# 7,000 Gun purchases slip through the system



## michaeledward (Jul 27, 2004)

I found this article interesting. What are your thoughts?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5519382/



			
				excerpt said:
			
		

> WASHINGTON - More than 7,000 people who should have been barred from buying guns were able to buy them anyway in 2002 and 2003, according to a Justice Department review released Monday.
> 
> The government rarely prosecutes such cases, the report said.
> 
> ...


----------



## KenpoTex (Jul 28, 2004)

I can't speak to the accuracy of their figures (7,000+ delayed denials)  but MSN did screw up a couple of facts.  For example, they said in the article "Federal law stipulates that gun buyers wait three business days before receiving their weapons."  They only have to wait three days if the transaction is delayed.  In other words, if you go to buy a gun the dealer makes the call to NICS, if you're approved you walk out with your new gun.  If you're denied, you don't walk out with a gun (and the dealer should call the cops since, more than likely, you just commited a felony).  If you're delayed you have to wait a _maximum_ of three business days for them to either approve or deny the transfer.  If you wait more than three days you can pick up the gun b/c it took them too long.  If after you get it they find out that you shouldn't have (the delayed denial that the article talked about) then the FBI gives the ATF a "request for firearm retrieval," in other words, they tell them to go take it back.  
  In 2002, only 1.73% of the 4,248,893 NICS transactions were "default proceded" (firearm automatically transferred after 3-day wait) of that number only 3,429 (about 1/10 of 1%) were "recalled."  The number of "requests for retrieval" has actually been decreasing as the system improves.  And considering that between November of 1998 (when the NICS replaced the Brady bunch's mandatory waiting period) and December 31, 2002, there were 35,938,513 background checks processed.  I would say they're doing pretty well, not perfect, but pretty darn good.

here's the link for the FBI/NICS site where I got my figures: 
http://www.fbi.gov/hq/cjisd/nics/index.htm

If the article is correct, and there were 7,030 delayed denials out of 17,000,000 that's only about 1/2 of 1% (if I did the math correctly) sounds to me like a pretty good track record.


----------



## MA-Caver (Jul 28, 2004)

kenpotex said:
			
		

> If the article is correct, and there were 7,030 delayed denials out of 17,000,000 that's only about 1/2 of 1% (if I did the math correctly) sounds to me like a pretty good track record.


Yeah, unless you're shot by one of those 7,000 who shouldn't have gotten a gun. 
I understand and appreciate the need for background checks because it can help minimize (just a tad) a gun getting into the wrong hands. The three day wait I believe was intended to cut down the number of "crimes of passion" incidents by allowing a person to cool off. Theory being that they'll re-think about "shooting the sum-beetch" and cut the brake lines on their car instead. 

7,000 out of 17 million... ya pretty good but again not good if you take my meaning.


----------



## KenpoTex (Jul 29, 2004)

MACaver said:
			
		

> Yeah, unless you're shot by one of those 7,000 who shouldn't have gotten a gun.
> I understand and appreciate the need for background checks because it can help minimize (just a tad) a gun getting into the wrong hands. The three day wait I believe was intended to cut down the number of "crimes of passion" incidents by allowing a person to cool off. Theory being that they'll re-think about "shooting the sum-beetch" and cut the brake lines on their car instead.
> 
> 7,000 out of 17 million... ya pretty good but again not good if you take my meaning.




I take your meaning, I have no problem with background checks because I don't think felons or people convicted of violent crime should be able to own firearms.  However, waiting periods are not the answer.  The theory that they prevent "crimes of passion" (crimes commited in a moment of rage by a spouse, friend, family member etc.) is flawed.  The logic is that if a man gets mad at his wife (or vise-versa) and decides to go buy a gun to kill her he would have to wait for 3 days.  As a result he would probably "cool down," in fact, many places refer to the waiting period as a "cooling off" period.  However, most crimes classified in this manner occur between the hours of 10 pm. and 6 am. (actually I think the window was smaller than that but since I don't have the info. in front of me I'm erring on the side of caution.).  This is significant because I can't think of anywhere you can legally buy a gun at 10:00 at night (everything is closed, wal-mart won't even sell ammo after 10 or 11).  Also, calling this time of situation a "crime of passion" is misleading because the very act of going to buy or attempt to buy a gun in order to kill someone makes it premeditated murder, not a crime of passion.  If someone was really that mad they would probably use a knife or a frying pan, of for that matter, their bare hands.

The NICS system is not perfect, I don't know of any system that would be, and as I said earlier, I don't have a problem with this type of system (provided there is not a permanent record, but that's another discussion) because criminals should not be allowed to possess firearms.  However, restricting the rights of law-abiding citizens will NOT keep them out of the hands of the bad guys.


----------



## CanuckMA (Jul 29, 2004)

> Federal law stipulates that gun buyers wait three business days before receiving their weapons so background checks can be conducted by the FBI. Of the 17 million gun purchases in the last two years, 122,000 were denied because of the checks.
> 
> If the background check isnt completed within the period, however, the law says the purchase must go through. In 2002 and 2003, there were a combined 7,030 delayed denial cases in which the FBI found that a prohibited person was able to get a gun after the period expired, according to the review by Glenn A. Fine, the Justice Departments inspector general.



I don't know which scares me the most. 7,000 sold to denied individuals, or 17 million guns sold in 2 years!


----------



## Stick Dummy (Jul 29, 2004)

Don't worry, if you stay RIGHT THERE in Canada everything will be fine..........


 Anybody who takes the Washington "COM"Post as a definative text on ANY subject needs serious help. Its the U.S. version of what used to be called "Pravda" in the USSR.

Like Winston Churchill said "Theres Liars, Damned Liars, and STATISTICIANS."


----------



## Seig (Jul 29, 2004)

Ya know, this is exactly the kind of idiocy that allows governments to turn citizens into subjects. Ok, for the sake of argument, let's say the article was even remotely accurate, which it isn't, and 7000 people that should not have been allowed to buy guns were able to through legal gun dealers that properly followed laws and the ATF procedures. So what? How many people last year bought guns out of the back of a van or the trunk of a car? Those are the ones that scare me, there is no record of them even owning a gun. That alone shows premeditation and a predisposition to perpetrate a crime. People need to quit decrying LEGAL gun ownership and sales and worry about the guns being sold down the block from their kids schools out of a duffel bag.

In the meantime, I will continue to carry my legally purchased and licensed firearm to defend those I hold dear and to prevent others from illicitly gaining from the fruits of my labor.


----------



## Cryozombie (Jul 29, 2004)

Seig said:
			
		

> Ya know, this is exactly the kind of idiocy that allows governments to turn citizens into subjects. Ok, for the sake of argument, let's say the article was even remotely accurate, which it isn't, and 7000 people that should not have been allowed to buy guns were able to through legal gun dealers that properly followed laws and the ATF procedures. So what? How many people last year bought guns out of the back of a van or the trunk of a car? Those are the ones that scare me, there is no record of them even owning a gun. That alone shows premeditation and a predisposition to perpetrate a crime. People need to quit decrying LEGAL gun ownership and sales and worry about the guns being sold down the block from their kids schools out of a duffel bag.
> 
> In the meantime, I will continue to carry my legally purchased and licensed firearm to defend those I hold dear and to prevent others from illicitly gaining from the fruits of my labor.



Yeah.  I agree wholeheartedly.


----------



## sma_book (Jul 29, 2004)

DAMNIT ... POSTED UNDER MY WIFES ID AGAIN.

This post by *michaeledward* 




			
				Stick Dummy said:
			
		

> Anybody who takes the Washington "COM"Post as a definative text on ANY subject needs serious help. Its the U.S. version of what used to be called "Pravda" in the USSR.
> 
> Like Winston Churchill said "Theres Liars, Damned Liars, and STATISTICIANS."



Yeah ... who needs a free press anyway!



			
				Seig said:
			
		

> Ya know, this is exactly the kind of idiocy that allows governments to turn citizens into subjects. Ok, for the sake of argument, let's say the article was even remotely accurate, which it isn't, and 7000 people that should not have been allowed to buy guns were able to through legal gun dealers that properly followed laws and the ATF procedures. So what? How many people last year bought guns out of the back of a van or the trunk of a car? Those are the ones that scare me, there is no record of them even owning a gun. That alone shows premeditation and a predisposition to perpetrate a crime. People need to quit decrying LEGAL gun ownership and sales and worry about the guns being sold down the block from their kids schools out of a duffel bag.
> 
> In the meantime, I will continue to carry my legally purchased and licensed firearm to defend those I hold dear and to prevent others from illicitly gaining from the fruits of my labor.



You know, oddly, there is no record of the 17 million people who legally purchased weapons either, as all information searched during a background check is destroyed within days of the transaction.

I don't believe anyone is 'decrying legal gun ownership'. And I will continue to fight for your right to bear arms, because a well regulated militia is a necessary for the security of a free state.

But what of those, who through their own actions, have forfeited the right to own a weapon, but manage to slip through the cracks of the system anyhow? If the number of 7000 is not even 'remotely accurate', what number is? How should we deal with it.. and how should we deal with those selling guns out of the back of cars ... and where are they coming from?

Curiously, Mike


----------



## Seig (Jul 30, 2004)

sma_book said:
			
		

> DAMNIT ... POSTED UNDER MY WIFES ID AGAIN.
> 
> This post by *michaeledward*
> 
> ...


A free press is fine, but the Washington Post is anything but unbiased. A lot of people are "decrying legal gun ownership", like, oh say, John Kerry; but that is not the topic of this thread. There are always people that slip through the cracks of our legal system, it isn't perfect but right now it is the best out there. There is NO WAY to stop people from buying guns that is complete, total or falesafe. There have been and always will be Arms dealers, either legitimate or illicit. How do we deal with it? Let the Law Enforcement branches do their jobs under the existing framework of the law without muddying the waters by adding more laws faster than the average person can learn them.


----------



## Stick Dummy (Jul 30, 2004)

> Let the Law Enforcement branches do their jobs under the existing framework of the law without muddying the waters by adding more laws faster than the average person can learn them.



Very Good Point!!!

 Janet Reno was once asked if the Brady Bill could actually be enforced as a deterant to crime. Her answer was NO! It is not enforceable.

 Then why the F#$^%, did it pass???????

 It was just another CLINTON  democrap party "feel good" regulation forced down the US Citizens throats to restrict and hinder the ability of lawful citizens to acquire firearms.

 Waiting periods are bullschick, again doing nothing to PREVENT or Deter crime. All 'Brady" did was create another internal branch of a certain regulatory agency, who maintains PERMANENT electronic records of all firearms transactions conducted by law abiding citizens and licensed dealers.


----------



## KenpoTex (Jul 30, 2004)

Stick Dummy said:
			
		

> Very Good Point!!!
> 
> Janet Reno was once asked if the Brady Bill could actually be enforced as a deterant to crime. Her answer was NO! It is not enforceable.
> 
> ...


 Precisely, although it's not limited to the Clinton's and their ilk, it's the majority of the liberal-Dems. (Kennedy, Feinstein, Boxer, Schumer etc.).  it's the same story with the "assault weapons" ban.  even the gun-grabbers admitt that it hasn't had any impact on crime (gee, ya think) yet they're going to continue to try to have it made permanent.



			
				Stick Dummy said:
			
		

> Waiting periods are bullschick, again doing nothing to PREVENT or Deter crime. All 'Brady" did was create another internal branch of a certain regulatory agency, who maintains PERMANENT electronic records of all firearms transactions conducted by law abiding citizens and licensed dealers.


  They're not permanent, they're destroyed within 24 hours (and if you believe that I've got a beach-house in Phoenix that I'll let you have real cheap)


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 30, 2004)

Seig said:
			
		

> A free press is fine, but the Washington Post is anything but unbiased. A lot of people are "decrying legal gun ownership", like, oh say, John Kerry; but that is not the topic of this thread. There are always people that slip through the cracks of our legal system, it isn't perfect but right now it is the best out there. There is NO WAY to stop people from buying guns that is complete, total or falesafe. There have been and always will be Arms dealers, either legitimate or illicit. How do we deal with it? Let the Law Enforcement branches do their jobs under the existing framework of the law without muddying the waters by adding more laws faster than the average person can learn them.


1) This story is not from the Washington Post - the byline is 'The Associated Press'.
2) John Kerry is a gun owner & hunter ... how is he 'decrying legal gun ownership' ... I know it is not part of the thread, I only ask because you brought it up.
3) If 'the system isn't perfect, and right now it is the best out there', is there no way that we can do better?

I believe this article is informing us that there are existing laws, that they are being enforced (after the waiting period, the sale is completed), and yet still weapons are getting into the hands of people who have surrendered their right to keep and bear arms. This article does not seem to be proposing new laws that the average person needs to learn.

Would someone please inform me which new Federal Agency keeps a permanent record of all firearms transactions, I would like to use the Freedom of Information Act to request the purchases in my home town?

Thanks, Mike


----------



## MisterMike (Jul 30, 2004)

Kerry's stance on guns here:

http://www.issues2000.org/2004/John_Kerry_Gun_Control.htm


----------



## Stick Dummy (Jul 30, 2004)

Now thats SCARY, another politician talking out the side of his face......

 Simply put, He believes (as most east coast politicals & "intellectuals") that they know what is best for the rest of the USA based on their abjectly failed and flawed systems.

  The "haves" (rich socio-politicals) can carry/own firearms/ have physical protection, but the "have nots" (everyone else) have to have choices mandated for them.

 A firearm is a tool, regardless of what it "looks" like, or how many projectiles it holds. To say otherwise is a crock.

 He should take that product liability crap and apply where its really needed -to the auto & alcohol industries for failing to prevent drunk driving through safer "smart" vehicles that won't start if the driver "blows" positive for intoxication, and even stricter regulation of the alcohol industry and their advertising. Bet that would help his votes with the UAW.

Ooops they tried that didn't they?? 

Prohibition - That worked real well..........

anybody else see the pattern of failure emerging?


----------



## dearnis.com (Jul 30, 2004)

1) My *** Kerry is a hunter; a staged photo op does not a hunter make.
2) as a cop the last thing I need are more gun laws; I need prosecutors, judges, and juries with the guts to go forward with prosecuting the gun violations we have now.


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 30, 2004)

dearnis.com said:
			
		

> 1) My *** Kerry is a hunter; a staged photo op does not a hunter make.
> 2) as a cop the last thing I need are more gun laws; I need prosecutors, judges, and juries with the guts to go forward with prosecuting the gun violations we have now.


1) Kerry can't possibly be a hunter because of your opinion? I'ld like to understand.

2) Then you are in favor of more stringent action on the 7,030 'delayed denial' weapons getting into the hands of people who have forfitted the right to keep and bear arms. As a law enforcement officer, what is your educated professional suggestion for dealing with this situation?

Mike


----------



## Seig (Jul 30, 2004)

MisterMike said:
			
		

> Kerry's stance on guns here:
> 
> http://www.issues2000.org/2004/John_Kerry_Gun_Control.htm


Ahem....
John Kerry's REAL stance on guns:
Senator Larry Craig (R-ID) introduced S. 1805 on October 31, 2003. The legislation would prohibit civil liability actions from being brought or continued against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or importers of firearms or ammunition for damages resulting from the misuse of their products by others. On March 2, 2004, the bill failed 90-8.
The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence OPPOSED the legislation.
JOHN KERRY voted AGAINST the bill.

Senate Amendment 2637, offered by Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) to S. 1805, the Gun Industry Immunity Bill, would extend the Assault Weapons Ban for 10 more years until 2014. Currently, the Assault Weapons Ban is scheduled to expire on September 13, 2004 unless a new law is passed. On March 2, 2004, the amendment passed 52-47.
The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence SUPPORTED the amendment.
JOHN KERRY voted FOR the amendment.

Senate Amendment 2636, offered by Senator John McCain (R-AZ) to S. 1805, the Gun Industry Immunity Bill, would require criminal background checks on all firearms transactions occurring at gun shows. On March 2, 2004, the amendment passed 53-46.
The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence SUPPORTED the amendment.
JOHN KERRY voted FOR the amendment.
OK, I agree with that one...

Senate Amendment 2619, offered by Senator Edward Kennedy (D-MA) to S. 1805, the Gun Industry Immunity Bill, would expand the definition of armor piercing ammunition and to require the Attorney General to promulgate standards for the uniform testing of projectiles against body armor. On March 2, 2004, the amendment passed 34-63.
The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence SUPPORTED the amendment.
JOHN KERRY voted FOR the amendment.

Senate Amendment 343, offered by Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) to S.254, the Violent and Repeat Juvenile Offender Accountability and Rehabilitation Act of 1999, to ban the importation of large-capacity magazines (ammunition feeding devices that can hold more than ten rounds). A motion was offered to table (defeat) the amendment. On Thursday, May 13, 1999, the motion to table failed 39-59.
The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence OPPOSED the motion to table the amendment.
JOHN KERRY voted AGAINST the motion to table the amendment.

Senate Amendment 350, offered by Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) to S.254, the Violent and Repeat Juvenile Offender Accountability and Rehabilitation Act of 1999, to ban the unlicensed sale of guns on the Internet by requiring websites clearly designed to sell guns to be federally licensed firearms dealers and to comply with all such federal laws. A motion was offered to table (defeat) the amendment. On May 14, 1999, the motion to table passed 50-43.
The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence OPPOSED the motion to table the amendment.
JOHN KERRY voted AGAINST the motion to table the amendment.

Senate Amendment 362, offered by Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) to S.254, the Violent and Repeat Juvenile Offender Accountability and Rehabilitation Act of 1999 to close the loophole allowing individuals to sell guns from their "private collections" at gun shows without completing background checks for purchasers. On May 20, 1999, with Vice President Al Gore casting the tie-breaking vote, the amendment passed 51-50.
The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence SUPPORTED the amendment.
JOHN KERRY voted FOR the amendment.

*Child Access Prevention Amendment*
Senate Amendment 3260, offered by Senator Richard Durbin (D-IL) to S. 2260, the FY99 Commerce, Justice, State Appropriations bill, to increase penalties for individuals who permit juvenile access to firearms. On July 21, 1998, a motion was made to table (defeat) the amendment. The motion to table passed 69-31.
The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence OPPOSED the motion to table the amendment.
JOHN KERRY voted AGAINST the motion to table the amendment.
This would mean that I cannot take my 13 year old daughter or 12 year old son hunting....


Senate Amendment 3351, offered by Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) to S. 2312, the FY99 Treasury and General Government Appropriations bill, to ban the importation of large capacity ammunition feeding devices. On July 21, 1998, a motion was made to table (defeat) amendment. The motion to table passed 54-44.
The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence OPPOSED the motion to table the amendment.
JOHN KERRY voted AGAINST the motion to table the amendment.

Senate Amendment 3238, offered by Senator Larry Craig (R-ID) to S. 2260, the FY99 Commerce, Justice, State Appropriations bill, would have required that gun stores have trigger locks in stock and available for sale. The vote on the Craig amendment was immediately prior to a vote on the stronger Boxer/Kohl amendment to require all handguns sold in the United States be sold with a child safety lock. The Craig Amendment was an effort to undercut support for the stronger Boxer/Kohl amendment. On July 21, 1998, the amendment passed 72-28.
The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence OPPOSED the amendment.
JOHN KERRY voted AGAINST the amendment.

Senate Amendment 3230, offered by Senators Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and Herb Kohl (D-WI) to S. 2260, the FY99 Commerce, Justice, State Appropriations bill, was the stronger version of the previous Craig amendment. The amendment required that all handguns sold in the United States be sold with a child safety lock. On July 21, 1998, a motion was made to table (defeat) the amendment. The motion to table passed 61-39.
The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence OPPOSED the motion to table the amendment.
JOHN KERRY voted AGAINST the motion to table the amendment.

On November 20, 1993, the Senate voted on H.R. 1025, known as the Brady Bill, legislation to require a 5-day waiting period on handgun purchases, to allow local officials to conduct a background check. The bill passed the House on November 10 and on November 20, 1993, the bill passed the Senate 63-36.
The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence SUPPORTED the legislation.
The bill was signed into law on November 30, 1993 (PL 103-159).
JOHN KERRY voted FOR the Brady Bill.

Senate Amendment 1152, offered by Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) to S. 1607, the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1993, to restrict the manufacture, transfer, and possession of certain semiautomatic assault weapons and large capacity ammunition feeding devices. On November 17, 1993, the amendment passed 56-43.
The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence SUPPORTED the amendment.
The bill was signed into law on September 13, 1994 (PL 103-332).
JOHN KERRY voted FOR the Assault Weapons Ban.

Voted NO on more penalties for gun & drug violations. (May 1999)
More on Kerry
http://www.nraila.org/issues/Articles/Read.aspx?ID=136
[size=-1]If you thought the eight long years of the Clinton/Gore administration`s war on firearms owners` rights were oppressive, they would pale in comparison to what John Kerry would have in store for us if he captures the White House and evicts President George W. Bush in November.[/size]

[size=-1]John Kerry--whose record of words and misdeeds on firearms rights has earned him a key place among the most solid "F" candidates ever rated by the National Rifle Association--is now posing as a self-styled"lifelong hunter and gun owner," a faux good old boy who says, "I believe in the Second Amendment."[/size]

[size=-1]But as someone who has hunted, he`s not one of us. He`s a silver-spoon Boston Brahman--an ideological blood brother to his mentor, Teddy Kennedy.[/size]

[size=-1]He`s married to a multi-millionaire heiress whose "favorite charity," the Tides Foundation, has pumped a small fortune into anti-gun rights schemes.[/size]

[size=-1]Kerry, during his 20-year stint in the U.S. Senate, has been an always reliable vote for the anti-gunners and has routinely voted with the gun-ban movement since he was elected as the junior member from Massachusetts. At the heart of the real John Kerry is an unthinking zealot who has never missed an opportunity to work to diminish our rights.[/size]

[size=-1]For his long history of anti-gun rights votes and positions, he consistently receives a 100-percent rating from the Brady Campaign (Handgun Control Inc.), the American Bar Association`s Special Committee on Gun Violence and from the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence (formerly the National Coalition to Ban Handguns). All of these groups deny the existence of an individual right to keep and bear arms, and some are actively using the courts in an attempt to destroy Americans` Second Amendment freedoms.[/size]

[size=-1]On issues directly affecting Second Amendment rights, Kerry has voted 51 of 55 times against you on the floor of the Senate. For all we`ve read lately about how enemies of the Second Amendment are shying away from the "gun control" issue in this election year, a series of votes in the U.S. Senate in March changed all that, with Kerry eagerly taking center stage.[/size]

[size=-1]In working to sabotage S.1805--the NRA-backed legislation to stop the endless series of predatory lawsuits aimed at strangling the law-abiding firearms industry--Kerry voted to extend the Clinton gun ban on semi-autos, to make now-legal private gun sales at gun shows criminal acts, and voted to support Ted Kennedy`s ammunition ban, which would have prohibited most centerfire hunting rounds.Where Kerry says he "will defend hunting rights," the accolades of "animal rights" activists tell a different story.[/size]

[size=-1]The Humane Society of the United States and Fund for Animals--both rabidly anti-hunting--gave John Kerry a 100 percent mark for the first session of the current Congress. They cited John Kerry as among Senators who have "compiled consistently excellent voting records on animal issues . . ." and who "have emerged as animal protection leaders . . . Kerry has cosponsored almost every piece of animal protection legislation . . . introduced on behalf of animals."[/size]

[size=-1]Kerry is the poster boy for a secret scheme hatched by billionaire Andrew McKelvey`s Americans for Gun Safety, (AGS) whereby anti-gun rights Democratic candidates cloak themselves in rhetorical camouflage, falsely claiming to embrace the Second Amendment and trying to con hunters into believing that their rights are somehow separate from those of other American gun owners.[/size]

[size=-1]Don`t take my word for it. Here`s what AGS wrote in its blueprint for "Taking Back the Second Amendment," prepared last year for the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC). Kerry is following all the dots.[/size]

[size=-1]It is a battle plan for deceit that counsels anti-gun rights candidates: "The problem that Democrats have on the gun issue has far less to do with the typical policies they espouse than the rhetoric they employ." (Emphasis added.) In other words, it`s not how you vote, but what you say.[/size]

[size=-1]So, now confiscatory firearms prohibition is called "sensible gun safety," although the abhorrent concept of the knock-in-the-middle-of-the night is just the same as it always has been.[/size]

[size=-1]That theme of dissembling is amplified by an accompanying DLC cover memo announcing, "The DLC and Americans for Gun Safety (AGS) believe that progressives need not change their positions in order to dramatically reduce, and in some cases reverse, conservative advantages with these groups." (Emphasis added.) Groups? Try NRA.[/size]

[size=-1]They are talking about lying, about sleight of hand, trickery--basically outright fraud.[/size]

[size=-1]"Taking Back the Second Amendment" means recreating the Second Amendment; twisting its clear meaning to the same dark purpose expressed by then-President Clinton`s Solicitor General Seth Waxman who wrote in an August 2000 letter to an NRA member: "In light of the constitutional history, it must be considered as settled that there is no personal constitutional right, under the Second Amendment, to own or to use a gun."[/size]

[size=-1]Kerry is right in step with the AGS-DLC war-plan: "progressives need not change their positions." Simply change the "rhetoric they employ."In working to sabotage the NRA-backed legislation to stop the endless series of lawsuits aimed at strangling the law-abiding firearms industry, Kerry read the AGS wolf-in-sheep`s-clothing script to a tee when the issue was debated on March 4.[/size]

[size=-1]He told the Senate, "I believe strongly in the Second Amendment. I believe in the right to bear arms as it has been interpreted in our country" (emphasis added). This is a vital "qualifier" coming from a man who, if elected president, would be nominating federal judges and Supreme Court justices to interpret our rights.[/size]

[size=-1]Kerry and also-ran presidential candidate and trial lawyer John Edwards were among those who cast the deciding votes on what proved to be "poison pill" amendments to the lawsuit tort reform bill: Dianne Feinstein`s 10-year extension of the Clinton semi-auto ban and a new version of John McCain`s so-called "gun show loophole" law, which would criminalize now-legal private commerce between peaceable individuals at gun shows.[/size]

[size=-1]Kerry--during his national media performance on the Senate floor --broke a missing-in-action streak that saw him absent from the Senate for 65 percent of all votes in 2003 and every single vote up to that date this year. It`s stunning: Out of 20 roll-call votes in 2004, these gun ban votes were the first he cast in the Senate all year.[/size]

[size=-1]But he was back--flying from his "super-Tuesday" primary campaigning. Goring gun owners was apparently just too important to miss--this month`s cover says it all.[/size]

[size=-1]During his Senate appearance, Kerry also went out of his way to directly attack NRA members, saying, "Let`s be honest about what we are facing today." Referring to the Clinton gun ban, he said, "The opposition to this common-sense gun safety law is being driven by the powerful NRA special interest leadership and by lobbyists in Washington. I don`t believe this is the voice of responsible gun owners across America."[/size]


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Jul 30, 2004)

In my ongoing effort to be red-dotted out of existence....

Someone please explain to me why you think that the NRA is so fabulous, why if there are limitations or government checks on guns or gun type ownership, why this is getting rid of the Second Amendment.  It seems that some people feel that the one thing that makes them "free" is owning a gun, not having a voice in government or having free access to health care and the right to speak their minds without retribution.  

I also fervently hope that everyone who is so concerned about each citizen having control over what they own, being able to protect themselves, and feeling that they don't want government controlling or limiting their options, are also fervently voting for pro-choice candidates.


----------



## KenpoTex (Jul 31, 2004)

Feisty Mouse said:
			
		

> Someone please explain to me why you think that the NRA is so fabulous


  I don't consider the NRA to be "fabulous."  While I am a member, I am not happy with many of the things they do or neglect to do.  However, I still support them because they are a power in this nations political scene and without them we (gun owners) would probably be worse off.




			
				Feisty Mouse said:
			
		

> why if there are limitations or government checks on guns or gun type ownership, why this is getting rid of the Second Amendment.


 Because if you look back through the history of this century (and beyond if you want to discuss other weapons bans).  Every time a government bans the private ownership of firearms, they begin by requiring registration, or by banning certain types of firearms and imposing other "safety" measures.  Some examples:  England, Australia, etc.  In both countries they didn't just suddenly wake up one day and say "hey, as of next week y'all will have to surrender all your firearms."   They just chipped away a little at a time until suddenly, there's nothing left.  





			
				Feisty Mouse said:
			
		

> It seems that some people feel that the one thing that makes them "free" is owning a gun, not having a voice in government or having free access to health care and the right to speak their minds without retribution.


  It has been said that "the Second Amendment makes the others possible."  I could list numerous quotes from the founding fathers that would illustrate this very point as well as the fact that they specifically put the 2nd amendment in place so that the general public would have a means to resist if the government became too oppressive.  
  I'm not going to say that, without a doubt, we would lose our other rights (freedom of speech, due process, search and seizure, etc.) if we are unfortunate enough to one day find ourselves in a nation that does not allow private ownership of firearms but should we find ourselves in that position we would be forced to put our faith in the politicians who say that they will ensure that those rights are maintained.  In other words, we would have no recourse if they decided to take them away.  I don't know about y'all but I don't particularly have much trust for politicians as it is, much less when there's nothing to keep them from having their way.


BTW: Seig, thanks for posting the records of Kerry's votes on the gun issues...saved me from having to do it.
  As far as Kerry is concerned, simply owning a gun doesn't mean anything, hell, even Sarah Brady (and Diane Feinstein as well I believe) own guns.  Why for protection (wait, isn't that what the police are for?).  What it boils down to in their case is that (like Stick Dummy said) they are elitists, they believe that for whatever reason that their lives are of more value than those of the peasants (peope like you and me).  The only reason Kerry is trying to appear to be a "friend of the gunowner/sportsman" is that he's trying to get their votes.  Unfortunately, there are many gun owners who are stupid enough to vote for him.  (I know, I know this isn't s'posed to be a political thread...sorry)


----------



## Seig (Jul 31, 2004)

Feisty Mouse said:
			
		

> In my ongoing effort to be red-dotted out of existence....
> 
> Someone please explain to me why you think that the NRA is so fabulous, why if there are limitations or government checks on guns or gun type ownership, why this is getting rid of the Second Amendment. It seems that some people feel that the one thing that makes them "free" is owning a gun,


Owning a gun is but one of many freedoms. Obviously the forefathers also felt this important or would not be the 2nd ammendmant. While I disagree with much of the NRA, I feel their underlying principle is sound. Once you start taking away seemingly small freedoms, it is easier to start taking away larger freedoms; after all, the precedent is set.


> not having a voice in government or having free access to health care and the right to speak their minds without retribution.


Half of that statement is very good, the other is bought propoganda with very little forethought. Having a voice in government is our MOST important freedom, something about "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity" because "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights" This goes right back to the Bill of Rights, but that is not the point at this very second in this post, the point is the fact that Americans loose sight of the fact that we are all EQUAL, and it needs to remain that way. Allowing a minority to control the country harms all of us. By minority I mean those in power or those with a special interest. 

As far as free access to health care, in practice it sounds wonderfull, but in reality is a travesty. If one takes a look at why people go into certain fields they will find that most of the time, it is for renumeration, not for the common good. Back in 1992, I was talking with someone that had just graduated medical school. A hospital had offered him a job making $55k a year, he said "No way in hell am I going anywhere for less than $75k." I was shocked, he hadn't even completed his residency yet. When I questioned him about it, he told me he couldn't even make minimum payments on his student loans with $55k a year. The point of that little anecdote is this, unless you want to provide free higher education, then you cannot have free health care. By making either of those free, you are lowering the health care professional standard. By doing these things, it moves the country towards a socialist or communist form of government and we all know how well that works. Although some on this board lambast capitalism quite frequently, capitalism is the catalyst for advances in the fields of science. If you want to make health care more affordable, then regulate the insurance industry, not the medical professionals.


> I also fervently hope that everyone who is so concerned about each citizen having control over what they own, being able to protect themselves, and feeling that they don't want government controlling or limiting their options, are also fervently voting for pro-choice candidates.


This is another hot area of debate and where waters tend to get muddied. While I am against gun control read taking away my guns, I am for pro-choice. There seems to be a very wide schism between the parties on this, the party that supports taking away my guns all supports pro-choice, the party that protects my guns, supports pro-life, this seems to be an oxymoron to me, but what do I know I am just one of the unwashed masses that needs someone like a Kennedy to do my thinking for me.


----------



## dearnis.com (Jul 31, 2004)

Michael Ward:
My opinion has nothing to do with it; Kerry releasing a staged photo-op of him in hunting attire holding a shotgun does not make him a hunter.
Long version- see Seig's post above.
My professional opinion?  Hold prosecutors to account for dropping violent crimes and weapons charges in plea bargain arrangements (yes, this happens rountinely); hold judges to account for setting improper bond in weapons cases (a few years back we had a drug dealer released on what was in essence a signature bond-like when you sign a traffic ticket; among other things the charming man had 4 or 5 AKs and about 10,000 rounds of ammunition) and for improper sentences.  Treat juvenile weapons offenders as adults (note: offenders, not the vitims of tragically idiotic parents.  In those cases prosecute the parents).
I do not believe that anyone I have ever arrested on a weapons charge has served more than a few months before getting released on some type of probation.


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 31, 2004)

dearnis.com said:
			
		

> Michael Ward:
> My opinion has nothing to do with it; Kerry releasing a staged photo-op of him in hunting attire holding a shotgun does not make him a hunter.


As I understand that photo op ... He got 2 pheasant with 2 shots ... not bad for a photo op ... even if it was a shot-gun and pheasants are slow and stupid ... and the dog was looking the wrong way ... and Kerry was leaning back, instead of forward. Oh, yeah ... and he eats what he kills ... 

I read the arguments from the 'True Hunters' about why "Kerry isn't one of them". Allow me to put this discussion into a paradigm I know about.

It seems the arguements about Kerry's hunting and hunting skills is *snobbery*. I am a Fly-Fisherman. Before starting to tie and fish flies, I would use 'Hardware' (spinning rods, rooster tails, red devil spoons). Seemed to me that the guys in their Orvis Grand Cherokee's and Eddie Bauer Explorers were looking down their nose at me when I shared the river with them. God forbid that someone put a worm on a hook in the river.  God forbid that someone actually take a fish home to eat. Fly Fisherman are 'Catch and Release'. In general, Fly Fisherman are snobs. The resource, clear rivers, plentiful fish, and pretty mountains are not theirs alone, but to be shared by all types of fisherman; as well as hikers, campers, boaters, and hunters. 

So, yeah ... 2 for 2 ... it was a photo op.

Mike


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 31, 2004)

Seig said:
			
		

> Ahem....
> John Kerry's REAL stance on guns:
> ......
> Voted NO on more penalties for gun & drug violations. (May 1999)


The readers' digest condensed version:

Kerry voted to protect my civil right to sue a gun manufacturer.
Kerry voted to prevent a deadline on the assault weapons ban from expiring.
Kerry voted for background checks at gun shows.
Kerry voted to restrict armor piercing ammunition.
Kerry voted to restrict large capacity magazines.
Kerry voted to restrict unlicensed gun sellers from doing business on the internet.
Kerry voted for background checks at gun shows, even from private collections. (See above)
Kerry voted to restrict access to firearms for juvenilles *
Kerry voted to restrict large capacity magazines (See above)
Kerry voted against the availability of trigger locks at retailers (see next item)
Kerry voted that all handgun sales include trigger locks.
Kerry voted for a 5 day waiting period to purchase a handgun.
Kerry voted against semi-automatic weapons and large capacity magazines.

* If the intent of this measure was to prevent youths from hunting or range shooting, I agree with you Michael. You certainly should be able to take your children hunting.

Disclaimer: My point of view is strongly in favor of gun control.

It seems that none of these actions are extreme. They seem to be common sense measures to protect the citizenry. Please help me understand if I am wrong. I will also state that I don't buy the slippery slope argument, that any gun legislations means that all gun rights will be dissolved.

Mike


----------



## Cryozombie (Jul 31, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> The readers' digest condensed version:
> 
> Kerry voted to protect my civil right to sue a gun manufacturer.



So... you also think that we should be able to sue McDonalds for making us fat, because they PROVIDED the food, regardless of what choice WE made to do with it?  Or perhaps a lawsuit against Snap-on if someone clubs me with a monkeywrench?  

Honestly, that becomes an issue of responsibility... who is responsibe for misuse of a product, the User or the Manufaturer.  Kerry seems to say "The Manufacturer" and if Holding this standard for guns is valid, its valid for anything else... Cars, Tobacco... etc.



			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> Kerry voted to prevent a deadline on the assault weapons ban from expiring.



Read the body of the "Assult Weapon Ban" you will see it is a farce to begin with... it got a fancy name "Assult Weapon" to gain support, and now a whole scope of weapons that are NOT assult weapons are covered under that law... And it interestingly did not stop me from LEGALY purchasing an AK-47 "Assult Rifle" earlier this year.  Can you explian the sense in that?  It was a law created by a handful of polititions who had no idea what an assult weapon was in the first place... If you read the law, it clearly states weapons are banned for "resembling" and "looking like" with no real mention of their function.  

Does adding more silly laws:
A) Increase our Personal Safety
B) Decrease our personal libertys?



			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> Kerry voted to restrict large capacity magazines.



Yeah... I still have not seen the logic in that... Can someone show me where most "Criminal shooters" are firing off, oh, say 30, 40, or 50 rounds?  As opposed to under 10?  Id be interested to see the statistics on that.

And again... the Hi-cap mag laws do not ban Hi Cap mags, I have several for the aformentioned Legal Assult rifle... they just make some of them more expensive to purchase legaly.  30 Round mags for my .22 Plinker went up from 20 bucks to 80, while 40rd mags for an Ak-47 are still only about 14 bucks.




			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> Kerry voted to restrict unlicensed gun sellers from doing business on the internet.



Or that can read:

Kerry voted to keep private collectors from buying, selling, and trading their personal firearms on the internet.

An FFL is a great thing if you want to be a professional dealer, but they are expensive, to the point that most private collectors would, in the long run lose out if they purchased them.  And there are a lot of rare, exotic, custom, etc... firearms only availible from private collectors, why shouldnt they be able to buy sell and trade them without the high expense of having an FFL?  

Add to that, the fact it is already Illegal to ship a firearm to a non-FFL holder... If I sold you a gun on the 'net, we would still have to A) Meet in person, or B) I would have to ship the firearm to an FFL dealer near you for your pickup. All he is really doing by supporting that is preventing private collectors from selling/trading their weapons at all to non-local people...  



			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> Kerry voted to restrict large capacity magazines (See above)



Yes, See above



			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> Kerry voted for a 5 day waiting period to purchase a handgun.



Ive addressed the stupidity of the 3 day wait earlier. 




			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> Kerry voted against semi-automatic weapons and large capacity magazines.



A semi-automatic weapon, is not, as everyone seems to think... a weapon that shoots like a machine gun.  Semi-automatic firearms automatically load each round after the weapon is fired, but still requires a trigger press every time the user wants to shoot. Most modern pistols are semi-automatic, as are most sporting rifles.  SPORTING RIFLES.  RIFLES USED BY HUNTERS.  KERRY, THE HUNTER, WANTS TO BAN HUNTING RIFLES??? Hmmm. 

And...

See my comments on Hi-cap magazines above.




			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> Disclaimer: My point of view is strongly in favor of gun control.
> 
> It seems that none of these actions are extreme. They seem to be common sense measures to protect the citizenry. Please help me understand if I am wrong.
> Mike



Most of what was stated above really does nothing to "protect" anyone.  Criminals, are not, as it is portrayed in the movies, running arround with Uzi's spraying crowds with 100 rounds of armor peircing bullets.   Just because a firearm is frightening looking (and wouldnt most all of them be, if they were pointed at you?) does not make it an assult weapon... blah blah blah.

We can enforce the laws we have, or we can Decoupage over them with so many others that eventually the overlap is staggering and we cannot see beyond the tangled mass of laws on top of laws on top of laws... etc. 

These comments, of course, are based, not on what Seig posted, but your "Readers Digest" condensed version.


----------



## Cryozombie (Jul 31, 2004)

I would also like to mention... if you Ban me from owning a firearm, I will buy a high powered Crossbow.



Still have the capacity to kill you from a long distance... only now it's silent.


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Jul 31, 2004)

> The point of that little anecdote is this, unless you want to provide free higher education, then you cannot have free health care. By making either of those free, you are lowering the health care professional standard.


Why is that, exactly?  If we put substantial funding towards these programs, they should become better, not worse. 



> This is another hot area of debate and where waters tend to get muddied. While I am against gun control read taking away my guns, I am for pro-choice. There seems to be a very wide schism between the parties on this, the party that supports taking away my guns all supports pro-choice, the party that protects my guns, supports pro-life, this seems to be an oxymoron to me, but what do I know I am just one of the unwashed masses that needs someone like a Kennedy to do my thinking for me.


Wow, people hate Kennedy so much, you'd think he personally slapped everyone's mama.  Not all Dems support pro-choice, actually, and not all Reps support pro-life.  I think it's an oxymoron too - what's the deal with the self-pitying sarcasm?  I am here asking people's opinions because I find them interesting.  If I didn't care what you thought, I wouldn't have posted.  I'm asking for people to be consistent (which is a pipe dream) - I don't see people, as you pointed out, always applying the same logic or passion to different topics.  Some of that is personal bias, of course.  



> Because if you look back through the history of this century (and beyond if you want to discuss other weapons bans). Every time a government bans the private ownership of firearms, they begin by requiring registration, or by banning certain types of firearms and imposing other "safety" measures. Some examples: England, Australia, etc. In both countries they didn't just suddenly wake up one day and say "hey, as of next week y'all will have to surrender all your firearms." They just chipped away a little at a time until suddenly, there's nothing left.


Well and good, I take your point.  Does that mean that we should have NO regulation of guns whatsoever?  I find that one hard to swallow.  Where is the line any of you would draw between 2nd Amendment rights and actually trying to keep a schizophrenic who went off their meds - or a kid who just tried meth for the first time - from walking into a gun store, buying a gun, and going on a shooting spree?  When do MY rights as a citizen begin, where I should be protected from these evetns, while still being allowed to arm myself if I desire?




> It has been said that "the Second Amendment makes the others possible." I could list numerous quotes from the founding fathers that would illustrate this very point as well as the fact that they specifically put the 2nd amendment in place so that the general public would have a means to resist if the government became too oppressive.
> I'm not going to say that, without a doubt, we would lose our other rights (freedom of speech, due process, search and seizure, etc.) if we are unfortunate enough to one day find ourselves in a nation that does not allow private ownership of firearms but should we find ourselves in that position we would be forced to put our faith in the politicians who say that they will ensure that those rights are maintained. In other words, we would have no recourse if they decided to take them away. I don't know about y'all but I don't particularly have much trust for politicians as it is, much less when there's nothing to keep them from having their way.


OK, I understand.  Again, because I wish people (everyone, not anyone who is pro-gun or anti-gun or whathaveyou) were more truthful with themselves and more consistent in their beliefs, I wish that people who felt this way, this passionately about their individual rights, are applying that passion to other topics aside from gun control (although I realize that that is what this thread is about).  I wish I would see gun owners also supporting gay marriage/civil unions and so on.  And some (some of my friends) do.  I get frustruated sometimes that it seems, for some people I've met in life, it's all about the guns, but for other issues, they didn't care about individual rights as much.  I'm quite heartened to find people here who appear to.


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 31, 2004)

Technopunk said:
			
		

> These comments, of course, are based, not on what Seig posted, but your "Readers Digest" condensed version.


And my reader's digest condensed version was my interpretation of the laws Seig quoted above. Please note that Michael did not argue any of the points you made here. He just said this was the legislation, this is how Kerry voted.

As I look back on my list, I see very little opinion listed in it. Just the positions.

Now, as you expand the legislation from the words, to the meaning, we can begin to have a discussion. I find it odd that you are attacking me, and ascribing points of view to me, without trying to coerce me to your side of the argument.

Now, I don't want to go point by point through the discussion. Honestly, you have far more knowledge in the subject, and would no doubt be able to run rings around me with quotes and counter-quotes. But telling me I am wrong, or foolish, or stupid doesn't engender hospitable feelings toward your point of view.

Even today ... the most powerful GUN image I have is Columbine. And that's bad. And you can say that we should enforce our laws til the cows come home. The basic image is GUNS and DEAD BODIES. You really need to get me beyond that image. And I find all of your arguments falling short in that objective.

Against the image of GUNS and DEAD BODIES, Kerry's voting position does not look extreme. Sorry.

Mike


----------



## Cryozombie (Jul 31, 2004)

Feisty Mouse said:
			
		

> I don't see people, as you pointed out, always applying the same logic or passion to different topics.  Some of that is personal bias, of course.  .



A lot of that, is not just personal bias, but a person's actual beliefs, wouldnt you think?

A lot of "these" subjects that you say people dont apply "the same logic to" are in fact, by many people's perceptions, weighted differently... In the case of "The Right To own Guns" you are talking about a "Right to Own Property" And a "Right to Defend oneself" ... In the Case of "Pro Life" you are talking about the right to (in their eyes) "Openly commit murder"

Most legitimate gun owners would not say owning a gun is a licernce to commit murder... so in their perception, these issues, while similar issues of "right to choose" carry a different weight.

And you know what they say: "Perception is Reality"

Food for thought anyhow.


----------



## dearnis.com (Jul 31, 2004)

good thing he supports the right to sue gun manufacturers; I'd hate to see someone hold him responsible for his own wonderful gun safety skills.....


----------



## Mark Weiser (Jul 31, 2004)

As a 20 year Military veteran and a former Deputy Sheriff. I for one do not see the need for folks to have access to automatic weapons or certain semi-auto weapons.

A good hunter can use shotguns, 30-30, 30-06, 410, 22, or if more sporty hunter could use a 357 or 45 or a 9mm handgun. There are Bows, Blowguns lol. Trapping is another option. 

I am not aganist someone having firearms in his or her home but come on why would someone want a AR-15 or a M-16, MP-5, or any SMG they are strictly designed for killing other people. Should never be in the hands of the public. You may now add me to your ban list LOL !


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 31, 2004)

Mark Weiser said:
			
		

> As a 20 year Military veteran and a former Deputy Sheriff. I for one do not see the need for folks to have access to automatic weapons or certain semi-auto weapons.
> . . . You may now add me to your ban list LOL !


<<chuckle>>  I appreciate the contribution.  Mike


----------



## Cryozombie (Jul 31, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> And my reader's digest condensed version was my interpretation of the laws Seig quoted above. Please note that Michael did not argue any of the points you made here. He just said this was the legislation, this is how Kerry voted.
> 
> As I look back on my list, I see very little opinion listed in it. Just the positions.
> 
> ...




Mike, Sorry man, I didnt mean for it to be an attack on you... I was addressing the issues as you posted them from your POV.  

As far as Columbine goes,  I may never be able to erase the image that the media put in your head of Guns and bodies, but in most cases the laws we were talking about would not have prevented what happened there..

Some additional food for thought...

1) Since they did not go out and legaly purchase those weapons and explosives they used in the school... Would the 5 day "Cool Down" period really have helped?

Logically the answer is no... since they did not go purchase these "weapons" for this attack.

2) Of the 4 firearms used to commit those killings, only 1 possibly had a Hi-cap mag, that would be the TEC-9 that Dylan carried, and it was not a full-auto weapon.  Add to that the fact there were almost as many shotgun rounds fired from weapons that could only hold 2-3 shells each and ask yourself would the High Capacity magazine restrictions have helped?

Logically, the answer again is no... even on the current Hi-cap ban, as I stated, they are still availible, just more expensive for SOME weapons, and the 1 possibly high cap weapon they had was fired only 55 times, compared to 133 rounds from the other, non-high capacity weapons.  And since only 1 of those weapons was Semi-auto, the other being shotguns, and a bolt-action carbine, the Semi-automatic weapons ban would have been basicaly useless here as well.

3) They had more home-made improvised munitions, and bladed weapons than firearms... had the legislation to keep kids from firearms been in place, they were still armed, with what in my opinion, is a more dangerous weapon... a total of 90+ bombs.  enough to have done much more damage than they did.

4) The shotguns they carried were Illegal Saw-offs.  There was legislation on place against those weapons, and yet they still had, and used them.  Did the law prevent what they did? 

The fact of the matter is... situations like columbine will happen regardless of the laws... Like I said before, Criminals do not care how you legislate things... thats why they are CRIMINALS. 

I will leave you with an example, and a question.  First the question... If I can provide REALISTIC, SPECIFIC, VERIFIABLE examples of persons owning/carrying firearms who use them to prevent crimes and/or protect themselves and their loved ones in equal numbers to the bodies at Columbine, will you move beyond the only image of guns as dead bodies at columbine?

Second, as a fisherman, imagine this subject... Since Irresponsable Commercial fishing is decimating the population of fish... Perhaps we should legislate a ban on ALL fishing... even that which is not dangerous to the fish population... Silly... but in effect the same.


----------



## Cryozombie (Jul 31, 2004)

Mark Weiser said:
			
		

> I am not aganist someone having firearms in his or her home but come on why would someone want a AR-15 or a M-16, MP-5, or any SMG they are strictly designed for killing other people.



The speed limit on the highway is 65, why would someone buy a car capable of 120+ miles an hour.

The fact is... They are FUN!  Firing a M-16a1 on full auto is an afternoon of great FUN for some people... Just like others play with fireworks, or race down the road at 120 on a Katana Sportbike...  Some people just ENJOY IT.


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Jul 31, 2004)

> A lot of "these" subjects that you say people dont apply "the same logic to" are in fact, by many people's perceptions, weighted differently... In the case of "The Right To own Guns" you are talking about a "Right to Own Property" And a "Right to Defend oneself" ... In the Case of "Pro Life" you are talking about the right to (in their eyes) "Openly commit murder"


I understand, but I find it completely inconsistent.  "defending oneself" with a firearm means "killing or severely wounding someone(s) else", or threatening to do so.  Even if you have an anti-abortion stance, then you'd take this same possibility away from others?

Again, another reason why I don't study people - the inconsistencies amaze me.


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 31, 2004)

Technopunk said:
			
		

> I will leave you with an example, and a question. First the question... If I can provide REALISTIC, SPECIFIC, VERIFIABLE examples of persons owning/carrying firearms who use them to prevent crimes and/or protect themselves and their loved ones in equal numbers to the bodies at Columbine, will you move beyond the only image of guns as dead bodies at columbine?
> 
> Second, as a fisherman, imagine this subject... Since Irresponsable Commercial fishing is decimating the population of fish... Perhaps we should legislate a ban on ALL fishing... even that which is not dangerous to the fish population... Silly... but in effect the same.





			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> Now, I don't want to go point by point through the discussion. Honestly, you have far more knowledge in the subject, and would no doubt be able to run rings around me with quotes and counter-quotes.


Honestly, I think the image of Dead Bodies and Guns is a difficult one to overcome. I even understand that what happened in Columbine was way outside the day to day norm of anything in reality. But, it is still a horrific image that will probably not be replaced in many peoples minds (including mine) until the next time something so horrific happens.

To suggest that banning all fishing *is the same as* restricting instant access to high-capacity weapons and magazines is a false analogy. The gun argument is for limited intervention, while banning all fishing is not limited. I am not suggesting a comprehensive firearm ban. I am suggesting common sense gun control.

Let me also say this about fishing. If a fisherman violates the laws while fishing (over the bag limit, out of season, improper bait), I am all in favor of the Conservation Officers in my state prosecuting them to the extreme. I know of one Massachusetts citizen that paid a hefty fine for taking someone else's catch (mine - 3 trout - try telling that story to a State Cop).

I find it interesting that many of you 2nd Amendment people refuse to consider the *violations* of the law stated in the article that started this post. Why aren't you guys mad as hell that your position is getting jeopordized by the actions of those who get guns they shouldn't get. Instead, I am hearing that "the number 7,000 can't possibly be correct". That the "laws are unjustified" anyhow. There are "existing laws on the books".

Oh, well.  Mike


----------



## Stick Dummy (Jul 31, 2004)

I agree the the Columbine incident was horrific, and there are many others you may be too young to recognize them. or just not taking in the BIG picture.  Columbine was carefully PREMEDITATED and rehearsed crimes, and the local L-E was well aware of the two monsters predilections towards violence. They failed to act for whatever reasons, but It won't happen again.......  

  Have you viewed the photos of the PILES of victims of Auschwitz, Bergen-Belsen, or any of the other DIRECT results of of Nazi Germanies "Gun Control"? 

  How about Joe Stalin's little "Pogroms" - same initiation No guns for the masses of proletariate. Good party members could have them though..

Cambodia's mass graves & good ol'Pol Pot - Sam Ting

Afganistan?? Taliban did it too 

Or maybe something more trendy - The people of Iraq - specifically the Kurds in Northern Iraq who were disarmed - rebelled with gasp - "Illegal Weaponry" and were the consequentally gassed by their "protectors"

 They all started the same way with the government determining what is legal to own, and who can own it. I don't mean criminals they can get ANYTHING should they have contacts and money.

  Its not about "crime control", don't be fooled...... Its about taking away the one DECISIVE right that "people controllers" fear the most, and the very keystone to protecting all of the other US Constitutional Amendments.

  Our forefathers had suffered this same persecution at the hands of the British Empire, and wanted to make DAMN SURE it did not happen to us in the future.


  Don't be fooled, history repeats itself and we have the same monsters lurking here in the USA. They just do not have the power to exercise these horrors on us yet.


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 31, 2004)

StickDummy ... 

Are you comparing the United States of America to Saddam Hussein's Iraq?
Are you comparing the United States of America to Joseph Stalin's Russia?
Are you comparing the United States of America to the Taliban?

Is that your argument? Wow ... 

Thanks. Mike


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Jul 31, 2004)

Kerry is indeed down on guns.  Edwards less so.  Other leading Democrats are distancing themselves from the gun debate because they recognize it drew a number of votes away from them in 2000...and also because there are some pro-gun Democratic constituents out there (like me) who part from the party on this one issue.

I think after Kerry wins we'll see less anti-gun activity than we've seen in the past.  

http://www.issues2000.org/2004/John_Edwards_Gun_Control.htm

Mark Weiser wrote:

_As a 20 year Military veteran and a former Deputy Sheriff. I for one do not see the need for folks to have access to automatic weapons or certain semi-auto weapons._

At this point, I see it as an issue of property rights.  Should I own property and am responsible for its care and use, it shouldn't matter what firearms I own.  Technopunks sports car analogy suffices in this case.  

Before anybody does so, let me head off the "What about a bazooka" argument that I recently got from my son and another bright young man.  We're not talking about bazookas.  The Senate hasn't, to my knowledge, debated bazooka control and we haven't had too many domestic homicides, school shootings, armed robberies or "drive bys" with bazookas.  Let's not ski down that slippery slope...unless you have a bazooka to sell me.

As I've said elsewhere, the gun control debate takes the focus off the issues at hand that need the most urgent attention.  Poor mental/emotional health and poverty are the root causes of violence in our culture.  Focusing on the symptoms of a disease do little to ameliorate the illness itself.  

When we ask "what will stop people from shooting each other" we might chirp up, "get guns off the streets."  Replace the verb "shooting" with "killing" and it takes on a different tone.  The issue is violence...not the mechanism used to effect it.  

Now...I have parted from the liberals on this thread.  Let us all take joy at the shock we might notice registered by the conservatives.  The cracking we hear is the whiplash brought on by their double-takes.

Regards,


Steve


----------



## Stick Dummy (Jul 31, 2004)

Michael Edwards - Either you are a MORON, or attempting to bait me :asian:

You last post is a no brainer, re-read my post CAREFULLY, and look at what occurred  CAUSE & EFFECT


You forgot Nazi Germany? Why? Too Touchy?

The fact is once this particular right is eroded, HISTORY has shown exactly what occurs with almost predictable regularity ANYWHERE in the world.

 No the USA, I AM GLAD TO LIVE HERE, is not like any of the mentioned countries yet, YET....... But neither were any of the mentioned ones were they??????

We can debate, or BAIT without REAL persecution based on this Keystone amendment.


 When any L-E tells me what I can, and can't, own I get scared. Most espouse the "party line" can't shoot worth ****, and they tend to reek of social elitism. 

*I am very PRO-LAW ENFORCEMENT, work in a job with regular interaction with them, and will back their "SIX" in a heartbeat. Unlike the handwringers that sit and whine and do nothing.*

 If I shoot military competition events, I cannot own or use a AR-15? 

What about IPSC or IDPA?

What if I do Historical re-enactments?


----------



## Mark Weiser (Jul 31, 2004)

The kernel of the problem is based upon the human condition. One person is responsible and the other is not. The problem is how do we find out which one do we trust with firearms. I think if you are to own a weapon you should


Get proper training in handling/cleaning, and shooting the firearm of choice thur a reputable trainer. (LE Academies, Military Training)
A Criminal and Mental Health exam should be done on prospective firearms owners. You and I know of people that if you had a choice you would say He or She should not be around firearms.
In every part of life there are risk and you roll the dice. I personally to this day will support ones right to bear arms but again someone in the Middle of New York or LA or any major city should not need a Full Auto Weapon matter fact anywhere in the country except Military and Special Tactics Units. 

The problem is we know that power corrupts and we as Americans have a long history of standing up to abusive authorities.  However there was a Russian Thinker(I belive it was Russian) that said once.

"with a knife I can get a rifle, with a rifle I can get a tank and with a tank I can take a city!" So if you belive rebellion is not possible without Automatic Weapons then reread historical records of Successful Revolts. 

Sincerely,
Mark E. Weiser


----------



## Stick Dummy (Jul 31, 2004)

_  In every part of life there are risk and you roll the dice. I personally to this day will support ones right to bear arms but again someone in the Middle of New York or LA or any major city should not need a Full Auto Weapon matter fact anywhere in the country except Military and Special Tactics Units. _ 


I believe not long ago there was a little situation in L.A. - specified above- where a pair of badguys armed with illegally acquired full auto's had as "slight edge" over the responding police officers. In fact a movie was made about it.

  FORTUNATELY there was a citizen owned gunstore located nearby, which more than happily supplied at least one shopping cart full of "military style" arms and ammunition to the police in an attempt to help control the situation.

To discriminate on ones geographic residential location, reeks of the same "us" vs. "them" mentality.

Full auto weapons - legally acquired - have some of the most draconian restrictions placed on their possession imaginable. Do some web-research of The National Firearms Act of 1934, and Gun Control Act of 1968. 


You want mental health exams done by one of the most anti-gun industries in the US?? More elitists telling us what we can and can't do? Most Cops BARELY pass them.......


 Criminal Records check - Amen!! 

The start of this thread has again been reached, and it takes less than 5 minutes to do one should the computers be "up and running". 

Dealing with these violators? The US Attorney General Janet Reno who bankrolled "Brady" said it could not be done. Our same "friends" who want our guns, are the ones who gutted the criminal justice system and refuse to deal with the daily realities:

 Crime is in many areas out of control

 Criminals are not "poor oppressed" psychobabble toys, but societal predators

 Crime Legislation without strict enforcement is just another societal "blow job"   that does not solve the problem.

 Law enforcement has become REACTIVE, instead of proactive in many areas. In fact, there are laws in many areas stating the L-E is not responsible for your safety and security.

 In those areas, GOD help you if you decide to protect yourself or family by any means- NYC-NY, MA., Wash D.C., L.A., Chicago, the list goes on. 

  A mass media sub-culture that constantly pounds into the young peoples brains, or glorifies parental disrespect, graphic violence, sexual deviations, perversions, conquest & domination, and that things are "owed" to them rather than earned through hard work is more the problem.


Rant mode off................... :asian:


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 31, 2004)

Stick Dummy said:
			
		

> Michael Edwards - Either you are a MORON, or attempting to bait me :asian:


Must be the former ... because it sure looked to me like you were comparing my country to those; that any reasonable attempt to enforce the gun laws on the books (prevent weapons from reaching people who have forfitted their gun rights from acquiring guns) is comparable to the actions you describe in Germany, Russia, Iraq and Cambodia.

Thanks for contributing. Mike


----------



## Mark Weiser (Jul 31, 2004)

The reason why LAPD needed to get access to the gun shop was not due to the lack of weapons but due to Departmental Policy of not wanting to have automatic weapons in the curisers.

LAPD was worried about PR and did not want to have the public thinking they were becoming more like the ARMY.  LAPD did have access to purchase those weapons years prior to this incident. So making out the LAPD as needed CIVILIAN assist to arm themselves is misleading at best. I understand that SWAT was on seen about the same time as the Officers getting those weapons so it depends on how you present the facts to persaude others on your point of veiw.   

If the Dept had not worried so much for PR then the incident would have been over in minutes by having a few Sgt's or LT's with AR-15's in the gun racks. 

Surprise after this incident I belive AR-15's are now available to Street Units. Hmmm


----------



## Seig (Aug 1, 2004)

dearnis.com said:
			
		

> good thing he supports the right to sue gun manufacturers; I'd hate to see someone hold him responsible for his own wonderful gun safety skills.....


Chad,
Correct me if I am wrong because it is early, I am not wearing my glasses nor have I finished my coffee, but isn't Mr. "Hunter that voted against semi-auto" Kerry holding a semi auto shotgun? Michael, the proof that Kerry is an idiot about hunting is in that picture. You *NEVER* put your finger in the trigger guard until you are prepared to fire.


----------



## Seig (Aug 1, 2004)

Feisty Mouse said:
			
		

> I understand, but I find it completely inconsistent. "defending oneself" with a firearm means "killing or severely wounding someone(s) else", or threatening to do so. Even if you have an anti-abortion stance, then you'd take this same possibility away from others?
> 
> Again, another reason why I don't study people - the inconsistencies amaze me.


Just to make my position clear, I am anti-gun legislation and pro-choice.


----------



## dearnis.com (Aug 1, 2004)

The shotgun is an o/u double.  Glad someone caught the finger on the trigger.

Michael- you had asked me two questions above; I answered both?  No reply to the second (ref my professional opinion)?

The problem folks, is people, not tools.  As horrific as Columbine was, both perps were known to local law enforcement; attempts to investigate them were stymied by the parents' "Not my little darling" interference.\

Steve makes a very good point about property rights.  If you ban them, and seize them, are you going to compensate the owners?


----------



## Seig (Aug 1, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> The readers' digest condensed version:
> 
> Kerry voted to protect my civil right to sue a gun manufacturer.
> Kerry voted to prevent a deadline on the assault weapons ban from expiring.
> ...


Mike,
I do indeed feel you are wrong on many counts. I will now address each of your above points.
1.) Kerry voted to allow people to sue gun manufacturers. If the issue here was that you could sue them for faulty workmanship, it would be a good thing. That is not the case, you are allowed to sue them for doing their jobs properly and with quality. Can you sue Ford because a drunk in a Lincoln Town Car just plowed through your house killing half you family as they watched TV? Can you sue Jack Daniels because he was drunk or the cable company because your family was watching TV? The idea to sue gun manufacturers came from the same people that sued the tobacco industry. Regardless of what your opinion there is, the fact is that the money that was bled from them did not do/go where it was supposed to do.
2.) Kerry voted to extend the ban on certain weapons. This ban does nothing to touch on the weapons already here. It prevents the importation of more of these weapons. All this did was bolster the value of these weapons and increase their desirability to some.
3.) Kerry voted for backround checks at gun shows. Now this law on it's face is decent and I agree with it. As the laws currently stand, I cannot buy a firearm at a gun show outside my home state. That means I have to have the weapon transferred to a FFL holder, that is then required to do a backround search. A few years ago, my mother sent me two antique shotguns that I inherited from my step father. When I moved out of Florida, I left them at my mother's until I got settled. I had them shipped to a gun dealer, that is the legal way. I then had to have a backround check done to receive property that already belonged to me.
4.) Kerry voted to restrict armor piercing ammunition. What exactly is the definition of this? How many people can make this ammunition at home? How many people can treat store bought ammo to become "armor piercing". This law really doesn't do anything to protect anyone. Once again, criminals do not respect or care about the law.
5.) Kerry voted to restrict large capacity magazines. This idea is absolutely ludicrous. Once again, this law does noting to protect you. This "ban" as it is referred to in the gun industry is almost a joke. It means if I buy a NEW sig,I can onlyhave a 10 round magazine. It also means I cannot import the old 15 round magazines for certain weapons. Now, personally, I carry a 1911. The 1911 is designed to carry a 7 round magazine. But guess what, I can legally purchase and use a 15 round magazine with little to no effort and for very little money. http://www.sportsmansguide.com/cb/cb.asp?a=119840
This is the "more is better" concept. I am a competent shooter. In most instances, I will not need more than one shot, so it really doesn't matter how many I carry in the clip. I know of one other person that is a member of this board that makes my shooting look mediocre at best. He and I both can take a six shot revolver fire it to empty, reload, fire to empty, relaod, and fire to empty in the time it takes most people to fire a semi-auto similarly loaded to empty one magazine and reload it one time. I have personally done this several times at my yearly requailfication. What protection do you really have?
6.) Kerry voted to restrict unlicensed gun sellers from doing business on the internet. Why? To ship a firearm it must be shipped from or to a licensed dealer. No carrier will carry a firearm unless that is followed. The carriers have to report this to the ATF. This idea of this law is lip service to the anti-gun lobby, nothing more.
7.) Kerry voted for background checks at gun shows, even from private collections. Already addressed.
8.) Kerry voted to restrict access to firearms for juvenilles. For the most part this has already been addressed. Let us look at the firearm age restrictions. You must be 18 to purchase a rifle or shot gun or ammunition for either. You must be 21 to purchase a handgun or ammunition.  For someone under the age of 15 to purchase a HUNTING license, they must attend a hunter safety course and not only carry the card for that while hunting but also present it to the license dealer. This has been in effect since 1986.
9.) Kerry voted against the availability of trigger locks at retailers. He did this because he wanted the stronger law.
10.) Kerry voted that all handgun sales include trigger locks. All this did was raise the cost of gun sales. The locks are ridiculous. I have three of them in a drawer, not on guns. I bought a used gun from a pawn shop, there was no trigger lock on the weapon when I bought it. This law is just plain silly. Instead of blaming a lack of locks, blame poor parenting when children get these weapons.
11.) Kerry voted for a 5 day waiting period to purchase a handgun. Why? This is just silly. Thanks to modern technology, it takes about 90 seconds to do a backround check. True, I had to wait three days to get my CCW, but they ran ONE more check than a gun dealer does. 
12.) Kerry voted against semi-automatic weapons and large capacity magazines. Again, this is silliness. Most handguns in prevalent use today are semi-auto. Some shotguns are also semi-auto, but guess what. I can buy a Binelli shot gun, which is a pump and fire it more rapidly than an inexperienced shooter can fire a semi-auto. A Sig-Sauer Blaser rifle is a very fast bolt, same thing, I can fire it as fast as most people can fire a comprable weapon. I already illustrated semis versus revolver. It is more about skill than it is about capacity.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Aug 1, 2004)

Mark Weiser said:
			
		

> The kernel of the problem is based upon the human condition. One person is responsible and the other is not. The problem is how do we find out which one do we trust with firearms. I think if you are to own a weapon you should
> 
> 
> Get proper training in handling/cleaning, and shooting the firearm of choice thur a reputable trainer. (LE Academies, Military Training)
> ...



Had the Jews of the Warsaw ghetto been armed better...

The idea of a mental health check, at first blush, seems sound.  The problem I see is deciding who gives the assessment.  I know a number of psychologists who are liberal...would they consent to giving it?  Would they be objective?  Which assessment would be used?  The MMPPI?

I certainly like the idea of weapons instruction being a requirement.  Alarmists might say that the government would then have a list of all gun owners.  I don't think we're quite to the point where we need to worry about it.  My apologies to New World Order conspiracy theory advocates...

Kerry's photo op with the shotgun was silly, even if he does shoot skeet or hunt birds.  That said, I'm still voting for him.  His stance on guns doesn't concern me as much as more pressing issues.

Stickdummy...your skirmish with Michael E. reeeeeally doesn't need the largest fonts available, does it?  I thought I was reading an eye chart. Suggesting he is possibly a moron isn't necessary, either.


Regards,


Steve


----------



## michaeledward (Aug 1, 2004)

dearnis.com said:
			
		

> Michael- you had asked me two questions above; I answered both? No reply to the second (ref my professional opinion)?


If by this, you mean that the system / people should hold prosocuters and judges accountable for their jobs.... 

Without thinking too deeply on the subject, I just call to mind the opening of Law and Order: The Police investigate and capture the accused. The Prosocuters bring them to justice. The system is divided into two separate parts for a reason, to avoid law enforcement from pronouncing judgement. I believe the system is thoughtfully designed. The people, through their legislatures have passed 'Mandatory Sentencing' rules to hold prosecuters accountable with several types of violations. I think there is an emerging body of evidence that suggests mandatory sentencing laws are producing many undesireable unintended consequences.

Mike


----------



## Seig (Aug 1, 2004)

Feisty Mouse said:
			
		

> Why is that, exactly? If we put substantial funding towards these programs, they should become better, not worse.


So one would think and indeed hope. The reality is far worse. Funding may be there but without hope of profit, where is the incentive for research and advancements. Canada has free health care, along with incredibly high taxes, yet people cannot get the health care they need in a timely manner. Socialized medicine does indeed guarantee helath care to everyone, that can wait to get it. Do you really want to wait 6 months for a check up?


> Wow, people hate Kennedy so much, you'd think he personally slapped everyone's mama.


Well, maybe not my mama, but I feel he has slapped me in the face. This is a man that supports the restriction of martial arts and martial arts weapons. This also a man that got away with murder.


> Not all Dems support pro-choice, actually, and not all Reps support pro-life. I think it's an oxymoron too


No, you are correct, but if you look at the Party Line and look at the voting history, you will find it to be mostly true.


> - what's the deal with the self-pitying sarcasm?


That was not self-pitying sarcasm. It was illistrating the opinion that "nobles" and politicians have held about the average person since 300 BC


> I am here asking people's opinions because I find them interesting. If I didn't care what you thought, I wouldn't have posted. I'm asking for people to be consistent (which is a pipe dream) - I don't see people, as you pointed out, always applying the same logic or passion to different topics. Some of that is personal bias, of course.


Your questions are fair, if more people asked them and had calm, dispassionate and logical discourse, there would be more understanding and fewer knee-jerk reactions. My answers are biased, of course, but they are founded in logic and research. My beliefs are consistant. 



> Well and good, I take your point. Does that mean that we should have NO regulation of guns whatsoever? I find that one hard to swallow. Where is the line any of you would draw between 2nd Amendment rights and actually trying to keep a schizophrenic who went off their meds - or a kid who just tried meth for the first time - from walking into a gun store, buying a gun, and going on a shooting spree?


We habe gun regulations, some of them are not enforced, some are selectively enforced, and some are ignored. The law states that anyone with a history of mental illness cannot own a firearm. Children are prevented from owning firearms or having unrestricted access to them. Neither can just walk into a gun store and buy a gun. That is a misconception supported by the anti-gun lobby.


> When do MY rights as a citizen begin, where I should be protected from these evetns, while still being allowed to arm myself if I desire?


Your rights as a citizen are there. The only person obligated to protect you is you.


> OK, I understand. Again, because I wish people (everyone, not anyone who is pro-gun or anti-gun or whathaveyou) were more truthful with themselves and more consistent in their beliefs, I wish that people who felt this way, this passionately about their individual rights, are applying that passion to other topics aside from gun control (although I realize that that is what this thread is about).


Who says we don't?


> I wish I would see gun owners also supporting gay marriage/civil unions and so on. And some (some of my friends) do.


Why? 


> I get frustruated sometimes that it seems, for some people I've met in life, it's all about the guns, but for other issues, they didn't care about individual rights as much. I'm quite heartened to find people here who appear to.


 People all have their own priorities......


----------



## michaeledward (Aug 1, 2004)

Seig said:
			
		

> Mike,
> I do indeed feel you are wrong on many counts. I will now address each of your above points.


Thank you Michael. 

That list of Kerry votes was intended to just be a short translation of the positions you reported. I wasn't attempting to put my opinion into those votes. Although, in general, they seemed to me to be common sense positions.

In rebuttal, you make several points that also seem valid. That you, as an experienced handler of firearms, readily can see that these bills would really have no effect. This is the beginning of a discussion. 

I don't feel that any of the points you make have yet swayed my opinion, but it is a start. Perhaps others, who are less strongly positioned concerning gun control may be swayed by your arguments. And, as I mentioned earlier, I am not nearly knoweldgeable enough to address point-by-point the positions you argue. ... I just know that too many people die from guns.

Allow me to redirect one of your statements, however. 



			
				Seig said:
			
		

> 11.) Kerry voted for a 5 day waiting period to purchase a handgun. Why? This is just silly. Thanks to modern technology, it takes about 90 seconds to do a backround check. True, I had to wait three days to get my CCW, but they ran ONE more check than a gun dealer does.





			
				excerpt from the Associate Press article said:
			
		

> If the background check isnt completed within the period, however, the law says the purchase must go through. In 2002 and 2003, there were a combined 7,030 delayed denial cases in which the FBI found that a prohibited person was able to get a gun after the period expired, according to the review by Glenn A. Fine, the Justice Departments inspector general.


As reported in the article, 17 million weapons were sold in 2002 & 2003. Of those, some 122,000 attempted purchases were denied because the purchase had forfeited their right to keep and bear arms. Great! The article also reports that 7,000 of the transactions were improperly completed because the waiting period had expired. A very small fraction, no doubt, but it makes me nervous.

Those 7,000 purchases go an awful long way in painting, with broadstrokes, all gun owners, in my opinion. How should we as a society address this? After all, it is you, the legal, law abiding gun owner who is getting the sour end of this news. 

Do we just eliminate any law related to firearms, cuz that's the way someone reads the 2nd Amendment?

How do gun owners better make the case that they are willing to enforce the laws on the books, and deny weapons to those who no longer can legally possess firearms?

I tried to have a conversation with a spokesperson from GONH (Gun Owners of New Hampshire) at a recent outdoor show, and he picked up very quickly that I don't know nuthin' about guns, and he could not even carry on a conversation with me. I was left with the impression that GONH was not interested in protecting *ME* (a non-gun-owning citizen) from criminals, but only with expanding their right to shoot things.

Oh, well. - Mike


----------



## CanuckMA (Aug 1, 2004)

> So one would think and indeed hope. The reality is far worse. Funding may be there but without hope of profit, where is the incentive for research and advancements. Canada has free health care, along with incredibly high taxes, yet people cannot get the health care they need in a timely manner. Socialized medicine does indeed guarantee helath care to everyone, that can wait to get it. Do you really want to wait 6 months for a check up?



Well, I just looked at last year's tax return, and for an income in the high 70s, after deductions, my federal+provincial tax rate was 24%.

I had back surgery early this year, from CT Scan to OR took 2 weeks.

I've never had to wait more than a few days to see my GP. less if it's urgent. Our system mat not be perfect, but it is far from what people with a vested interest in the for profit system will lead you to believe.


----------



## CanuckMA (Aug 1, 2004)

> Had the Jews of the Warsaw ghetto been armed better...



The resistance might have lasted a few more days, maybe a week. The idea that a bunch of civilians can hold off a modern army makes no sense anymore. Back in 1770, the army was only marginally better equiped. Today, it doesn't matter how many guns you have, when tanks, APC and gunships come in, you're toast.


----------



## Seig (Aug 1, 2004)

CanuckMA said:
			
		

> Well, I just looked at last year's tax return, and for an income in the high 70s, after deductions, my federal+provincial tax rate was 24%.
> 
> I had back surgery early this year, from CT Scan to OR took 2 weeks.
> 
> I've never had to wait more than a few days to see my GP. less if it's urgent. Our system mat not be perfect, but it is far from what people with a vested interest in the for profit system will lead you to believe.


Then you are one of the luck ones. We have a friend that is permanently disabled with a dibaltating disease. To get his annual check up, he has to schedule 6 months in advance.


----------



## michaeledward (Aug 1, 2004)

Seig said:
			
		

> Then you are one of the luck ones. We have a friend that is permanently disabled with a dibaltating disease. To get his annual check up, he has to schedule 6 months in advance.


To schedule a physical here in New Hampshire, we need at least a 3 month lead time. I work with a fortune 500 company with a pretty good health plan; but, for routine appointments that is the window.

If it is something that requires immediate attention, say an infection or allergic reaction (poison ivy), we can get an appointment in a day or two or three.

I don't see how the US System is much different from the Canadian based on this anectdotal evidence. 

I do know, however, that Springfield, Massachusetts is saving millions by importing prescription medications from Canada. And New Hampshire is also looking into 're-importation'. Why do you suppose that the United States pays so much for meds?

Mike

P.S.  .... wow ... look at this thread drift 
%think%


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Aug 1, 2004)

*This also a man that got away with murder.*


Sorry, Seig...not by any definition of murder that I've ever seen did he murder Mary Jo.  Negligent homicide, manslaughter, vehicular homicide  while under the influence...whatever the law wants to call it.  But he didn't murder her.

Honestly, I think he should have been hammered far worse for what he did.  I detest drunk drivers...but I don't think he should have been charged with murder.

Nor do I think Laura Bush murdered that boyfriend who dumped her back in the early sixties, as some liberals suggest.  I'm willing to give her the benefit of the doubt that she accidentally ran the stop at the intersection and plowed into him.  I believe she wasn't paying attention and was too busy chatting with her girlfriend.  I think the event tragic, not sinister.  That he gave her the boot that very morning might have even compounded her sorrow with further guilt, not to mention the stigma such a coincidence would bring...but I don't think it automatically gave her a motive for killing the man.


Regards,


Steve


----------



## CanuckMA (Aug 1, 2004)

Yes, the annual physical does require a few months notice. Mainly because of the length of time required, my GP only does 2-3 per day. If your friend requires specialized tests, that could ad to the lead time. But an annual is not an emergency. I had the same thing with my pediatriacian, well-baby vists required a couple months lead time, sick child would be seen same day. I think it's a bit dishanoest to try to judge a medical system by the lead time required for well visits.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Aug 1, 2004)

CanuckMA said:
			
		

> The resistance might have lasted a few more days, maybe a week. The idea that a bunch of civilians can hold off a modern army makes no sense anymore. Back in 1770, the army was only marginally better equiped. Today, it doesn't matter how many guns you have, when tanks, APC and gunships come in, you're toast.




Tell that to the Vietnamese.  Or for that matter, tell it to the Iraqi insurgents.  Then, too, you might mention it to the Mujaheddin who were in Afghanistan in the eighties.  They got...or are getting...toasted in droves and the little buggers just never seem to say "Uncle", do they?

Were there a popular, armed uprising in the U.S. involving resistance against U.S. troops, I find it hard to believe that U.S. soldiers/airmen/Marines/sailors would be willing to bomb, strafe, roll over their own American neighborhoods.  It would happen at such great psychic cost to the American soldier that I doubt any despotic regime he served would last for long.  

For such a thing to occur we would have to see a dramatic restructuring of the U.S. political system.  That hasn't happened, inspite of what many conspiracy theorists might think.

Regards,


Steve


----------



## KenpoTex (Aug 2, 2004)

Seig covered the list pretty well but I wanted to talk a little more about this one.





			
				Seig said:
			
		

> 4.) Kerry voted to restrict armor piercing ammunition. What exactly is the definition of this? How many people can make this ammunition at home? How many people can treat store bought ammo to become "armor piercing". This law really doesn't do anything to protect anyone. Once again, criminals do not respect or care about the law.


  The thing that many people don't consider when talking about "armor-piercing" ammunition is the type of armor it's designed to pierce.  





> Senate Amendment 2619, offered by Senator Edward Kennedy (D-MA) to S. 1805, the Gun Industry Immunity Bill, would expand the definition of armor piercing ammunition and to require the Attorney General to promulgate standards for the uniform testing of projectiles against body armor.


  what is the problem with this you ask?  Body armor is designed primarily to defend against handgun ammunition or shotgun pellets.  Why is this significant?  because virtually every center-fire rifle cartridge from the .223 on up will go through some most types of body armor, even armor augmented by "trauma plates."  So in effect, banning any ammunition that will go through a vest would eliminate just about every hunting/sporting round as well as military type munitions because the bullet itself does not have to be "armor piercing" (usually tungsten cored).  This means you couldn't go deer hunting with your .30-06 or .270 or varmint hunting with your .22-250.  Notice how it says that this bill will "expand the definition armor piercing ammunition?"  That is exactly what it means, they're going to try to expand it to mean "anything that might possible puncture a vest" thereby outlawing most if not all rifle rounds.  That's why there's a problem with that.


I also wanted to address the "assault rifle" issue.  As many people have said,  the Assault Weapons Ban (which also banned the importation of hi-capacity mags) was nothing but a ploy to outlaw a type of guns that possess certain cosmetic features (ie. flash suppressors, pistol-grip stocks, bayonet lugs, etc.).  Supposedly these are the weapon of choice for drug dealers, gangsters, and other criminals and are used to massacre "thousands of innocent children every year."  However this is far from the case.  In 2002 (the most recent year for which a full F.B.I. _Uniform Crime Report _ exists) there were 9,369 homicides in which a firearm was used.  Of that number only 480 (just over 5%) were committed with a rifle of any type.  Even if we assume that every one of these rifles fit the criteria of an "assault rifle" (which is obviously not the case) that's still just over 5% of the total.  To put this in perspective, out of the 14,054 homicides of all types from 2002, 1,767 (over 10% of total) were committed with knives or other cutting instruments.  In fact there almost twice as many people killed with "personal weapons" (fists, feet, etc.) than there were by rifles of all types (933 compared to 480).  This being the case, why isn't there a massive public outcry to ban edged weapons instead of "assault weapons?"  Why isn't there legislation in the works to require martial-artists to register themselves or get a permit in order to train?  Sounds ridiculous doesn't it?  However, that's no different than the "logic" and "justification" they use to advocate the ban of these "weapons of mass destruction."

Now on to other things...



			
				hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> Were there a popular, armed uprising in the U.S. involving resistance against U.S. troops, I find it hard to believe that U.S. soldiers/airmen/Marines/sailors would be willing to bomb, strafe, roll over their own American neighborhoods. It would happen at such great psychic cost to the American soldier that I doubt any despotic regime he served would last for long.
> For such a thing to occur we would have to see a dramatic restructuring of the U.S. political system. That hasn't happened, inspite of what many conspiracy theorists might think.


Excellent point.  In a way what you just said supports the belief that an armed populace is a safeguard against any "despotic regime."  What I mean by this is that in order for the "dramatic restructuring of the U.S. political system" to occur it could only happen one of two ways.  It would have to be brought about by way of force, which as you said, and I agree, isn't likely to happen because our military and LEO's are not going to support that type of action.  This leaves the second option: Legislation, however this is only possible if the populace _submits_ to having their rights taken from them, otherwise we're back to square-one, the force thing.

btw: here's the link to the F.B.I. U.C.R.'s http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/02cius.htm


----------



## michaeledward (Aug 2, 2004)

kenpotex said:
			
		

> In 2002 (the most recent year for which a full F.B.I. _Uniform Crime Report _exists) there were 9,369 homicides in which a firearm was used. Of that number only 480 (just over 5%) were committed with a rifle of any type. Even if we assume that every one of these rifles fit the criteria of an "assault rifle" (which is obviously not the case) that's still just over 5% of the total. To put this in perspective, out of the 14,054 homicides of all types from 2002, 1,767 (over 10% of total) were committed with knives or other cutting instruments. In fact there almost twice as many people killed with "personal weapons" (fists, feet, etc.) than there were by rifles of all types (933 compared to 480). This being the case, why isn't there a massive public outcry to ban edged weapons instead of "assault weapons?" Why isn't there legislation in the works to require martial-artists to register themselves or get a permit in order to train? Sounds ridiculous doesn't it? However, that's no different than the "logic" and "justification" they use to advocate the ban of these "weapons of mass destruction."


In the year 2002, three times as many people were killed with firearms than were killed on September 11, 2001 by terrorists. 

One of these two facts has caused the United States to spend over 200 Billion dollars fighting a war. The other occurs mostly in silence. 

Thanks for contributing. Mike


----------



## Seig (Aug 2, 2004)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> *This also a man that got away with murder.*
> 
> 
> Sorry, Seig...not by any definition of murder that I've ever seen did he murder Mary Jo. Negligent homicide, manslaughter, vehicular homicide while under the influence...whatever the law wants to call it. But he didn't murder her.
> ...


Steve,
Normally I would really drop the hammer on you for defending that worthless piece of dog excrement, but I realize that your position is from ignornance and not malice. By definition, when someone is killed by someone during the commission of a felony, it is MURDER. Ted Kennedy is a murderer, and got away with it, case closed.


----------



## Seig (Aug 2, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> In the year 2002, three times as many people were killed with firearms than were killed on September 11, 2001 by terrorists.
> 
> One of these two facts has caused the United States to spend over 200 Billion dollars fighting a war. The other occurs mostly in silence.
> 
> Thanks for contributing. Mike


And how many billions has the government spent trying to take away your rights?


----------



## michaeledward (Aug 2, 2004)

Seig said:
			
		

> And how many billions has the government spent trying to take away your rights?


I don't know. Good question. 

And who protects the rights of the 9,369 homicide victims in the year 2002?


* * * * EDITED IN AFTER ORIGINAL POST * * * * 

Anybody know how much it cost to implement the USA PATRIOT ACT. Here is a list of some of the liberties it has taken away.


The provisions of the PATRIOT Act taken as a whole are enough to make civil libertarians scream; the average citizen can usually find at least one provision worthy of alarm. Sponsored by the Bush administration, the PATRIOT act gave sweeping new powers to Ashcroft and his department, including: 

The right to freely monitor the activities political and religious groups without a criminal pretext.
New restrictions on open hearings and the public's right to receive information through the Freedom of Information Act.
The ability to stamp down on the dangerous menace of librarians who tip off the media to federal subpoenas of borrowing records.
Permission to monitor conversations between lawyers and suspects, on those increasingly rare occasions that suspects are allowed to have lawyers.
The ability to detain Americans in prison indefinitely without trial or criminal charge.
Not satisfied with the most sweeping police powers ever granted to an Attorney General, Ashcroft set his flunkies to work drafting "PATRIOT II," also known as the "Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003," a vast expansion of the vast expansion of his powers. The Justice Department's wish list for PATRIOT II would enhance domestic security by: 

Dramatically loosening restrictions on secret government surveillance of citizens, including on phones, e-mail and bank accounts.
Adding a "deport at will" option allowing the Justice Department to circumvent inconvenient immigration laws.
Expanding terrorism investigations to allow the Department to revoke the rights of anyone within about six degrees of separation of an actual terrorist act.
Criminalizing the use of encrypted e-mail.
Increasing the list of federal death-penalty crimes.
Allowing the government to desecrate the graves of deceased victims of terrorism without permission from families.
Restricting access to information about corporate pollution and environmental crimes. This would, incidentally, not only prevent private citizens from researching toxins in their backyards but would even restrict the ability of local governments to get information about environmental crimes in their own neighborhoods.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Aug 2, 2004)

Seig said:
			
		

> Steve,
> Normally I would really drop the hammer on you for defending that worthless piece of dog excrement, but I realize that your position is from ignornance and not malice. By definition, when someone is killed by someone during the commission of a felony, it is MURDER. Ted Kennedy is a murderer, and got away with it, case closed.



Seig, I'm not defending Ted Kennedy.  I could care less about the man and certainly think he should have been ruined for his actions, as I wrote earlier.  He clearly escaped justice.

Truth is truth, however, and the case in question doesn't qualify as murder.  _See below_. There was no indication of premeditation, a requirement for a murder charge. 

The emotionality of the issue brought on by a resentment of Kennedy's politics shouldn't cause a misinterpretation of the law.  

Note that your definition doesn't suffice in Massachusetts (where the accident occured) or in two other states of significance to you and me.  The italics are my own:

GENERAL LAWS OF MASSACHUSETTS
PART IV. 
CRIMES, PUNISHMENTS AND PROCEEDINGS IN CRIMINAL CASES 

TITLE I.
CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS

CHAPTER 265. CRIMES AGAINST THE PERSON

Chapter 265: Section 1 Murder defined

  Section 1. Murder committed with deliberately premeditated malice aforethought, or with extreme atrocity or cruelty, or in the commission or attempted commission of a crime punishable with death or imprisonment for life, is murder in the first degree. Murder which does not appear to be in the first degree is murder in the second degree. Petit treason shall be prosecuted and punished as murder. The degree of murder shall be found by the jury.

Chapter 265: Section 2 Punishment for murder; parole; executive clemency

  Section 2. Whoever is guilty of murder committed with _deliberately premeditated malice aforethought or with extreme atrocity or cruelty, _ and who had attained the age of eighteen years at the time of the murder, may suffer the punishment of death pursuant to the procedures set forth in sections..., <snip>

http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/gl-265-toc.htm

Indiana Code:

IC 35-42-1-1
Murder
     Sec. 1. A person who:
        (1) _knowingly or intentionally_ kills another human being;
        (2) kills another human being while committing or attempting to commit arson, burglary, child molesting, consumer product tampering, criminal deviate conduct, kidnapping, rape, robbery, or carjacking;
        (3) kills another human being while committing or attempting to commit:
            (A) dealing in or manufacturing cocaine, a narcotic drug, or methamphetamine (IC 35-48-4-1);
            (B) dealing in a schedule I, II, or III controlled substance (IC 35-48-4-2);
            (C) dealing in a schedule IV controlled substance (IC 35-48-4-3); or
            (D) dealing in a schedule V controlled substance; or
        (4) _knowingly or intentionally _ kills a fetus that has attained viability (as defined in IC 16-18-2-365); commits murder, a felony.

http://www.in.gov/legislative/ic/code/title35/ar42/ch1.html

Here's one for your home state, West Virginia:

§61-2-1. First and second degree murder defined; allegations in indictment for homicide.

Murder by poison, lying in wait, imprisonment, starving, or by _any willful, deliberate and premeditated killing_, or in the commission of, or attempt to commit, arson, kidnapping, sexual assault, robbery, burglary, breaking and entering, escape from lawful custody, or a felony offense of manufacturing or delivering a controlled substance as defined in article four, chapter sixty-a of this code, is murder of the first degree. All other murder is murder of the second degree.

In an indictment for murder and manslaughter, it shall not be necessary to set forth the manner in which, or the means by which, the death of the deceased was caused, but it shall be sufficient in every such indictment to charge that the defendant did feloniously, _willfully, maliciously, deliberately _ and unlawfully slay, kill and murder the deceased.

http://129.71.164.29/wvcode/61/masterfrm2frm.htm

If you're going to argue for guns...and I'm all for that, being pro-gun...I would hope you'd use valid arguments that aren't so easily riddled by the left.  Ad hominem attacks don't cut it, and leave pro-gun arguments open to attack.  

Regards,


Steve


----------



## Seig (Aug 3, 2004)

Premeditation is A requirement for murder, not the only one.



> *THE LAW OF HOMICIDE*​*    Homicide is a neutral term. It describes an act with no moral judgment. Murder is the term that is non-neutral. It describes an act with moral judgment. The law of homicide has the most complex degree (grading) system of any area in Criminal Law. This grading system is reproduced below. The first two (2) fall in a category called "perfect" defenses. The last four (4) fall in a category called "imperfect" defenses. Perfect defenses always involve justifications and excuses. *
> 
> *(1) Justifiable Homicides -- these are "no fault" homicides. They ordinarily involve the death of someone under circumstances of necessity or duty (commanded or authorized by law). Examples would be self-defense, capital punishment, and police shootings.*
> 
> ...


http://faculty.ncwc.edu/toconnor/293/293lect07.htm
According to Federal Code Title 18 Part I Chapter 51 Sec 1112 





> Sec. 1112. - Manslaughter
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Notice the part that says NOT ammounting to a felony.
According to Massachusetts Code, murder is defined as:


> *GENERAL LAWS OF MASSACHUSETTS*
> 
> *PART IV. **CRIMES, PUNISHMENTS AND PROCEEDINGS IN CRIMINAL CASES **TITLE I.**CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS**CHAPTER 265. *CRIMES AGAINST THE PERSON
> 
> ...


Let's see, DUI in Mass is a felony


> *GENERAL LAWS OF MASSACHUSETTS*
> 
> *PART I. **ADMINISTRATION OF THE GOVERNMENT**TITLE XIV.**PUBLIC WAYS AND WORKS**CHAPTER 90. *MOTOR VEHICLES AND AIRCRAFT
> 
> ...


No matter how you try to say it, Kennedy caused someone's death while he was in the commission of a felony. The fact is, He's a Kennedy, so he can get away with it. So, whether you like it or not, Kennedy has killed more people than my gun. I don't see where any of my gun arguments are easily riddled by the left. They can fight with rhetoric, not fact. There arguments are based on emotion. If you want to discuss that, fine. 

If you want to say Kennedy is not a sleazebag murderer, that is your right, we will have to disagree. But a man who got away with it is still making decisions for you and me, like it or not.


----------



## KenpoTex (Aug 3, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> In the year 2002, three times as many people were killed with firearms than were killed on September 11, 2001 by terrorists.
> 
> One of these two facts has caused the United States to spend over 200 Billion dollars fighting a war. The other occurs mostly in silence.


 And if the murderers hadn't used a firearm they would have used something else.  It's the killer that's the problem, not the method they choose.


----------



## Seig (Aug 3, 2004)

kenpotex said:
			
		

> And if the murderers hadn't used a firearm they would have used something else. It's the killer that's the problem, not the method they choose.


Amen!


----------



## michaeledward (Aug 3, 2004)

kenpotex said:
			
		

> And if the murderers hadn't used a firearm they would have used something else. It's the killer that's the problem, not the method they choose.


Stated with the certainty that can never be proved, or disproved.




> By Anand Vaishnav and Emily Anthes, Globe Staff and Globe Correspondent | August 3, 2004
> 
> Violence in Boston's parks and streets Sunday evening and early yesterday left two men dead, three wounded, and an 11-year-old boy recovering in the hospital after a bullet intended for someone else pierced his chest.
> 
> ...


----------



## Cryozombie (Aug 3, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Stated with the certainty that can never be proved, or disproved.



I will state this with certainty... take it for what its worth...

If I want someone dead, and I dont have acess to my guns... I WILL find another way.  Poison, Explosive, Knife or Sledgehammer... They will die.

I need some cookies.


----------



## michaeledward (Aug 3, 2004)

Technopunk said:
			
		

> I will state this with certainty... take it for what its worth...
> 
> If I want someone dead, and I dont have acess to my guns... I WILL find another way. Poison, Explosive, Knife or Sledgehammer... They will die.
> 
> I need some cookies.


And do you suppose the shooter in Boston this weekend intended to hospitalize that 11 year old boy? And that if he had poison to kill the two he got, that the 11 year old boy would have been poisoned too?

Now ... I know bringing in an anectdotal argument detracts from the issue (which buy the way, is people who shouldn't have guns got them, more than 7000 times), but ... as that was in the local news yesterday, I posted it here. 

Are all gun HOMICIDES intentional and premeditated ? ... which is would be required with Poison, explosives, maybe less so for knife & sledgehammer.

Mike

p.s.  I suppose this new thought introduces a new avenue for review ... what are the homicide rates by poison, explosive, knife and sledgehammer in those countries with tighter gun restrictions, when compared to gun homicide rates in those countries that have fewer gun restrictions. Hmmm???


----------



## Cryozombie (Aug 3, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> And do you suppose the shooter in Boston this weekend intended to hospitalize that 11 year old boy? And that if he had poison to kill the two he got, that the 11 year old boy would have been poisoned too?
> 
> Now ... I know bringing in an anectdotal argument detracts from the issue (which buy the way, is people who shouldn't have guns got them, more than 7000 times), but ... as that was in the local news yesterday, I posted it here.
> 
> ...




Well... I can say this... after the gun bans in Austrailia, the situation got so bad they had to ban Swords and Machetes as well...

And I didnt think the initial issue was that 7000 criminals who should not own guns got them and might accidently kill someone.  I assumed the issue was 7000 criminals who should not have owned guns got them and now might use them intentionally.


----------



## michaeledward (Aug 3, 2004)

Technopunk said:
			
		

> And I didnt think the initial issue was that 7000 criminals who should not own guns got them and might accidently kill someone. I assumed the issue was 7000 criminals who should not have owned guns got them and now might use them intentionally.


Interesting. 

I thought that the initial issue was that 7000 people who should not have guns, actually got guns. *Why* those 7000 wanted guns was not part of the original argument. 

Now the thread has drifted about widely ... people denouncing the article because they thought it was from the Washington Post rather than the Associated Press ... to John Kerry's stance on guns and his 'decrying legal gun ownership ... to Kennedy and Mary Jo Kepechne ... to the Canadian Health Care system. ... etc ... etc.

I have on occasion tried to direct the thread back to the original article, with little success. It seems to me that the gun owners want to fight the wrong fight; they keep saying there are enough laws on the books, but not recognizing that some 7000 people were able to get around the law because a waiting period had expired. No one is putting forth any suggestions on how to enforce the law broken by those transactions being completed. 

It amazes me. I expected those who are most jeapordized by this to fight it most vigorously .. guess not.

Thanks for contributing.  - Mike


----------



## michaeledward (Aug 3, 2004)

Seig said:
			
		

> Premeditation is A requirement for murder, not the only one.
> 
> http://faculty.ncwc.edu/toconnor/293/293lect07.htm
> According to Federal Code Title 18 Part I Chapter 51 Sec 1112 Notice the part that says NOT ammounting to a felony.
> ...


I don't think the DUI accusation has ever been proved. You must assume guilt in order to make the charge of murder. I understand that in our system of justice, innocence is assumed.

Mike


----------



## Cryozombie (Aug 3, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Interesting.
> 
> I thought that the initial issue was that 7000 people who should not have guns, actually got guns. *Why* those 7000 wanted guns was not part of the original argument.
> 
> ...



It's less than a 1% margin of error, and, if they are aware of it, a correctable and enforcable error.  If we had that low of a margin of error in other aspects of our lives, say, The kids slipping thru the cracks of the education system? Dont you think that would be an improvement...?  

The reason I am not mortified by that number is because, in all reality, its impossible to have a perfect system... if it was 10, 15, 20% Id say holy cow! but less than 1% is a pretty good track record.

As far as the "if the check goes on too long they must give you the gun" argument goes... I can personally attest to that not being the case... I had to wait 7 days before the store would release my "24 hour wait" shotgun to me, because they kept not getting responses back from the background check.  They did NOT say, "Well, Mr. Boyer, you waited 5 days, and even tho we dont have your info back, here's your gun" they made me wait until the check came back.   That may vary from state to state, however.

Lets assume however,for a minute... that those issues are true, and if it takes too long then they have to give you your firearm.  Perhaps the solution is to pull some of the State cops off "Speeding duty" and use the manpower to have them process those checks in a timley fashion so criminals did not obtain guns.

After all, what's more important? Slowing down speeders, or reducing that 1% margin of error?  I'd agree thats is reducing the margin of error. 

(And I cant speak for anyone else, but In Illinois, those background checks are run by the state police)


----------



## Cryozombie (Aug 3, 2004)

Another interesting comparison, although I dont have any specific stats on the TYPES of Murders... if they were sledgehammers, knives, poison or unregistered firearms... 

After Mayor Daley banned handgun ownership in Chicago in (2002?)...

Chicago became the Murder capitol of the United States, for 2003.

Probably just coincidence tho.


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Aug 3, 2004)

> Quote:
> When do MY rights as a citizen begin, where I should be protected from these evetns, while still being allowed to arm myself if I desire?
> Your rights as a citizen are there. The only person obligated to protect you is you.


Well, no, I'd have to disagree to an extent.  Living in a society where there is division of labor, hierarchies, and so on, our law enforcement officers are also obligated - for which I am truly thankful.  

And in some situations, such as the news story that Mike posted, there is no conceivable way that that 11-year-old boy could have defended himself.  Guns are such ideal LONG range and concealed weapons, I may not be able to defend myself at all.  The best defense is keeping weapons out of the "wrong" hands.  The problem is a) none of our social systems is perfect, and b) who decides what are the wrong hands?

Regardless, I still think that we need increased enforcement of gun laws.  I don't think that there isn't a workable solution, but it lies somewhere between everyone armed because they feel they have to be, and taking away the 2nd Amendment.

Also, Seig, I realize that you mentioned being pro-gun and pro-choice, I was not directing my comments about respecting the freedoms of protecting yourself and your decisions to what you said, I was reiterating what I had said earlier - that sometimes people want to defend their "rights" when they are the rights they approve of, but want to take away other's rights to defend their bodies and their choices.  

If Kennedy got away with murder (?), he's not the only politician who's done so, I'm sorry.  I will refrain from turning the thread in that direction and adding my opinions on current and past politicians here.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Aug 3, 2004)

Technopunk said:
			
		

> I will state this with certainty... take it for what its worth...
> 
> If I want someone dead, and I dont have acess to my guns... I WILL find another way.  Poison, Explosive, Knife or Sledgehammer... They will die.
> 
> I need some cookies.




"COOKIES!!!!!!"

(Officers draw weapons)

Blamblamblamblamblamblamblam!!

Headlines next day:

Officers Shoot Armed Suspect

"He was going for a cookie," said Chief Reynolds.  "Our officers had no choice."



Regards,


Steve


----------



## Cryozombie (Aug 3, 2004)

Poison Cookie.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Aug 3, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Interesting.
> 
> I thought that the initial issue was that 7000 people who should not have guns, actually got guns. *Why* those 7000 wanted guns was not part of the original argument.
> 
> ...





So many of the arguments over this highly charged issue have developed their own built-in digressions.  Note we have two pro-gun guys arguing over legal definitions concerning drunk driving laws in Massachussetts in the 1960's.  Two pro-gun guys...neither of whom cares for Ted Kennedy.  

This issue, along with abortion, probably ranks as one of the most polarizing political topics of the age.  It is so emotionally charged that people on both sides start connecting to irrelevancies in an effort to make their arguments appear to stick.  At times, they steer to related issues that simply need to be addressed in a separate debate.  I'm guilty of all this too.  And you can take my cookie when you can pry it from my cold dead fingers, I might add.

If the thread should continue, we'll be arguing about the rights of lesbian female fetuses to bear arms in the defense of their stem cells.  Give it time.

Regards,


Steve


----------



## michaeledward (Aug 3, 2004)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> This issue, along with abortion, probably ranks as one of the most polarizing political topics of the age. It is so emotionally charged that people on both sides start connecting to irrelevancies in an effort to make their arguments appear to stick. At times, they steer to related issues that simply need to be addressed in a separate debate. I'm guilty of all this too. And you can take my cookie when you can pry it from my cold dead fingers, I might add.


Thanks for noticing. 

To a certain extent, I am feeling demonized because I broach the subject. I have not called for any new restrictions on firearms (caveat ... that I recall), but it seems that even mentioning gun laws gets the pro-gun people in a twist.

We have come full circle ....   the 2nd post said that the error rate is  "1/2 of 1%" ... and the 75th post said it is a "1% margin of error". What Error Rate is acceptable? I agree, it is a ridiculously small percentage of transactions that we (or at least I am) are discussing.  But where is a 1% error rate acceptable?  Votes? Bank Balances? (Oh damn ... thread drift). 

One way we could improve the system, is a centralized database of information ... either criminal, or weapon. But, storing that information goes against the principles of the NRA crew ....  I'm not sure where I stand on a centralized DB of weapons.

Thanks to all for contributing ... I will try to stay away from gun toting stem cells. - Mike


----------



## Cryozombie (Aug 3, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Thanks for noticing.
> 
> To a certain extent, I am feeling demonized because I broach the subject. I have not called for any new restrictions on firearms (caveat ... that I recall), but it seems that even mentioning gun laws gets the pro-gun people in a twist.
> 
> ...



I would not be against a centralized criminal database... hell... I think its a damn fine idea.   Im not even so concerned about having my weapons confiscated, I can always make, or illegaly purchase more, should I need them.   

Think about that... I dont know about you guys, but I am seriously less worried about the less than 1% of people who accidentaly purchase legal weapons, than what could be the massive amount of criminaly availible weapons on the street, or even the "homebuilt" saturday night specials.  

Does anyone have the stats on how many gun crimes are commited with legaly purchased weapons as opposed to illegaly purchased ones?  There's a number I would be interested in worrying about.  

For that matter... keep this is mind... You can purchase EVERYTHING you need to make a car bomb at TOYS R US.

Now doesnt that just scare you?


----------



## Mark Weiser (Aug 3, 2004)

LOL or how about all you coffee drinkers on the boards.

Make a Bomb with Coffee is possible it has to be frezze dried of course with a few more common kitchen supplies and there ya go. 

Or home-made Napam or IED's the list goes on and on.


----------



## Seig (Aug 4, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Thanks for noticing.
> 
> To a certain extent, I am feeling demonized because I broach the subject. I have not called for any new restrictions on firearms (caveat ... that I recall), but it seems that even mentioning gun laws gets the pro-gun people in a twist.
> 
> ...


Mike,
I am not in the NRA crew, I am pro gun, big difference. Before I make my point of this post, I am anti-Kennedy for the simple reason that as someone that should have no moral high ground, he is a leader in the anti-gun movement. He was also a leader in the anti-martial arts movement. 'Nuff said about him. There is nothing wrong with a centralized database, and I actually think the idea has merit, to a point. Instead of a database of everyone that owns a gun, how about a database of who is NOT allowed to own one. The issue that then arises is people that use false identities or false pretenses. Unfortunately, there will always be weapons in the wrong hands. The problem then becomes making sure that there are also weapons in the right hands. One other point I'd like to make and this is mainly to Feisty Mouse, do not believe for one second that the police have a responsibility to protect you, they do not. I am currently looking for the Supreme Court case where that decision was made so you can see that I did not make it up. The *ONLY* person that has a responsibility to protect you, is you.


----------



## KenpoTex (Aug 4, 2004)

Feisty Mouse said:
			
		

> Well, no, I'd have to disagree to an extent.  Living in a society where there is division of labor, hierarchies, and so on, our law enforcement officers are also obligated - for which I am truly thankful.


Sorry, wrong answer.



			
				Seig said:
			
		

> One other point I'd like to make and this is mainly to Feisty Mouse, do not believe for one second that the police have a responsibility to protect you, they do not.  I am currently looking for the Supreme Court case where that decision was made so you can see that I did not make it up.


 There are several but the most disturbing is probably Warren v. District of Columbia.  Here's another good one to look up: Hartzler v. City of San Jose and a link to a site with a list of about 20 others.  Like Seig said: "The ONLY person that has a responsibility to protect you, is you."



			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> We have come full circle .... the 2nd post said that the error rate is "1/2 of 1%" ... and the 75th post said it is a "1% margin of error". What Error Rate is acceptable? I agree, it is a ridiculously small percentage of transactions that we (or at least I am) are discussing. But where is a 1% error rate acceptable? Votes? Bank Balances? (Oh damn ... thread drift).
> One way we could improve the system, is a centralized database of information ... either criminal, or weapon. But, storing that information goes against the principles of the NRA crew


  What margin of error is acceptable?  I couldnt' tell you.  I admit that it stinks that the system isn't perfect, but here again is the core of the issue: do you penalize the 90+ million law-abiding gun owners in this country because of the few dirtbags that slip through the system?  Do we make alcohol illegal because some people cannot control their behavior when they drink?  Oh wait, we tried that once...it didn't work.  Since we're talking about numbers again, a justice department study (I'll post it later if I can find it) estimates that guns are used to PREVENT a crime about 2 million times per year.  In other words, guns are used to protect far more often than they are used to harm.


----------



## Seig (Aug 4, 2004)

Here is another link illistrating the fact that police are under no obligation to protect you, complete with cases.

http://hematite.com/dragon/policeprot.html


----------



## michaeledward (Aug 4, 2004)

kenpotex said:
			
		

> Since we're talking about numbers again, a justice department study (I'll post it later if I can find it) estimates that guns are used to PREVENT a crime about 2 million times per year. In other words, guns are used to protect far more often than they are used to harm.


Please do.


----------



## KenpoTex (Aug 5, 2004)

kenpotex said:
			
		

> Since we're talking about numbers again, a justice department study (I'll post it later if I can find it) estimates that guns are used to PREVENT a crime about 2 million times per year. In other words, guns are used to protect far more often than they are used to harm.





			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> Please do.



Here is a link to the National Institute of Justice (the research "wing" of the Justice Departmen) funded study that I mentioned.  They estimate the average number of defensive gun uses (DGU's) per year to be about 1.5 million.  It is worth mentioning that from reading this study, it is obvious that the researchers are not pro-gun; despite this attitude they still report a number of DGU's that is by their own admission greater than the number of incidents in which a gun was used during a crime (1.07 million times in '94, the year of the study).

This link is for a table that shows several different studies that estimate defensive gun uses anywhere from 800,000 to almost 4 million.

This link is to a site where Dr. Gary Kleck a Professor in the School of Criminology and Criminal Justice at Florida State University discusses the discrepancies between some of the studies, particularly between the one conducted by the National Institute of Justice and his own independent study which placed DGU's at about 2.5 million.  I think it is interesting to note that when Dr. Kleck began his research into the gun-control issue he was, like many (if not most) academics, very anti-gun.  Here is a link to a page where he discusses some of his research and his transition from anti-gun to, if not pro-gun, at least a gun-control skeptic.


----------



## michaeledward (Aug 5, 2004)

kenpotex said:
			
		

> Here is a link to the National Institute of Justice (the research "wing" of the Justice Departmen) funded study that I mentioned. They estimate the average number of defensive gun uses (DGU's) per year to be about 1.5 million. It is worth mentioning that from reading this study, it is obvious that the researchers are not pro-gun; despite this attitude they still report a number of DGU's that is by their own admission greater than the number of incidents in which a gun was used during a crime (1.07 million times in '94, the year of the study).


 
Thank you. I am currently reading the first report. Why do you feel that this first report was comprised of researchers who "are not pro-gun"? It seems to me that they are presenting the results of research, without a stance.

Here are a few interesting quote from the report.



> o Evidence suggests that this survey and others like it *overestimate the frequency* with which firearms were used by private citizens to defend against criminal attack.





> Of course, some people seek the protection of a gun because they may be disproportionately likely to lead risky lives or associate with violent people.[6] Those who had been arrested for nontraffic offenses were more likely to own firearms (37 percent compared to 25 percent in the general population).





> Of 1,356 accidental deaths by gunshot in 1994, 185 involved children 14 years old and younger.[11] For each such fatality, there are several accidental shootings that cause serious injury. Guns were also the means of destruction in 19,590 suicides, 210 involving children 14 or younger.





> an estimated 3 million adults who were not in law enforcement or security carried firearms for protection on the job in 1994.


Here's and interesting quote



> On the basis of data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics' National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) data, one would conclude that defensive uses are rare indeed, *about 108,000 per year*.





> NSPOF estimates also suggest that 130,000 criminals are wounded or killed by civilian gun defenders. That number also appears completely out of line with other, more reliable statistics on the number of gunshot cases.





> The NSPOF-based estimate of millions of DGUs each year greatly exaggerates the true number, as do other estimates based on similar surveys. Much debated is whether the widespread ownership of firearms deters crime or makes it more deadly--or perhaps both--but the DGU estimates are not informative in this regard.


I must go to work now. Thanks.

Mike


----------



## OULobo (Aug 5, 2004)

Seig said:
			
		

> Mike,
> One other point I'd like to make and this is mainly to Feisty Mouse, do not believe for one second that the police have a responsibility to protect you, they do not. I am currently looking for the Supreme Court case where that decision was made so you can see that I did not make it up. The *ONLY* person that has a responsibility to protect you, is you.



For those interested in this issue, check this thread.
http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=13847&highlight=Warren


----------



## KenpoTex (Aug 6, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Thank you. I am currently reading the first report. Why do you feel that this first report was comprised of researchers who "are not pro-gun"? It seems to me that they are presenting the results of research, without a stance.


  My impression came from the fact that from the language they used it seemed as if they were unwilling to accept the results of their own survey which they then attempted to exuse.  It may have been a little strong when I said "it is obvious that the researchers are not pro-gun" but that was the immpression I got from reading this report.

In responce to some of the excerpts you quoted:



> Of 1,356 accidental deaths by gunshot in 1994, 185 involved children 14 years old and younger.[11] For each such fatality, there are several accidental shootings that cause serious injury. Guns were also the means of destruction in 19,590 suicides, 210 involving children 14 or younger.


I was unable to find anything from 1994 but according to the [National Vital Statistics Report of 2002, there were 776 deaths due to the accidental discharge of a firearm 86 of which involved children 14 and under.  I realize that there is an 8 year difference between the two records but the fact that the 2002 figures put the death rate of children under 14 at less than 1/2 of the figure given in the study is interesting.  This is the link for the tables which also show total cause of death figures. 


> On the basis of data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics' National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) data, one would conclude that defensive uses are rare indeed, about 108,000 per year.


  One thing to consider is that this survey is conducted by the FBI in order to compliment the Uniform Crime Reports and to get an idea of the number of unreported crimes in the U.S.  A possible reason for the low number with this survey is the fact that many people would be reluctant to voluneer information regarding an incident in which they were involved but didn't report.  For example, if a person is carrying a weapon of any type for protection but he/she is doing so illegally, they are not going to want it to become known and in most cases, they are not going to report a violent encounter if they can avoid doing so.  

I would be inclined to believe that the number of defensive gun uses are very high in number.  For one thing, if you look at the surveys I linked to in my last post several of them give an estimate of 1-3 million (the lowest estimating 764,036 which is over seven times the number in the NCVS study).  One point the authors of this study made is that there will never be a way to devise a study that will be totally devoid of personal bias on the part of the respondents.  However I feel that in light of the many studies that do show a huge number of DGU's there is quite a strong argument in favor of the pro-gun crowd.


----------



## michaeledward (Aug 6, 2004)

If we review the numbers concerning defensive gun uses, certainly the real number lies between the extremes;

The number 108,000 comes from people who actually had a police report filed as a victim of crime. I can easily accept the idea that this is the lowest possible number of Defensive Gun Uses for the year. But this is a number that is not subject to any 'bias' by the survey respondents.

So, how then do we explain the difference between the 108,000 documented Defensive Gun Uses with even the lowest number from the other reports: 764,000. How do we account for 650,000 undocumented, but surveyed Defensive Gun Uses?

The authoris detail some of the discrepencies with the surveyed responses; more Defensive Gun Uses against rape than reported rapes, use of Defensive Gun Uses outnumber Gun Use In Violent Crime, Defensive Gun Uses in 36% of all robberies. How do we logically explain these items which do not make sense.

The authors list a variety of reason why the 'false positives' might exist, as well as demonstrate how 'false positives' are going to far outweigh any 'false negatives'. 

Lastly, the authors ask the question, when it comes to Defensive Gun Uses, what does that actually mean for society? Is a higher number of Defensive Gun Uses a public benefit? I think the following sentence from the Conclusion says alot:


> Much debated is whether the widespread ownership of firearms deters crime or makes it more deadly--or perhaps both--but the DGU estimates are not informative in this regard.


So, anyhow, I can buy the number of times a gun is used defensively is higher than the documented 108,000 ... but I can't imagine that the number is as high as reported in the self-selecting survey of gun owners, for all the reasons the authors mention.

Thanks - Mike


----------



## Cryozombie (Aug 6, 2004)

I think that its possible as well, that the definition of defensive gun use varys from survey to survey... without controll data we wouldnt know for sure.

In Survey A, for example, Defensive gun use may mean "Where a Firearm was discharged"

In survey B, It might mean "Where a Firearm was brandished"

in Survey C, it might mean "Were someone threatened use of a firearm to protect themselves"

Dunno... just thinking


----------



## michaeledward (Aug 6, 2004)

The definition of 'Defensive Gun Use' in the survey in that report is is self-selecting. The respondents get to say 'Yes' I used my weapon defensively. In somecases, the weapon was never even displayed; or the 'attacker' never threatened the person who claimed the Defensive Gun Use.

This is one reason why the authors are sceptical of the total number of Defensive Gun Uses claimed.

It is an interesting report to read. - Mike


----------



## Cryozombie (Aug 10, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> The definition of 'Defensive Gun Use' in the survey in that report is is self-selecting. The respondents get to say 'Yes' I used my weapon defensively. In somecases, the weapon was never even displayed; or the 'attacker' never threatened the person who claimed the Defensive Gun Use.
> 
> This is one reason why the authors are sceptical of the total number of Defensive Gun Uses claimed.
> 
> It is an interesting report to read. - Mike



Oh, I agree with you... I was thinking in general terms, not just that specific survey.


----------

