Firearm prohibitionists love to use tragedy to leverage their agenda. So, it’s important for gun rights advocates to stand their ground and fire back (proverbially) whenever this happens.
I posted a graphic on Facebook claiming the average number of people killed in mass shootings when stopped by police is 18.25, and the average number of people killed in a mass shooting when stopped by civilians is 2.2. I based it on 10 shootings I found listed on some timeline somewhere. I honestly don’t even remember where. I presented the case studies in a blog post on the Silver Circle blog and I did the math myself.
The graphic was met with great enthusiasm and much skepticism. Leave it to Facebook users to demand an audit on a meme. So, I started over, only much more meticulous this time. I compiled and analyzed 100 shootings, noting my methodology, and I am now prepared to present my findings, complete with links to the data. But here’s a spoiler… It’s not that different.
The average number of people killed in mass shootings when stopped by police is 14.29
The average number of people killed in a mass shooting when stopped by a civilian is 2.33
I was so close! Here’s what I think accounts for the difference. In the first sample there was likely a selection error based on what grabs headlines. Larger shootings get more press, so if you take a small sampling you’re going to be working with a data set of the worst shootings. As for the consistency of the civilian statistic, it makes perfect sense if you think about from inside the mind of a heroic civilian with a concealed carry permit. It goes something like this:
BANG!
“Holy crap! that guy shot that other guy.”
BANG!
“He’s just going to keep shooting people.”
BANG!
And the shooter goes down.
Quite a few cases went something like that. In fact, I found only one example of a shooter stopped by civilians who killed more than 3 people. Jared Loughner killed 6 people in Tucson, Arizona before he was tackled by two civilians. An astute reader informed me that at least one of the civilians that helped stop Jared Loughner was carrying a concealed weapon, but he did not use his gun out of concern for innocent bystanders.
I want to be perfectly clear. I am not much of a firearms enthusiast. I don’t own a firearm. I’ve only ever been shooting twice. For me it’s not an issue of gun rights. It’s about property rights. A person has a natural right to own a hunk of iron in any damn shape they want, and they shouldn’t be criminalized until they use that hunk of iron to harm someone. People can argue crime statistics ’till they’re blue in face. I frankly don’t care about people’s ideas for managing society.
What I am is a math enthusiast. So, without further delay, here’s how I arrived at these numbers.
Step One: Amassing a data set
I searched for timelines of shootings and selected 5 that appeared the most comprehensive.
While doing this I learned some important vocabulary. A “spree shooting” is when a killer murders in multiple locations with no break between murders. As in the Virginia Tech killer who began shooting in one hall, and then walked across campus and continued shooting in another hall. A “mass shooting” is when a killer murders multiple people, usually in a single location. As in the Fort Hood shooter who killed 13 people at one military base. A “school shooting” can be either of these as long as one or more locations is a school. As in the Columbine shooting, which is also classified as a spree shooting because they went from room to room. The term “rampage shooting” is used to describe all of these, and does not differentiate between them. So that is the term I’ll be using from here on out.
As many have pointed out, none of the weapons involved are “automatic weaponry” or “assault rifles” but they are often misreported as such by media outlets that lack knowledge of firearms.
I selected these lists because they were the most comprehensive of those that I found, and I was seeking as large a data set as possible. I combined them all, including the first 10 from my previous post, and removed all redundant data for a total list of 100 shootings.
Step Two: Trimming irrelevant data.
While the list was comprehensive, the details about each shooting were not. In each shooting I had a date and a location, but often important details, like the number of people killed, or how the shooter was apprehended were missing. So, I set to the long task researching each incident to fill in the missing data. I didn’t incorporate the number of wounded people because so many were not reported. But the reason they call a single death a shooting rampage is because there were many injuries. All relevant data is contained in the links in the finished list below or in the timelines linked above. Most of the data came from either Wikipedia, a mainstream news article about the incident, or a handy resource I discovered called Murderpedia.
Next I removed incidents that did not fit within the scope of this analysis. Even though every incident on the list was a shooting, not every incident was a rampage shooting. So, I selected for incidents that included at least some indiscriminate targeting of bystanders. I removed incidents like Dedric Darnell Owens who shot and killed his classmate Kayla Rolland and then threw his handgun in a wastebasket (*meaning I removed incidents where the shooter killed all he was going to kill and stopped, because neither police or civilians actually reduced the deaths at the scene.) And I removed incidents like Michele Kristen Anderson who killed her entire family at a Christmas Party. So what remained were specifically rampage shootings in which a killer went someplace public and began firing at random people.
Suicide presented a tricky variable in the analysis. Roughly half of the remaining rampage shooters ended their own lives. So, I removed all incidents where the shooter killed themselves before police arrived reasoning that they had killed all they were going to kill and police had no impact in stopping them. Theoretically these incidents could have been stopped sooner by a civilian, but let’s not speculate. What I left in were incidents where shooters commit suicide after engaging the police, either during a shootout with police, or after a chase. I included, for example, Jiverly Wong, who witnesses say stopped shooting and killed himself as soon as he heard sirens but before police arrived, crediting the police’s response time with stopping the murders. But I did not include the shooters themselves in the total number of people killed.
I also removed cases like Edward Charles Allaway who shot up a library, then fled to a nearby hotel and called police to turn himself in, and cases like Darrell Ingram who shot up a high school dance and fled the scene only to be apprehended later after a long investigation. I was only looking for incidents when intervention from police or civilian saved lives.
What remained was 32 cases of gunmen firing indiscriminately whose rampage was cut short through the intervention of either a civilian or a police officer.
Step Three: The List
I divided the remaining cases into two categories, those stopped by police and those stopped by civilians. I included both armed and unarmed civilians for reasons that will become clear in the final analysis. I also removed cases like Dominick Maldonado and Charles Joseph Whitman. Moldonado went on a shooting rampage in a shopping mall in Tacoma, Washington, and ultimately surrendered to police but was confronted by two legally armed civilians who interrupted his shooting. They did not fire for fear of hitting innocent bystanders. Whitman climbed a tower at the University of Texas in Austin, Texas and began shooting at other students and faculty with a sniper rifle. The police who stopped Charles Whitman were assisted by a civilian with a more powerful rifle. I’m calling incidents like this an assist from civilians and removing them from the analysis as anomalies.
- 9/6/1949 - Howard Barton Unruh went on a shooting rampage in Camden, New Jersey with a German Luger. He shot up a barber shop, a pharmacy and a tailor’s shop killing 13 people. He finally surrendered after a shoot-out with police.
- 7/18/1984 – James Oliver Huberty shot up a McDonalds in San Ysidro, California killing 21 people before police shoot and killed him.
- 10/16/1991 - George Hennard entered Luby’s Cafeteria in Killeen, Texas and began indiscriminately shooting the patrons. He killed 23 people in all. He commit suicide after being cornered and wounded in a shootout with police.
- 12/7/1993 – Colin Ferguson brought a handgun into a Long Island Rail Road car and opened fire at random. He killed 6 people before passengers Michael O’Connor, Kevin Blum and Mark McEntee tackled him while reloading.
- 11/15/1995 – Jamie Rouse used a .22-caliber semi-automatic rifle to fire indiscriminately inside Richland High School in Lynnville, Tennessee. He killed 2 people before being tackled by a football player and a coach.
- 2/2/1996 - Barry Loukaitis entered Frontier Middle School in Moses Lake, Washington with a rifle and two handguns. He killed 3 people before the Gym teacher, Jon Lane grabbed the rifle and wrestled the gunman to the ground.
- 10/1/1997 - Luke Woodham put on a trench coat to conceal a hunting rifle and entered Pearl High School in Pearl, Mississippi. He killed 3 students before vice principal Joel Myrick apprehended him with a Colt .45 without firing.
- 12/1/1997 - Michael Carneal brought a pistol, two rifles and two shotguns to his high school in Paducah, Kentucky and opened fire on a small prayer group killing 3 girls. His rampage was halted when he was tackled by another student.
- 4/24/1998 - Andrew Wurst attended a middle school dance in Edinboro, Pennsylvania intent on killing a bully but shot wildly into the crowd. He killed 1 student. James Strand lived next door. When he heard the shots he ran over with his 12 gauge shotgun and apprehended the gunman without firing.
- 5/21/1998 - Kipland Kinkel entered Thurston High School in Springfield, Oregon with two pistols and a semi-automatic rifle hidden under a trench coat. He opened fire killing 2 students, but while reloading a wounded student named Jacob Ryker tackled him.
- 4/20/1999 - Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris were the killers behind the Columbine shooting in Littleton, Colorado. The two both commit suicide after police arrived, but what many people do not know is that the school’s armed security guard and the police all stood and waited outside the library while executions happed right inside. 15 people died, not including the shooters.
- 7/31/1999 - Mark Barton was a daytrader who went on a shooting rampage through two day trading firms in Atlanta, Georgia. He killed 12 people in all and after a police chase he was surrounded by police at a gas station where he commit suicide.
- 1/16/2002 – Peter Odighizuwa opened fire with a handgun at The Appalachian School in Grundy, Virginia. 3 people were killed before the shooter was apprehended by 3 students, Mikael Gross, Ted Besen, and Tracy Bridges with handguns without firing.
- 8/27/2003 – Salvador Tapia entered an auto parts store in Chicago, Illinois and shot and killed 6 people with a handgun. He then waged a gunbattle with police before a SWAT team fatally wounded him.
- 9/24/2003 – John Jason McLaughlin brought a .22-caliber pistol to Rocori High School in Cold Spring, Minnesota. He killed 2 people before PE teacher, Mark Johnson confronted him, disarmed him, and held him in the school office for police to arrive.
- 2/25/2005 – David Hernandez Arroyo Sr. opened fire on a public square from the steps of a courthouse in Tyler, Texas. The shooter was armed with a rifle and wearing body armor. Mark Wilson fired back with a handgun, hitting the shooter but not penetrating the armor. Mark drew the shooter’s fire, and ultimately drove him off, but was fatally wounded. Mark was the only death in this incident.
- 3/21/2005 – Jeff Weise was a student at Red Lake High School in Red Lake, Minnesota. He killed 7 people including a teacher and a security guard. When police cornered him inside the school, he shot and killed himself.
- 11/8/2005 – Kenneth Bartley, Jr. brought a .22 caliber pistol to Campbell County Comprehensive High School in Jacksboro, Tennessee and killed 1 person before being disarmed by a teacher.
- 9/29/2006 – Eric Hainstock brought a .22 caliber revolver and a 20-gauge shotgun into Weston High School in Cazenovia, Wisconson. He killed 1 person before staff and students apprehended him and held him until the police arrived.
- 4/16/2007 – Seung-Hui Cho was the shooter behind the Virgina Tech shooting in Blacksburg, Virginia. Police apprehend the wrong suspect allowing the shooter to walk across campus and open fire again in a second location. He eventually commit suicide after murdering 32 people.
- 12/9/2007 – Matthew J. Murray entered the Youth With A Mission training center in Arvada, Colorado and killed 2 people, then went to the New Life Church in Colorado Springs, Colorado killing 2 more. He was shot and injured by church member Jeanne Assam and commit suicide before police arrived.
- 9/3/2008 – Isaac Zamora went on a shooting rampage in Alger, Washington that killed 6 people, including a motorist shot during a high speed chase with police. He eventually surrendered to police.
- 3/29/2009 – Robert Stewart went on a killing rampage armed with a rifle, and a shotgun in a nursing home in Carthage, North Carolina. He killed 8 people and was apprehended after a shootout with police.
- 4/3/2009 – Jiverly Wong went on a shooting rampage at a American Civic Association immigration center in Binghamton, New York where he was enrolled in a citizenship class. 13 people were killed before the shooter killed himself. Witnesses say he turned the gun on himself as soon as he heard police sirens approaching.
- 11/5/2009 – Nidal Malik Hasan was the shooter behind the Fort Hood shooting at a military base just outside Killeen, Texas. The shooter entered the Soldier Readiness Processing Center, where personnel are disarmed, armed with a laser sighted pistol and a Smith & Wesson revolver. He killed 13 people before he was shot by a Civilian Police officer.
- 2/12/2010 – Amy Bishop went on a shooting rampage in classroom at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, Alabama. She killed 3 people before the Dean of the University, Debra Moriarity pushed the her out of the room and blockaded the door. She was arrested later.
- 1/8/2011 – Jared Lee Loughner is charged with the shooting in Tucson, Arizona that killed 6 people, including Chief U.S. District Court Judge John Roll. He was stopped when he was tackled by two civilians.
- 2/27/2012 – T.J. Lane entered Chardon High School in Chardon, Ohio with a handgun and started shooting. 3 students died. The shooter was chased out of the building by a teacher and apprehended by police later.
- 4/22/2012 – Kiarron Parker opened fire in a church parking lot in Aurora, Colorado. The shooter killed 1 person before being shot and killed by a member of the congregation who was carrying concealed.
- 7/20/2012 – James Holmes went into a crowded movie theater in Aurora, Colorado and opens fire with an AR-15 semi-automatic rifle. 12 people were killed, before the shooter surrendered to police.
- 8/5/2012 – Wade Michael Page entered a Sikh temple in Oak Creek, Wisconsin and opened fire killing 6 people. He commit suicide after being shot by police.
- 12/14/12 - Adam Lanza entered Sandy Hook Elementary School with two handguns and a riffle and went room to room shooting students and staff. He killed 27 in all including 20 children, and commit suicide after police arrived.
Step Four: Final analysis
With 15 incidents stopped by police with a total of 217 dead that’s an average of about 14.29. With 17 incidents stopped by civilians and 45 dead that’s an average of 2.33.
The first point I want to draw your attention to is that roughly half of shooting rampages end in suicide anyway. What that means is that police are not ever in a position to stop most of them. Only the civilians present at the time of the shooting have any opportunity to stop those shooters. That’s probably more important than the statistic itself. In a shooting rampage, counting on the police to intervene at all is a coin flip at best.
Second, within the civilian category 11 of the 17 shootings were stopped by unarmed civilians. What’s amazing about that is that whether armed or not, when a civilian plays hero it seems to save a lot of lives. The courthouse shooting in Tyler, Texas was the only incident where the heroic civilian was killed. In that incident the hero was armed with a handgun and the villain was armed with a rifle and body armor. If you compare the average of people killed in shootings stopped by armed civilians and unarmed civilians you get 1.8 and 2.6 but that’s not nearly as significant as the difference between a proactive civilian, and a cowering civilian who waits for police.
So, given that far less people die in rampage shootings stopped by a proactive civilian, only civilians have any opportunity to stop rampage shootings in roughly half of incidents, and armed civilians do better on average than unarmed civilians, wouldn’t you want those heroic individuals who risk their lives to save others to have every tool available at their disposal?
* Updated 12/15/2012 – This article was originally posted shortly after the Dark Knight premier shooting in Aurora, Colorado, but I have continued to refine the data set and update the statistics. I am especially grateful to all the knowledgeable commenters who have helped correct my errors. I was also contacted by a college professor who I supplied with all my research notes, so they can be peer-reviewed and perhaps published in a more academic setting. So, in light of the recent tragedy in Newtown, Connecticut that has left 27 dead, including 20 children, I updated this article to reflect shootings that have occurred since the Aurora, Colorado shooting, and corrected the errors that readers brought to my attention. I have preserved the integrity of the original analysis and have only updated the raw numbers and a few factual errors.
Tags: Columbine, firearms, Fort Hood, James Holmes, Jared Lee Loughner, shooting rampage, Virginia Tech
http://legalpronews.findlaw.com/article/0eXw5GTfBW5LY?q=U.S.+Cong ress
Arming Criminals and Terrorists in the US
Posted: 05/01/2013 6:08 pm
Follow
Terrorism , Boston Marathon Bombing , Gun Law Reform , Second Amendment , Gun Violence , Weapons Of Mass Destruction , Politics News
share this story
16
10
2
Submit this story
Our law enforcement, and especially the FBI, do a phenomenal job keeping us safe and preventing domestic terrorist acts. The recent terrorist attack at the Boston Marathon and the slaughter at Sandy Hook, however, have exposed some extreme limitations that have handicapped those same members of our law enforcement as they fight to minimize and eliminate terror risk in America.
Laws that our Congress have passed over the years at the behest of the gun industry and NRA are aiding and abetting criminals and terrorists, putting our law enforcement at a severe disadvantage, and placing “We the People” at avoidable risk. I am referring to the inability of our law enforcement to determine and trace how and where criminals and terrorists obtain their arsenals of weapons (guns and bombs), as a result of laws passed and still supported by politicians in Washington.
Pointing the Finger and Refusing Responsibility
In just the past week, several members of Congress have accused the FBI, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATF), the Joint Terrorist Task Force and the CIA of not sharing critical data about one of the bombers who was on at least two “suspected terrorist watch lists.” And to add insult to injury, a vote by the U.S. Senate, the very week of the Boston Marathon bombings, rejected requiring universal background checks for all gun sales. This cowardly vote, under pressure from the NRA, preserved the dangerous loophole in the law allowing criminals and terrorists to buy guns at gun shows and on the Internet — undetected. The Senate also rejected a prohibition on the sale of high-capacity ammunition magazines and military assault weapons, the type used in many mass shooting in the U.S. over the past 30 years. If we are to learn anything from the bombing in Boston and help prevent future mass terrorist attacks, it’s critical to evaluate current U.S. laws passed by our politicians allowing access to firearms and bomb making materials.
As the investigation of the Boston Marathon bombings unfolds, many of these same politicians, who continually vote against common sense gun violence prevention laws, are now criticizing the FBI and BATF for not sharing information. Ironically, these same politicians are some of the strongest backers of the gun/explosives industry and the NRA efforts blocking both agencies from regulating private gun sales, maintaining gun purchase records, sharing critical crime gun trace data and regulating (tracking) smokeless and black powder used for decades by terrorists and criminals to make bombs. Furthermore, since the 9/11 terrorist attacks in 2001, the NRA convinced a majority of the politicians in Congress to continue allowing people on suspected terrorist watch lists, such as one of the Boston Marathon terrorists, to legally buy guns from federally licensed gun dealers.
DID YOU KNOW? It is estimated that 40 percent of guns sold each year in the U.S. are sold by private dealers with no legal background check requirement or detection. In fact, the FBI is only permitted to regulate federally licensed gun dealers and is required to destroy all gun purchase records after 24 hours. Apparently the FBI cannot be trusted to maintain a database of gun purchasers — something that might come in handy when investigating both terrorist attacks and mass shootings. The BATF, likewise, is restricted from regulating all private gun sales including at about 5,000 gun shows annually. Further, a 2008 Congressional appropriations rider, known as the Tiahrt Amendment severely limits the authority of the BATF to disclose crime gun trace data to the public or even among law enforcement agencies.
DID YOU KNOW? The BATF is also prohibited from regulating smokeless and black powder, the most common explosive used by criminals in the manufacture of pipe bombs. The bombs used at the Boston Marathon are just the latest example of the use of black and smokeless powder for bomb making by terrorists and criminals. Since the early 1970s, the NRA and the gun industry have used their political influence to exempt smokeless and black powder from federal regulation, including requiring background checks that apply to other explosives. A 1998 study by the National Research Council found that black and smokeless powder were the most common substances used in criminal bombings.
DID YOU KNOW? Military-style assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines containing more than 10 rounds were banned under the 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Act. The politicians in our Congress failed to renew the law in 2004, despite support from more than 70 percent of Americans polled. Standard hunting rifles are usually equipped with no more than a 5-shot magazine, standard pistols and revolvers hold six to 10 rounds and standard law enforcement service weapons hold 13 to 17 rounds. Duck hunting licenses limit hunters to no more than three rounds to protect the duck population.
DID YOU KNOW? Large capacity ammunition magazines can hold 30, 50 or even 100 rounds, enabling shooters to kill large numbers of people without having to reload. The gunman in Newtown, Conn., fired more than 150 rounds in less than five minutes, killing 20 innocent children and six of their instructors. Military assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines have been used in most high-profile mass shootings, in addition to Sandy Hook Elementary School (26 killed), including: Aurora, Colo. (12 killed, 59 wounded); Virginia Tech (32 killed, 17 wounded); Fort Hood (13 killed, 34 wounded); Tucson (six killed, 12 wounded) and Columbine High School (13 killed, 23 wounded).
DID YOU KNOW? The National Consumer Product Safety Commission is banned by Congress from regulating firearms. Teddy bears and toy guns have manufacturing standards while inherently dangerous firearms do not. The gun industry has continually designed and marketed firearms that are aimed at criminal use. Examples include: 1) “cop-killer bullets”; 2) the .22-caliber FN Herstal used at the Ft. Hood massacre which is marketed to perforate 48 layers of Kevlar from a distance of up to 200 meters and is sold with a high-capacity 20-round magazine; 3) the TEC-9, marketed as having a finish resistant to fingerprints and; 4) a Barrett .50 caliber sniper rifle, advertised as capable of taking down an aircraft.
DID YOU KNOW? In 2005, President Bush signed into law the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, a bill that prohibits victims of the gun industry’s negligent practices from filing lawsuits in America’s courts. No other industry in the country benefits from such special legal protection. Imagine a congressional grant of immunity has been afforded the industry that manufactures firearms giving them carte blanche ability to market to those not wishing to leave finger prints, shoot down aircraft or pierce 48 layers of Kevlar commonly worn by police. Sometimes truth is stranger than fiction.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-rosenthal/arming-criminals-and -terr_b_3193565.html
Spam. Bullshit. Lies.
http://csgv2.blogspot.com/2013/04/how-nra-arms-criminals.html
No matter how many times you post the talking points that have been sent to every left wing blogger, it doesn’t change the truth.
It is liberals who are easy on criminals and terrorists. You want them running around loose. You want them as an excuse to disarm real Americans.
You care not a whit for the victims of your failed policies. You only pretend to care because it is useful in disarming your opposition.
No matter how many times you post the talking points that have been sent to every gun worshiping blogger, it doesn’t change the truth.
It is the NRA and gun worshipers who are easy on criminals and terrorists by looking the other way when they buy guns. You want them running around loose with a gun they got off Armslist.com. You want criminals armed as an excuse to get your own guns after you’ve been caught red handed misusing them.
You care not a whit for the victims of your failed policies. You only pretend to care because it is useful in arming your criminal friends.
More evidence that you are just a wise ass 12 year old.
It is the police and ATF and judges and prosecutors who are easy on criminals when they don’t do their jobs and apply the laws for the crimes committed.
They don’t even follow up when they have the name and current address of a prohibited person who is trying to buy a gun. So much for gun checks.
See, even criminals can figure out that if the law is not being enforced, there is no reason to defy the law. You are not even as smart as a criminal. Or a fifth grader.
Mark;
Your argument is based on a false assumption. that criminals buy their weapons from legal dealers. That is simply not the case. I’m sure a few people lose it and shoot someone with a gun they bought, or a legal gun stolen from it’s owner, but the vast majority are guns stolen from dealers and warehouses,(which are listed with law enforcement BTW).
Then why do around 140k background checks get denied every year because the applicant has a criminal background?
Bureaucratic incompetence?
***While gun laws routinely ensnare the innocent, they are just as routinely dismissed in prosecuting serious career criminals. Some gun laws can’t even be enforced against criminals because doing so would violate their Fifth Amendment rights. For instance, a convicted felon who is prohibited from possessing a firearm cannot be prosecuted for failing to register his illegal weapon because doing so would be self-incriminating. So we end up with serious, violent criminals released back on the street because prosecutors are unwilling or unable to keep them locked up, ***
***The names of people unjustly prosecuted – and persecuted – in the name of gun control would fill a book. The history is clear; no matter how innocuous or “common sense” a gun law might seem, once it goes into force it is inevitably used to harass and abuse gun owners.
That’s just one of the reasons gun owners opposed the recent Manchin-Toomey proposal to extend background checks to private sales. Among the very troubling provisions in that proposal, the most obvious danger is the requirement that even transactions involving concealed carry permit holders – who are exempt from background checks – would have been required to go through a dealer. The only reason to do that is to create a permanent record of the transaction – registration – something gun owners have long opposed, with good reason.
Gun control is not about guns, it’s about control. History shows that gun laws always end up being used to harass and persecute regular gun owners. Gun owners have every reason to expect that any law that can be used to abuse them will be used to abuse them.
Are gun owners paranoid because we believe gun control laws threaten us? Dustin Reininger is serving a five-year sentence with a three-year minimum before he’s eligible for parole because he pulled off the highway to get some rest during a long drive.
If we are paranoid, it’s because we need to be.***
http://www.wnd.com/2013/05/the-nonsensical-abuse-of-gun-owners/
How the NRA Works to Rearm Criminals
Introduction
The National Rifle Association (NRA) claims that it supports vigorous enforcement of our nation’s gun laws and efforts to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. Yet the NRA has actually worked to put guns back into criminals’ hands. Following is the saga of the federal “relief from disability” program. The NRA has worked to expand and protect this guns-for-felons program that has rearmed thousands of convicted—and often violent—felons.
http://www.vpc.org/studies/felons.htm
Creation of the “Relief” Program
Under federal law, those convicted of a felony are forbidden from purchasing or possessing firearms and explosives. Yet as the result of a 1965 amendment to the Federal Firearms Act of 1938, convicted felons were allowed to apply to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) for “relief” from the “disability” of not being able to buy and possess guns. The “relief from disability” program was established as a favor to firearms manufacturer Winchester, then a division of Olin Mathieson Corporation.1 In 1962 Olin Mathieson pleaded guilty to felony counts stemming from a kickback scheme involving Vietnamese and Cambodian pharmaceutical importers. Under the law as it existed at the time, Winchester could no longer be licensed as a firearm manufacturer. The “relief from disability” program allowed Winchester to stay in business.
“Relief” Program Becomes Felons’ Second-Chance Club
Although created to benefit one corporation, the program quickly became a mechanism by which thousands of individuals with felony convictions had their gun privileges restored. In the 10-year period from1982 until 1992, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms processed more than 22,000 applications. Between 1985 and 1990 ATF granted “relief” in approximately one third of those cases. (ATF estimated that approximately one third of those not granted “relief” chose to drop out of the process, while the remaining one third were denied “relief.”)
The crimes committed by those individuals granted “relief” were not limited to non-violent, “white collar” crimes like those committed by Olin. Through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) the Violence Policy Center obtained 100 randomly selected files of felons granted “relief.” Among those 100 cases were: five convictions for felony sexual assault; 11 burglary convictions; 13 convictions for distribution of narcotics; and, four homicide convictions. In fact, of the 100 sample cases, one third involved either violent crimes (16 percent) or drug-related crimes (17 percent). [Please see Appendix I for a chart of offenses.]
More spam. More bull shit. More lies. More Mark.
http://csgv2.blogspot.com/2013/04/how-nra-arms-criminals.html
Heidi Przybyla at Bloomberg has a nice wrap-up of how laws and policies lobbied into existence over the past 30-plus years by the National Rifle Association have hindered criminal investigations, including the Boston Marathon bombing. Close followers of the history of the lobbying efforts and their outcome won’t find any surprises in her story. But given the victory celebrations at the NRA’s annual convention in Houston over the weekend, it’s good to remember some of their other victories.
One of those, as others and I have previously reported, was the NRA’s efforts dating back to 1979 at keeping inert tracing identifiers called “taggants” out of gunpowder. The NRA successfully lobbied against President Clinton’s push to add taggants to explosives after the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing. A National Research Council study in 1998 said not enough research had been done yet on the safety and efficacy of such taggants and more should be done. Since then, however, little research has been undertaken on the subject despite vast advances in other technology.
Taggants could have been used to trace the origin of the black powder that fueled the Boston Marathon bombs and the home-made “hand grenades” police said the Tsarnaev brothers threw at them during a shoot-out in which Tamerlan Tsarnaev was killed:
In the April 15 Boston bombing, a manhunt for the killers that lasted days could have taken just hours if the explosives fragments littering the scene had contained taggants, law enforcement veterans say. Authorities may never be able to track the gun used to kill a transit police officer [MIT campus police officer Sean Collier] because its external identification number was worn down.
“Just imagine if, the day of the bombing, there were these taggants all over the scene and law enforcement could immediately trace it,” said David Chipman, who worked for the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives for 25 years and advocates for tougher laws. “Any of these things that allow law enforcement to trace these items have been thwarted.”
Law enforcement is being hamstrung in many instances because the gun lobby works behind the scenes to get “riders” attached to appropriations bills. Those riders often get little if any scrutiny. Please read below the fold to check out these hurdles to enforcing gun laws:
• The law requires that gun dealers keep records of sales for 20 years. When they go out of business, they must give their records to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. But ATF cannot digitize these records but must instead keep them on microfiche, which, at best, slows down efforts to trace guns used in crimes.
• Law enforcement against straw purchasers (who buy guns and transfer them to others barred from possessing firearms) is hampered by the requirement of the so-called Tiahrt Amendments of 2004, one of which, requires destruction of all background checks of gun buyers within 24 hours. This destruction makes it harder to recognize patterns that can be indicative of the activities of illegal straw purchasers. Before the NRA started pushing for the 24-hour destruction of records, they were kept by the FBI for 180 days, later reduced to 90 days.
• The Tiahrt Amendments also prevent the ATF from disclosing any trace data to the public, shield “trace data from subpoena in civil actions, and provided that these data are inadmissible in evidence.” The author of the amendments, then-Rep. Todd Tiahrt, a Kansas Republican, admitted at the time that “I wanted to make sure I was fulfilling the needs of my friends who are firearms dealers.”
• In 2004, the NRA pushed another law barring the ATF mandating annual inventories. “In 2011,” Przybyla writes, “the bureau found that almost 18,500 guns were unaccounted for during the course of 13,100 compliance inspections, according to the ATF.”
• In 1996, then-Rep. Jay Dickey, a Republican from Arkansas, stuck a rider into a appropriations bill that barred the Centers for Disease Control from conducting research to “advocate or promote gun control.” The CDC’s budget to prevent injuries from violence, including firearms, has since been cut by 96 percent and a chilling effect has settled over all CDC research related to gun violence.
As noted, none of what can be found in Przybyla’s story is new. But in the wake of the Senate defeat of background checks and other reasonable legislation in April, it’s valuable to be reminded of just how unreasonable the NRA, the other gun lobbies and their marionettes in Congress are.
The NRA, in particular, has made much of its supposed desire to see existing gun-related legislation enforced rather than passing new legislation. All in the name of protecting the legitimate rights of gun owners. In fact, the gun lobby has demonstrated a decades-long determination to undermine existing legislation and weaken its enforcement thus making it easier for criminals to acquire firearms and keep those acquisitions out of police view. That’s a long, long way from promoting responsible gun ownership.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/05/08/1207731/-NRA-s-lobbying- creates-policies-that-hamper-criminal-investigations
Even more spam. Even more bull shit. Even more lies. Even more of Mark and the evil that he represents.
The worst part is that you claim to be doing everything to make society safer when the truth is that your policies are dismal failures that always result in more people being harmed and murdered by criminals.
You are despicable.
Extending second amendment rights to criminals and terrorists. Yea, that makes us safer. Try and deny the truth. You can’t.
Babooshka says:
May 20, 2013 at 9:28 pm
“Yes, it’s about freedom and you cherry picking who deserves it. Why pretend you abide by the constitution when you are absolutely fine removing those rights to those who you deem are not worthy of them?”
WHOA! Slow down bucco.
Whose rights are we trying to curtail?
Perhaps your and your girl Marky should coordinate your posts. He says that we don’t want to deny anyone their right to a gun and you are saying the opposite.
Make up your feeble minds.
You and the NRA think criminals should have second amendment rights. That’s why you cry “shall not be infringed”.
“The Carnival of Carnage continued unabated this weekend. Among the gun industry’s new poster children is Elvira Campos, age 10, who was shot by suspected gang members. But your right to own a gun is far more important than Elvira’s life, right?”
http://nocera.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/05/20/weekend-gun-report-may -17-19-2013/
Do you have any proof that the gun that was used was purchased through legitimate channels?
I am guessing not or you’d be shouting that from the rooftops.
These thugs probably got their hands on a gun illegally and doesn’t support your mantra. The only reason that you posted it was to blame the tragic death of this child on us.
You are shameless and despicable.
Would it ease your conscience some if the gun was illegally purchased? Instead if cracking down on gun sources for criminals all we hear from the self appointed defenders of the constitution and the NRA is that the second amendment ” shall not be infringed”. Now that is despicable.
I guess you’ll feel better about a dead 10 year old girl knowing she was killed with an illegally obtained gun (that probably started out legal at some point). Bruce will feel better knowing it was a gang doing the shooting, and CaveTrooper will like it that she was probably a 10 year old gang member so she deserved to die.
You despicably misrepresent our positions. You are disgusting.
ALL guns ‘start out as legal’. In fact, all guns remain legal. People start out as innocent but by their actions become criminals. When they obtain a gun when they are prohibited, they commit yet another crime.
Why don’t you want to punish/lock up/ execute violent predators?
Why are you soft of criminals? Don’t bother to answer. We know why.
Mark says:
May 21, 2013 at 12:46 am
“That’s a false accusation. As long as you’re not a criminal, nut, terrorist, rapist, foreign national, or felon you can have as many guns as you can afford. Why do you keep spreading lies?”
If you were not so insane, that would be laughable.
Marksays:
May 21, 2013 at 12:46 am
“That’s a false accusation. As long as you’re not a criminal, nut, terrorist, rapist, foreign national, or felon you can have as many guns as you can afford. Why do you keep spreading lies?”
Coming from you, that is laughable. And very 6th grade-ish.
Your just spewing stuff now. You strict constitutionalists and the NRA are enablers of criminals. None of you want to stop a criminal from buying a gun.
So which is it? Are we all for shooting and hanging all of those who give any hint of violence, or are we so soft on criminals that we would sell ‘em guns and a ski mask in front of a liquor store? You’ve argued both positions, or have the team utilizing ‘mark’ as an identity not bothered to attempt any sort of continuity?
We ‘strict Constitutionalists’ have a bit more solidarity and respect for the contract our nation was founded upon than you and your ‘situational interpretation’ crowd.
“There’s no way to rule innocent men. The only power government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.”
-Ayn Rand in Atlas Shrugged
“Well, when there aren’t enough criminals, one makes them.”
I’ve been saying that for decades.A good case in point is a rather bizaare law,in place since the FDR administraton,making possesion of a certain plant a felony.
The NRA, defending spousal abuse:
Maryland lawmakers introduced a bill that would give judges authority, when issuing protective orders against potential domestic violence, to “order the respondent to surrender to law enforcement authorities any firearm in the respondent’s possession, and to refrain from possession of any firearm, for the duration of the temporary protective order.” Under the bill, this restriction couldn’t apply for more than a week. Nevertheless, the NRA called the legislation “unnecessary and unfair,” arguing that it would render “a victim of false allegations” unable to “defend himself at home or simply possess his own guns for any other lawful purpose.”
The NRA isn’t defending spousal abuse, it’s protecting people’s rights under due process of law. Seems like you are just peachy with unfounded allegations being used to deny someone’s rights. I really wonder what your vision of utopia is. But, I don’t want to live there. It would be nice if you could forge that utopia in a country of your own, unfettered by people like us, and then we could hold it up as the model of why not to do that.
I have no love for men who beat their wives or girlfriends. They should be jailed for a very long period of time. Those who kill the woman should be executed.
That said, there are lying, vindictive women who will say anything to mess with the man and make his life miserable even when there is no truth to the charges.
“That said, there are lying, vindictive women who will say anything to mess with the man and make his life miserable even when there is no truth to the charges.”
sounds like my ex.She tried to get her first husband nailed for child molestation,yet a thorough investigation by the sheriff’s department found it baseless.
I believe that is against the law and can be prosecuted.
I generally side with the women in these cases. My own mother was abused by my father until I put an end to it. But some women are evil and nasty. It’s best to put a lot of distance between you and that kind of woman as soon as possible.
That’s exactly what the NRA does. By defending this guys right to keep a gun when he’s clearly demonstrated he should not have them they are being soft on gun crime.
Make your case. Not some abstract BS, but show me evidence that the NRA or any pro gun group defended this man’s right to have a gun knowing that he was a prohibited felon. Go ahead. Prove it.
It’s all over the web. Do you like siding with these low life’s?
“In 2009, Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., and Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., introduced the Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act. The bill would have given the U.S. attorney general authority to block weapons sales to anyone on the government’s terrorist watch list. Supporters of the legislation noted that in the preceding five years, people on the list had tried to buy firearms at least 963 times, with an 89 percent success rate. They reasoned that it made no sense to pull such people aside as they were boarding airplanes but to look the other way when they purchased guns. Under the bill, anyone barred from buying a weapon could challenge the government’s determination of his ineligibility.
The NRA opposed the bill, claiming it would “deny law-abiding people due process and their Second Amendment rights.” As evidence, the NRA’s chief lobbyist cited a Justice Department report indicating that 6 percent of people on the list were included based on obsolete or extraneous FBI information. An editorial published by the NRA complained that the bill would lower “the standard measure of proof of guilt in criminal prosecutions” and that “whole segments of lawful firearms commerce could be wiped out.” The bill died in committee.
That same year, Maryland lawmakers introduced a bill that would give judges authority, when issuing protective orders against potential domestic violence, to “order the respondent to surrender to law enforcement authorities any firearm in the respondent’s possession, and to refrain from possession of any firearm, for the duration of the temporary protective order.” Under the bill, this restriction couldn’t apply for more than a week. Nevertheless, the NRA called the legislation “unnecessary and unfair,” arguing that it would render “a victim of false allegations” unable to “defend himself at home or simply possess his own guns for any other lawful purpose.”
In March 2011, Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., introduced the Fix Gun Checks Act. The NRA blasted the bill, protestingthat it would “expand the range of persons prohibited from owning firearms” and “eliminate private sales and gun shows as we know them.” The NRA saluted one of its members, law professor Dave Kopel, for pointing out in a hearing that the bill “would deprive gun owners of their rights” by including, among the grounds for rejecting a gun sale, the buyer’s “arrest for the use or possession of a controlled substance within the past 5 years.””
Btw, I love that phrase “look the other way while they purchase guns”.
You finally got one thing right. Lautenberg and Schumer are low lifes.
I understand that are for legislation like that but it is because you do not understand or appreciate liberty. You want to completely circumvent due process and go straight to denial of rights regardless of the factual content of the information about an individual on that list.
Remember, Ted Kennedy was on that list. If it can happen to a powerful senator who has the pull to get his name removed, it can happen to a lot of people who have no clout and no money to fight false allegations.
But you don’t care about liberty. You only — despite your denials — want only to disarm us.
“You finally got one thing right. Lautenberg and Schumer are low lifes.”
Chuckie Schumer-the one who thinks that the three branches are the WH,house and senate?
The NRA is defending spousal abusers because they don’t want abusers to be defenseless… Now that takes some balls…
Mark says:
May 21, 2013 at 8:30 am
“I’ve given you ample proof. It’s just too painful for you to admit. What’s stopping a known bad guy from buying a gun?”
No, you’ve posted blog posts that repeat talking points and all of the blogs have an anti gun agenda. That’s bias, not facts.
No, you’ve posted blog posts that repeat talking points and all of the blogs have a pro gun agenda. That’s bias, not facts.
Want to continue denying that we look the other way when criminals go to buy guns?
That is what I have been saying for the past 9 months. Criminals try to buy guns (and sometimes do, even through legitimate source) and the ATF and the police look the other way. They do not even investigate the person or followup. You claim that is due to a lack or resources and because a followup would produce little in the way of results.
Again, you argue opposing views. Otoh, you say that 40% are buying with no questions asked but on the other you say that even that (ridiculously high) number doesn’t justify followup. Which is it?
Wouldn’t followup be a good first step before expanding the check system that will not be enforced any better than the current one?
Of course not to you, it isn’t. You want more restrictions and more laws, not more bad guys put away because you love criminals as an excuse to crack down on law abiding people and disarm them.
Shore up existing laws AND don’t sell guns to criminals. A “private” seller should be in serious trouble for selling a gun to a prohibited person. If he’s practiced due diligence (checked to see if the buyer is a bad guy) then he should be blameless. As it is now guns are being sold to criminals with no questions asked. Can you not see the problem with that?
Law enforcement and the BATF are constantly thwarted by the NRA. The NRA likes it that way. They cower behind the second amendment in order to serve their gun lobby masters.
No seller, not one, should be able to put a gun in another’s hand without first knowing what that hand is attached to.
If the vaunted NRA is so all powerful, why were they not able to stop the BATFE from endangering us all with Fast and Furious or get answers from them. They have been demanding answers.
You try to use the legitimate arguments against government intrusion to make the NRA look bad.
It wont work even with a guy like me who has little respect for them.
“No, you’ve posted blog posts that repeat talking points and all of the blogs have an anti gun agenda. That’s bias, not facts”
Aaah, I see, in that case that is all you have done too.
Liar.
I don’t go to blogs to read opinion. I will post some news accounts, but not blogs. I post quotes from the Founders and those are the facts upon which this nation was founded. Facts, not biased blog posts.
Your so called facts come from biased gun loving sites that will bend the truth to suit their needs. You’ve had the lies exposed over and over…but mostly you just make shit up as though it was truth. This lie thing of yours as gotten old.
You might as well give up on the bias, lies, and false accusation tack. Two can play that game…
Simple question for you. Can a criminal buy a gun with no questions asked?
Why do you even bring up the founding era when they had more gun control than we had today?
Seriously…do you deny the facts? Should I repost the list? That for some reason, never gets any replies?
Ray has a Vulcan mind Meld with Thomas Jefferson and he assures us he is 100% correct.
More lies. You have gotten plenty of response to that bit of twisted BS.
I have no idea what you are talking about but it sounds interesting. Go on…
First off, I didn’t direct my comment to you.
Second, Don’t you know how to follow a discussion thread?
Third, just on general principles, piss off.
“Third, just on general principles, piss off.”
or,to borrow one of my favorite military acronyms,he can FOAD.
I believe that the civilian version of that is ESAD.
Both apply to these trolls.
Interesting portion of content material. I simply discovered your blog plus accession cash to say which i receive truly beloved consideration your blog discussions. Anyway I’m going to be subscribing to ones provides nourishment to and in many cases I personally achievements you receive admission to consistently fast.
Even this guy makes a better case against gun control than you clowns.
They seem to think that repeating a lie makes it true. Selling a gun to a prohibited person happens all the time. They can’t cope with that fact. One thing which has become apparent though, remember how they were adamant that the second amendment was absolute? Now we hear them screaming that its illegal for some people to have guns (of course we have limited ways of checking this until they’ve already committed a crime) so their idiocy is slowly being torn apart. Another thing…you don’t hear that sick claim of “shall not be infringed”. They know that not only is it a lie but it is used to keep the stream of guns flowing into criminals hands. Their only solution is to jail and execute ( sometimes preemptively apparently HA!). Lots of guns, lots of death, lots of crime, and lots of dollars in gun merchants pockets.
Yea, if people were going to be executed for being violent criminals, it would be total war on the street. Cops would be killed left and right.
Yea, and they have the audacity to say *background * checks won’t work…lets start imprisoning and executing on the scale they seem to think it takes. They can’t even get to the point of addressing the mentally ill, terrorists who haven’t been arrested yet, and get this, they even want to lock up wife abusers permanently…of course the abusers get to keep their guns, they’ll need them for their life sentences in prison…
I don’t think Ray has a truly beloved consideration for our posts…just a hunch…
You two are the most pathetic and worthless pieces of shit I’ve ever encountered. Why don’t you two just get your own room somewhere and leave decent folks alone?
I know you won’t leave. You get your jollies pissing on anyone with values while pretending that you are high minded and so much better than everyone else.
Well, you may fool people on other forums but no one here is buying your BS.
In the meantime, get a mirror. Everything that you accuse us of, you have refined to an art form. You lie with ease and repeat the lie.
Why thank you Ray, coming from you that’s quite a compliment.
ROFLMAO
You are too stupid to know when you’ve been exposed as a liar.
“I know you won’t leave. You get your jollies pissing on anyone with values while pretending that you are high minded and so much better than everyone else.”
Much like the leftist cumstain who disrupted yet another special olympics ceremony today to heckle Gov. walker.
Maybe, just maybe there is hope that you will understand some of my other points.
Of course, that hope was dashed with your subsequent post where you took my insult as a compliment.
I’m sure you’re a swell guy in meat space. Being online brings the asshole out in all of us.
Speak for yourself.
“I’m sure you’re a swell guy in meat space. Being online brings the asshole out in all of us.”
Especially among paid trolls.
NRA Expands the Program to Include Gun Criminals
“For 20 years, however, felons convicted of crimes “involving the use of a firearm or other weapon” or of violations of federal firearm laws were ineligible to apply for “relief.” This changed in 1986, when a law backed by the National Rifle Association took effect. The Firearm Owners’ Protection Act (also known as FOPA or McClure/Volkmer for the bills’ Senate and House sponsors) expanded the program to allow felons convicted of gun crimes to obtain “relief.”3 And gun criminals certainly took advantage of the program. Of the 100 sample cases obtained by the Violence Policy Center, eight were for firearm violations, including two convictions for illegal sales of machine guns.”
http://www.vpc.org/studies/felons.htm
What’s your point? Don’t you believe in rehabilitation? Don’t you believe in youthful mistakes? Do you have no forgiveness for people who turn their lives around?
Sure, anyone can apply for relief, but someone with an active criminal history is not going to be approved (unless it is a friend of Obama’s).
You can’t have it both ways Ray. If a guy gets out and commits a murder then “he never should have been released” (according to you guys). But then you start talking about rehabilitation and release. Make up your mind. Do we make them go away forever? Do we let them go? Which is it? I’m reminded of Christians who claim salvation only to commit horrible crimes, to which the reply is often “we’ll, they weren’t really saved”. Whole lot of bullshit there.
Are you going soft on crime now Ray?
Try to keep up.
Murderers should pay with their lives. Period, end of story. I don’t care if they claim to be a Christian (or anything else) or that they found God in prison and now deserve a 2nd chance. If their conversion is true, they will be welcomed into God’s arms, if not, they will end up in Hell.
I never said a murderer should be released so stop that lie now. If someone has been released from prison (in the past) and has indeed turned their life around (including restitution for the harm done) then that person can apply for relief.
We had a prime example of a wife abuser getting back out and subsequently killing his wife with…surprise…a gun. My crystal ball on who is going to commit gun crime after prison isn’t any good but when they go to buy a gun it should be disallowed. It’s just that simple.
Now I can honestly say I’ve shared a DGU.
http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/crime/elderly-mother-fatal ly-shoots-drunk-son-after-her-shot-her
Mark says:
May 21, 2013 at 6:21 pm
“Come up with your own number or shut the fuck up. Mmmmmkay?”
3%
That has as much credibility as your made up number — no matter who made it up.
Highly doubtful. At least mine has a source backed up by none other than Lott. Much better than one pulled from your ass. But let’s use your pathetic number.
With an estimated 17 million guns sold in the u.s. that comes to over half a million guns obtained with no questions asked. That’s more than enough to give every man, woman, and child in Sacramento California a gun. It’s no wonder people are getting shot to death… The NRA, gun worshipers, and gun lobbies, all arming the bad guys with no questions asked. You should be so proud.
The big trouble with your theory is that the crimes (shootings) are not happening in the areas with the least restrictive laws. Do you really believe that a criminal will travel hundreds or thousands of miles to an area where the laws are lax so that he can come back home and shoot someone or rob them? And break countless laws in doing so. Sorry, but that doesn’t pass the smell test. They buy their guns locally from other criminals where they have less risk of getting caught.
Now you’re getting it, a “private seller” who sells a gun to a criminal should be considered a criminal as well. Excellent point.
IIANM, the law prohibits a transfer to someone that is known to be a felon or otherwise prohibited person.
If these sales are as commonplace as you claim, where are the prosecutions? Or even the arrests?
Maybe they just don’t happen like you claim.
Mark says:
May 21, 2013 at 9:15 pm
“Liberty is a deliberately abstract concept. Using it to defend one’s position is a sure sign of deceit. You’re a con man.”
Abstract only to those who do not appreciate the utility of it. Freedom is wide ranging and vast but hardly abstract. You just don’t like (or apparently trust) freedom.
Really? You could put out a book on what that abstract term means to you and it would hit half my interpretations. Words like liberty and freedom and god are used as tools to get in your head.
A perfect demonstration of your ignorance of, and apathy towards the basis for the founding of this nation.
Please, go live in some 3rd world hell hole where liberty is restricted. You are a pox on America.
Mark says:
May 21, 2013 at 9:17 pm
“Explain to me how moral it is to sell a gun to a criminal.”
Who ever claimed that it was moral. It is against the law to transfer a gun to a prohibited person. Anyone doing so is breaking the law and is, by definition, a criminal. But how would you know that any such person bought a gun when there is no followup? Where is the morality of passing laws that are not used as proposed?
I’m for enforcing the laws. You appear to admit it is not moral to sell a gun to a prohibited person. How do we tell if they are prohibited? Wait until they kill someone?
A background check as currently done means nothing if those who fail are not followed up on by LEOs.
Every time a failed check results in a pass by LEOs, criminals are encouraged to continue to obtain guns.
Instead of a visit by police, you want to run more checks on good people and delay their access to a firearm.
And how do you determine if they are a criminal? By asking them nicely, like Bruce believes in?
Through….wait for it….a background check!
Mark says:
May 21, 2013 at 9:21 pm
“Nope, I’ve been quite clear on both punishment and who is soft on gun crime. The word gun was added before you said anything precisely because I anticipated some rat bag such as yourself would try and catch me in a inconsistency. There is no inconsistency. Not blocking criminals from having guns is soft on gun crime. Pure and simple. You have “caught” me at nothing. If it helps soothe your mind continue to believe it but you are believing a lie. That does not surprise me.”
BS. You have been neither clear or consistent. You changed your statement only a few days ago to bolster your argument thinking that no one would bother to check on you.
MarkNo Gravatar says:
May 21, 2013 at 9:23 pm
“L I B E R T Y. Spelled exactly the way you want in your mind. Ask a thousand people what it means and you’ll get a thousand different answers. It’s a method of deceit that politicians and despots use to manipulate the masses.”
Your colossal ignorance is impressing even me. Just when I thought that you could not be more stupid, you sink to a new level.
Liberty is not only thousands of different answers but it should be over 300 million different answers. Liberty means being free to pursue your own happiness as long as you do not infringe on the liberty of others. But liberty is a risky business and that scares the piss out of you. Sissy.
Markr says:
May 21, 2013 at 10:34 pm
“Most illicit guns are not obtained by theft. Most are obtained from illicit gun dealers.”
Says you and VPC.
Now, repeat after me. There is no such thing as illicit guns. There is no such thing as illicit guns. There is no such thing as illicit guns. There is no such thing as illicit guns.
Now tell me, if there are so many of these so called illicit dealers, why hasn’t BATFE or the police put them out of business? A sting should be pretty easy to do. Oh that’s right. BATFE’s expertise is in arming drug dealers, not catching bad guys. Never mind.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/02/m-why_leftists_should_full y_support_the_second_amendment.htmla%20major%20economic%20disaste r%20like%20nothing%20this%20nation%20has%20ever%20experienced.
http://angrywhitedude.com/2012/12/gun-owners-need-weapons-to-prot ect-themselves-from-anti-gun-violent-thugs/
http://patdollard.com/2013/05/violent-illegal-aliens-released-by- ice-if-they-are-obama-dreamers/
speaking of enabling criminals……
Babooshkasays:
May 22, 2013 at 11:28 am
“Ray, how is it a lie? You saying it doesn’t make it so. And how come Gary Kleck who is an expert in the field says they are still accurate? Hrm?”
Hmm indeed. You have no use for Kleck other than this one comment. Makes me think you’ve taken it out of context.
I applaud and welcome all scientific gun research. If it weren’t for him, many others wouldn’t have conducted additional studies. You can look for his quotes on the issue for yourself and see. I posted them on here not too long ago.
You should know by now that I don’t trust or believe you. I don’t trust or believe what you post. I don’t follow your links because I don’t know where they will take me. Hmmm. Bottom line. I don’t trust or believe you. Or did I say that already?
The thing I that I don’t really care if you trust or believe me, it doesn’t change anything about what I post or how valid my information is. It literally has no bearing at all on the conversation since the validity of my statements has nothing to do with your belief of them. The only way that you can prove my information is wrong is by working with it, which you do when it’s convenient but then flip flop when it’s not convenient.
I didn’t link to anything, I quoted him. You know what you can do? Type that quote in google and find the source. If you say it was a false quote, then you can prove it, right?
Oh, proof, what proof? We are right wingers. We just question something and that’s the same thing as proving it wrong!
http://www.examiner.com/article/top-ten-most-dangerous-cities-ame rica-each-led-by-a-democrat
Dems vote with their emotions not their brains.
Why is it that every Democratic run city has the highest crime rates??
For example, Detroit, whose mayor has been indicted on felony charges, hasn’t elected a Republican mayor since 1961. Buffalo has been even more stubborn. It started putting a Democrat in office back in 1954, and it hasn’t stopped since.
Unfortunately, those two cities may be alone at the top of the poverty rate list, but they’re not alone in their love for Democrats. Cincinnati, Ohio (third on the poverty rate list), hasn’t had a Republican mayor since 1984. Cleveland, Ohio (fourth on the list), has been led by a Democrat since 1989. St. Louis, Missouri (sixth), hasn’t had a Republican since 1949, Milwaukee, Wisconsin (eighth), since 1908, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (ninth), since 1952 and Newark, New Jersey (10th), since 1907.
The only two cities in the top 10 that I didn’t mention (Miami, Florida, and El Paso, Texas) haven’t had Republicans in office either — just Democrats, independents or nonpartisans.
Over the past 50 years, the eight cities listed above have had Republican leadership for a combined 36 years. The rest of the time — a combined 364 years — they’ve been led by Democrats.
Five of the 10 cities with the highest poverty rates (Detroit, Buffalo, St. Louis, Milwaukee, Philadelphia and Newark) have had a Democratic stranglehold since at least 1961: more than 45 years. Two of the cities (Milwaukee and Newark) have been electing Democrats since the first Model T rolled off the assembly line in 1908.
Two cities, 100 years, all Democrats.
If the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result, the asylums in those cities must be as full as the soup kitchens.
…..
We’ve talked a lot about “change” in this country recently, but there’s a much more important catchphrase that we’ve neglected: “All politics is local.” Maybe instead of focusing so much on who we put in charge of our country, we should focus more on who we put in charge of our cities.
Oh, and before I forget. The hateful politician who suggested that we should be “driving” or “leading” the poor out of poverty? It was Benjamin Franklin.
Good thing he never tried to run for mayor of Newark
Howdy, merely realize ones website thru The search engines, and discovered that it is genuinely insightful. I’m going to watch out pertaining to the town. We are thankful if you ever commence this from now on. Most people shall be benefited through your creating. All the best!