7,000 Gun purchases slip through the system

[michaeledward]

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]

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.



Regards,


Steve

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

(2) Excusable Homicides -- these are misadventures, accidents, or acts of insanity. They ordinarily involve acts of civil fault, error, or omission. There's not enough fault to be criminal negligence. There's a legal defense to this act.

(3) 1st Degree Criminal Homicide (Murder) -- These are acts involving the death of someone in "cold-blood" or by "lying in wait". They are distinguishable by the MPC mental state of "purposely" which is defined in Homicide Law as having three (3) elements: (a) premeditated -- meaning fixed or obsessed; (b) deliberate -- meaning "cool"; and (c) malicious -- meaning scheming or clever. Also, the crime of felony murder (someone dies during commission of a felony) is automatically 1st degree homicide.

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

Sec. 1112. - Manslaughter




(a)

Manslaughter is the unlawful killing of a human being without malice. It is of two kinds: Voluntary - Upon a sudden quarrel or heat of passion. Involuntary - In the commission of an unlawful act not amounting to a felony, or in the commission in an unlawful manner, or without due caution and circumspection, of a lawful act which might produce death.

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 PUNISHMENTSCHAPTER 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.

Let's see, DUI in Mass is a felony

GENERAL LAWS OF MASSACHUSETTS

PART I. ADMINISTRATION OF THE GOVERNMENTTITLE XIV.PUBLIC WAYS AND WORKSCHAPTER 90. MOTOR VEHICLES AND AIRCRAFT

ARTICLE VEHICLES.



Chapter 90: Section 24 Driving while under influence of intoxicating liquor, etc.; second and subsequent offenses; punishment; treatment programs; reckless and unauthorized driving; failure to stop after collision

[ First paragraph of subsection (1)(a)(1) effective until June 30, 2003. For text effective June 30, 2003, see below.]

Section 24. (1) (a) (1) Whoever, upon any way or in any place to which the public has a right of access, or upon any way or in any place to which members of the public have access as invitees or licensees, operates a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, or of marijuana, narcotic drugs, depressants or stimulant substances, all as defined in section one of chapter ninety-four C, or the vapors of glue shall be punished by a fine of not less than five hundred nor more than five thousand dollars or by imprisonment for not more than two and one-half years, or both such fine and imprisonment.

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]

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]

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]

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.

The violence began when a stray bullet hit the boy at about 7:30 p.m. Sunday at a Roxbury park. Then three men were shot, two fatally, at about 12:30 a.m. yesterday in Grove Hall. An hour later a drug deal on Boston Common went awry, police said, resulting in a shooting and a stabbing.

Authorities arrested and charged two men yesterday in the shooting and stabbing on the Common and were searching for suspects in the other two shootings. The attacks, which occurred over a six-hour period, appear to be unrelated, a police spokeswoman said.

 

[Cryozombie]

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]

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]

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???

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]

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]

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.
According to Massachusetts Code, murder is defined as:

Let's see, DUI in Mass is a felony
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.

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

Poison Cookie.

 

[hardheadjarhead]

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

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