Jump to content

Gun nutter sttrikes again


Bull Gator

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 2.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

This thing has Tea Party regressive written all over it. We'll wait for the background on this kid, but the odds are he spent much more time stuffing Tea Party propoganda into envelopes at his local GOP campaign office than he did playing violent video games.

 

If he got the gun from his home, his parent/parents should go to jail as accessories to murder.

 

The last sentence wasn't sarcasm, btw.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

To be fair if the ex marine had been armed I expect he could have got the drop on the 14 year old.

 

If he got the drop on the kid you would have started a thread about a nut-job product of our military going batshit and killing babies.

See? It's a double edged sword. To be fair I would have called him a child killer not a baby killer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

To be fair if the ex marine had been armed I expect he could have got the drop on the 14 year old.

 

If he got the drop on the kid you would have started a thread about a nut-job product of our military going batshit and killing babies.

See? It's a double edged sword. To be fair I would have called him a child killer not a baby killer.

 

Which edge of that sword would you like to be sharper?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest One of Five

 

 

 

Hey jocal,

 

THIS is the "gun culture" that I and rest of us responsible gun owners (and the NRA) promote.

 

THIS is what Jocal's "Gun Culture" is:

 

(photos snipped)

 

Jocal, do you see a difference here? If you do, then explain to me in your own words how my competing in a match with a "sniper rifle" promotes what the later group of thugs does or behaves? I would REALLY REALLY like an answer to that question!!!!

 

Jeff, I have studied your words for YEARS. Our best conversations have ended with your use of the word "cunt".

 

The gun culture I refer to is that of the SA Gun Club, as expressed (primarily by you, Boothy, and Tom Ray) on literally dozens of threads on PA. Pretty sketchy. I find that you are not honest with yourself. (One example: you deny the thrill of shooting, and your attachment to that thrill. WTF? Another example is that what you are selling is not contained to warm fuzzy pics of kids with guns on a firing range. A third example of your self-deciet is the first sentence of your post, above: the NRA is doing serious cultural damage on behalf of the gun lobby, Sir.)

 

The gun culture I refer to may be best exemplified by your suggestion that blowing away a creep who chucked used tires into someone else's dumpster (he was advancing with threatening fists) is "self defense". It's just not acceptable. Your mentality is scary, and uncivilized. In a thread (which you started) you offered that some new, devastating military ordnance is "cute". Not acceptable, Jeff, but I am glad to have met you.

 

Address the subject of the tire chucker directly, without being abusive, and I may continue the discourse.

Take it easy..............

 

Fists can be life altering, it is foolish to treat physical attacks without a weapon as something that does not warrant self defense using whatever means are at one's disposal. I have seen enough TBI victims to know that I would rather be six feet under than to live that way. I am very glad that D'Ranger's situation was resolved with nobody in a hospital or worse, but there are also plenty of cases where a physical attack against an unarmed person ensues and that unarmed person ends up a hollowed out shell of their former self. I really, really wish that the pro gun control folks would stop with this bullshit that somehow it is wrong to defend yourself or your family against an aggressor who is not armed with a gun.

 

Len, allow me to begin by saying I gain from your posts (same to Atoyot and The Chesapeakster). Always thoughtful, always measured. But it's now a matter of taking the higher road and confronting the gun lobby, and gunslingers, when it comes to our guns.

 

Vigilantism is what it is, and a massively armed population, motivated by "self defense", is a population of vigilantes. The behavior, the by-product of a certain philosophy, is disgusting, IMO.

 

It is a clear degeneration of the United States which our parents left us, where it was assumed daily sidearms were unnecessary. The gun mindset is a poison.

 

Here's an example from law enforcement: 63 cops suspended, fired, and disciplined for a car chase in Ohio.

The unarmed perps, fleeing on foot, were possible lowlifes with criminal records and cocaine in their systems; they wound up with 23 and 24 bullet perforations, respectively. The police motivation at the time? Attempted vehicular homicide.

 

I am hoping that we just get a grip, and not have the guns do the thinking for us. My thanks to the Cleveland police commissioners for taking a stand.

Maybe such temperance will prevail upon the SA Gun Club someday.

 

you are one miserably fucked up human being.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

Hey jocal,

 

THIS is the "gun culture" that I and rest of us responsible gun owners (and the NRA) promote.

 

THIS is what Jocal's "Gun Culture" is:

 

(photos snipped)

 

Jocal, do you see a difference here? If you do, then explain to me in your own words how my competing in a match with a "sniper rifle" promotes what the later group of thugs does or behaves? I would REALLY REALLY like an answer to that question!!!!

 

Jeff, I have studied your words for YEARS. Our best conversations have ended with your use of the word "cunt".

 

The gun culture I refer to is that of the SA Gun Club, as expressed (primarily by you, Boothy, and Tom Ray) on literally dozens of threads on PA. Pretty sketchy. I find that you are not honest with yourself. (One example: you deny the thrill of shooting, and your attachment to that thrill. WTF? Another example is that what you are selling is not contained to warm fuzzy pics of kids with guns on a firing range. A third example of your self-deciet is the first sentence of your post, above: the NRA is doing serious cultural damage on behalf of the gun lobby, Sir.)

 

The gun culture I refer to may be best exemplified by your suggestion that blowing away a creep who chucked used tires into someone else's dumpster (he was advancing with threatening fists) is "self defense". It's just not acceptable. Your mentality is scary, and uncivilized. In a thread (which you started) you offered that some new, devastating military ordnance is "cute". Not acceptable, Jeff, but I am glad to have met you.

 

Address the subject of the tire chucker directly, without being abusive, and I may continue the discourse.

Take it easy..............

 

Fists can be life altering, it is foolish to treat physical attacks without a weapon as something that does not warrant self defense using whatever means are at one's disposal. I have seen enough TBI victims to know that I would rather be six feet under than to live that way. I am very glad that D'Ranger's situation was resolved with nobody in a hospital or worse, but there are also plenty of cases where a physical attack against an unarmed person ensues and that unarmed person ends up a hollowed out shell of their former self. I really, really wish that the pro gun control folks would stop with this bullshit that somehow it is wrong to defend yourself or your family against an aggressor who is not armed with a gun.

 

Len, allow me to begin by saying I gain from your posts (same to Atoyot and The Chesapeakster). Always thoughtful, always measured. But it's now a matter of taking the higher road and confronting the gun lobby, and gunslingers, when it comes to our guns.

 

Vigilantism is what it is, and a massively armed population, motivated by "self defense", is a population of vigilantes. The behavior, the by-product of a certain philosophy, is disgusting, IMO.

 

It is a clear degeneration of the United States which our parents left us, where it was assumed daily sidearms were unnecessary. The gun mindset is a poison.

 

Here's an example from law enforcement: 63 cops suspended, fired, and disciplined for a car chase in Ohio.

The unarmed perps, fleeing on foot, were possible lowlifes with criminal records and cocaine in their systems; they wound up with 23 and 24 bullet perforations, respectively. The police motivation at the time? Attempted vehicular homicide.

 

I am hoping that we just get a grip, and not have the guns do the thinking for us. My thanks to the Cleveland police commissioners for taking a stand.

Maybe such temperance will prevail upon the SA Gun Club someday.

 

you are one miserably fucked up human being.

 

 

I knew there was a reason I liked ya.....:lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

The reality is that murders per thousand people have declined, even in places with few restrictions on guns. Another reality is that the decline has been most pronounced when examining handguns used in murders. Another reality is that the plural of anecdote is not data. Another one is that I could post self defense stories every day, but I don't. Lots of realities to deal with.

 

Flfirearmmurders.gif

 

 

Sorry, Tom.

For the nine years complete data is available in the 21st century (2000 to 2008), the deaths have remained fairly constant.

The reason they have leveled out is attributed by the studies to medical improvements, trauma centers, and the 911 system.

 

However there is an increase in people who are shot but do not die: 617, 688 in this time period, an average of 68,610 per year.

In 2008, the most recent year, 110,115 were shot and survived. WOW!

 

These numbers are horrific, boys. They come from the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Disease Prevention and Control.

 

In other words, the US problem has gotten worse, not better.

More guns = more shootings.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

Hey jocal,

 

THIS is the "gun culture" that I and rest of us responsible gun owners (and the NRA) promote.

 

THIS is what Jocal's "Gun Culture" is:

 

(photos snipped)

 

Jocal, do you see a difference here? If you do, then explain to me in your own words how my competing in a match with a "sniper rifle" promotes what the later group of thugs does or behaves? I would REALLY REALLY like an answer to that question!!!!

 

Jeff, I have studied your words for YEARS. Our best conversations have ended with your use of the word "cunt".

 

The gun culture I refer to is that of the SA Gun Club, as expressed (primarily by you, Boothy, and Tom Ray) on literally dozens of threads on PA. Pretty sketchy. I find that you are not honest with yourself. (One example: you deny the thrill of shooting, and your attachment to that thrill. WTF? Another example is that what you are selling is not contained to warm fuzzy pics of kids with guns on a firing range. A third example of your self-deciet is the first sentence of your post, above: the NRA is doing serious cultural damage on behalf of the gun lobby, Sir.)

 

The gun culture I refer to may be best exemplified by your suggestion that blowing away a creep who chucked used tires into someone else's dumpster (he was advancing with threatening fists) is "self defense". It's just not acceptable. Your mentality is scary, and uncivilized. In a thread (which you started) you offered that some new, devastating military ordnance is "cute". Not acceptable, Jeff, but I am glad to have met you.

 

Address the subject of the tire chucker directly, without being abusive, and I may continue the discourse.

Take it easy..............

 

Fists can be life altering, it is foolish to treat physical attacks without a weapon as something that does not warrant self defense using whatever means are at one's disposal. I have seen enough TBI victims to know that I would rather be six feet under than to live that way. I am very glad that D'Ranger's situation was resolved with nobody in a hospital or worse, but there are also plenty of cases where a physical attack against an unarmed person ensues and that unarmed person ends up a hollowed out shell of their former self. I really, really wish that the pro gun control folks would stop with this bullshit that somehow it is wrong to defend yourself or your family against an aggressor who is not armed with a gun.

 

Len, allow me to begin by saying I gain from your posts (same to Atoyot and The Chesapeakster). Always thoughtful, always measured. But it's now a matter of taking the higher road and confronting the gun lobby, and gunslingers, when it comes to our guns.

 

Vigilantism is what it is, and a massively armed population, motivated by "self defense", is a population of vigilantes. The behavior, the by-product of a certain philosophy, is disgusting, IMO.

 

It is a clear degeneration of the United States which our parents left us, where it was assumed daily sidearms were unnecessary. The gun mindset is a poison.

 

Here's an example from law enforcement: 63 cops suspended, fired, and disciplined for a car chase in Ohio.

The unarmed perps, fleeing on foot, were possible lowlifes with criminal records and cocaine in their systems; they wound up with 23 and 24 bullet perforations, respectively. The police motivation at the time? Attempted vehicular homicide.

 

I am hoping that we just get a grip, and not have the guns do the thinking for us. My thanks to the Cleveland police commissioners for taking a stand.

Maybe such temperance will prevail upon the SA Gun Club someday.

 

you are one miserably fucked up human being.

 

Mr. McCabe, would you feel better about me if I pathologically collected and fired lots of guns?

 

Really?

Link to post
Share on other sites

yep, but how many accidental deaths would occur if all teachers were packing?

Entertaining hypothetical speculation may be entertaining for those kicking a scapegoat around a room full of like-minded, ivory-tower elitists. However, where formulating public policy is concerned, examine the actual, published figures comparing persons licensed to carry vs. the general population for crimes and accidental shootings. I'd look it up for you though it's been done before.

 

Show us (factually, with citations) that people who've gone through practical firearms training and who have learned legal ramifications & related aspects of respective state laws re: armed self-defense are currently involved in equal OR greater accidental discharges than the general populace, and I for one will consider that to be quite material.

 

In the absence of real numbers, I'd have to play "what if" as well and ask how many little cretins would we not have to deal with, to whom it occurs to shoot someone at school, if we required a license to reproduce and required parent-skills training? Oh, and mandatory sterilization for convicted, violent felons?

 

Besides, nobody's saying all teachers should be "packing"; the argument goes that teachers, faculty or staff should have the option to work it out with a district program or policy, rather than continue on with the illusion that these "disarmed victim" zones prevent trouble.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The reality is that murders per thousand people have declined, even in places with few restrictions on guns. Another reality is that the decline has been most pronounced when examining handguns used in murders. Another reality is that the plural of anecdote is not data. Another one is that I could post self defense stories every day, but I don't. Lots of realities to deal with.

 

Flfirearmmurders.gif

 

 

Sorry, Tom.

For the nine years complete data is available in the 21st century (2000 to 2008), the deaths have remained fairly constant....

 

These numbers are horrific, boys. They come from the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Disease Prevention and Control.

...

 

 

Way back in 1999 we did not know how many murders were committed? Is that really what the CDC says? If so, provide the link.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Besides, nobody's saying all teachers should be "packing"; the argument goes that teachers, faculty or staff should have the option to work it out with a district program or policy, rather than continue on with the illusion that these "disarmed victim" zones prevent trouble.

 

Don't we give airline pilots the option to carry guns in the cockpit if they choose to and go through the appropriate training? Isn't the whole principle of armed Air Marshals on planes is that only a good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Besides, nobody's saying all teachers should be "packing"; the argument goes that teachers, faculty or staff should have the option to work it out with a district program or policy, rather than continue on with the illusion that these "disarmed victim" zones prevent trouble.

 

Don't we give airline pilots the option to carry guns in the cockpit if they choose to and go through the appropriate training? Isn't the whole principle of armed Air Marshals on planes is that only a good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun?

I thought they were onboard to snap pix of snappers.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/10/17/21015649-federal-air-marshal-arrested-accused-of-taking-pictures-up-womens-skirts?lite

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Don't we give airline pilots the option to carry guns in the cockpit if they choose to and go through the appropriate training? Isn't the whole principle of armed Air Marshals on planes is that only a good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun?

I thought they were onboard to snap pix of snappers.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/10/17/21015649-federal-air-marshal-arrested-accused-of-taking-pictures-up-womens-skirts?lite

 

Well, that too.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, Tom.

For the nine years complete data is available in the 21st century (2000 to 2008), the deaths have remained fairly constant.

The reason they have leveled out is attributed by the studies to medical improvements, trauma centers, and the 911 system.

 

However there is an increase in people who are shot but do not die: 617, 688 in this time period, an average of 68,610 per year.

In 2008, the most recent year, 110,115 were shot and survived. WOW!

 

These numbers are horrific, boys. They come from the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Disease Prevention and Control.

 

In other words, the US problem has gotten worse, not better.

More guns = more shootings.

 

 

 

From the 2002 Harris study, "Murder and Medicine: the Lethality of Criminal Assault 1960-1999". Homicide Studies 6, No. 2, p 130:

:'...without these developments in medical technology there would have been between 45,000 and 70,000 homicides annually...(p130)

At some point in contesting criminal assault to the body, weaponry may yet trump medicine." p157

 

15% of all US spinal cord injuries are now gun-related, according to this Feb. 2011 report: www.nscisc.uab.edu

Emergency rooms find an increasing trend in multiple gunshot injuries.

50% of all trauma deaths are caused by brain injury similar to that suffered by Rep. Gabby Giffords; 35% of these are caused by gunfire. http//emedicine.medscape.com/article/247664 overview.

 

 

 

So... though Boothy claimed yesterday not to be the problem, I must kindly disagree, since he glibly supports the distribution of militarized weaponry to the citizenry...

 

For those who have the balls to examine the AW problem and its devastation on US health, try reading a detailed discussion of this trend: http://www.vpc.org/studies/militarization.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

No matter which side of the gun issue you are on, here's some good reading:

 

 

Errant gun dealer, wary ATF agents paved way for Beltway sniper tragedy

By Mike Carter , Steve Miletich and Justin Mayo

Seattle Times staff reporters

Gun dealer Brian Borgelt says he doesn't know how his store ended up arming the Beltway sniper suspects with a deadly accurate $1,600 military-style carbine.

But law-enforcement sources, for the first time, explain what happened: Not only did sniper suspect John Muhammad hone his marksmanship at Bull's Eye's firing range, but alleged accomplice Lee Boyd Malvo has told investigators he shoplifted the 35-inch-long carbine from the supposedly secure store.

The Bushmaster XM15 had been prominently displayed last summer at Bull's Eye. Next thing Borgelt knew, federal agents were swooping in, seeking the federal sales record that would show who bought the laser-scoped rifle.

Borgelt had no sales record. Nor could he produce records for scores of other missing guns.

Bull's Eye's negligent operation and the government's timid enforcement of errant gun dealers contributed to the tragedy, according to recently released documents from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) and numerous interviews with current and former agency employees.

Long before last fall's sniper slayings, Bull's Eye was among a minuscule group of problem gun dealers that, willingly or not, "supply the suppliers" who funnel guns to the nation's criminals, the ATF says. Studies show about 1 percent of gun stores sell the weapons traced to 57 percent of gun crimes.

As a result, these few gun dealers have a vastly disproportionate impact on public safety.

In theory, such dealers cannot hide from enforcers. In the early 1990s, the ATF developed indicators, or red flags, that alerted it to gun dealers that might be illegally trafficking in guns.

Bull's Eye displayed every one of these indicators for years:

• Guns stolen from inventory.

• Missing federal sales records, needed by police to solve crimes.

• Having 10 weapons a year traced to crimes.

• Frequently selling multiple guns to individual buyers.

• Short times between gun sales and their involvement in crimes.

An analysis of records obtained by The Seattle Times through a freedom-of-information lawsuit against the ATF shows that between 1997 and 2001, guns sold by Bull's Eye were involved in 52 crimes, including homicides, kidnappings and assaults — a rate the ATF considers alarming.

"What you have in front of you is a case study in what is wrong with this system," said Jerry Nunziato, a former director of the ATF's National Tracing Center who reviewed Bull's Eye's 283-page file.

"This shop has all of the obvious indicators that something's wrong. When the bureau looked at it and found the problems were true, nothing was done."

Four inspections in five years

On average, the ATF looks at less than 4 percent of dealers in a year. But the agency inspected Borgelt's operation four times in five years — 1998, 2000, 2001 and 2002 — and cited it for violations at least 15 times.

"He had a lot of attention," said Richard Van Loan, the ATF regional director for industry operations in Seattle. "The guy wasn't ignored."

But Borgelt is open for business today, even though he can't account for 238 guns or say whether they were stolen, lost or sold, or if their buyers underwent felony-background checks.

Borgelt blames this problem on employees who didn't record sales, fill out required federal forms, or simply stole the guns.

With thousands of dollars in possible inventory thefts, he managed to thrive in an industry known for paper-thin profits. Federal prosecutors offer a possible explanation:

They allege that Borgelt hasn't filed personal or business federal tax returns for eight years, while making estimated tax payments of only $10,500. During this time he purchased his store's $350,000 building and a $400,000 house on American Lake in Lakewood, Pierce County.

Borgelt says he's done nothing illegal. He says he tried to get control of Bull's Eye's paperwork and inventory, but the store expanded too quickly, employees came and went, and he didn't get them to follow federal regulations.

"Yeah, these are excuses," he said during a lengthy interview. "But, dammit, these are my excuses."

Easy to get federal firearms license

Bull's Eye Shooter Supply — "The Biggest Little Gun Shop Around" — is a brick building a few blocks from the Tacoma Dome, with a two-story frieze of an African savanna populated by big game. Dominating the mural is a huge water buffalo bracketed in a telescopic sight, its crosshairs superimposed on the bull's left eye.

A customer today can walk into the sprawling shop and buy a Bushmaster XM15 semiautomatic carbine or just about any other legal gun of choice. Upstairs at the firing range, you can shoot pistols at one of 12 lanes while benefiting from such deals as "Mondays — Ladies Shoot Free!!" or "Children under 12 yrs. shoot FREE with an accompanying adult."

Borgelt, a fit, 38-year-old former Army Ranger, got his first federal firearms license in 1986. It was easier than obtaining a driver's license. He had to fill out and sign a form swearing that he was over 21, didn't have a felony record, give a business address — home or apartment sufficed — then pay the license fee: $10.

At the time, there were more than 250,000 licensed gun dealers in America, about half of them not doing any retail business at all. Instead, they were doing what Army Staff Sgt. Brian Borgelt was doing, using the license to get inexpensive weapons for himself and his buddies in the 2nd Ranger Battalion at Ft. Lewis.

He called his business Pacific Shooters Supply and ran it out of his Tacoma home, quietly at first.

The first visit from ATF

In November 1994, ATF inspector Eric Younger, unannounced, knocked on Borgelt's door to ask about the sale of an AK-47-style assault rifle at a Yakima gun show.

The assault rifle was part of a criminal investigation, and Younger was tracing its owners.

No one answered, but Younger found a note saying Pacific was now closed and referred customers to Bull's Eye Shooter Supply. Borgelt had become a partner in Bull's Eye with Charles N. Carr, an Army buddy who's now a police officer in Bridgeport, Conn.

Suddenly, Younger had another issue to check with Borgelt — whether he had turned in Pacific's license.

Younger still had to trace the assault rifle, a cumbersome process. There is no registry or centralized filing system to trace guns as there is with cars. If a getaway car is found after a bank robbery, police can quickly use its license plate or its vehicle ID plate (in plain sight on the dashboard) to determine its current owner and begin investigating the crime.

And unlike cars, guns aren't registered. To track a suspicious weapon, the ATF must first send its serial number to the manufacturer to learn to which licensed dealer the gun had been sold. The ATF then assigns its closest field office to contact the dealer, review the federal sales form and find out who bought the weapon.

During its investigation, the ATF learned the Yakima assault rifle was owned by a woman who told agents that she had purchased it at a gun show from a dealer named Brian Borgelt.

Individuals selling guns at gun shows do not have to document the sale or do a background check on the buyer. But dealers at gun shows, by law, must.

When Younger asked him about the rifle, Borgelt denied ever owning it.

The inspector doubted him, though, since Younger had also located the man who sold the rifle to Borgelt — at another gun show — as well as the woman who bought it.

Younger also confronted Borgelt over his individual dealer's license, which the law said he should have surrendered when he joined in with a partner and opened Bull's Eye. The partnership was required to have a separate license and pay the fee, now $200.

Penalty: only a note in ATF file

The ATF inspector later wrote up Borgelt for not recording the gun-show sale and for improperly mailing in felony background-check forms.

Younger had to decide how to punish Borgelt for breaking the law. If Borgelt's violations had occurred a decade earlier, he might have been charged with a felony. The 1968 Gun Control Act, which Congress passed in wake of the assassinations of Sen. Robert F. Kennedy and the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., set standards for gun dealers. They had to maintain sales records so police could trace crime guns, refuse to sell to felons or minors, and follow other safeguards.

Since then, Congress loosened certain gun-control provisions. In 1986, President Reagan signed the Firearm Owner's Protection Act, a law pushed by the gun lobby, which reduced most record-keeping violations to misdemeanors and required that the ATF prove that dealers "willfully" violated the law before revoking their licenses.

Also, ATF could inspect dealers only once in 12 months unless it had evidence of a crime.

In Bull's Eye's ATF file, Younger noted to future inspectors that when they visited Borgelt again "any subsequent violations of these specific regulations should not be found upon inspection at his new business."

That was the extent of the punishment.

Inspectors returned to Bull's Eye in 1998. Under the Clinton administration, the ATF began focusing inspections on dealers that showed warning signs of sloppy operation or misconduct.

That year, the ATF ordered inspections of the 87 licensed gun sellers that had reported four or more stolen or missing guns in the previous three years. While it wasn't the worst offender, Bull's Eye was the only one in Washington state. It had reported eight.

ATF sent another inspector, Clinton Bonney, to conduct the audit. He found that the dealer couldn't produce federal sales records for four guns no longer at the store, records show. Even so, he noted for the file that Bull's Eye had "very complete and accurate records."

Borgelt said Bonney's praise may have led him to drop his guard.

He and his employees were supposed to log each new gun acquisition and sale in a ledger, fill out a federal firearms-transfer form, and note results of background checks.

Whether deliberate or not, Borgelt let the filing fall apart.

Most dealers go many years without being inspected again. But ATF inspectors were back at Bull's Eye in June 2000.

"We just weren't taking a shot in the dark," the ATF's Van Loan said. "There were indicators that we needed to take a look at it."

Spike in crime guns, other red flags

In fact, the number of crime guns traced back to Bull's Eye had been growing from three in 1997 to 10 in 1998, 18 in 1999, and 11 in 2000.

This likely sparked the ATF's scrutiny, said Joseph Vince, former chief of the ATF's Crime Gun Analysis Branch and partner in Crime Gun Solutions, a Frederick, Va., consulting firm. "There's a spike in crime guns. Something wasn't right."

Several of the weapons traced back to Bull's Eye were associated with violent crimes, including one of Washington's most heinous mass murders, the Trang Dai Cafe killings in Tacoma.

On July 5, 1998, four gunmen burst into the Tacoma restaurant and opened fire, killing five diners and wounding five others. Detectives blamed it on warring Asian gangs. When Tacoma police searched the home of one of the suspects, they found an AK-style assault rifle that matched the caliber of one of the murder guns, although it had not been used in the killings. Bull's Eye had sold it three months earlier.

Bull's Eye displayed two other red flags.

Between 1997 and 2000, Bull's Eye had sold 663 guns to 265 individual buyers — sometimes as many as 10 guns at a time, ATF records show.

Vince said these were a remarkable number of "multiple firearms sales" and an indicator that buyers might be reselling the weapons on the street.

Felons are barred from buying guns from retail dealers, so they either have to buy them from individuals, steal them, or employ "straw buyers" with clean records to purchase the guns for them.

If guns from a particular dealer quickly and frequently are used in crimes or possessed by criminals, the ATF gets suspicious.

The ATF's median "time to crime" for traced weapons — from time of purchase to recovery by police — is about 6-1/2 years. A dealer with many weapons with a "time to crime" under three years raises a red flag for the ATF, which may assign inspectors to take a look.

Seventy percent of Bull's Eye's traced crime guns fell under the three-year time to crime — clearly of concern to the ATF, according to a Times analysis of the 52 traces of Bull's Eye-supplied guns between 1997 to 2001. So it was not surprising that inspector John Dimond and others began a compliance audit of Bull's Eye, starting in May 2000.

Dimond quickly determined that Borgelt was unable to account for 421 guns — nearly a quarter of his inventory, ATF records show. Other firearms dealers say this is a staggering number. A dealer typically might have missing records for only a couple of gun sales over many years.

Dimond's routine 8-hour audit turned into a major review with several inspectors working 186 hours at the Tacoma gun store over two months.

Lax reporting of thefts, other violations

Borgelt was cited for nine record-keeping violations.

Then the ATF took one of the toughest actions it can use against a dealer, short of revocation: It ordered Borgelt to appear at a warning conference.

"The significance of the violations found at your premises raises a serious question as to your willingness and / or ability to conduct business in accordance with laws and regulations," an ATF official wrote in a July 2000 letter to Borgelt. "As a result, we are contemplating the revocation of your Federal Firearms License."

At the August conference, Borgelt promised to clean up his books and said he planned to computerize his inventory records. He assured the ATF that no more violations would occur.

In the meantime, he had found records or proved sales for 201 of the unaccounted-for guns, bringing the tally of the missing weapons down to 220 and finally, a year later, to 160.

Federal law requires that a dealer must report a missing or stolen gun to the ATF and local police within 48 hours of the discovery of its disappearance.

It took him a year to file the report with ATF, claiming he was still trying to find the guns.

He never did file one with Tacoma police. Borgelt blamed an employee for the lapse.

Former employees of Bull's Eye said that during their time there things were run by the book. "I always saw the paperwork done correctly," said Carl Shanks, an employee in 1997 and 1998 who is now a sheriff's deputy for Pierce County.

Again, the ATF had to weigh Borgelt's punishment.

In a follow-up letter Aug. 31, 2000, an ATF supervisor told Borgelt that future violations would be viewed as "willful in nature and may result in revocation of your license." ATF planned to inspect him again "to ensure your compliance."

ATF authority shackled by Congress

Despite Bull's Eye's history of breaking the rules, ATF did not revoke his license. The warning letter the agency sent Borgelt was its only other option; Congress has never given the ATF the authority to suspend or fine an errant gun dealer.

ATF also chose not to refer the violations to prosecutors. Federal prosecutors are reluctant to bring misdemeanors to court when there are more serious felony crimes to pursue.

And felony charges against a gun dealer are even rarer because prosecutors must show the dealer willfully violated the law, a difficult burden to prove.

Further, the ATF considered Bull's Eye's 2000 meltdown as its first major offense, said Van Loan of the Seattle ATF office. Borgelt was given a chance to fix problems. "It was a judgment call at that time," Van Loan said.

Weighing heavily, he said, was that Borgelt and his 14 employees would lose their livelihoods if the ATF went through the time-consuming process of pulling its license. "Revocation is forever," Van Loan said.

Borgelt did make improvements, which were noted in a July 2001 follow-up inspection. But Van Loan said that, in retrospect, the audit had problems. It was conducted by a new inspector and could have been more thorough.

Also, Van Loan said a serious lapse was failing to bring Borgelt's misconduct to the attention of top officials in the Seattle ATF office.

At the same time, the ATF was shifting focus to explosives and terrorism, the result of the December 1999 arrest of Ahmed Ressam, the Algerian terrorist caught coming into Washington with a trunkload of explosives.

"If we hadn't been distracted, we would have been down there and I think we would have found something," Van Loan said of Borgelt. "... He got past us in 2001."

The ATF cited Borgelt for two record violations in 2001. And he was allowed to keep selling guns.

Missing gun tied to sniper shootings

In October 2002, sniper suspects John Muhammad and Lee Boyd Malvo were arrested outside Washington, D.C., following 23 days of terror that left 10 dead and three wounded. Police found the Bushmaster rifle in the trunk of their blue Chevrolet Caprice.

The ATF's National Tracing Center quickly determined the gun had been sold by the manufacturer to Bull's Eye in July 2002.

When FBI and ATF agents descended on his store, Borgelt recalled, there was a long silence when he told agents his records showed the gun was still on the shelf.

Borgelt's claim that he never knew the gun was missing has been met with incredulity. The expensive weapon, fitted with exotic accessories, had been prominently displayed.

"It would be like being a car dealer and having a Cadillac disappear from the sales floor without anybody noticing," said Vince, the former ATF official.

The missing paperwork on the sniper rifle prompted yet another audit by the ATF, which determined that another 78 firearms from the shop could not be accounted for.

Former ATF supervisors say Borgelt's federal license should have been revoked after the disastrous 2000 audit.

"He's a poster boy for gun control," said William Vizzard, a retired ATF supervisor and California State University, Sacramento, criminal-justice professor who wrote "In the Crossfire: A Political History of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms."

"But it doesn't surprise me he's still in business. The agency is always conservative, because they're afraid. They have no backing in Congress or this administration."

The ATF has been "kicked around" by the National Rifle Association for so long, Vizzard said, that it shies away from confrontations that might attract NRA's ire.

Art Gordon, a 27-year ATF veteran in Baltimore, helped investigate the Beltway sniper slayings.

"For years, ATF got beat into the ground by the NRA and got gun-shy," said Gordon, speaking as president of the ATF branch of the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association. "They are leery of being aggressive on federal firearms licenses."

Revocations take time. Dealers can appeal while staying in business. The 1986 law also gave gun dealers the right to go before a federal judge and review the entire matter all over again. Usually, a federal agency's administrative actions can only be reversed when the other party can show the government acted arbitrarily.

The bureau is also hamstrung by a lack of resources. In 2000, the agency had 440 compliance inspectors responsible for overseeing not only the 83,000 federal firearms licensees, but also hundreds of explosives manufacturers and dealers and thousands of liquor and cigarette manufacturers and distributors.

All these hurdles have made ATF reluctant to revoke licenses except in the most serious cases, said Kristen Rand, legislative director for the Violence Policy Center in Washington, D.C., which tracks firearms policy.

"Dealers understand that," Rand said. "You really have to do something egregious and outrageous to initiate revocation proceedings." In 1999, the ATF revoked just 20 firearms licenses.

The sniper killings may have finally tipped those scales against Borgelt.

ATF investigators have asked the U.S. Attorney's Office in Seattle to file a rare felony charge against the gun dealer for willful disregard of gun laws, said a source who spoke on the condition of anonymity. No charges have been filed.

Borgelt's lawyer, James Frush, says there are no grounds for criminal charges. His client is only guilty of being a sloppy businessman, Frush says, and was given bad advice by the ATF on how to keep records.

As for his tax returns, Borgelt says any money owed has been paid and an accountant is getting his tax forms in order.

Meanwhile, he says he may just stop being a gun dealer, sell his store and concentrate instead on running his pistol range.

"I've given it my best go," he said. "But it's grown exponentially into something I can't chew."

Mike Carter: 206-464-3706 or mcarter@seattletimes.com

Steve Miletich: 206-464-3302 or smiletich@seattletimes.com

Pasted from <http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=20030429&slug=gundealer29>

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jocal, are you ever going to learn to respect intellectual property, copyright laws, "fair use" and above all the developing carpal tunnel syndrome in my scrolling hand?

 

Post a link and an excerpt. You know, like a law-abiding person. ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Besides, nobody's saying all teachers should be "packing"; the argument goes that teachers, faculty or staff should have the option to work it out with a district program or policy, rather than continue on with the illusion that these "disarmed victim" zones prevent trouble.

 

Don't we give airline pilots the option to carry guns in the cockpit if they choose to and go through the appropriate training? Isn't the whole principle of armed Air Marshals on planes is that only a good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun?

 

Agreed. Given there are 300 million guns in circulation, we can't get this horse back in the barn.

 

What we could do is set up protection. Metal detectors and well-trained armed security(not some little 1 afternoon with the NRA thing, more like police-lite) to run them at every school. Locked down campuses. We owe our kids a safe place to go to school. The only question is how to pay for it. I propose a small tax on ammo.

 

The nutters would likely move on to other public spaces, but let's address one challenge at a time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Besides, nobody's saying all teachers should be "packing"; the argument goes that teachers, faculty or staff should have the option to work it out with a district program or policy, rather than continue on with the illusion that these "disarmed victim" zones prevent trouble.

 

Don't we give airline pilots the option to carry guns in the cockpit if they choose to and go through the appropriate training? Isn't the whole principle of armed Air Marshals on planes is that only a good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun?

 

Agreed. Given there are 300 million guns in circulation, we can't get this horse back in the barn.

 

What we could do is set up protection. Metal detectors and well-trained armed security(not some little 1 afternoon with the NRA thing, more like police-lite) to run them at every school. Locked down campuses. We owe our kids a safe place to go to school. The only question is how to pay for it. I propose a small tax on ammo.

 

The nutters would likely move on to other public spaces, but let's address one challenge at a time.

 

You guys are continually disregarding the real cause, and that's the behavioral element. OR - I fear that the approach you propose won't address the problem, and it will simply lead to ever increasing, ineffectual restrictions. Want an example? Look at the UK and it's knife ban. If you want people to be "safe" - then we need to address the real reasons they aren't, and IMHO, the primary contributor isn't the presence of certain inanimate objects, it's the presence of people who want to hurt someone else.

 

I don't want to live in a world w/padded corners - I doubt that you would either.

Link to post
Share on other sites

agreed - that also needs to be addressed, but the reality is that locking up possible nutters is fraught with constitutional issues, and would take years to implement.

 

And this isn't about keeping someone from getting a bump or a bruise (padded corners) - rather, it's about preventing gunshot wounds to the most vulnerable in our population.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Tax people with kids to pay for it. My ammunition purchases in now contribute to nutballs shooting in schools. In the latest case, it looks like a middle school kid doing the shooting, so it looks like poor parenting to blame for the shooting, and parents worrying about a statistically improbable event who now want me to pay for it. No thanks, I have had enough of that already.

Link to post
Share on other sites

agreed - that also needs to be addressed, but the reality is that locking up possible nutters is fraught with constitutional issues, and would take years to implement.

 

And this isn't about keeping someone from getting a bump or a bruise (padded corners) - rather, it's about preventing gunshot wounds to the most vulnerable in our population.

 

OK - honest question: What is it about being shot that makes THAT means of being hurt so much more heinous than being stabbed, beaten to within an inch of your life, or being hit by a drunk driver? I've got children, and I try hard to be a good parent, and I really want them to feel and be safe in their places, so please don't think I'm being callous with the question. I just think that if we really want to effect positive change, that we've got to make sure that the proposed change will actually get us where we say we want to go, and I don't see prohibition doing that, in any instance in which its been tried.

 

So - while I'm a fervent defender of ALL of our rights, that is really a secondary reason that I oppose prohibition - the primary being that I don't think it'll work, and effort expended on that approach dilutes resources that are available and should be used in the pursuit of a real solution. After all, anything we do to cause harm to someone else is already illegal, isn't it?

Link to post
Share on other sites

seems pretty simple to me actually. A dude enters school with a gun, or a knife, or a pipe intending to do harm. They would be met with the same security guard, the same locked down campus, the same metal detector no matter their tool.

 

The fact is that there haven't been many mass murders using pipes or knives recently. Guns seem to be the preferred tool. I wonder why?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jocal, are you ever going to learn to respect intellectual property, copyright laws, "fair use" and above all the developing carpal tunnel syndrome in my scrolling hand?

 

Post a link and an excerpt. You know, like a law-abiding person. ;)

 

 

Read it and weep, Tom Ray.

 

"Justice" Scalia left a bad taste in my mouth for any "interest balancing" of the Bill of Rights.

 

His 154 pg legal foundation for Heller was hokum, the "scholarship" was not even peer-reviewed. His Heller decision's effort was sponsored by the Cato Institute; it was six years in the making.

 

I mean, look at the other bad actors here. The modern NRA was driven by Harlan Carter, a teenage shotgun murderer who publicly denied the murder later and expunged the legal record. Your SAF is all about Alan Gottlieb, a felon with 60 guns: his SAF is also allied with (and funded by) the Cato Institute. He has denied global warming and has even created institutions to broadcast such ignorance.

 

Shameful stuff, and it has a daily, degenerative outcome. He who has ears to hear, let him hear.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you tell me that you actually believe in global warming, then I'm gonna finally have to put you on ignore.

 

Jfc, it's bad enough that you believe in the anti-gun-nuttery, but to top it off with gw? Wow. Just fuking wow....that explains everything....

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Jeffie, look, every time I come back here I can count on mean-spirited, abusive posts by JBSF. Your guns may be a symptom of (as well as an expression of), well, inner turmoil. My kind suggestion is that you spend more time in your boat (a cool SB3, if I recall) and less time promoting violent, antagonistic,destructive behaviors to yourself and others.

 

Mean-spirited??? I think I've been exceedingly polite to you hoping you might actually FOR ONCE bother to 1) actually read and comprehend a post of mine in its entirety and 2) actually respond to a direct question I've posed to you. You haven't upheld your end of your own deal

 

Now stop being such a fucking cry-baby, go change your tampon, and respond to my post above.

 

You may be uglier than I thought. Seem to have lost my motivation, mate.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Jeffie, look, every time I come back here I can count on mean-spirited, abusive posts by JBSF. Your guns may be a symptom of (as well as an expression of), well, inner turmoil. My kind suggestion is that you spend more time in your boat (a cool SB3, if I recall) and less time promoting violent, antagonistic,destructive behaviors to yourself and others.

 

Mean-spirited??? I think I've been exceedingly polite to you hoping you might actually FOR ONCE bother to 1) actually read and comprehend a post of mine in its entirety and 2) actually respond to a direct question I've posed to you. You haven't upheld your end of your own deal

 

Now stop being such a fucking cry-baby, go change your tampon, and respond to my post above.

 

You may be uglier than I thought. Seem to have lost my motivation, mate.

 

Good. Fuck off then, mate. You haven't been motivated to answer anything anyway - so it would be no great loss...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed. Given there are 300 million guns in circulation, we can't get this horse back in the barn.

 

What we could do is set up protection. Metal detectors and well-trained armed security(not some little 1 afternoon with the NRA thing, more like police-lite) to run them at every school. Locked down campuses. We owe our kids a safe place to go to school. The only question is how to pay for it. I propose a small tax on ammo.

 

The nutters would likely move on to other public spaces victim disarmament zones, but let's address one challenge at a time.

 

Fixed.

 

You used to seem interested in CDC research on guns. Maybe the bolded bits below will interest you, but probably not.

 

 

The CDC flagrantly violated the NRA ban on gun-related research (they are able to get away with this because that "ban" does not exist outside the left wing noise machine) and their last bullet point speaks to your allegation.

Here’s a list of the 10 most salient or surprising takeaways.

 

1. The United States has an indisputable gun violence problem. According to the report, “the U.S. rate of firearm-related homicide is higher than that of any other industrialized country: 19.5 times higher than the rates in other high-income countries.”

 

2. Most indices of crime and gun violence are getting better, not worse. “Overall crime rates have declined in the past decade, and violent crimes, including homicides specifically, have declined in the past 5 years,” the report notes. “Between 2005 and 2010, the percentage of firearm-related violent victimizations remained generally stable.” Meanwhile, “firearm-related death rates for youth ages 15 to 19 declined from 1994 to 2009.” Accidents are down, too: “Unintentional firearm-related deaths have steadily declined during the past century. The number of unintentional deaths due to firearm-related incidents accounted for less than 1 percent of all unintentional fatalities in 2010.”

 

 

3. We have 300 million firearms, but only 100 million are handguns. According to the report, “In 2007, one estimate placed the total number of firearms in the country at 294 million: ‘106 million handguns, 105 million rifles, and 83 million shotguns.’ ” This translates to nearly nine guns for every 10 people, a per capita ownership rate nearly 50 percent higher than the next most armed country. But American gun ownership is concentrated, not universal: In a December 2012 Gallup poll, “43 percent of those surveyed reported having a gun in the home.”

 

 

4. Handguns are the problem. Despite being outnumbered by long guns, “Handguns are used in more than 87 percent of violent crimes,” the report notes. In 2011, “handguns comprised 72.5 percent of the firearms used in murder and non-negligent manslaughter incidents.” Why do criminals prefer handguns? One reason, according to surveys of felons, is that they’re “easily concealable.”

 

 

5. Mass shootings aren’t the problem. “The number of public mass shootings of the type that occurred at Sandy Hook Elementary School accounted for a very small fraction of all firearm-related deaths,” says the report. “Since 1983 there have been 78 events in which 4 or more individuals were killed by a single perpetrator in 1 day in the United States, resulting in 547 victims and 476 injured persons.” Compare that with the 335,000 gun deaths between 2000 and 2010 alone.

 

 

6. Gun suicide is a bigger killer than gun homicide. From 2000 to 2010, “firearm-related suicides significantly outnumbered homicides for all age groups, annually accounting for 61 percent of the more than 335,600 people who died from firearm-related violence in the United States,” says the report. Firearm sales are often a warning: Two studies found that “a small but significant fraction of gun suicides are committed within days to weeks after the purchase of a handgun, and both also indicate that gun purchasers have an elevated risk of suicide for many years after the purchase of the gun.”

 

 

7. Guns are used for self-defense often and effectively. “Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year … in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008,” says the report. The three million figure is probably high, “based on an extrapolation from a small number of responses taken from more than 19 national surveys.” But a much lower estimate of 108,000 also seems fishy, “because respondents were not asked specifically about defensive gun use.” Furthermore, “Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was 'used' by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies.”

 

 

8. Carrying guns for self-defense is an arms race. The prevalence of firearm violence near “drug markets … could be a consequence of drug dealers carrying guns for self-defense against thieves or other adversaries who are likely to be armed,” says the report. In these communities, “individuals not involved in the drug markets have similar incentives for possessing guns.” According to a Pew Foundation report, “the vast majority of gun owners say that having a gun makes them feel safer. And far more today than in 1999 cite protection—rather than hunting or other activities—as the major reason for why they own guns.”

 

 

9. Denying guns to people under restraining orders saves lives. “Two-thirds of homicides of ex- and current spouses were committed [with] firearms,” the report observes. “In locations where individuals under restraining orders to stay away from current or ex-partners are prohibited from access to firearms, female partner homicide is reduced by 7 percent.”

 

 

10. It isn’t true that most gun acquisitions by criminals can be blamed on a few bad dealers. The report concedes that in 1998, “1,020 of 83,272 federally licensed retailers (1.2 percent) accounted for 57.4 percent of all guns traced by the ATF.” However, “Gun sales are also relatively concentrated; approximately 15 percent of retailers request 80 percent of background checks on gun buyers conducted by the National Instant Criminal Background Check System.” Researchers have found that “the share of crime gun traces attributed to these few dealers only slightly exceeded their share of handgun sales, which are almost equally concentrated among a few dealers.” Volume, not laxity, drives the number of ill-fated sales.

 

 

These conclusions don’t line up perfectly with either side’s agenda. That’s a good reason to take them seriously—and to fund additional data collection and research politics that have been blocked by Congress over politics...

I edited that last bit for accuracy, as there is no ban on taxpayer funded research, only a ban on taxpayer funded political advocacy.
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Jeffie, look, every time I come back here I can count on mean-spirited, abusive posts by JBSF. Your guns may be a symptom of (as well as an expression of), well, inner turmoil. My kind suggestion is that you spend more time in your boat (a cool SB3, if I recall) and less time promoting violent, antagonistic,destructive behaviors to yourself and others.

 

Mean-spirited??? I think I've been exceedingly polite to you hoping you might actually FOR ONCE bother to 1) actually read and comprehend a post of mine in its entirety and 2) actually respond to a direct question I've posed to you. You haven't upheld your end of your own deal

 

Now stop being such a fucking cry-baby, go change your tampon, and respond to my post above.

 

You may be uglier than I thought. Seem to have lost my motivation, mate.

 

Good. Fuck off then, mate. You haven't been motivated to answer anything anyway - so it would be no great loss...

 

 

I'm not through.

 

BoothandJefffieNRAmembers_zpsf6520cf3.pn

Link to post
Share on other sites

TX concealed weapons nutters much less violent than general population

 

The two numbers give us the ratio of CHL holder convictions for murder and manslaughter per 100,000 CHL holders. That number is .70 per 100,000. Yes, the decimal point is in the correct place.

 

The rate of murder and manslaughter for the general population of Texas averaged for the years 1996-2011 is 6.0 per 100,000.

 

I'm afraid of people who do not have concealed weapons permits, and as the TX stats and surveys from other states show, my fear is perfectly rational.

 

I think people without concealed weapons permits, being considerably more dangerous than CWP holders, should have to wear signs identifying themselves as part of the dangerous segment of society. ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest One of Five

Mr. McCabe, would you feel better about me if I pathologically collected and fired lots of guns?

 

Really?

 

See above. It would take an awful lot to make me feel better about you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

TX concealed weapons nutters much less violent than general population

 

The two numbers give us the ratio of CHL holder convictions for murder and manslaughter per 100,000 CHL holders. That number is .70 per 100,000. Yes, the decimal point is in the correct place.

 

The rate of murder and manslaughter for the general population of Texas averaged for the years 1996-2011 is 6.0 per 100,000.

 

I'm afraid of people who do not have concealed weapons permits, and as the TX stats and surveys from other states show, my fear is perfectly rational.

 

I think people without concealed weapons permits, being considerably more dangerous than CWP holders, should have to wear signs identifying themselves as part of the dangerous segment of society. ;)

 

DING DING DING! Its sad that despite facts having such a liberal bias, the liberals like to selectively ignore them when it suits them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

It is a clear degeneration of the United States which our parents left us, where it was assumed daily sidearms were unnecessary. The gun mindset is a poison.

 

 

Are you fuking kidding us? Gun ownership and gun use has been woven into the fabric of America since Day One. There have been no 'down times' since the 1600's when they were deemed unnecessary, useless or otherwise verbotten to own and/or use. Appropriately. To think that our parents did NOT use and own firearms back in the 40's,50's or 60's is completely fuking incorrect. Especially given the fact that they were affordable, they were available everywhere (department stores, gas stations, sporting goods stores, many super markets and yes, even in 7-11's) and there was NO stigma associated with everyone in the family owning one. Just ask any ex-Boy Scout that's your folks age. Or their school teachers/principals.....who actually ALLOWED us to bring firearms on campus.

 

Jfc, you're really trying my patients this year......

 

 

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/10/23/21093182-teacher-found-dead-outside-mass-high-school-14-year-old-in-custody?lite

 

Rick, above, you refer to a kinder, gentler day and age. Days when Jeff rode his bike with a rifle slung on his back, and 1961, when my double-crossbar Schwinn was rigged with a scabbard off the forks.

 

Those days are gone, but sure, we all wish they would return.

 

Firearms on campus today? The situation just isn't the same. Here's an intelligent, thorough look at it.

 

Disclosure: the internet OP's footnotes are quite scrambled into the text.. I did my best to decipher it (it took hours). I have no reason to spin or alter the info in my favor, since there are dozens of studies which verify that the mere presence of guns, on campus or off, is deadly.

GUNS ON CAMPUS?

The Kansas House recently passed measure HB 2353 that would allow those with concealed-carry permits to bring firearms into government buildings, including those on college campuses. The measure, according to its sponsor Rep. Forrest Knox (R-Altoona), is about the safety1 of college students. With nearly 40 years of combined experience in public safety, including more than a dozen years each in higher education as the Chiefs of Police at the University of Vermont and Princeton University, and as Managing Partners of Margolis Healy & Associates, a leading firm specializing in campus safety and security, it is our firm belief that not only would the bill likely have no positive effect on campus safety, but could in fact decrease the safety and security of Kansas’ college students.

This belief is based on a number of facts. First, even taking into account tragedies such as the mass shooting at Virginia Tech, American college students are safer on their campuses than off them, and there is no credible evidence to suggest that armed students would make campuses even safer.

Second, the fact that college students engage in risky behavior, including binge drinking, and have much higher rates of suicide than the general population mean that armed students are more likely to create an unsafe environment for themselves and their fellow students.

Third, there are a number of practical issues that are created by allowing guns on campuses, not the least of which is where and how they should be stored.

And fourth, those arguing cogently against passage of the Kansas measure include the Kansas Board of Regents and University Police Chiefs, whose unanimous position states in part that it would “create an environment inconsistent with quality education, and complicate the jobs of the University Police.” We also recognize that, in limited cases, there are legitimate reasons for students to have access to firearms on campus. Most notably, they include reserve officer training programs (ROTC), college-based police academy programs, theatrical applications, student shooting clubs, and legitimate academic interests (e.g., history, military, and engineering courses). Our arguments herein do not necessarily apply to these specific and unique circumstances.

Lastly, while the discussion and focus is on firearms, we also recognize the application of our arguments to other lethal and less-lethal weapons in the campus environment (e.g., knives, bows, chemical, electronic control devices, and impact weapons).

WOULD ARMED STUDENTS MAKE CAMPUSES SAFER?

In 2009, there were 17 homicides on US college campuses, representing .0001 percent of the entire student population. The percentage of homicides in the

1 “Kansas House OKs changes to concealed carry law,” The Emporia Gazette, Mar. 15, 2012 (http://www.

general population for that year was .005, meaning Americans were 50 times

more likely to be murdered off a college campus than on one. This number aligns with a Department of Justice study comparing the violent victimization of college students versus non-students, aged 18 to 24, from the period 1995 – 2002, which found that students experience less violence annually than non- students, and that firearms were used in just 9% of all violent crimes against college students.2 It also found that the majority of violent crimes that victimize college students (93%) occur off campus.3 Another study found that fewer than 2% of students reported being threatened with a gun while at college.4 The evidence is clear that college students, while on campus, are not only safer than the general population, but that when they are the victims of violent crime, firearms play a statistically insignificant role.1995-2002,” (U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics SpecialReport, Jan, 2005): 1. (http://bjs.ojp.

Obviously the objective of every Campus Police Department and Safety Office is to make campuses even safer—crime at any level is not acceptable. Today efforts to increase levels of safety and security include improved security & technology, student education and awareness programs, and mass notification and warning systems.

4 Matthew Miller, David Hemenway, Henry Wechsler, “Guns and Gun Threats at College,” Journal of American College also Health 51, no. 2 (2002): 63.

“Mass Shootings by Concealed Handgun Permit Holders in 2009”

Could allowing students to carry concealed weapons further that objective? Let’s return to 2009, and recall that 17 college students

were murdered on campuses that year. In 2009 there were 6 mass shootings by concealed handgun permit holders that resulted in the murders of 37 people.

5 Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, accessed Apr. 12,

52012 (http://www.csgv.org/issues-and- campaigns/concerns-about-concealed-carry/mass-shootings-by-concealed-handgun-permit-holders-in-2009).

From 2007 to 2011, the total number of people murdered by concealed-carry permit holders was over 400. While the majority of permit holders are law abiding citizens, these figures refute the claim that the permitting process eliminates citizens who are unfit to carry a concealed weapon.

What about lives saved by concealed-carry permit holders? There are also a number of studies that compare the evidence both for and against concealed-carry laws that conclude that they do not save lives.

6 The Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research and the American Academy of Sciences support this conclusion.

7“Should Students be Allowed to Carry Concealed Weapons?” Christian Science Monitor, April 18, 2007.

8 See, e.g., John Lott, Jr. & David Mustard, Crime, “Deterrence and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns,” Journal of Legal Studies 26, no. 1 (1997).9

Concealed Handguns

Journal of Legal Studies 26, no. 1 (1997).9

While gun rights advocates have claimed that “shall issue” CCW laws are associated with a significant reduction in violent crime, 8 analyses have criticized the methodology and conclusions of the studies they rely on.

9 See, e.g., Daniel Webster & Jens Ludwig, Myths about Defensive Gun Use and Academy of Sciences, Permissive Gun Carry Laws, (Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Media Studies Group, 2000);and John J. Donohue, “The Impact of Concealed-Carry Laws,” in Evaluating Gun Policy: Effects on Crime and Violence (Jens Ludwig & Philip J. Cook eds., Brookings Institute Press, 2003).

A National report reviewing existing data on the effectiveness of firearm laws, including research purporting to demonstrate that concealed carry laws reduce crime, found that the “evidence to date does not adequately indicate either the sign or the magnitude of a causal link between the passage of right-to-carry laws and crime rates.”10

10 Charles F. Wellford, John V. Pepper,and Carol V. Petrie, editors, Berkeley Media Studies Group, 2000) ; and John J. Donohue, “The Impact of concealed Carry Laws."

Evaluating Gun Policy: Effects on Crime and Violence (Jens Ludwig & Philip J. Cook eds., Brookings 10 Institute Press, 2003).

10 Charles F. Wellford, John V. Pepper, and Carol V. Petrie, editors,

Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review, (Washington DC : The National Academies Press, published in the Stanford Law Review, 2005), 120 – 151.

Not only does the evidence indicate that concealed-carry laws don’t save lives, but there is evidence that they can actually increase crime. In their study 11 Yale and Stanford law professors Ian Ayres and John J. Donohue III contend that “one must acknowledge that there are both costs and benefits to either allowing or prohibiting the carrying of handguns, and the task for the scholar is to try to determine which effects dominate.”

11 Ian Ayres & John J. Donohue III Shooting Down the “More Guns, Less Crime” Hypothesis, Stanford Law Review 55, no. 1193 (2003): 1285, 1296; and Ian Ayres & John J. Donohue III, The Latest Misfires in Support of the “More Guns, Less Crime” Hypothesis, Stanford Law Review 55, no. 1371, (2003).

After analyzing the data and methodologies used by proponents of concealed carry laws, they conclude, “While we do not want to overstate the strength of the conclusions that can be drawn from the extremely variable results emerging from the statistical analysis, if anything, there is stronger evidence for the conclusion that these laws increase crime than there is for the conclusion that they decrease it.” According to the FBI, use of a gun in self-defense appears to be a rare occurrence. For example, of the 30,694 Americans who died by gunfire in 2005, only 147 were killed by firearms in justifiable homicides by private citizens (“ justifiable homicide” is defined by the FBI as the killing of a felon, during the commission of a felony, by a private citizen).12 In addition, both armed citizens and highly trained law enforcement officers are often unable to stop a gun crime. In two famous incidents, gunmen who were in close proximity to armed citizens and/or law enforcement personnel were able to fire multiple rounds and were not stopped by use of firearms.

When John Hinckley attempted to assassinate President Ronald Reagan in 1981, he fired six shots, wounding the President and three others. Surrounded by armed Secret Service agents and police, Hinckley was subdued only when a number of them jumped on him. Thirty years later, Jared Lee Loughner shot and killed six people and wounded thirteen others, including Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords. Two people tackled him to the ground and wrestled his gun away from him. An armed bystander, Joe Zamudio, saw someone holding Loughner’s gun and believed him to be the shooter. He considered firing at the innocent man, but instead pinned him to a wall. Zamudio later told reporters, “I could have very easily done the wrong thing and hurt a lot more people.”13

VIOLENT CRIME ON CAMPUS

Margolis Healy & Associates analyzed the crime data gathered by the U.S. Department of Education in accordance with the Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy & Campus Crime Statistics Act – The Clery Act, as part of a Department of Justice Bureau of Justice Assistance crime prevent ion grant, to determine if there were significant increases in violent crime on campuses across the U.S. The Clery Act requires institutions of higher education participating in federal student aid programs to report crime data. To avoid bias based on size of institution or campus location, the analysis examined the rate of reported violent crimes per 1,000 students, and separated the institutions by level (two-year, four-year), as well as location (urban, suburban, small town/rural). Our analysis revealed no statistically significant change in the rate of violent crime reported from 2006 through 2010. Data for 2011 is not yet available.

12 Federal Bureau of Investigation, U.S.Dept. of Justice, “Crime in the United States, 2006, Expanded Homicide Data Table 14,” (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/offenses/expanded_

For the purpose of the analysis, violent crimes were defined as those required to be reported by the Clery Act that involved force or the threat of force, and includes six offenses: murder/non-negligent manslaughter; negligent manslaughter; robbery; aggravated assault; and forcible and non-forcible sex.

We then aggregated the data for these six offenses to develop a rate of violent crime per 1,000 enrolled students based on the calculated mean for all institutions with five years of data (n=6176). The data subsets based on level of institution (two-year, four-year) and location (urban, suburban, small town/rural) likewise reveal no significant change in the rate of violent crime per 1,000 enrolled students over the four- year period 2006-2009.

information/data/shrta ble_14.html).

13 Molly Hennessy-Fiske and Neela Banerjee, “Tuscon shooting fires up gun offenses debate,” Los Angeles Times, Jan. 14, 2011.

COLLEGE STUDENTS AND GUNS

There are a number of facts that support the conclusion that college students in particular should not be armed. According to a study conducted by the Center for Injury Control, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, guns kept in the home are more likely to be involved in a fatal or nonfatal unintentional shooting, criminal assault or suicide attempt than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense.14 This is a particularly alarming statistic in light of another study which found that two-thirds of gun-owning college students engage in binge drinking. Gun- owning students are more likely than unarmed college students to drink “frequently and excessively” and then engage in risky activities, such as driving when under the influence of alcohol, vandalizing property, and getting into trouble with police.15 This mixture of alcohol and guns is a lethal one that has resulted in accidental shootings, such as that of a Florida State University student killed at a fraternity party16 in 2011. The American College Health Association (ACHA) reports that suicide is currently the second most common cause of death among college students.

14 Arthur L. Kellerman et al., “Injuries and Deaths Due to Firearms in the Home,” 2 (1998): 263.

And according to the New England Journal of Medicine, an average of 46 Americans committed suicide with a firearm each day in 2005, accounting for 53% of all completed suicides, and for 40% more deaths than gun homicide.

15 Journa lof Trauma-Infection & Critical Care

Matthew Miller, David Hemenway & Henry Wechsler, “Guns and Gun Threats at College,” Journal of American Health 51, no. 2 (2002): 63.

The article notes also that “a suicide attempt with a firearm rarely affords a second chance. Attempts involving drugs or cutting, which account for more than 90% of all suicidal acts, prove fatal far less often.”17 But access to a gun not only puts suicidal students at risk; it also endangers the community: of the six gunmen who committed mass shootings on college campuses, three including the gunman at Virginia Tech, were suicidal, turning their guns on others before turning them on themselves.18

18 Seung-Hui Cho, Virginia Tech, 2007: killed 32, wounded 25, committed suicide; Steven Kazmierczak, Northern Illinois University, wounded 21, committed suicide; CharlesWhitman, University of Texas, 1966: killed 16, wounded 32; left suicide notes, abused amphetamines, and visited University doctors and the public safety department psychiatrist. 18 scene.html#storylink=cpy).

16 “Guns on campus bill discussion delayed amid emotional scene,” Miami Herald, Feb. 22, 2011 (http:// miami bill-discussion-delayed-amid-emotional- herald.typepad.com/nakedpolitics/2011/02/guns-on-campus-

17 Matthew Miller, M.D., Sc.D., and David Hemenway, Ph.D, “Guns and Suicide in the United States,” New England Journal of Medicine 359, no. 10 (2008): 989-991.

PRACTICAL ISSUES WITH GUNS ON CAMPUS

Bringing guns into the campus environment has practical implications for storage and access, police response, and application of lethal and less-lethal force. Residential students will carry them on their persons or in their bags, and will need to store them when not doing so. Because theft is the most common crime on college campuses, we have concerns about where and how safe storage is achieved. Storage options currently include vehicles, residential locations including a room safes, residential hall central safes, and the public safety department.

We lose significant control over the safety of the weapon when stored in a vehicle, and institutions would incur significant expense installing room safes in residential facilities to accommodate weapons. We can reasonably presume that student affairs professionals at front desks are not inclined to manage a weapons depot replete with a sand barrel for loading and unloading. Furthermore, the handling of weapons and ammunition increases the likelihood of unintentional discharges.

In addition to previously mentioned concerns, storage at the campus public safety department necessitates that the institution first have a viable public safety function to manage such a service, and then the storage space to do so .Non-sworn campus public safety agencies may not have the necessary numbe ror kind of gun safes and loading/unloading spaces. Sworn campus police, in particular, will be challenged with storing firearms that they cannot screen for involvement in crime. They will also be unable to search the owners in the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) or state equivalent.

Federal laws are very strict on the circumstances that must exist before a serial number or person can be screened in the system. Violation of these rules could result in the loss of access to the database by campus police, which is far from ideal. It’s entirely possible that the campus police could store a weapon that was involved in the commission of a crime, and could hand it to a convicted felon in violation of state and federal laws. Police officers responding to the scene of a violent crime involving firearms will not necessarily know who the “good guy” is. There are, sadly, numerous incidents in which police have fired on the wrong individual, such as the September 2005 shooting death of a University of Central Florida police officer. An Orlando police officer mistook the plainclothes officer as a threat when he saw the officer’s weapon drawn during the arrival of students for a football game at the Citrus Bowl. In addition, many non-sworn campus public safety officers are not armed; armed students would create a difficult unbalanced situation. And finally, firearms should only be deployed in the defense of human life. There are many situations and scenarios where the use of a firearm is beyond an appropriate response—when all we have is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail. Arguably, the shooting of Trayvon Martin in March2012 by George Zimmerman is an example of such an instance. Police officers and trained campus public safety officials have a number of less lethal use of force options available to manage the array of scenarios that don’t require lethal or deadly force. We remain steadfast in our belief that the day to day life of a college student doesn’t put them in the path of life threatening violence, and certainly therefore doesn’t require them to have lethal force tools for self-protection.

OTHERS’ ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE KANSAS MEASURE

The International Association of Campus Law Enforcement Administrators, Inc., (IACLEA) in its position statement on Concealed Carrying of Firearms Proposals on College Campuses 19 notes that it is “concerned that concealed carry laws have the potential to dramatically increase violence on college and university campuses that our Members are empowered to protect.

Among the concerns with concealed carry laws or policies are: the potential for accidental discharge or misuse of firearms at on-campus or off-campus parties where large numbers of students are gathered or at student gatherings where alcohol or drugs are being consumed, as well as the potential for guns to be used as a means to settle disputes between or among students. There is also a real concern that campus police officers responding to a situation involving an active shooter may not be able to distinguish between the shooter and others with firearms.” The University Police Chiefs of Kansas unanimous position on the proposed legislation includes another cogent argument: “Statistically, theft is the number one crime on college campus. These are crimes of opportunity made possible by inattention or carelessness given to the security of personal property. Laptop computers, cell phones, backpacks, and purses are easy targets taken from campus facilities, classrooms, and dormitories. Theft of a weapon is a significant risk, in terms of both the likelihood of theft as well as from the danger associated with weapons falling into the wrong hands. Guns are extremely appealing to thieves. University Police cannot in all cases prevent unauthorized persons from coming into possession of a gun brought to campus by a legitimate firearm owner.”

19 International Association of Campus Board of Directors, “Position Statement: A joint statement by College Student Educators International, Association, Concealed Carry Proposals,” Mar. 19,2008 (http://www.iaclea.org/visitors/ for Student Conduct Administration, Association of College and University PDFs/Concealed WeaponStatement_ Housing Officers—International, National Association for Campus Public Safety and Chief of University Activities,March08.pdf)

20Law Enforcement Administrators, Inc.

20 National Intramural-Recreational Sports Association, and National Orientation State Affairs Committee, Jan. 25, 2012

From written testimony of Richard L .Johnson, Associate Vice Chancellor for Directors Association states a concern that “the possession of concealed weapons on campuses poses a threat to learning and working environments and goals. We wish to see state governments honor the right of institutions to create and enforce policies that protect students and its stated educational missions."

Police, University of Kansas Medical Center, before the House Federal and on college campuses and thus may undermine the institution’s mission

(http://pa.kumc.edu/Documents/public%20affairs/Testimony1_25_12_2.

In particular, the statement stresses that “campus administrators often deliver unpleasant news to students and could be targets of students they engage with. If a concealed weapon carry law passes there may be additional resources required to ensure their protection and protection for those in the area.”

21 College Student EducatorsInternational, Association for Student Conduct Administration, Associationof College and University HousingOfficers—International, National

21Association for Campus Activities, National Intramural-Recreational Sports Association, and National OrientationDirectors Association, “Statement AgainstConcealed Weapon Carry on University Campuses,” Apr. 25, 2011 (http://www.acuhoi.org/portals/0/pdf/concealed_carry_statement_wNIRSA_ASCA.pdf).

University of Texas System Chancellor Francisco Cigarroa, in a letter to Gov. Rick Perry, cites that “unease has been expressed by our campus mental health professionals, who know and deal with the reality of the emotional and psychological pressures of academic life, separation from family, relationships—all pressures that contribute to the harsh reality that suicide is the second leading cause of death among college students. There is great concern that the presence of handguns, even if limited to licensed individuals age 21 or older, will lead to an increase of both accidental shootings and self- inflicted wounds.”22

Finally, The Kansas Board of Regents statement against the proposed legislation notes that “the United States Military does not allow possession of personal firearms on military installations. If the military believes it is ill- advised to permit possession of personal firearms on military installations, why do Kansas Legislators believe college students are more trained and crisis ready than military personnel?”

It also points out that “concealed weapons, or extraordinary security measures, would detract from the environments necessary to achieve the research and learning missions of institutions. Kansas higher education campuses include: Early Childhood Centers; A Medical Center with patients in several campus locations; The Kansas Academy of Math and Science (KAMS) - high school students residing and attending classes at Fort Hays State University; Stadiums, Performance Centers, Museums, Arenas, and Field Houses for athletic and cultural events; Laboratories and work spaces with chemicals and equipment where a gun discharge, even if accidental, could cause serious harm or reactions.”23

CONCLUSION

Whereas students are safer on college campuses than off them, proximity to firearms puts college-age students at risk for intended and unintended shootings, and a number of state and national organizations with a vested interest in the outcome of this pending legislation have made sound and compelling arguments against it, it is our belief that HB2353, SB394 or other bills of this nature should not become law.

22 Francisco Cigarroa, letter to GovernorRick Perry, Feb. 24, 2011; in “Cigarroa:Campus Carry Create ‘Less SafeEnvironment,’” Texas Tribune, Feb. 24,2011.23 Kansas Board of Regents Statement,“Exempt Higher Education Institutions;HB2352-Personal and Family Protection Act”(http://kansasregents.org/resources/PDF/1809HB2353Personal&FamilyProtectionTalkingPoints.pdf). 7 MARGOLIS HEALY & ASSOCIATES

Pasted from <http://www.slideshare.net/margolishealy/mha-argument-against-arming-college-students-april-2012>

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm gonna need to flush twice to get through that shit. I stopped when some "facts" (sic) were simple, emotional pleas toward those already in alignment with the message. I hadn't read so much hyperbole out of Kansas since the arguments against liquor-by-the-drink in 1985.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest One of Five

Has anyone EVER bothered to read joco's cnp's?? Anyone?

 

Fuck, it's no wonder my Internet is running so slow this am what with all the bandwitdth jocal is clogging up.

 

he's the Karl of the gun grabber world.

Link to post
Share on other sites

McCabe, it's a question of degree, not a yes-or-no deal. We could have the guns if we didn't push it to excess.

 

Your (pl) slippery slope involves denying registration, denying licensing, denying mandatory insurance, denying culpability for their public costs, and even denying stringent background checks. Then ahem, ramping up fear and paranoia. Whew!

 

Another example of the slippery slope is the experience of a novice Mr. or Mrs. Mrs. Smith, who goes to the nearest firing range and is encouraged by their NRA-qualified instructors to: practice frequently, to shoot at human silhouettes, to shoot if they ever pull the weapon in anger, to have lethal intent if shooting, that it is their duty to do all of the above. The gun culture encourages uncontrolled CC and to vote for unrestricted guns every damn where. Further, gun industry publications seem to feel the weapon trumps LE, which is rampant vigilantism, plain and simple. So...

 

With hundreds of thousands of lives adversely affected by gun violence every year, and only 4 million NRA members (& dedclining gun ownership), it's only a question of time before we the people get our backs up and find political leaders with the courage to face this stuff. You guys don't know when to stop.

 

And the gripes above don't cover the daily gun misbehavior, which going by scientific study, far outweighs legitimate self-defense use. Guns and gun owners now have a stigma, and it is for cause.

 

Yes, I own a gun, and I plan to keep it (so yeah, "gun grabber" as another absolute doesn't wash in my case, sorry). But I don't visualize shooting other humans, or use it as a first line of defense, or encourage the nearest stranger to arm up. Personally, a .22LR seems to sound 100X louder than when I was in my twenties, and I am now offended by the crude type of power it displays. Furthermore, the last three hikes I took were somewhat spoiled by others' gunfire in the distance. They are not a plus in society, IMO. I am content to just let the era pass. YMMV.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jokey, like any good 'progressive' liberal, has two sets of rules to live by. The one he subscribes to in his own life, and the one that he wants everyone else to follow.....

Link to post
Share on other sites

...

With hundreds of thousands of lives adversely affected by gun violence every year, and only 4 million NRA members (& dedclining gun ownership), it's only a question of time before we the people get our backs up and find political leaders with the courage to face this stuff. You guys don't know when to stop....

 

 

Your numbers are dated, it's closer to 4.5 million now, by far the largest such organization. The next-largest is the Sierra Club, with over a million. There are only about 30k in the Brady Bunch, you know. Any organization except the NRA would be ecstatic if told they had "only" 4 million members. The NRA is the only one that would be rightly insulted. ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jokey, like any good 'progressive' liberal, has two sets of rules to live by. The one he subscribes to in his own life, and the one that he wants everyone else to follow.....

 

 

Please don't habitually misunderstand me, Rick. The heart of what I'm asking (and expecting) is for those who want their guns to get the gun lobby to stand down. You know, provide some leadership for the sake of the guns you love. We can't go on like this, and yes, you and Big Jeff may be part of the problem.

 

Eighty Americans will die by gunfire today. One hundred and sixty will be maimed. Not even the shooters will be unscathed, while "Pusstralia" is making us smell bad by comparison.

 

Comparing the record (and cachet) of firearms to English muffins and marshmallows doesn't help, amigo. And neither does being a cretin.

 

 

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

131022_Melissa_Ann_Ringhardt_OCSO.380;38

.

By M. Alex Johnson, Staff Writer, NBC News

A teenage babysitter was arrested Tuesday and charged in the death of a 5-year-old Texas boy who accidentally shot himself with the babysitter's gun while she was napping, authorities said.

Melissa Ann Ringhardt, 19, of Vidor was being held in the Orange County Jail on a felony charge of abandoning or endangering a child, the county sheriff's office said in a statement. She could face a sentence of six months to two years if convicted.

Bond was set Wednesday at $250,000, NBC station KBMT of Beaumont reported.

The sheriff's office said Ringhardt, who lives with the boy's family, left her semiautomatic .40-caliber handgun on a coffee table when she went into a bedroom to take a nap Monday afternoon. When she woke up, she couldn't immediately find the boy, identified as John Read, according to the sheriff's office. She eventually discovered him dead in the living room, it said.

 

Because the home has no telephone, Ringhardt carried John and a 6-month-old child, whom she was also watching and who wasn't identified, about a block to his grandparents' home to call 911, the sheriff's office said. John was declared dead there when emergency crews arrived.

The 6-month-old child wasn't injured.

Ringhardt told investigators she had the gun because she was frightened of being home alone, the sheriff's office said.

"People have the right to bear arms, and with that comes great responsibility," Orange County sheriff's Chief Deputy Clint Hodgkinson told KFDM-TV of Beaumont. "If someone, somehow, puts a firearm in a place where a child is able to get that weapon, you've committed an offense."

"Sometimes, it takes something like this — as tragic as it is — for people to reflect on those things, and these are the opportunities you take ... to say, 'Look, what could we have done?'" Hodgkinson said.

 

 

Girlfriend killed by teen's waistband gun during hug

October 2, 2013

An Arizona woman died on Tuesday (Oct. 1) after her boyfriend's gun discharged during a hug, according to CBS5AZ.com. The woman is identified as 24-year-old Amanda Mosley. She complained the weapon was uncomfortable during a hug which prompted her 18-year-old boyfriend to remove the weapon. When he was removing it, it discharged hitting the woman. She later died at a Phoenix hospital.

This recent incident is not an isolated case: Last year in Detroit, a woman was killed after she tried to hug (or dance) with an off-duty police officer when his weapon accidentally discharged. The hand gun was also in his waistband.

Teens and children are responsible for more than half of all unintentional shootings. A mere 10.1% of teens believe gun laws should be eased for both home and public with 18% wanting only the police and military having access to them.

Conversely, 56% of surveyed students feel “1st shooter” video games influence young people to become desensitized to violence

.

Link to post
Share on other sites

...

 

Eighty Americans will die by gunfire today. One hundred and sixty will be maimed. Not even the shooters will be unscathed...

 

 

True enough, since most of the shooters you mention are shooting themselves with intent to kill, it's not surprising that they do not emerge unscathed from their actions.

 

But then, some defensive shooters are injured too. The CDC says that guns are the most effective means of self defense, with the lowest rate of injury to the defender, but still, some get injured.

 

Like Ms. Mason, who you brought to the thread earlier but don't seem to want to discuss any more. Simple question: was she better off being disarmed and shot in the arm with her own gun, or being raped? My answer: I'd a lot rather be shot in the arm.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I am not sure what this has to do with gun nutters.

 

http://www.sanluisobispo.com/2013/10/23/2747211/3-children-treated-after-police.html

 

Cops leave a loaded AR strapped to a motorcycle on display to promote their say no to drugs campaign, and a kid pulls the trigger on the gun. Seems that they should not be leaving loaded guns where kids can get to them. Police fail, school fail. Who is the gun nutter? The kid who pulled the trigger on a display item?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

I am not sure what this has to do with gun nutters.

 

http://www.sanluisobispo.com/2013/10/23/2747211/3-children-treated-after-police.html

 

Cops leave a loaded AR strapped to a motorcycle on display to promote their say no to drugs campaign, and a kid pulls the trigger on the gun. Seems that they should not be leaving loaded guns where kids can get to them. Police fail, school fail. Who is the gun nutter? The kid who pulled the trigger on a display item?

I think it sheds some light on how irresponsible gun owners and even cops can be. Irresponsible gun owners are nutters too.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

I am not sure what this has to do with gun nutters.

 

http://www.sanluisobispo.com/2013/10/23/2747211/3-children-treated-after-police.html

 

Cops leave a loaded AR strapped to a motorcycle on display to promote their say no to drugs campaign, and a kid pulls the trigger on the gun. Seems that they should not be leaving loaded guns where kids can get to them. Police fail, school fail. Who is the gun nutter? The kid who pulled the trigger on a display item?

I think it sheds some light on how irresponsible gun owners and even cops can be. Irresponsible gun owners are nutters too.

 

You are mistaken. It has nothing to do with gun owners.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

I am not sure what this has to do with gun nutters.

 

http://www.sanluisobispo.com/2013/10/23/2747211/3-children-treated-after-police.html

 

Cops leave a loaded AR strapped to a motorcycle on display to promote their say no to drugs campaign, and a kid pulls the trigger on the gun. Seems that they should not be leaving loaded guns where kids can get to them. Police fail, school fail. Who is the gun nutter? The kid who pulled the trigger on a display item?

I think it sheds some light on how irresponsible gun owners and even cops can be. Irresponsible gun owners are nutters too.

 

You are mistaken. It has nothing to do with gun owners.

Someone owned the gun used to kill the ex-marine teacher. Someone owned that gun strapped to the cop bike. Both are examples of irresponsible gun owners. You nutterz should be outraged at your irresponsible brothers in arms.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone owned the gun used to kill the ex-marine teacher. Someone owned that gun strapped to the cop bike. Both are examples of irresponsible gun owners. You nutterz should be outraged at your irresponsible brothers in arms.

 

The people of California owned the cops gun, the people of California are not in the aggregate gun nutters.

Link to post
Share on other sites

when well trained cops can't secure their weapons adequately, you can see why I have less than full confidence in the rest of the public to secure their weapons. Human error and all (look up plane crashes)

Link to post
Share on other sites

when well trained cops can't secure their weapons adequately, you can see why I have less than full confidence in the rest of the public to secure their weapons. Human error and all (look up plane crashes)

 

 

They obviously were not well-trained or they would not have left a loaded weapon on display where kids could get to it.

 

As for the rest of us, firearms accidents continue to decline. One is still too many.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Someone owned the gun used to kill the ex-marine teacher. Someone owned that gun strapped to the cop bike. Both are examples of irresponsible gun owners. You nutterz should be outraged at your irresponsible brothers in arms.

 

The people of California owned the cops gun, the people of California are not in the aggregate gun nutters.

Oh, never mind then. I guess the cop is completely without responsibility because he didn't "own" it. Well, he actually did. He is a citizen of California too. Just like Rick.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Someone owned the gun used to kill the ex-marine teacher. Someone owned that gun strapped to the cop bike. Both are examples of irresponsible gun owners. You nutterz should be outraged at your irresponsible brothers in arms.

 

The people of California owned the cops gun, the people of California are not in the aggregate gun nutters.

Oh, never mind then. I guess the cop is completely without responsibility because he didn't "own" it. Well, he actually did. He is a citizen of California too. Just like Rick.

 

I did not say the cop was not responsible, I was just pointing out that you were talking out of your back end again.

Link to post
Share on other sites

when well trained cops can't secure their weapons adequately, you can see why I have less than full confidence in the rest of the public to secure their weapons. Human error and all (look up plane crashes)

 

I have even less confidence in the public's ability to secure their alcohol. How many deaths are attributed to misuse of booze? Why are we not calling for another alcohol prohibition? Or licensing and registration of alcohol? Or background checks before you can buy booze? Or mandatory liquor safes in the home?

 

And don't even get me started on poisons..... Given that poison kills around 30,000+ every year and accidental guns death are ~ 600 - which is the bigger problem? Why is there not a prohibition, licensing, background check and mandatory safes for poisons in the home.

 

I could go on all night with other CDC statistical killers if you would like.....

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

...

 

Eighty Americans will die by gunfire today. One hundred and sixty will be maimed. Not even the shooters will be unscathed...

 

 

True enough, since most of the shooters you mention are shooting themselves with intent to kill, it's not surprising that they do not emerge unscathed from their actions.

 

But then, some defensive shooters are injured too. The CDC says that guns are the most effective means of self defense, with the lowest rate of injury to the defender, but still, some get injured.

 

Like Ms. Mason, who you brought to the thread earlier but don't seem to want to discuss any more. Simple question: was she better off being disarmed and shot in the arm with her own gun, or being raped? My answer: I'd a lot rather be shot in the arm.

 

The trail of vigilantism you offer lacks epilogues, Tom. Self defense shooters do NOT walk away without psychological trauma.

It would make an interesting series of studies, though

 

 

 

Tom, beat the Mrs. Mason drum all you want, that's your end of it. My observation is that your self-defense shootings in no way justify the incidental shootings which occur with the presence of these weapons in our daily lives.

 

My seventh request, Tom: show me ANY study which shows they outnumber the gun mayhem in our homes and in our lives, and I'll show you a dozen other studies by scholars and academics which dispute it.

 

I'll just mention a few for you: Kellerman (an emergency room MD), Wintermute (another emergency room MD), and Webster.

 

 

Women and Self Defense

In 2009…1,818 females were murdered by males in single victim/single offender incidents that were submitted to the FBI for its Supplementary Homicide Report. Examination of that data dispels many of the myths regarding the nature of lethal violence against females.

  • For homicides in which victim-to-offender relationship could be identified, 93% of female victim (1,579 out of 1,693) were murdered by a male they knew.
  • Nearly fourteen times as may females were murdered by a male they knew (1,579 victims) as were killed by male strangers (114 victims).
  • For victims who knew their offenders, 63% (989) of female homicide victims were wives or intimate acquaintances of their killers.
  • There were 296 women shot and killed by either their husbands or acquaintances during the course of an argument.
  • Nationwide, for homicides in which the weapon could be determined (1,654), more female homicides were committed with firearms (53%) than any other weapon. Source: Tom Diaz, The Last Gun p68

 

 

Melanie Hain, popular gun-carrier soccer mom dies in shooting

By IBTimes Staff Reporter

on October 08 2009 11:28 AM

Melanie Hain, the soccer mom who gained national attention after openly carrying a loaded handgun to her daughter's soccer game, was shot dead along with her husband Scott Hain, the Pennlive reported Thursday.

The couple was shot Wednesday night in an apparent murder-suicide. They were pronounced dead after 8:30 p.m. at their home in Lebanon, Philadelphia.

The couple's three children aged 10, 6 and 2 were at home at the time but were not injured and were taken to relatives and friends, police said according to the paper.

The couple has had problems in their marriage for the last week, a neighbor told the paper. No results of the autopsies had been released as of Thursday morning.11:

Pasted from <http://www.ibtimes.com/melanie-hain-popular-gun-carrier-soccer-mom-dies-shooting-335313>

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

when well trained cops can't secure their weapons adequately, you can see why I have less than full confidence in the rest of the public to secure their weapons. Human error and all (look up plane crashes)

 

I have even less confidence in the public's ability to secure their alcohol. How many deaths are attributed to misuse of booze? Why are we not calling for another alcohol prohibition? Or licensing and registration of alcohol? Or background checks before you can buy booze? Or mandatory liquor safes in the home?

 

And don't even get me started on poisons..... Given that poison kills around 30,000+ every year and accidental guns death are ~ 600 - which is the bigger problem? Why is there not a prohibition, licensing, background check and mandatory safes for poisons in the home.

 

I could go on all night with other CDC statistical killers if you would like.....

...but that would only be more infantile false equivalency... FIFY, Jeffie.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Has anyone EVER bothered to read joco's cnp's?? Anyone?

 

Fuck, it's no wonder my Internet is running so slow this am what with all the bandwitdth jocal is clogging up.

 

A huge Bill of Rights proponent such as yourself might consider the First Amendment ramifications of any request to limit or contain my open views. LenP, same.

 

Are you man enough to face the music, Jeff? I think you are, but sometimes I wonder... The reality might be that you don't want intelligent discussion, change, or solutions. Just the indefensible, recklessly unrestricted circulation of militarized weapons.

 

Carry on, though.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Tom, beat the Mrs. Mason drum all you want, that's your end of it. My observation is that your self-defense shootings in no way justify the incidental shootings which occur with the presence of these weapons in our daily lives.

 

My seventh request, Tom: show me ANY study which shows they outnumber the gun mayhem in our homes and in our lives, and I'll show you a dozen other studies by scholars and academics which dispute it.

 

I'll just mention a few for you: Kellerman

Admit that you would not mind if Mason was raped, as long as she did not defend herself with an evil gun. That is your position, right? Say it loud and proud!

 

When Phil Bolger decided to cross the bar, was that mayhem or his choice? I say his choice. So the suicides that outnumber the homicides are part of the evidence you seek. For the rest, I once again recommend the recent CDC study.

 

 

Kellermann? Really? He set out to prove that guns kept in the home are not used in self defense and he framed the questions in a way designed to exclude most defensive gun uses.

 

He only proved that a determined "researcher" could avoid facts about guns if he was VERY careful to avoid learning any.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Has anyone EVER bothered to read joco's cnp's?? Anyone?

Fuck, it's no wonder my Internet is running so slow this am what with all the bandwitdth jocal is clogging up.

A huge Bill of Rights proponent such as yourself might consider the First Amendment ramifications of any request to limit or contain my open views. LenP, same.

 

Are you man enough to face the music, Jeff? I think you are, but sometimes I wonder... The reality might be that you don't want intelligent discussion, change, or solutions. Just the indefensible, recklessly unrestricted circulation of militarized weapons.

 

Carry on, though.

I dunno joco. I've been accused of indulging you way too much already with intelligent discussion and direct answers/comments to your posts. If you'd like, I can go back and find the numerous posts where I've been told to stop putting up with your BS. I'm not afraid of intelligent discussion in the slightest. If you know of anyone who is willing to have an actual intelligent discussion - send them my way. Because it ain't you. I'm sure you're capable of the intelligence part..... It's the "discussion" aspect that seems to elude you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Has anyone EVER bothered to read joco's cnp's?? Anyone?

Fuck, it's no wonder my Internet is running so slow this am what with all the bandwitdth jocal is clogging up.

A huge Bill of Rights proponent such as yourself might consider the First Amendment ramifications of any request to limit or contain my open views. LenP, same.

 

Are you man enough to face the music, Jeff? I think you are, but sometimes I wonder... The reality might be that you don't want intelligent discussion, change, or solutions. Just the indefensible, recklessly unrestricted circulation of militarized weapons.

 

Carry on, though.

I dunno joco. I've been accused of indulging you way too much already with intelligent discussion and direct answers/comments to your posts. If you'd like, I can go back and find the numerous posts where I've been told to stop putting up with your BS. I'm not afraid of intelligent discussion in the slightest. If you know of anyone who is willing to have an actual intelligent discussion - send them my way. Because it ain't you. I'm sure you're capable of the intelligence part..... It's the "discussion" aspect that seems to elude you.

 

You have a point that I won't go to the mat on your present level. I go elsewhere because of such an inane level. I present facts based on scientific study of the topic, and this week you denied that I am grounded in facts.

1.Comparing gun mishaps to auto stats and XYZ stats is stale, unimaginative false equivalency, Jeff.

2.The bottom line of 30 years of study is habitually denied around here.

3. SA PA voices fail to call the gun lobby out on a stream of egregious behavior.

4. You "law abiders" profess innocence as others die following your default of leadership re: Guns in America.

 

The daily danger of assault weapons is confused by yourself with semantics taken directly from NRA talking points, to wit: the bullshit phrase "modern sporting rifle". You are NOT addressing the big picture (and neither is Tom Ray), and you are both speaking to and within the vacuum of the Gun Club Choir. The Choir called me "he who shall not be spoken of" a few years ago, but frankly, it seems to have mucho trouble dealing with the hard info I present. I have worked hard at it, elsewhere.

 

You are low-lying fruit, Jeff. Just target of opportunity for a person who has studied the gun problem, the NRA, and the SAF. But here's the fun part: you and your elk just can't stop saying the things you say. I come here to shoot you down.

 

You summon me with a "yoo hoo" for your personal abuse? You talkin' tampons, eh? Dude, you may fold, by buggering off, but I'm not through.

 

For sport, I will go find your four recent links which you prepared for me, and come back. Be prepared during that discourse to contain your douchebag, cunt-filled vitriol, please.

 

Basically, I feel you need to extend yourself to the US community at large, which extends beyond the masturbatory efforts of our usual suspects.

 

I understand that you are among the dozen or so original posters on Sailing Anarchy. The Ed has an interesting take on this subject, BTW. I'm a sailor who made it to a world championship in 505's, I'll be around.

 

 

 

 

TrustJBSFTomCruise_zps52a7a410.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Tom, beat the Mrs. Mason drum all you want, that's your end of it. My observation is that your self-defense shootings in no way justify the incidental shootings which occur with the presence of these weapons in our daily lives.

 

My seventh request, Tom: show me ANY study which shows they outnumber the gun mayhem in our homes and in our lives, and I'll show you a dozen other studies by scholars and academics which dispute it.

 

I'll just mention a few for you: Kellerman

Admit that you would not mind if Mason was raped, as long as she did not defend herself with an evil gun. That is your position, right? Say it loud and proud!

 

When Phil Bolger decided to cross the bar, was that mayhem or his choice? I say his choice. So the suicides that outnumber the homicides are part of the evidence you seek. For the rest, I once again recommend the recent CDC study.

 

 

Kellermann? Really? He set out to prove that guns kept in the home are not used in self defense and he framed the questions in a way designed to exclude most defensive gun uses.

 

He only proved that a determined "researcher" could avoid facts about guns if he was VERY careful to avoid learning any.

 

Tommie boy, you said those words, not me. I said that legitimate self-defense uses certainly occur, but that in the broader picture being a widely armed society is a terrible idea.

 

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). He adjusted the data for the reasons mentioned by his peers and yourself, and (going by my fallible memory) the figures came out about 25:1 mayhem vs. legit self-defense.

 

 

I'll look for a cited account for you by and by. The dignity he showed through the controversy was pretty classy. In the decades which followed, by the way, he has recovered and maintained his reputation. The figures he gathered are still used, but are at the high end of quantifying this carnage. The LOW figures are around 3.5:1, mayhem vs. legit self-defense.

 

 

A Researcher Under Fire

Art Kellermann was raised in eastern Tennessee, where his father taught him how to shoot a long gun when he was 10 years old. Kellermann grew up to become an emergency room doctor — and a target for gun-rights groups when he started asking questions like, "If a gun kept in a home was used, who did it shoot, and what were the consequences?"

Kellermann found people turned those guns on themselves and others in the house far more often than on intruders. "In other words, a gun kept in the home was 43 times more likely to be involved in the death of a member of the household than to be used in self-defense," he says.

Kellermann says the National Rifle Association and other Second Amendment advocates leaned on his then-employer, Emory University, to stop the research. That didn't work.

So, he says, "they turned to a softer target, which was the [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention], the organization that was funding much of this work. And although gun injury prevention research was never more than a tiny percentage of the CDC's research budget, it was enough to bring them under the fire of the NRA."

 

 

Want to tee off on it, boys? My side has little to hide.

6. Kellermann AL, Rivara FP, Rushforth NB, et al. Gun ownership as a risk factor for homicide in the home. N Engl J Med 1993;329:1084–1091. [PubMed]

N Engl J Med. 1993 Oct 7;329(15):1084-91.

 

 

Gun ownership as a risk factor for homicide in the home.

Kellermann AL, Rivara FP, Rushforth NB, Banton JG, Reay DT, Francisco JT, Locci AB, Prodzinski J, Hackman BB, Somes G.

Source

Department of Internal Medicine, University of Tennessee, Memphis.

Erratum in

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

It is unknown whether keeping a firearm in the home confers protection against crime or, instead, increases the risk of violent crime in the home. To study risk factors for homicide in the home, we identified homicides occurring in the homes of victims in three metropolitan counties.

METHODS:

After each homicide, we obtained data from the police or medical examiner and interviewed a proxy for the victim. The proxies' answers were compared with those of control subjects who were matched to the victims according to neighborhood, sex, race, and age range. Crude and adjusted odds ratios were calculated with matched-pairs methods.

RESULTS:

During the study period, 1860 homicides occurred in the three counties, 444 of them (23.9 percent) in the home of the victim. After excluding 24 cases for various reasons, we interviewed proxy respondents for 93 percent of the victims. Controls were identified for 99 percent of these, yielding 388 matched pairs. As compared with the controls, the victims more often lived alone or rented their residence. Also, case households more commonly contained an illicit-drug user, a person with prior arrests, or someone who had been hit or hurt in a fight in the home. After controlling for these characteristics, we found that keeping a gun in the home was strongly and independently associated with an increased risk of homicide (adjusted odds ratio, 2.7; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.6 to 4.4).

Virtually all of this risk involved homicide by a family member or intimate acquaintance.

CONCLUSIONS:

The use of illicit drugs and a history of physical fights in the home are important risk factors for homicide in the home. Rather than confer protection, guns kept in the home are associated with an increase in the risk of homicide by a family member or intimate acquaintance.

Comment in

Pasted from <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8371731>

 

 

Once again, Tom, you have failed to present any study supporting your proposal for widespread packing by our citizenry.

Link to post
Share on other sites

His research was not accepted by his peers, he revised it, and the number dropped by half.

 

The latest iteration still has the same fatal flaw: it examines only homicides and only in the home.

 

Many defensive gun uses do not end with a homicide. Many do not happen at home. If you exclude all of the defensive gun uses that do not end in death and all of the ones outside the home, you have excluded the majority of them.

 

We are supposed to exclude the majority of defensive gun uses from the research and then draw conclusions about "mayhem vs defense" huh?

 

How about if we exclude most of the mayhem and add back in the excluded defensive gun uses?

 

Sauce for the goose, after all. I expect you would puke on Kellerman sauce if it were on your goose.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Have I posted this seven times yet? I have not been counting.

 

 

The CDC flagrantly violated the NRA ban on gun-related research (they are able to get away with this because that "ban" does not exist outside the left wing noise machine) and their last bullet point speaks to your allegation.

 

Heres a list of the 10 most salient or surprising takeaways.

 

...

7. Guns are used for self-defense often and effectively. Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008, says the report. The three million figure is probably high, based on an extrapolation from a small number of responses taken from more than 19 national surveys. But a much lower estimate of 108,000 also seems fishy, because respondents were not asked specifically about defensive gun use. Furthermore, Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was 'used' by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies.

...

Link to post
Share on other sites

The CDC has flagrantly violated the NRA ban on gun reasearch???? Who the hell is the NRA, an imbalanced gun club, to dictate squat to the research arm of the US government, especially given the circumstances?

 

Please follow your thoughts for me, Tom, do the math you are presenting, and present the ratio of valid self defense against gun screw-ups. Then explain the dozens of other studies not as vulnerable as Kellerman (you might start with Hemenway's work, which is relatively inoffensive, and respectful of the 2nd A).

 

Yo, cancel the victory party, Tom NRA. You need to explain how our being, say, 18.5 times as gun-violent as other high-income countries is somehow acceptable.

 

 

It's certainly an interesting study, Tom. I've noticed their findings (and the SA PA clamor for a response): it is as fascinating as any other reading I have.

 

Say, how can you fault the CDC's efforts and quote its findings (at least the ones which are convenient to you) in the same breath?

 

Let the studies continue, and let the data be used and shared in the light of day!

 

I have included the entire report below--because you have selectively picked the part of the report least flattering to agents wishing a non-gunslinger nation. Also interesting is the figure of around 600 annual gun screwups...

 

 

 

Surprising findings from a comprehensive report on gun violence.

By William Saletan

Handguns seized during recent sweeps are displayed at a news conference on May 17, 2013 in Los Angeles, California.

Photo by Kevork Djansezian/Getty Images

Background checks are back. Last week, Vice President Joe Biden said that five U.S. senators—enough to change the outcome—have told him they’re looking for a way to switch their votes and pass legislation requiring a criminal background check for the purchase of a firearm. Sen. Joe Manchin, the West Virginia Democrat who led the fight for the bill, is firing back at the National Rifle Association with a new TV ad. The White House, emboldened by polls that indicate damage to senators who voted against the bill, is pushing Congress to reconsider it.

WILLIAM SALETAN

Will Saletan covers science, technology, and politics for Slate.

 

The gun control debate is certainly worth reopening. But if we’re going to reopen it, let’s not just rethink the politics. Let’s take another look at the facts. Earlier this year, President Obama ordered the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to assess the existing research on gun violence and recommend future studies. That report, prepared by the Institute of Medicine and the National Research Council, is now complete. Its findings won’t entirely please the Obama administration or the NRA, but all of us should consider them. Here’s a list of the 10 most salient or surprising takeaways.

1. The United States has an indisputable gun violence problem. According to the report, “the U.S. rate of firearm-related homicide is higher than that of any other industrialized country: 19.5 times higher than the rates in other high-income countries.”

2. Most indices of crime and gun violence are getting better, not worse. “Overall crime rates have declined in the past decade, and violent crimes, including homicides specifically, have declined in the past 5 years,” the report notes. “Between 2005 and 2010, the percentage of firearm-related violent victimizations remained generally stable.” Meanwhile, “firearm-related death rates for youth ages 15 to 19 declined from 1994 to 2009.” Accidents are down, too: “Unintentional firearm-related deaths have steadily declined during the past century. The number of unintentional deaths due to firearm-related incidents accounted for less than 1 percent of all unintentional fatalities in 2010.”

3. We have 300 million firearms, but only 100 million are handguns. According to the report, “In 2007, one estimate placed the total number of firearms in the country at 294 million: ‘106 million handguns, 105 million rifles, and 83 million shotguns.’ ” This translates to nearly nine guns for every 10 people, a per capita ownership rate nearly 50 percent higher than the next most armed country. But American gun ownership is concentrated, not universal: In a December 2012 Gallup poll, “43 percent of those surveyed reported having a gun in the home.”

4. Handguns are the problem. Despite being outnumbered by long guns, “Handguns are used in more than 87 percent of violent crimes,” the report notes. In 2011, “handguns comprised 72.5 percent of the firearms used in murder and non-negligent manslaughter incidents.” Why do criminals prefer handguns? One reason, according to surveys of felons, is that they’re “easily concealable.”

5. Mass shootings aren’t the problem. “The number of public mass shootings of the type that occurred at Sandy Hook Elementary School accounted for a very small fraction of all firearm-related deaths,” says the report. “Since 1983 there have been 78 events in which 4 or more individuals were killed by a single perpetrator in 1 day in the United States, resulting in 547 victims and 476 injured persons.” Compare that with the 335,000 gun deaths between 2000 and 2010 alone.

6. Gun suicide is a bigger killer than gun homicide. From 2000 to 2010, “firearm-related suicides significantly outnumbered homicides for all age groups, annually accounting for 61 percent of the more than 335,600 people who died from firearm-related violence in the United States,” says the report. Firearm sales are often a warning: Two studies found that “a small but significant fraction of gun suicides are committed within days to weeks after the purchase of a handgun, and both also indicate that gun purchasers have an elevated risk of suicide for many years after the purchase of the gun.”

7. Guns are used for self-defense often and effectively. “Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year you need to h … in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008,” says the report. The three million figure is probably high, “based on an extrapolation from a small number of responses taken from more than 19 national surveys.” But a much lower estimate of 108,000 also seems fishy, “because respondents were not asked specifically about defensive gun use.” Furthermore, “Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was 'used' by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies.”

8. Carrying guns for self-defense is an arms race. The prevalence of firearm violence near “drug markets … could be a consequence of drug dealers carrying guns for self-defense against thieves or other adversaries who are likely to be armed,” says the report. In these communities, “individuals not involved in the drug markets have similar incentives for possessing guns.” According to a Pew Foundation report, “the vast majority of gun owners say that having a gun makes them feel safer. And far more today than in 1999 cite protection—rather than hunting or other activities—as the major reason for why they own guns.”

9. Denying guns to people under restraining orders saves lives. “Two-thirds of homicides of ex- and current spouses were committed [with] firearms,” the report observes. “In locations where individuals under restraining orders to stay away from current or ex-partners are prohibited from access to firearms, female partner homicide is reduced by 7 percent.”

10. It isn’t true that most gun acquisitions by criminals can be blamed on a few bad dealers. The report concedes that in 1998, “1,020 of 83,272 federally licensed retailers (1.2 percent) accounted for 57.4 percent of all guns traced by the ATF.” However, “Gun sales are also relatively concentrated; approximately 15 percent of retailers request 80 percent of background checks on gun buyers conducted by the National Instant Criminal Background Check System.” Researchers have found that “the share of crime gun traces attributed to these few dealers only slightly exceeded their share of handgun sales, which are almost equally concentrated among a few dealers.” Volume, not laxity, drives the number of ill-fated sales.

These conclusions don’t line up perfectly with either side’s agenda. That’s a good reason to take them seriously—and to fund additional data collection and research that have been blocked by Congress over politics. Yes, the facts will surprise you. That’s why you should embrace them.

Pasted from <http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/2013/06/handguns_suicides_mass_shootings_deaths_and_self_defense_findings_from_a.html>

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

The CDC has flagrantly violated the NRA ban on gun reasearch???? Who the hell is the NRA, an imbalanced gun club, to dictate squat to the research arm of the US government, especially given the circumstances?

Please follow your thoughts for me, Tom, do the math you are presenting, and present the ratio of valid self defense against gun screw-ups. Then explain the dozens of other studies not as vulnerable as Kellerman (you might start with Hemenway's work, which is relatively inoffensive, and respectful of the 2nd A).

 

Yo, cancel the victory party, Tom NRA. You need to explain how our being, say, 18.5 times as gun-violent as other high-income countries is somehow acceptable.

 

 

It's certainly an interesting study, Tom. I've noticed their findings (and the SA PA clamor for a response): it is as fascinating as any other reading I have.

 

Say, how can you fault the CDC's efforts and quote its findings (at least the ones which are convenient to you) in the same breath?

 

Let the studies continue, and let the data be used and shared in the light of day!

 

I have included the entire report below--because you have selectively picked the part of the report least flattering to agents wishing a non-gunslinger nation....

 

 

The NRA dictated nothing to "the research arm" of the federal government. The FBI does a lot of gun-related research, so the CDC cannot be called "the" research arm, and Congress, not the NRA, told them to stop funding political propaganda.

 

They did it because of research like Kellerman's, which was so flawed even his allied could not stand by it. In other words, taxpayer funded political propaganda. Again, if the CDC had funded pro-gun political propaganda research anywhere near as bad, you'd be having a fit.

 

The USA is large and diverse and our national crime rates can be misleading. I suggest we focus on a smallish state with what the Brady Bunch says are some of the worst gun laws in the country. How about Utah? Idaho, maybe? Their gun laws are among our worst, so have fun looking up their murder rates. ;)

 

If CDC research is not blatant political propaganda, I have no problem with it. It's taxpayer funded political propaganda, not research, that was always the problem.

 

You know, when you see one of those cool quote boxes on this forum, you can click in the upper right corner of the box to return to the original post. Do that and you will see that the first time I posted it, and several subsequent times, I pasted the text you did from Slate magazine.

 

Neither of us has posted the entire report. Did you even go try to read it? If you did, you would have known that you have to pay to get the report.

 

Speaking of things you have not posted, when are you going to get around to proving me wrong by posting the "gun show loophole" you say exists in our laws? I still do not believe we have one.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good for you for educating newbies, JBSF, but I've gotta say, people like that puzzle me. They exist in sailing too.

 

"I wanna learn about sailing. Step one, I'll buy a sailboat!"

 

"I wanna learn about guns. Step one, I'll buy a gun!"

 

WTF? People do this all the time. I even did it, in my case with my first kayak. I had at least played in a few before, but had less than a couple of hours total in kayaks and decided to buy one. And I bought it from a rental outfit that had racks of everything available to try. I guess I puzzle myself too! Not sure why I thought that was a good idea.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jeff. Cool post. Will respond soon--- I have homework to do for you. We may be getting somewhere.


Can you link me to any criticism of Tiahart? What happened there sucks.



With all respect, cunts, douche bags, tampons, misogyny in general, and pointless abuse are better left outside of my orbit. Just sayin'...



NRAFoxinATFhenhousecorrected_zps2f679b36


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Sadly, that biased-assed article never once mentions the fact that 80% of those wounded or killed 20 y/o and under kids die from gang violence.

 

Oh well, nice try. Better luck next time...

Link to post
Share on other sites