have white tailed deer or wild turkey among other things. We would also not have vast swaths of publicly owned and protected forest. So for all you non-gun owners out there, your welcome.... Moochers. :)

Where would the deer and turkey have gone without gun owners?

 

Which swaths of publicly owned and protected forest were created or protected solely by the efforts of gun owners?

 

White tailed deer and wild turkey were just about wiped out in the beginning of the 20th century. PA in particular was devoid of any white tail or turkey. There were a lot of steps taken to restore the wildlife, including the Pittman-Robertson act which collects an 11% excise tax on guns and ammo which is then granted back to the states to cover 75% of approved projects. Much of the Pennsylvania State Game Lands are supported with the Pittman-Robertson money combined with hunting license fees. Pittman-Robertson taxes run about half a billion a year now, so it is a substantial amount of money spent on conservation efforts. The state lands protected with hunter and gun owner money in PA are bigger than the state of Delaware, where much of that land was completely clear cut during and following the industrial revolution. Today, we have lots of protected land, and through conservation efforts and re-introduction of native species, we have a very healthy deer and turkey population.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And you can also count Arizona in as another state that has done a stellar job at creating, protecting, managing & maintaining zillions of acres of state land for hunters, fishermen, other sportsmen and outdoorsey types----and almost all of it bank-rolled by game licences and specialized taxes on 'sporting goods'.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

....

 

Tom you are delirious AND disingenuous if you are taking the stance that there is no gun show loophole.

For you to ask me, which you did, to find that law and prove a negative is vaporous

 

You said there is a gun show loophole. That's a positive statement.

 

OK, show me the gun show loophole in any of our laws. That's asking for proof of your positive statement.

 

Why you think your assertion that there is a gun show loophole in our laws is a "negative" assertion is beyond me. It is not.

 

Tom Ray semantics and pedantry do not mask the fact or danger of the existent gun show (or internet) loopholes. As mentioned twice before, we had a prisoner released in WA who immediately murdered his grandparents (who had raised him and had just given him a welcome home party). He then sat down at their computer and searched "gun show".

 

However, I'm curious why a bright guy like you wants to engage on this topic. Your elk are vulnerable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So he killed someone, THEN searched gun show loopy-hole?

 

Holy fuk but I rest my case.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And you can also count Arizona in as another state that has done a stellar job at creating, protecting, managing & maintaining zillions of acres of state land for hunters, fishermen, other sportsmen and outdoorsey types----and almost all of it bank-rolled by game licences and specialized taxes on 'sporting goods'.....

 

If you don't give a guy something worthy to shoot at, like an animal, then don't be surprised when people get shot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

The 5 billion in supposed taxes that result from gun owners is bullshit, of course. What is not bullshit is that gun owners pay 500 million in dedicated taxes a year which support forest and wildlife conservation that benefits everyone. If it were not for gun owners we would no longer have white tailed deer or wild turkey among other things. We would also not have vast swaths of publicly owned and protected forest. So for all you non-gun owners out there, your welcome.... Moochers. :)

Where would the deer and turkey have gone without gun owners?

 

Which swaths of publicly owned and protected forest were created or protected solely by the efforts of gun owners?

 

White tailed deer and wild turkey were just about wiped out in the beginning of the 20th century. PA in particular was devoid of any white tail or turkey. There were a lot of steps taken to restore the wildlife, including the Pittman-Robertson act which collects an 11% excise tax on guns and ammo which is then granted back to the states to cover 75% of approved projects. Much of the Pennsylvania State Game Lands are supported with the Pittman-Robertson money combined with hunting license fees. Pittman-Robertson taxes run about half a billion a year now, so it is a substantial amount of money spent on conservation efforts. The state lands protected with hunter and gun owner money in PA are bigger than the state of Delaware, where much of that land was completely clear cut during and following the industrial revolution. Today, we have lots of protected land, and through conservation efforts and re-introduction of native species, we have a very healthy deer and turkey population.

Those are all good things, but I would submit that the biggest contributor to population recovery is not shooting them so much.

 

Your statement "If it were not for gun owners we would no longer have white tailed deer or wild turkey among other things." just rubs me the wrong way. These animals weren't committing suicide, they were hunted to near extinction by gun owners. It's like commending the crew of a U-Boat for picking up sailors from a sinking vessel without pointing out that they sank the thing.

 

I am not disagreeing that state lands are protected in part by hunters, but as with the paragraph above that's not the whole story. It's a partnership of a whole bunch of interested parties, so the chest beating rubs me the wrong way there too. Although I do see that smiley face so perhaps I'm taking things a little too seriously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And you can also count Arizona in as another state that has done a stellar job at creating, protecting, managing & maintaining zillions of acres of state land for hunters, fishermen, other sportsmen and outdoorsey types----and almost all of it bank-rolled by game licences and specialized taxes on 'sporting goods'.....

Most of the AZ lands are state trust lands which are their own bank-roll: http://www.azland.gov/news/ataglance.htm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

The 5 billion in supposed taxes that result from gun owners is bullshit, of course. What is not bullshit is that gun owners pay 500 million in dedicated taxes a year which support forest and wildlife conservation that benefits everyone. If it were not for gun owners we would no longer have white tailed deer or wild turkey among other things. We would also not have vast swaths of publicly owned and protected forest. So for all you non-gun owners out there, your welcome.... Moochers. :)

Where would the deer and turkey have gone without gun owners?

 

Which swaths of publicly owned and protected forest were created or protected solely by the efforts of gun owners?

 

White tailed deer and wild turkey were just about wiped out in the beginning of the 20th century. PA in particular was devoid of any white tail or turkey. There were a lot of steps taken to restore the wildlife, including the Pittman-Robertson act which collects an 11% excise tax on guns and ammo which is then granted back to the states to cover 75% of approved projects. Much of the Pennsylvania State Game Lands are supported with the Pittman-Robertson money combined with hunting license fees. Pittman-Robertson taxes run about half a billion a year now, so it is a substantial amount of money spent on conservation efforts. The state lands protected with hunter and gun owner money in PA are bigger than the state of Delaware, where much of that land was completely clear cut during and following the industrial revolution. Today, we have lots of protected land, and through conservation efforts and re-introduction of native species, we have a very healthy deer and turkey population.

Those are all good things, but I would submit that the biggest contributor to population recovery is not shooting them so much.

 

Your statement "If it were not for gun owners we would no longer have white tailed deer or wild turkey among other things." just rubs me the wrong way. These animals weren't committing suicide, they were hunted to near extinction by gun owners. It's like commending the crew of a U-Boat for picking up sailors from a sinking vessel without pointing out that they sank the thing.

 

I am not disagreeing that state lands are protected in part by hunters, but as with the paragraph above that's not the whole story. It's a partnership of a whole bunch of interested parties, so the chest beating rubs me the wrong way there too. Although I do see that smiley face so perhaps I'm taking things a little too seriously.

 

You are correct, of course. I added a little smiley face to try and denote that I was trying to poke fun because of some of the crazier statements made by Jocal. Unrestricted hunting did cause tremendous harm, we still don't have a healthy buffalo population, and elk are still very rare here and only in the western part of the state. From what I understand, habitat loss was at least as responsible as the unrestricted hunting. I don't disagree that there are a number of factors that helped to bring back these populations, and do not at all make the claim that hunters of old played a large part in creating the problem. Still, more than half a billion a year now goes towards making things better, and it is true that the money and efforts benefit everyone, including those who do not own guns or hunt. I really wish that some of the environmental and conservation groups from the left could see how much their interests align with hunting and fishing groups and vice versa, and that a coordinated effort between them could do some real good. Some of the hunters I have met in the past year are the biggest tree huggers I know (literally, they spend a lot of time in trees), they just don't realize that is what they are. Would be nice if we could lose the labels for a little bit just to see how much we agree on so we can all actually get some positive things done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

JokeAwf, what I'm about to say here is the gawd's honest truth. Our family keeps firearms in our home specifically to protect us from criminals.....and from people just like yourself. 'Cuz quite frankly I'm thoroughly convinced that not only are you cliniically insane, but that you pose a huge threat to both law abiding firearm owners AND to the 2nd Amendment.

 

And I mean that sincerely. You're a freakin nutcase, plain & simple. And now I am completely done with you. Have fun arguing with the voices in your head----just please do so far, far away from me & my family. ....

 

This is the fifteenth time you have made such a claim. Big deal.

 

Do you mind if I send your recent post describing a dead perp as "second degree litter" to your Federal Firearms License background checker?

Disturbing.

 

 

In a kind way, let me explain my concern, and tenacity. I was a childhood gun-nut. My father, a hog rancher and Tarawa vet, began by stressing that reserve and discretion were a huge part of packing. He was adamant that a responsible shooter, as an absolute basic, took responsibility for where each bullet landed.

 

But I have noted a serious deterioration in the US gun culture. It has led to such as this:

http://raniakhalek.com/2013/10/10/south-carolina-grants-stand-your-ground-immunity-to-white-man-who-killed-unarmed-black-teen/

1. A guy who not only misses the automobile he meant to shoot at, but hit an individual who was evidently trying to help his daughter.

2.He lied about other shots being fired first.

3. He failed to come forward as the shooter, though a dead teen was found in front of his house.

4. Yet he was exonerated by the state of South Carolina under SYG-based law. The state's Supreme Court got an appeal.

 

Rick, sorry if my Cape Fear poster art alarmed you (again). But I have every reason for concern, both as a US citizen and as a gun owner.

 

I have four sisters, a wife, and a single daughter living in NYC who never even reflect on guns.

So, El Mariachi, go away now, and hunker in your bunker.

 

 

(exerpts)

SC Grants ‘Stand Your Ground’ Immunity To Man Who Shot At Teen Girls And Killed A Black Bystander

by Rania Khalek on October 10, 2013

That the victim was an innocent bystander rather than one of the alleged “aggressors” sets a new precedent for the application of Stand Your Ground, which can now shield people who are bad shots and accidentally shoot a bystander, from prosecution.

It is unreasonable to expect that Scott is required “to go back into his house, in his castle … and hope that the cavalry (police) are going to come … . All that matters is that Mr. Scott felt his life was in jeopardy. We know that because everyone there felt their lives were in jeopardy,” Rutherford said.

The State reports “Rutherford presented witnesses who said someone fired a shot at Scott before he fired.” However, police say that based on the statements they took from witnesses on the scene the night of the shooting, it was Scott who fired first and it’s unclear whether anyone even fired back at Scott.

On top of that, Scott did not give police his name that night and failed to tell them he had fired his gun. It wasn’t until four days after he killed Niles that Scott turned himself in.

The problem with a law like Stand Your Ground is that it excuses and encourages deadly force against “perceived” threats.

• Greg Isaac, charged with murder in the 2005 shooting death of Antonio Corbitt after breaking into Corbitt’s apartment at 3200 Fernandina Road. Isaac said he was threatened by his fellow burglar with death if he didn’t go along with the crime. And he said Corbitt was attacking him.

According to the S.C. Supreme Court’s clerk’s office, nine of the 23 criminal cases now before the Supreme Court involve appeals from Stand Your Ground hearings.

It's the guns, stupid. Tom Diaz

 

 

Ten RECENT days in the life of the gun-saturated USA

 

5-year-old Texas boy accidentally kills himself with napping babysitter's gun

NBC station KBMT of Beaumont reported

 

 

Barking might have sparked slayings, neighbors and shooter's father killed

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/29/michael-guzzo-dogs-moore-family-shot-killed_n_4173727.html?ir=Crime

 

Five dead (including mother, aunt, and spouse) after shooting rampage in Terrell, North Texas

Pasted from <http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/Terrell-Killing-Spree-Suspect-Caught-on-Video-in-Middle-of-Rampage-229798341.html>

 

Girlfriend killed by teen's waistband gun during hug

http://www.examiner.com/article/girlfriend-killed-by-teen-s-waistband-gun-during-hug

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/02/man-shoots-off-gun-pants-kills-girlfriend_n_4030640.html

 

Nashville: Six people found shot to death in Carolina home

Pasted from <http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/10/30/21244115-suspect-in-sc-murder-suicide-released-4-kids-before-bloodbath-cops-say?lite>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr Booth recently posted a pic of his arsenal. About 25 various (and crappy) pistols and rifles. His gun ownership is not primarily related to his imagined need for self defense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr Booth recently posted a pic of his arsenal. About 25 various (and crappy) pistols and rifles. His gun ownership is not primarily related to his imagined need for self defense.

 

I assume that even if the guns are "crappy" as alleged they would still be capable of killing folks. If a gun has actually killed a person does it increase it's value to collectors? The gun that Cheney use to shoot his hunting buddy must be worth a lot. How many people has Booth's guns killed do you suppose? Do guns come with a certificate of authenticity for having killed a person?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Boothy spends most of his time eating tacos and doing blow I don't think he can shoot straight enough to kill someone.

 

I didn't mean to imply that he actually shot anyone. I was thinking he bought the guns from a collector who knew who the gun had shot. Like if the gun that shot Trayvon Martin were to go on sale on Ebay I'm sure it would get some serious bidding.

 

So BG you have something against tacos and blow?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I was 27-30 I did lots of blow. But I got in to bike racing and the two are incompatible. I don't really like tacos. It's peasant food and not very good at that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest One of Five

When I was 27-30 I did lots of blow. But I got in to bike racing and the two are incompatible. I don't really like tacos. It's peasant food and not very good at that.

 

and you're saying this on an international website with the additional attestation that you bought a Glock - you really are stupid aren't you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

When I was 27-30 I did lots of blow. But I got in to bike racing and the two are incompatible. I don't really like tacos. It's peasant food and not very good at that.

 

and you're saying this on an international website with the additional attestation that you bought a Glock - you really are stupid aren't you?

The fact that he got into bike racing is a clue but add that he doesn't like tacos and it's a dead give away. I looked up his home address with Google already.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Smell of Loopholes in the Morning: it's Tom Ray

 

UN Davis Study,

author is Garen Wintemute, M.D., Professor of Emergency Room Practices

(the study attended 78 gun shows in 19 states)

 

 

 

"Inside Gun Shows: What Goes on When Everybody Thinks Nobody’s Watching,"

 

From Chapter 1

 

At lunchtime on April 20, 199, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold shot and killed 12 fellow students and a teacher at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado, and wounded 23 others. After exchanging fire with the police, they shot themselves.

 

All four guns used in the massacre were purchased at local gun shows, but none of them by Harris and Klebold. (19) Three guns--two Savage shotguns and a Hi-Point 9mm carbine--were bought for them by an 18-year-old (female) friend, Robyn Anderson, at a Tanner Gun Show near Denver the precious December. "While we were walking around [the gun show] she would later testify, "Eric and Dylan kept asking sellers if they were private or licensed. They wanted to buy their guns from someone who was private--and not licensed--because there would be no paperwork or background check." (20) Anderson stressed that "all I had to do was show my driver's license to prove I was 18. I would not have bought a gun for Eric and Dylan if I had had to give any personal information or submit to any kind of check at all." (21)

 

Just the day before, in fact, Harris and Klebold had tried to buy guns themselves at the show. These boys were 17 years old at the time. No one who would sell to them, but they were told that they could buy the guns if they brought someone with them who was at least 18 years old. Anderson believed it should have been obvious that she was buying the guns for Harris and Klebold; though she was making the payment, "they were handling the guns and asking the questions." (22)

 

The fourth gun, a semiautomatic TEC-DC( assault piston, was bought at a Tanner Gun Show in August 1998 by Mark Manes--again from a private party, not a licensed retailer--and sole to Haqrris and `Klebold the following January. [19] Because the TEC-DC9 is a handgun, Manes was charged with providing a firearm to a minor (they were 17 when they bought the gun).

 

Anderson's rifle and shotgun purchases broke no federal or state laws, and she was not charged with any crime. J.D. Tanner, promoter of the shows, had this to say about her gun purchases:

 

"All I can say is apparently in was all done legally. That makes me have a good feeling."[23]

 

The first Tanner Gun Show held after the massacre took place the weekend of June 5 and 6; Tanner had canceled a show scheduled for the weekend after the shootings. On June 6, Corey Tucker, age 18, and David Winkler, age 17, used $600 in cash provided by the Colorado Coalition Against Gun Violence to buy a TEC-9 pistol similar to the gun used by Harris and Klebold. They believed they were buying from a private party--there was apparently no evidence to the contrary--and their intent was to demonstrate how easily this could be done. "He didn't ask me my name or age," Tucker said at a new conference the following week, and there was no identification check. {24}

 

But the seller had been interviewed at the show on June 5 by Denver Post reporter David Olinger, who was writing a story on the resumption of the Tanner shows. He was Terry Kern, a licensed gun retailer and gun store owner. When Olinger contacted him following Tucker and Winkler's news conference, Kern confirmed that he had sold the gun. But when told that his failure to document the sale or perform any identification check had become public knowledge, "Kern changed his account. The sale 'didn't have anything to do with me,' he said."[24]

The sale was investigated by the bureau of ATF and determined to have been illegal. Kern surrendered his firearms license.

 

Promoter J.D. Tanner himself [edit. though repeatedly acting as a professional promoter within the gun industry] sells guns at Tanner Gun Shows as an unlicensed vendor. A year after the massacre in Littleton, the prospective buyer of a handgun asked him, "You have to do a background check on thus?" "No,", he replied, "there 's no law says I have to."[26]

 

********************

Staff at NICS perform a background check on you, comparing your information to the records in a centralized archive of criminal histories and other databases to verify your eligibility to purchase firearms. In over 90% of cases this background check is completed within minutes [36], but if important information is missing you may have to wait up to three business days to get your gun. (In 17 states, the background check can be waived for holders to carry concealed weapons.)

 

The retailer must keep a permanent record of your purchase. If you buy more than one handgun from him within five business days, the retailer must file a special report with ATF. (This requirement does not apply to purchases of rifles or shotguns.)

 

 

These procedural safeguards are intended to ensure that you are who you say you are, that you and not someone else will

be the actual owner of the gun, and that you are not prohibited from owning it. They also establish a paper trail that will help

law enforcement authorities link the gun to you if it is used in a crime later.

 

 

 

Any clear understanding of what "engaged in the business" might mean was abolished by the 1986 Firearms Owners Protection Act (FOPA).

 

It specifically excluded from its definition of engagement in the business a person who makes “occasional sales, exchanges, or purchases of firearms for the enhancement of a personal collection or for a hobby, or who sells all or part of his

personal collection of firearms.”28, 38 The practical result was to make it much more difficult to set an upper limit to the frequency of buying and selling guns that did not require a license and compliance with the procedural safeguards described above. Today, private parties sometimes sell large numbers of new and used firearms while claiming hobbyist status and exemption from the requirements imposed on licensed retailers. [28] ATF put it this way in an important study of gun shows in 1999: "

 

State Policy

In 33 states, statutes regulating gun sales do not go beyond the ambiguous standards set by Congress. Bur 17 states regulate at least some sales by unlicensed private parties (Table 1-1). Some require that these transactions be routed through a licensed retailer; such transactions are subject to the same procedural safeguards that applyu to the licensed retailer's own sales.

Other states require that purchasers obtain a permit or undergo a background check through a law enforcement agency. [40] Of these 17 states, six regulate all private party gun sales and nine more regulate all private party sales of handguns. Two states, Colorado and Oregon, regulate all private party sales at gun shows only.

 

In the remaining 33 states, private party gun sales are not regulated.

 

http://www.ucdmc.ucdavis.edu/vprp/pdf/IGS/IGS1web.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was wondering if you would post an actual loophole applicable only to gun shows, and you did it!

Two states, Colorado and Oregon, regulate all private party sales at gun shows only.


Yes, that's right, to the extent gun shows are singled out for their own special loophole at all in any of our laws, they are singled out for greater regulatory scrutiny than other private sales in two states.

Is it really a "loophole" if the special carve-out in the law is more strict, not less? I'd say the only gun show-specific provision in our laws is more of an anti-loophole, but congratulations on finding it anyway.

When are we going to start talking about the scary Family Loophole? 40% is a lot more than 0.8%, you know...


Sources of Criminals' Guns

crime-gun-sources.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Are guns a good thing or a bad thing?

 

Guns are good. They level the playing field for weak men with small brains.

 

Ding ding ding!

 

50CalsatWalMartperJeffie_zps045feaaf.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So he killed someone, THEN searched gun show loopy-hole?

 

Holy fuk but I rest my case.....

 

Yes, Rick. I'll spell it out for you.

He used a knife for the killings, because he didn't have his precious yet.

But his weapon of choice was a gun, eh?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

So he killed someone, THEN searched gun show loopy-hole?

 

Holy fuk but I rest my case.....

 

Yes, Rick. I'll spell it out for you.

He used a knife for the killings, because he didn't have his precious yet.

But his weapon of choice was a gun, eh?

 

The stretch you're making would do Gumby proud.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

So he killed someone, THEN searched gun show loopy-hole?

 

Holy fuk but I rest my case.....

 

Yes, Rick. I'll spell it out for you.

He used a knife for the killings, because he didn't have his precious yet.

But his weapon of choice was a gun, eh?

 

The stretch you're making would do Gumby proud.

 

Please explain that, Guy. You are much sharper than that statement.

I'll lay it out for YOU.

A bloody knife murderer, with two bodies nearby, wants a gun, after his murder-by-knife.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

So he killed someone, THEN searched gun show loopy-hole?

 

Holy fuk but I rest my case.....

 

Yes, Rick. I'll spell it out for you.

He used a knife for the killings, because he didn't have his precious yet.

But his weapon of choice was a gun, eh?

 

The stretch you're making would do Gumby proud.

 

Please explain that, Guy. You are much sharper than that statement.

I'll lay it out for YOU.

A bloody knife murderer, with two bodies nearby, wants a gun, after his murder-by-knife.

 

I think you just explained it for all of us, unless you are suggesting time travel is possible, in which case, I want to jump back 28 years for another shot with the twins in HS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

So he killed someone, THEN searched gun show loopy-hole?

 

Holy fuk but I rest my case.....

 

Yes, Rick. I'll spell it out for you.

He used a knife for the killings, because he didn't have his precious yet.

But his weapon of choice was a gun, eh?

 

The stretch you're making would do Gumby proud.

 

Please explain that, Guy. You are much sharper than that statement.

I'll lay it out for YOU.

A bloody knife murderer, with two bodies nearby, wants a gun, after his murder-by-knife.

 

The stretch is that you somehow want to construe that the implement is responsible for the deviant's behavior, even when the implement was merely desired, and not even deployed in the deviant's reprehensible activities. Trying to tie an internet search for gun shows to a non-existent "gun show loophole" pulls that stretch even further. There is no gun-show loophole. I, as a private individual, can sell any gun I want to anyone I want without running a background check, and can do so in the Food Lion parking lot, at the police station, in my driveway, in front of your house, even. The sales venue has diddly-squat to do with anything. If I was a registered FFL - I couldn't sell anything to anyone w/out doing the background check. I'm actually OK w/the idea of background checks for private sales, as long as the record of that transaction isn't used to create an ownership registry.

 

Prohibitions for every behavior that you wish to curtail are already in place, how will more make a difference? Do you really think that the statutes that are already on the books facilitate violent behavior? When options that might actually contribute to a reduction in the instances of violence are proposed, you discount them. Why? I personally suspect that your real goal isn't to really make anything better, it's just to make yourself happy that evil killing machines aren't available to the masses.

 

Don't be disingenuous - if your goal is to eradicate guns, say so, say why - and quit hiding behind the facade of higher motives. If your goal really IS to make things better for everyone - then let's get down to the root causes that are predicating the behaviors that we wish to see curtailed. The root causes AREN'T the existence of firearms, the root causes AREN'T the availability of military-looking "high capacity" weapons, the root causes are the combination of things that have reduced our collective feeling of responsibility for ourselves and to our neighbors out of existence, having been replaced with an entitlement mentality and a feeling that if I don't have what I'm entitled to, that it's because someone else acted intentionally to keep me from having that to which I'm entitled. You want to fix something - THAT, sir - is what we need to fix.

 

Your preoccupation with prohibition has already been tried, and it doesn't work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was wondering if you would post an actual loophole applicable only to gun shows, and you did it!

 

Two states, Colorado and Oregon, regulate all private party sales at gun shows only.

 

Yes, that's right, to the extent gun shows are singled out for their own special loophole at all in any of our laws, they are singled out for greater regulatory scrutiny than other private sales in two states.

 

Is it really a "loophole" if the special carve-out in the law is more strict, not less? I'd say the only gun show-specific provision in our laws is more of an anti-loophole, but congratulations on finding it anyway.

 

When are we going to start talking about the scary Family Loophole? 40% is a lot more than 0.8%, you know...

 

 

Sources of Criminals' Guns

 

 

 

Yeah, right, poor slimeball gun hawkers at gun shows are selling to other slimeballs, and are being bullied by jocal505.

Yes, Tom, the gunshow private sales tie into other private sales. To discuss one leads to a discussion of the other.

 

While the gunshow source seems low, around 2% to 4% going by others' work, it's still part of a big problem related to the larger question of private sales. And one not worth defending IMO. The agents of gun sensibility have moved past just focusing on "gunshow loopholes" (more about that below) but let's rumble anyway.

 

UC Davis report exposes loopholes in gun-control laws

Gun shows and the lack of uniform gun-control laws provide easy access to guns that can be used for criminal purposes, according to a new report from the UC Davis Violence Prevention Research Program.

"Inside Gun Shows: What Goes on When Everybody Thinks Nobody’s Watching,"

This comprehensive, 300-page report provides a “you are there” exposure to the issue based on direct observations made at 78 gun shows in 19 states, most of them between 2005 and 2008.

The report features hundreds of photographs and some video that show:

  • illegal straw purchases, whereby a surrogate buys from a licensed retailer on behalf of another
  • anonymous, undocumented private-party gun sales
  • widespread availability of assault weapons, .50-caliber rifles and the parts needed to make untraceable guns
  • links between gun shows and the neo-Confederacy movement and neo-Nazism

Illegal transactions

“Illegal transactions were often conducted entirely out in the open,” said Garen Wintemute, professor of emergency medicine at UC Davis School of Medicine and a leading researcher on firearm violence who authored the report. “The sense of impunity among sellers and purchasers in these cases was remarkable.”

While enforcement programs and regulatory policies are in effect in some states, Wintemute says more needs to be done to prevent both unregulated gun sales and illegal gun sales at gun shows and elsewhere.

Executive summary. Click here for more photographs, videos and report.

“Law enforcement needs to have an expanded, proactive program at gun shows to prevent the illegal sale of guns,” said Wintemute. “We also need to update existing laws so that all private-party gun sales, not just those at gun shows, are subject to the same safeguards now in place for gun purchases from licensed dealers.”

Current laws

Current laws require licensed retailers to see a buyer’s identification and require buyers to complete a lengthy Firearms Transaction Record, which certifies that buyers are purchasing a gun for themselves and that they are not prohibited from owning a gun. Licensed retailers also must submit this information for a background check and keep a record of the purchase. Unlicensed vendors or individual attendees at gun shows, however, are not required to follow these same federal safeguards.

The UC Davis Violence Prevention Research Program

The Violence Prevention Research Program is a multidisciplinary effort researching the causes and prevention of serious violence with an emphasis on firearm violence. Copies of the report and more information are available at www.ucdmc.ucdavis.edu/vprp.

“Undocumented private party gun sale transactions account for as many as 40 percent of all gun sales,” said Wintemute. “They are quick and convenient, and their anonymity attracts those who put privacy at a premium. These same attributes make private-party gun sales a principal option for a felon or other prohibited person.”

Gun shows are a leading source of guns used in criminal violence in Northern California, the United States, Mexico and Canada. Legislation to regulate gun shows has been introduced in Congress, and stepped-up enforcement operations are under way. Nonetheless, it has been suggested that efforts to prevent gun violence should focus elsewhere.

This research was funded with a grant from the Eli and Edythe L. Broad Foundation, the Joyce Foundation and the California Wellness Foundation.

Copies may be downloaded and related video may be viewed at http://www.ucdmc.ucdavis.edu/vprp.

Pasted from <http://www.ucdmc.ucdavis.edu/welcome/features/20090923_gun_study/index.html>

 

Tom, even though you may belittle the figures, even at say 3% of criminal supply, a gun show loophole exists on a federal level.

The ATF is in agreement with me, and having had it's budget hamstrung by the gun lobby, presently monitors only 5% of gun shows, and they do that in a retro-active manner. Not ideal.

 

“It may be starting to be time for me to draw an analogy between gun shows and museums,” he said. “Today is the day we stop talking about closing the gun-show loophole as the solution to regulating private-party sales.”

The statement might seem jarring at first. Gun shows frequently attract the attention of gun-control advocates because in most states attendees can buy firearms without criminal-history-background checks. It’s part of an exception in federal law that allows private transactions to avoid the stringent requirements applied to licensed dealers. Even this year, some state legislators and a U.S. senator have targeted gun shows in proposed laws.

But in the context of gun-related crimes, Wintemute argues that policymakers shouldn’t focus on gun shows anymore. Not in the era of ARMSLIST.com, a Craigslist-like marketplace for online firearm sales.

In a 2009 report published by the Violence Prevention Research Program at the University of California, Davis, Wintemute said that it’s difficult to know if a crime gun originated at a gun show. Past investigations by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives have found that some people who would have failed a criminal background check bought guns from a private seller. However, the best available evidence suggests that gun shows represent a narrow sliver of overall gun commerce.

Between 4 percent and 9 percent of all gun acquisitions occur at gun shows, according to the Police Foundation’s 1996 National Survey on Private Ownership of Firearms and 2004 National Firearms Survey. Assuming that 40 percent of all gun sales come from private party transactions and unlicensed dealers are responsible for about one-third of all gun-show sales, Wintemute estimated that guns sold at gun shows represent between 3.3 percent and 7.5 percent of all private gun sales.

Firearms purchased at gun shows rarely get used in crimes, according to a fact sheet on gun shows prepared by the National Shooting Sports Foundation, a trade association for the licensed firearms and ammunition industry. The foundation’s proof is a 2001 study from the U.S. Department of Justice concluded that less than 2 percent of state and prison inmates surveyed bought their gun from a gun show or flea market.

Ladd Everitt, a spokesman for the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, said he thought the gun-show loophole used to be a bigger topic for discussion because the Columbine shooters in 1999 acquired weapons at a gun show.

In Colorado, a grassroots movement against the loophole resulted in a voter-approved initiative in 2000 requiring background checks for all gun show sales. This year Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper is pushing for background checks for all gun sales.

Many advocates of stricter gun laws seem to be dropping the “gun-show loophole” as a talking point this year.

“I think it’s safe to say that it’s always been a much larger problem than just gun shows,” said Lindsay Nichols, a staff attorney with the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence.

Gun shows have served as popular targets for new proposals because they provide a focal point, she said. Her group, however, advises lawmakers to think bigger.

“We prefer the term the ‘universal-background checks.’ It’s really about requiring universally background checks for all gun sales,” she said.

Proposals by governors or state lawmakers in Maryland, Delaware, Virginia, Colorado,Connecticut and Missouri would require background checks for anyone trying to purchase a firearm, as did New York’s new gun law. President Barack Obama has asked Congress to pass a federal law with the same requirement.

“The era of talking about the gun-show loophole has been closed,” Everitt said. “(But) the conversation hasn’t diminished. It has expanded. We’ve gone beyond where we were in Columbine.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Gun shows are a leading source of guns used in criminal violence in Northern California, the United States, Mexico and Canada.

Tom, even though you may belittle the figures, even at say 3% of criminal supply, a gun show loophole exists on a federal level....

 

 

1. The quoted excerpt is obvious bullshit. Gun shows are not a leading source of criminals' guns anywhere, especially not Mexico, where most US guns come from US government programs, not retail dealers or individuals, as previously shown.

 

2. Why use some anti-gun researcher's unbelievably high estimate when one is available from the FBI? Can't we at least agree to use the FBI number of 0.8% of crime guns coming from shows?

 

3. All federal laws are available online. Link to the gun show loophole you say exists.

 

When you stop making that silly assertion, we can move on to the Family Loophole.

 

 

 

Sources of Criminals' Guns

 

crime-gun-sources.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

So he killed someone, THEN searched gun show loopy-hole?

 

Holy fuk but I rest my case.....

 

Yes, Rick. I'll spell it out for you.

He used a knife for the killings, because he didn't have his precious yet.

But his weapon of choice was a gun, eh?

 

The stretch you're making would do Gumby proud.

 

Please explain that, Guy. You are much sharper than that statement.

I'll lay it out for YOU.

A bloody knife murderer, with two bodies nearby, wants a gun, after his murder-by-knife.

 

The stretch is that you somehow want to construe that the implement is responsible for the deviant's behavior, even when the implement was merely desired, and not even deployed in the deviant's reprehensible activities. Not deployed at that moment, only because he had been out of the slam about twelve hours. GUNS DO NOT DECREASE MAYHEM with his elk. Trying to tie an internet search for gun shows to a non-existent "gun show loophole" Whoah there! Ahem, Guy. WTF? pulls that stretch even further. There is no gun-show loophole. I, as a private individual, can sell any gun I want to anyone I want without running a background check, and can do so in the Food Lion parking lot, at the police station, in my driveway, in front of your house, even. The sales venue has diddly-squat to do with anything. If I was a registered FFL - I couldn't sell anything to anyone w/out doing the background check. I'm actually OK w/the idea of background checks for private sales, as long as the record of that transaction isn't used to create an ownership registry. Dr. Wintemute agrees, and has such a plan

 

Prohibitions for every behavior that you wish to curtail are already in place, how will more make a difference? It may be time to try LOTS of cures, from lots of angles. California may be a model. approach, and have stats to prove it Do you really think that the statutes that are already on the books facilitate violent behavior? When options that might actually contribute to a reduction in the instances of violence are proposed, you discount them. Why? I personally suspect that your real goal isn't to really make anything better, it's just to make yourself happy that evil killing machines aren't available to the masses.

 

Don't be disingenuous - if your goal is to eradicate guns, say so, say why - and quit hiding behind the facade of higher motives. If your goal really IS to make things better for everyone - then let's get down to the root causes that are predicating the behaviors that we wish to see curtailed. The root causes AREN'T the existence of firearms, the root causes AREN'T the availability of military-looking "high capacity" weapons, I don't care for the look. and such a look brings out the inner paramilitary creepiness (vis a vis their marketing), but the significantly increased power of their ammo is their actual problem: a further danger presented by guns in society .the root causes are the combination of things including the number of guns; no rectification in sight, thanks to gun lobby legislation. that have reduced our collective feeling of responsibility for ourselves and to our neighbors out of existence Guy, U.S. studies are not, out of whack in that regard; just our gun numbers, resulting in 19.5X the tradjedies..having been replaced with an entitlement mentality and a feeling that if I don't have what I'm entitled to, that it's because someone else acted intentionally to keep me from having that to which I'm entitled. You want to fix something - THAT, sir - is what we need to fix.

 

Your preoccupation with prohibition has already been tried, and it doesn't work. I have an interesting state study of a felonious possession crackdown which seems to disprove that statement. Am looking for it, Guy.

 

Your singular, anti-prohibition jocal attachment aside, meanwhile I shall speak up to discredit gun worship in general.

 

Such altruism as yours is under-rated. Go get 'em , Guy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear Tom / Yo Guy:

 

P365

Closing the "Gun Show Loophole"

The most frequently discussed policy initiative directed at gun shows themselves is to require that all private party sales at these events be routed through licensed retailers to that back-ground checks are conducted and records are kept. This has come to be known as closing the 'gun show loophole'. Presidential candidates Barack Obama and John McCain both called for such a measure during their 2008 campaigns, as did candidate George W. Bush in 2000 and 2004. [15,16] McCain was willing to declare that a 'background check at guns shows is a reasonable requirement" in hjis address to the NRA's annual convention.[17]

Opponents of regulation like to point out that there is no such thing as a gun show loophole. They are correct, in the limited sense that federal law does not exempt private party sales at gun shows from oversight that is present elsewhere. The 'loophole" is everywhere. But this is a specious argument, designed to sow confusion and distract attention from the real problems created by private party gun sales.

The key point is that these problems are not limited to gun shows. Private party gun sales occur at flea markets and swap meets, through classified ads in newspapers and publications for gun enthusiasts, in homes, on the street, and over the Internet. Gun sites such as Gunsamerica.com and Gunbroker.com contain thousands of online classifieds,m and any non-prohibited person can list guns for sale.

<http://www.ucdmc.ucdavis.edu/welcome/features/20090923_gun_study/index.html>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Dear Tom / Yo Guy:

...

Opponents of regulation like to point out that there is no such thing as a gun show loophole. They are correct...

 

Thanks! About time!

 

Now, can we talk about the family loophole?

 

Did you know that I can go grab one of my wife's guns right now with absolutely NO background check? It can be in my care, custody, and control! I can even take it out in the yard and shoot it!

 

It's the Family Loophole, and it's responsible for over a third of criminals' guns. Why you want to name it after one of the most insignificant sources of criminals' guns is beyond me. Name it after the real threat: families!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My reasonable proposal? Retrofit all guns with biometric keys unique to each gun nutter.

 

 

What guns? I only have a couple and I'm pretty sure my wife has none.

 

Armed robber sticks gun into gun nutter's car, gets shot

 

Gun nutters return home and are attacked by intruders, one of whom was shot and killed, while the other escaped.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...

 

There is an epidemic of gun violence in the US. To put it in perspective, England reports 75 gun murders per year. England’s culture is similar to ours—they hunt, collect guns, value marksmanship; they have gangs, drugs and poverty. Our population is 5 times England’s, 300 million vs. 60 million.

If we had England’s gun laws, which are based on public safety, we could expect 5 times their gun homicides or 375 gun homicides per year. We have 12,000: over 300 times more.

http://gunvictimsaction.org/about-2/overview-of-gun-problem/#goal

 

 

UK visits US gun passion

 

 

Not long ago, I was approached by a man and woman from the UK who wanted some training and the chance to shoot guns. They were in the United States on vacation and one of the items on their vacation list was to find a certified instructor and have the once in a lifetime chance to “experience what it’s like to be American for a few hours with the legal right to shoot rifles and guns.”

 

They told me that in the UK, they could not own guns...

 

 

SIDE NOTE: JUST FOR THE RECORD: Regardless of what this UK citizen claims, here are some truths about what has happened there as since the gun ban.

 

1) Despite the very strict ban on guns in the UK, the overall rate of violent crime in the UK is about 4 times higher than it is in the United States. In one recent year, there were 2,034 violent crimes per 100,000 people in the UK. In the United States, there were only 466 violent crimes per 100,000 people during that same year. Do we really want to be more like the UK?

 

2) The UK has approximately 125 percent more rape victims per 100,000 people each year than the United States does.

 

3) The UK has approximately 133 percent more assault victims per 100,000 people each year than the United States does.

 

4) The UK has the fourth highest burglary rate in the EU.

 

5) The UK has the second highest overall crime rate in the EU.

 

6) The nine European nations with the lowest rate of gun ownership rate have a combined murder rate that is three times greater than the nine European nation with the highest rate of gun ownership.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

My reasonable proposal? Retrofit all guns with biometric keys unique to each gun nutter.

 

 

What guns? I only have a couple and I'm pretty sure my wife has none.

 

Armed robber sticks gun into gun nutter's car, gets shot

 

Gun nutters return home and are attacked by intruders, one of whom was shot and killed, while the other escaped.

Excellent, what ever gun(s) you use should not be able to be fired by anyone else unless rekeyed by proper authorities with bill of sale and background check

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do ^you^ EVER fuking get tired of being.....well, just being you ?....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This sounds like Jeffie at his best, does it not? And as far as it goes, I understand such thought.

 

“It is more important that innocence be protected than it is that guilt be punished, for guilt and crimes are so frequent in this world that they cannot all be punished. But if innocence itself is brought to the bar and condemned, perhaps to die, then the citizen will say, "whether I do good or whether I do evil is immaterial, for innocence itself is no protection," and if such an idea as that were to take hold in the mind of the citizen that would be the end of security whatsoever.”

- John Adams

 

But here's some historical context, showing where Jeff and others take the quality of Mr. Adams' statement.

 

 

Chapter One of Unintended Consequences

 

Selling A Lie

Pro-Handgun Experts Prove That Handguns Are a Dangerous Choice for Self-Defense

 

According to gun makers and the gun lobby, packing heat for self-defense has always been as American as apple pie. In their version of history, "responsible" gun owners from the beginning of the American experience have relied on a revolver in the nightstand and a pistol in the jacket pocket to make their families safe.

 

Neither the historical record nor contemporary real-world facts support this myth. It is an invention, a cynical artifact of gun industry advertising and gun lobby propaganda designed to sell handguns. It has cost millions of lives and inflicted tens of millions of needless injuries.

 

From Colonial America to Frontier Gun Control

Early America was vastly different from the handgun-happy images one sees on television, in movies, and in the pages of gun magazines. Serious historians have documented that early Americans had little interest in guns. Until the mid-1800s, owning a gun was surprisingly uncommon. Those who owned firearms almost always owned long guns.

 

Historian Michael Bellesiles, for example, examined more than a thousand probate records from northern New England and Pennsylvania filed from 1765 to 1790. He found that only 14 percent of household inventories included firearms, and more than half of these were inoperable.22 Colonial settlers got meat mostly from domesticated animals like cows and pigs. When they wanted wild game, they bought it from native Americans or professional hunters, most of whom trapped their prey.23 Prior to 1850, at most only a tenth of the nation's population individually owned guns of any kind.24

 

Colt Introduces Handgun Hype.

In 1835 the situation began to change for the worse. That year Samuel Colt patented the first of his famous revolvers. Historian Bellesiles notes that Colt's revolver was basically useless for either hunting or militia service, intended only for personal use in violent situations:

Unable to discover a large demand for such weaponry, Colt tried to create one through the cleverest advertising yet seen in America. He engraved his guns with heroic scenes....He filled eastern newspapers with advertisements identifying his revolver with the romance of the West, commissioning Currier & Ives to craft beautiful portraits of Colt hunting buffalo with a revolver.25

These fictional scenes marked the first of several waves of equally clever gun-industry marketing efforts intended to sell handguns as useful tools for self-defense.

 

Frontier Violence and the Rise of Gun Control.

Colt's successful introduction of the mass-marketed handgun signaled a shift in the means by which Americans killed one another. Guns replaced beating, drowning, poisoning, and strangling as the favored way to kill another human being.26 Besides increased lethality, modern handguns put physical and psychological distance between killer and victim.

 

After the Civil War, handguns enjoyed increased popularity in the western United States, resulting in an acceleration of gun violence. Historian David Courtwright observes, "In the most expansive and violent years of the range cattle industry, the late 1860s and 1870s, many cowboys were combat veterans and almost all carried firearms,"27 usually military-issue 44 and 45 caliber revolvers. Their arrival in town set off end-of-trail binges of drunkenness and firepower.

 

If this Western violence is familiar, the story of how it was brought under control is surprisingly unfamiliar. The local governments of cattle towns identified the problem and moved to solve it. They banned handguns. Handgun carrying was outlawed in most cattle towns by the early 1870s, with cowboys expected to "check" their guns upon arrival. Weapons were exchanged for metal tokens at the city gates or were left at a local livery stable.28 Ranchers and cattlemen derided the "pernicious and useless habit" of handgun carrying and advised their men to "give up your pistol...."29

 

Modern Marketing

Since the end of the Second World War the gun industry has spawned two more noteworthy epidemics of handgun self-defense fever.

 

The 1960s Rights, Riots, and Revolvers. The first wave of violence came in the mid-1960s, when the country experienced an extraordinary series of assassinationsg and racial tensions rose as the civil rights movement challenged discrimination throughout the South. Notwithstanding the peaceful intentions and tactics of most civil rights activists, a few resorted to militance and some opponents responded violently. Large scale race-related riots, sparked by a variety of causes, broke out in many cities, including the nation's capital.

 

These events were accompanied by mass anti-war demonstrations, flamboyant civil disobedience, and rising violent crime rates. By 1968, polls found that 81 percent of the American people believed that law and order had broken down. In response, politicians promised to "get tough on crime."30 The cumulative impact of these events raised in some a fear that the country was on the edge of revolution.

 

The gun industry tilled this ground ruthlessly. David Ecker, president of Charter Arms, explained in a 1981 interview the fortuitous timing of the company's entry into the handgun market in the 1960s:

You had a terrific civil rights problem, with riots all across the country. There was a terrific boom in firearms sales. So any firearm that was being manufactured or imported was being sold.31

The handgun industry saw the civil rights "problem" laden with race-based fears and disorders associated with racial conflict as a marketing boon. Domestic production of handguns soared during the 1960s to nearly twice that of the 1950s. With growing foreign imports added in, the number of handguns that poured into the American civilian market during the 1960s was almost three times that of the preceding decade.32

 

The 1980s to Today:

Pistols, Pushers, and Profits. Since then, the gun industry has exploited similar fears of violent crime, with subtly inferred racial overtones, linked to periodic civil disorders and episodes of spectacular criminal gun play associated with the traffic in illegal drugs. This exploitation swelled to a near-frenzy in the mid-1980s and persists to this day. Gun manufacturers continue to design and market increasingly lethal "self-defense" handguns and ammunition, introducing the mass marketing of high-capacity semiautomatic pistols and "pocket rockets."

 

The National Rifle Association helped stoke sales with a series of sensational fear-mongering ads aimed at taking "gun owners' rights down to gut level." The ads used garish photos, inflammatory copy, and hyped headlines to push for the use of firearms for self-defense. Typical captions included: "Should you shoot a rapist before he cuts your throat?" and "If you're attacked on your porch, do you want your neighbors to be opposed to gun ownership or members of the NRA?"33

 

Gun manufacturers saw the "personal-defense" market as a lifeline out of flat handgun sales. For example, then-president of Smith & Wesson Ed Schultz said in 1992 that he expected to see growth in this personal protection market.34 By 1997, Shooting Industry boasted that "concealment handguns and other defensive firearms are the bright spots in gun retailing," and advised retailers, "It's time to jump in on the defensive handgun market if you haven't already."35

 

 

 

Ayoob summed up the extent to which this second wave of "personal-defense" marketing changed the American gun market in a Shooting Industry article:

I recently was leafing through an issue of Shooting Industry from 1971. Talk about a blast from the past! A quarter century later, things have changed dramatically. In SI back then, it appeared that shotguns and .22s were the mainstay of the firearms business. A firearms retailer today knows that...that type of sporting market is stagnant at best. The guns that are selling during this sales trough in the industry are defensive firearms, particularly handguns thanks to reformed "shall issue" concealed carry rules in several states....

Defensive firearms, sold with knowledgeable advice and the right accessories, offer the best chance of commercial survival for today's retail firearms dealer.36

In another article entitled "'Trend Crimes' and the Gun Dealer," Ayoob advised using fear to sell more guns on "impulse," stating:

Customers come to you every day out of fear. Fear of what they read in the newspaper. Fear of what they watch on the 11 o'clock news. Fear of the terrible acts of violence they see on the street. Your job, in no uncertain terms, is to sell them confidence in the form of steel and lead.37

A recent rash of NRA-sponsored "concealed-carry" laws has opened up a new market for handguns.

Although the NRA claims that it represents the gun consumer and not the gun industry, its former chief lobbyist, Tanya Metaksa, tells a different story. In a 1996 interview with The Wall Street Journal she claimed credit for generating new gun-industry sales by means of these laws:

The gun industry should send me a basket of fruit: our efforts have created a new market.38

A gun industry magazine headline put the effect of these laws bluntly: "More Gun Permits Equal More Gun Sales."39

 

But not all voices within the industry have been as enthusiastic about concealed carry as Ms. Metaksa. Guns & Ammo's "personal security" writer opined in July 1992, that:

If someone carries weapons concealed, he must really be looking for or expecting trouble instead of avoiding it (whether they were carried legally or not).40 [emphasis in original]

The steady rise of handguns to first place in the American sales market reflects the effects of the self-defense boom. But, as detailed in the rest of this report, pro-gun writers like Ayoob ironically document what a poor choice the handgun really is for the consumer.

 

g) President John F. Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas on November 22, 1963; Malcolm X was shot to death in New York on February 21, 1965; Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., was assassinated in Memphis, Tennessee, on April 4, 1968; and, Robert F. Kennedy was assassinated in Los Angeles scarcely two months later, on June 4, 1968.

 

http://www.vpc.org/studies/unincont.htm: Selling A Lie

 

And from this morning's newspaper, here's a judge who stands on Mr. Adams' platform, but with partiality. "Justice" Scalia might take note.

To a degree, I side with this canned judge and the ACLU, by the way.

 

Court Blocks Stop-and-Frisk Changes for New York Police

By JOSEPH GOLDSTEIN

Published: October 31, 2013

A federal appeals court on Thursday halted a sweeping set of changes to the New York Police Department’s practice of stopping and frisking people on the street, and, in strikingly personal terms, criticized the trial judge’s conduct and removed her from the case.

The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled that the judge, Shira A. Scheindlin, “ran afoul” of the judiciary’s code of conduct by compromising the “appearance of impartiality surrounding this litigation.” The panel criticized how she had steered the lawsuit to her courtroom when it was filed nearly six years ago.

The ruling effectively puts off a battery of changes that Judge Scheindlin, of Federal District Court in Manhattan, had ordered for the Police Department. It postpones the operations of the monitor who was asked to oversee reforms of the stop-and-frisk practices, which Judge Scheindlin had said violated the constitutional rights of minorities.

The appeals court’s action was an unexpected twist to what has been a long-running fight over the tactics, a centerpiece of the city’s crime-fighting strategy.

The use of police stops has been widely cited by the administration of Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg as a crucial tool in helping drive the number of murders and major crimes in the city to historic lows. The police say the practice has saved the lives of thousands of young black and Hispanic men by removing guns from the streets and suppressing violence.

But Judge Scheindlin ruled in August that the Police Department not only had violated the Fourth Amendment’s guarantee against unreasonable searches and seizures, but had also violated the 14th Amendment by resorting to a “policy of indirect racial profiling” as the number of police stops soared in minority communities over the last decade.

The police, Judge Scheindlin found, were routinely stopping “blacks and Hispanics who would not have been stopped if they were white.”

Lawyers for the city had gone to the Second Circuit to ask for a stay of Judge Scheindlin’s ruling and of the court-ordered mandates. In granting the stay, the circuit went beyond what the city had requested and unexpectedly ordered that the stop-and-frisk lawsuit, known as the Floyd case, be randomly reassigned.

The new judge, John Koeltl, was instructed to put off “all proceedings and otherwise await further action” from the panel. The appeals court has not yet taken up whether Judge Scheindlin’s decision reached the correct constitutional conclusion regarding the police tactics.

“We intimate no view on the substance or merits of the pending appeals,” the two-page order stated.

The panel set a schedule for the appeals process that extends into 2014, after Mr. Bloomberg leaves office. The judicial stay leaves open the question as to how the next mayor will approach the appeal, and whether he will accept or challenge the court-ordered mandates.

Bill de Blasio, the Democratic nominee for mayor, whom recent polls have shown to be far ahead of his Republican opponent, Joseph J. Lhota, said he was “extremely disappointed” by the decision.

“We have to end the overuse of stop-and-frisk, and any delay only means a continued and unnecessary rift between our police and the people they protect,” Mr. de Blasio said in a statement.

Mr. Lhota applauded the ruling. “As I have said all along, Judge Scheindlin’s biased conduct corrupted the case,” he said in a statement, adding that the next mayor “absolutely must continue this appeal.”

Lawyers involved in the lawsuit said they would appeal the panel’s decision, which put off a number of changes Judge Scheindlin had ordered. Those included installing an outside lawyer to monitor the Police Department’s compliance with the Constitution and directing some officers to wear cameras in a pilot program to record their street interactions, and holding community meetings to solicit public comments on reforming the department’s tactics.

One civil rights lawyer who brought the stop-and-frisk case, Jonathan C. Moore, said the Second Circuit’s criticism was misplaced, and expressed shock that the panel would remove Judge Scheindlin.

“I think it’s a travesty of justice for this panel of the Second Circuit to take this case away from a judge who worked very hard for the last five years to resolve very important, serious issues involving the civil rights of the residents of New York,” Mr. Moore said.

The city’s police commissioner, Raymond W. Kelly, characterized the ruling as “an important decision for all New Yorkers.”

“I have always been — and certainly I haven’t been alone — concerned about the partiality of Judge Scheindlin,” he said.

In its ruling, the panel of three judges — John M. Walker Jr, José A. Cabranes and Barrington D. Parker — criticized Judge Scheindlin for granting media interviews and for making public statements while the case was pending before her, including articles in The New Yorker and by The Associated Press. In criticizing the judge for bringing the stop-and-frisk case under her purview, the three-judge panel also cited an article by The New York Times in a footnote.

At issue is the related-case rule, which allows lawyers to steer similar lawsuits before the same judge. But the Second Circuit said Judge Scheindlin had improperly applied that rule, citing her comments in 2007 to civil-rights lawyers who sought to reopen a long-settled stop-and-frisk lawsuit. If “you got proof of inappropriate racial profiling in a good constitutional case, why don’t you bring a lawsuit?” she said, according to a transcript quoted in the order on Thursday. “You can certainly mark it as related.”

Not long after her remarks, the lawyers did in fact file the Floyd lawsuit.

Judge Scheindlin issued a statement late Thursday explaining her use of the related-case rule, suggesting that encouraging the plaintiffs to file a new action made procedural sense.

She added that in her interviews with the media, she had avoided talking about the Floyd case.

“Some of the reporters used quotes from written opinions in Floyd that gave the appearance that I had commented on the case,” the judge said. “However, a careful reading of each interview will reveal that no such comments were made.”

A version of this article appears in print on November 1, 2013, on page A1 of the New York edition with the headline: Appellate Court Blocks Changes To Frisk Tactics.

Pasted from <http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/01/nyregion/court-blocks-stop-and-frisk-changes-for-new-york-police.html>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've said here numerous times that jojo, doesn't actually have the ability to have a conversation with you. He simply just talks AT you. And usually after completely ignoring a direct question or attributing something to you that you've never said or accusing of of a position that was clearly refuted many times previously. He reminds me of the guy who has brain damage and memory loss and every day he wakes up - its like the previous one never existed and he's reliving it all over again for the 1st time.

 

Some levels of thought are not worth responding to. Yep, I give such posts what I call "the modified ignore".

Listen up. I cautioned you about mindless abuse and habitual misogyny. They have no place in my life, Jeff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest One of Five