Ballistic "Fingerprinting"

[steve1 5]

Jfields,
I agree there have been some terrible accidents with firearms. But let's face it the world is never going to be a perfectly safe place. I know you think that it would be a better place if we got rid of all guns. I'm not knocking you for trying to make things safer for folks. I just feel this is the wrong approach. It's been argued earlier that with the millions of guns already in this country, how would the government get them all? The ones left would be in the hands of criminals. Honest people would be defenseless against them. Sure you could call the police in time of need. But that also was argued earlier. You can't always depend on the government to save you or for the police to get there in time. I feel guns often do serve a good purpose and many of us aren't willing to give up them up or a right that is guaranteed in our constitution.

That is an emotional appeal though, when you start talking about the graves of children. That brings us back to the swimming pool argument. Swimming pools kill a lot more children than guns do each year. Should we ban all swimming pools? Steve1

[jfields 0]

Steve,

The world will never be a perfectly safe place. I agree with you.

But I disagree with the line drawn between "Honest People" and "Criminals" in relation to gun ownership. That line is a myth. The facts to not support it. The simple fact is that having unlimited private firearm ownership causes murders every year. And that is completely omitting the purchase of weapons by criminals. I have supporting evidence of this if you want, but I haven't taken the time to type in all the cases of "legal" gun owners murdering people.

[steve1 5]

Jfields,
How many times do we have to bring up the fact that there is not unlimited private ownership of guns in our country. As I mentioned earlier there are over 20,000 gun laws on the books now. Things are very limited in terms of gun ownership if you ask me. If you've committed a felony you can't own a gun. I think this may be a good law. If you are mentally incompetent you can not own a gun. Another good law. As you can see I'm not in favor of unlimited ownership of guns either. What I am saying is that further laws are probably going to hurt honest gun owners more than criminals. Maybe we should quit arguing. Many of these arguments have already been discussed. Again, you have a right to your opinion. Steve1

[mnischalke 0]

Nope, those who it makes look silly are those who say that just hundreds of little kids are accidentally dying from gunshots. Would you be included in that group? This is a fact: Buckets are more dangerous than guns for that age group. Period! Get off your high horse and campaign for something that matters more.

mike

Girls only want boyfriends who have great skills--You know, like nunchuk skills, bow-hunting skills, computer-hacking skills.

[billvon 3,072]

>Nope, those who it makes look silly are those who say that just
> hundreds of little kids are accidentally dying from gunshots. Would
> you be included in that group? This is a fact: Buckets are more
> dangerous than guns for that age group. Period!

It really is making you look silly. You might as well argue that there should be no FAA rules on aircraft safety since more people die in buckets than on aircraft each year.

It's not even true. There's a firey NRA response at http://secondamendmentstuff.com/FirearmsFatalitiesFacts.htm that angrily pointed out that 13 kids a day don't die from gunshot wounds - it's only 11.5! Only 4205 kids die a year from gunshot wounds, and only 629 are under 15, and only 306 are pure accidents.

OTOH, the CPSC reported 58 kids (5 years and under) drowning in buckets from 1996-1999.

[kallend 2,106]

Quote

I think you and Kallend should read George Orwell's "Animal Farm". It was a
classic example of what can happen if a government becomes to powerful.

I first read Animal Farm in 1963. How about you?

I bet the British and the Australians and the Canadians are quaking in their shoes with worry about their governments becoming too powerful.

[mnischalke 0]

Well, I am silly, but it's still a CDC statistic for children under 10.

mike

Girls only want boyfriends who have great skills--You know, like nunchuk skills, bow-hunting skills, computer-hacking skills.

[kallend 2,106]

Quote

If you really want to read more about the gun debate and Amendment II, I suggest:
More Guns, Less Crime By Prof. John Lott

The Lott book has serious methodological errors - see Webster's critique.

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

I looked back and couldn't find that quote, nor any refutation of it by you. Maybe you'll give a better reference to help me find it.

For the second time now, I apologize. I mistook one of your posted idea/stat/facts from another thread [poll: who owns uses] with one an acquaintance brought up recently in a face to face discussion.

It was in reference to the statistic that says "you are 43 times more likely to shoot your family than an intruder if you keep a gun in the home." That stat is complete garbage. It counted shootings of anyone in the house by anyone inside or outside with any gun, but stated in its conclusions "the homeowner and the homeowner's gun."

Quote

Maybe you don't trust the FBI and DOJ, headed by Attorney General John Ashcroft?

Actually, I'd be interested to know how many of the stats you quoted were obtained by Janet Reno's DOJ, before Ashcroft's. Plus, I thought it was fairly obvious I don't trust big government or it's bureaucracies. [I'm libertarian, not Republican. I don't see all that much difference in the two parties.]

Regardless, the DOJ FBI stats aren't always what they say they are, either. For example, in stats for acquaintance killings, the FBI defines acquaintance so broadly that it becomes inflated tremendously. THe FBI includes pimps, drug dealers, gang members, taxi drivers, bank tellers and others as acquaintences. To see what the numbers REALLY say, you have to look to how they got to those numbers.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

Well, that's OK then, so long as the loonies don't kill more than a few dozen each year, that's just collateral damage. Too bad for their relatives and friends!

Well, according to you, if they only killed a few each year, we'd be a utopia that London and everywhere else should want to be like. A few dozen instead of thousands? Sounds like an improvement. [in my understanding, an "improvement" means better, not ideal or best] Ideal and best are zero, but that just isn't going to happen.

Besides, how many "loonies" could have ben stopped if a responsible citizen had been present and carrying a firearm?

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

Also, you haven't expressed the same willingness to intentionally and willfully ignore the law. The post you quoted from was my response to someone who had stated precisely that disregard for the law.

As I have stated, I don't hold the law in disregard. I stated that I would if a law were passed that attempted to take a freedom that is not theirs to legislate.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[jfields 0]

Quote

If you are mentally incompetent you can not own a gun.

Untrue, at least not everywhere.

"On November 7, 2001, the Alaska Court of Appeals ruled that under Alaska law a judge could not take into account a man's mental illness when taking away his concealed-weapons permit. In October 1998, Timothy Wagner walked into an Anchorage store and told an employee that he needed to soak out the chemicals that had been injected into him or else they would kill him. He also said a computer chip had been implanted in his head. When police were called to the scene, Wagner failed to tell police immediately that he was armed as required by law. Despite a history of mental illness, Wagner was able to get and keep an CCW permit because Alaska's concealed-weapons law was changed at the behest of the gun lobby to prohibit law enforcement from considering a person's mental state when applying for a permit. "

"Alaska Court Rules on Concealed Gun," Associated Press story, January 10, 2002.

"During the summer of 2000, Austin, TX, taxi driver Wayne Franklin Lambert Jr. shot and killed two unarmed men, both high-tech professionals, who had been his passengers. According to police, Lambert, a gun enthusiast with a Texas concealed-handgun license shot one of the men three times in the back. The other victim gave a deathbed statement, saying that the taxi driver became angry over something his friend had said and challenged him to a fight. Other cab drivers gave police sworn statements saying Lambert was "very short-tempered" and "always angry at just about everything." One cab driver claimed Lambert once said, "I would shoot someone over a dollar." According to state records, Lambert was charged with assault after beating, choking and threatening to kill another taxi driver in August 1994. Lambert was charged with capital murder, representing the second multiple murder case brought against a Texas concealed-gun licensee in the last three years"

ABC News, July 16, 2001


"On May 30, 2000, a fistfight turned into a gun battle outside the home of Dale Cramm, 44, of Everett, WA, resulting in the death of two teens. Cramm's son was later charged in the deaths, and Cramm himself was charged with witness tampering, tampering with physical evidence, and three drug-related felonies. Police also confiscated an arsenal of weapons, including five shotguns, three SKS assault rifles, 3 other rifles, bayonets and high-capacity magazines. Within days after the weapons were confiscated, Cramm, who was out on bail, allegedly went to a local gun show and purchased more firearms. According to police, Cramm used his CCW permit as identification to purchase guns at the gun show."

"The guns of Dale Cramm," Daily Herald, August 14, 2000

"A disabled handyman was arrested after the brutal murder of a popular Aventura, FL, surgeon. Robert Herndon, a Florida concealed-weapons permit holder, was accused of gunning down Dr. Bradley Silverman outside his office. Authorities later discovered that Herndon had been twice charged with assault, the first charge being dropped, the second reduced to a misdemeanor. Herndon was described by neighbors as "a man who easily lost his temper and who threatened them with his gun." Moreover, when police sought Herndon for questioning following the January 11, 1999, murder, they traced him to a local mental health facility where he had voluntarily committed himself. Police later found out that Herndon had a long history of mental illness, but got a permit because of loopholes in the Florida law."

"Police Link Grudge to Doctor's Slaying; Handyman with Disability Arrested in Surgeon's Death," Sun-Sentinel, January 16, 1999.

Carlton Evans, a 37-year-old concealed-weapons permit holder in Seattle, WA, was accused of killing his wife and baby daughter after months of abuse. Fearing for her life, Evans' estranged wife, Melanie Edwards took her 2-year-old daughter Carli Fay and fled the family home. Edwards filed for a protection order on October 19, 1998. One day later, Evans applied for, and was granted, a Washington CCW permit. On December 9th, armed with his 9mm semi-automatic pistol, Evans killed Melanie and baby Carli Fay. Evans fled, and later killed himself when police tried to arrest him. A Seattle women's shelter spokesperson noted, "You have a battered woman who is in fear for her life and her childÉ[that] very court awards visitation rights to a known abuser who had a gun and [Edwards] ended up dead.

"Mother 'Played by the Rules' and She and Daughter Died," Associated Press, December 21, 1998.

"On September 3, 1998, three Connecticut State Troopers sustained multiple gunshot wounds from Edward Premo, who had a Connecticut concealed handgun permit. Two of the Troopers were questioning Premo at his home on suspicion that he had vandalized a neighbor's car when he became hostile. Suddenly, Premo whipped a 9mm semi-automatic pistol from his waistband and shot both at close range. As the officers fired back, Premo ran into his house, returning seconds later with a high-powered rifle. Two more Troopers responded to the call and were fired upon by the suspect. Fortunately, all three Troopers who were hit, Michael Hoague, Mark Pelletier and James Reidy, survived the attack. After inspecting Premo's home, law enforcement investigators found nine explosive booby traps, hand grenades, dynamite, pipe bombs and guns. Premo, who had a history of mental illness, was later found innocent of the shooting by reason of insanity."

"Suspect No Stranger to Guns, Explosives," Hartford Courant, September 4, 1998 and "State Police Commissioner investigating trooper shooting 2 years ago," The News-Times, August 20, 2000.


Hard to get a gun legally? Hardly. Evidently, it barely requires a pulse. Criminal records and histories of mental illness don't seem to be substantial hindrances.

The only "good honest citizens" I see in these examples are the dead ones. What about their rights?

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

" "-- Noah Webster

Thank you very much for the enlightened quote. I'll have to hold that one on file.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

Of course, in Webster's day the government forces weren't armed with smart bombs and Apache gunships, but had basically the same arms that the civilians had. IF the government/military decided to turn on the people (a very unlikely scenario IMHO) the conflict would be rather one sided these days.

You assume that there would be no dissention in the ranks [as we saw at the start of the US Civil War]. Also, you assume the full force would be brought to bear. Ever heard of Justice Township? Remember Ruby Ridge and Waco? The government does, and they're scared shitless of any kind of repeat. For now.

You assume it's use them or don't need them. The fact that they are THERE deters the government. It deterred the Japanese in '45. [if you dont know, ask]

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

Whaddya mean "if". It's already been sold lock stock and barrel to special interests.

Yeah, there's the Brady Campaign, AGS, NAACP, ACLU, yada yada yada.

How do you differentiate between and advocate and a lobbyist? Between citizens with concerns and "special interests?"

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

I'd specifically like to compare the marketing and lobbying portion against the educational and safety programs that are touted as being the main purpose of the organization.

You can ask them. Besides, the majority of NRA members only pay their membership. By law, NRA is not allowed to use that for "lobbying." That's why they created the NRA-ILA [Institute for Legislative Action]. The main membership goes towards admin costs and magazine production.

Quote

. But lets just be straightforward about it and admit that the groups (including the NRA) are trying (successfully) to buy politicians. That is how our freedom is getting pissed away.

So, when a politician stands up for gun rights, he is being bought and sold, but when he stands up for gun control, he is voting his conscience? Come on. People disagree, so they elect politicians who disagree. Again, I ask, how do you differentiate lobbyists from advocates from special interests from concerned citizens?

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[kallend 2,106]

Quote

Well, according to you, if they only killed a few each year, we'd be a utopia that
London and everywhere else should want to be like. A few dozen instead of
thousands? Sounds like an improvement. [in my understanding, an "improvement"
means better, not ideal or best] Ideal and best are zero, but that just isn't going to
happen.

Besides, how many "loonies" could have ben stopped if a responsible citizen had
been present and carrying a firearm?

How many previously responsible citizens with guns legal under current laws have lost their cool and gone postal? Do you think people in Canada and France and Australia don't lose their cool too? Of course they do - it's just that it's difficult to go on a homicidal rampage with a butter knife.

[Kennedy 0]

Don't leave out The Ten Things You Can't Say In America by Larry Elders. Very good book. [only has one chapter directly relevant to this discussion, but is still a good read]

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[kallend 2,106]

You assume that there would be no dissention in the ranks [as we saw at the start
of the US Civil War]. Also, you assume the full force would be brought to bear. Ever
heard of Justice Township? Remember Ruby Ridge and Waco? The government does,
and they're scared shitless of any kind of repeat. For now.

You assume it's use them or don't need them. The fact that they are THERE deters
the government. It deterred the Japanese in '45. [if you dont know, ask]

Quote

I assumed nothing, but I will now. In the unlikely event that circumstances in the USA ever reach the point that the military leadership decides that a military coup is the only solution, they will only act knowing they have overwhelming support from their troops, and you guys with your peashooters will never know what hit you.

• Quote

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

I haven't taken the time to type in all the cases of "legal" gun owners murdering people.

You haven't taken the time to type in all the cases of legal gun owners using guns to defend themselves, either.

You also haven't taken the time to type in all the cases of "illegal" gun owners using guns to defend themselves. [illegal meaning unregistered, banned, or didn't "qualify" for carry]

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[kallend 2,106]

Quote

Regardless, the DOJ FBI stats aren't always what they say they are, either. For example, in stats for acquaintance killings, the FBI defines acquaintance so broadly that it becomes inflated tremendously. THe FBI includes pimps, drug dealers, gang members, taxi drivers, bank tellers and others as acquaintences. To see what the numbers REALLY say, you have to look to how they got to those numbers.

I didn't make any reference to acquaintance killings. You seem to be having a hard time keeping track of this thread.

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

I didn't make any reference to acquaintance killings.

It's called giving an example. FBI and DOJ don't always give the whole picture.

Quote

You seem to be having a hard time keeping track of this thread.

The only thing I'm having a hard time keeping track of is how many times I've asked how it is that you differentiate between a lobbyist, an advocate, a special interest and a concerned citizen.

So, how do you make the distinction?

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

ever reach the point that the military leadership decides that a military coup is the only solution,

Who said military leadership? We're talking about the legislative executive and judicial branch, unless by leadership you are referring to the President.

My concerns are with the federal government. The military is a whole other set of issues. And I don't fear the Army/Navy/Air Force because there are so many people required to make it work.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[kallend 2,106]

Quote

Quote

I didn't make any reference to acquaintance killings.

It's called giving an example. FBI and DOJ don't always give the whole picture.

Quote

You seem to be having a hard time keeping track of this thread.

The only thing I'm having a hard time keeping track of is how many times I've asked how it is that you differentiate between a lobbyist, an advocate, a special interest and a concerned citizen.

So, how do you make the distinction?

Lobbyists and special interests buy influence. Happens on both sides, I don't believe the propaganda from either pro-gun or pro-gun-control groups, which is why I have stuck to government data. BTW, the 2001 stats came out during the Ashcroft administration, and they show little difference from the Reno years. As the FBI states, homicide data are very accurate because almost all homicides are reported (unlike, say, battery or rape).

Lest you forget, the US as a whole has about the same homicide rate as Belfast. Cities like Houston and Dallas have far higher homicide rates than Belfast. Yes, the same Belfast that has a terrorist problem. The US has a fatality rate from accidental shootings about 50 times higher than the UK or Japan. Many of these are children. IMHO this reflects extremely poorly on the safety consciousness of the gun owning public.

If you wish to be part of a well regulated militia, then you have an obligation to accept regulation.

[billvon 3,072]

>So, when a politician stands up for gun rights, he is being bought
> and sold, but when he stands up for gun control, he is voting his
> conscience? Come on. People disagree, so they elect politicians who
> disagree. Again, I ask, how do you differentiate lobbyists from
> advocates from special interests from concerned citizens?

I'll answer this one.

An advocate speaks out for something he desires.

A lobbyist pressures politicians into doing something he desires.

A special interest is simply a group that has an interest that's not shared by everyone else i.e. there's no "special interest" group that is against slavery (at least in the US) but there are special interest groups that are against abortion.

A concerned citizen (in my book) is one who bothers to vote, or to support issues he feels strongly about.

Most advocates believe in what they advocate. Many of them are given money by people who don't believe in their cause but wish a result of the cause i.e. a brewer might not care personally about the libertarian cause, but might support a libertarian lobbyist since libertarians tend to be anti-interstate-commerce laws, and fewer interstate regulations on shipping alcohol may help the brewer make money.