The New York Times published an op-ed article yesterday about a study which, according to them, should quiet the voices that say gun laws don't stop gun crime.
For years, the gun lobby has defeated new gun control laws partly by arguing that stronger laws do not deter crime. A study prepared by Mayors Against Illegal Guns, a bipartisan group headed by Mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York and Mayor Thomas Menino of Boston, should finally put that myth to rest. The study analyzed trace data for guns used in connection with crimes during 2007. The data reveal a strong correlation between weak state gun laws and higher rates of in-state murders, police slayings and sales of guns used in crimes in other states.
Naturally, the stats presented by the Mayors Against Illegal Guns are to be taken with a grain of salt, but to me they make perfect sense. What is referred to as the "iron pipeline" is responsible for a flow of illegal guns from states with lax laws to those with stricter ones.
One of the main points of contention seems to be the registering of firearms transactions. The argument against it is that it's really a transparent prelude to gun confiscation. I don't believe that for a second. I believe the reason for suggesting such legislation is exactly what they say: to make it harder for criminals to get their hands on guns.
What's your opinion? Is there something wrong with registering all gun transactions? Do you think it would lead to eventual gun confiscation? I think that's total paranoia mixed with a little grandiose victimism, but I'd love to hear your opinion.
The mayors bring up other questions which we've discussed around here. Exactly where do you draw the line on civilian ownership of weapons? Those powerful sniper rifles and the famous assault weapons are mentioned. According to the anti-gun folks, there's no legitimate reason to own those. What do you think?
Bloomberg's dogshit lawsuit just got remanded to the state where he illegally sent his agents to make illegal purchases of firearms in what are called straw transactions.
ReplyDeleteSo your point is? Yankee mayors are liar piles of dogshit?
A ways back, Bob Barr filed suit for a Georgia FFL (Adventure Outdoor Sports) targeted by Mayor Bloomberg's "stings," alleging that Bloomberg had slandered the owner. Bloomberg's guys got it removed to Federal court, and argued NY law, giving public officials a wide privilege against defamation suits, should apply. (BTW, those are two different issues. A Georgia court, or its federal district court, may still apply New York law under certain conditions). The federal district court ruled that New York law did not apply, and Bloomberg appealed.
Today the 11th Circuit US Circuit Court of Appeals handed Bloomberg his mayorial hindquarters. The news report is confusing, but apparently the appeals court ordered that the US district court should return the lawsuit to State court.
Good thing the "teflon mayor" has a fuckload of money. He's lucky he and his minions aren't in Federal Prison taking turns "picking up the soap" for violating multiple Federal Firearms laws in order to try to entrap people. He had no approval from the BATFE or FBI that they'll admit to.
Merry Christmas Anti-Gun stupids!
Of course, no offense intended, a KICK IN THE FUCKING HEAD WAS INTENDED.
MAYBE someday mike will wake up and smell the roses.
Otherwise...it's his call to post stupid shite.
For the rest of your dildonic commentary:
ReplyDelete18th century muskets carry more energy than "modern sniper or deer rifles" and you can look at the matches of the era and there were arms made back then that'd knock a tick off your ear without disturbing your ear.
You can continue your blog and pretend to be reasonably intelligent but really just a troll or fess up and admit you're trolling as a blogger. If you give me a doctor's note of an extreme high fever as a child I might cut you minor slack.
I enjoy the fuck out of making fun of the stupid shit you say on your blog about firearms. Maybe you like to be made fun of? Am I an "enabler"?
URL of Bloomberg getting a LEGAL BOOT UP HIS ASS.
ReplyDelete...in case there was any question as to my veracity...
Mike,
ReplyDeleteI can't believe you are this gullible.
Imagine a group calling themselves "Mayors against Illegal Guns" funding a study that finds tougher gun laws work....Did you expect anything else from the group? And you bought it hook line and sinker because it meets your preconceptions.
The study sounds reasonable except for one problem...they lie.
CDC Study
During 2000--2002, the Task Force on Community Preventive Services (the Task Force), an independent nonfederal task force, conducted a systematic review of scientific evidence regarding the effectiveness of firearms laws in preventing violence, including violent crimes, suicide, and unintentional injury. The following laws were evaluated: bans on specified firearms or ammunition, restrictions on firearm acquisition, waiting periods for firearm acquisition, firearm registration and licensing of firearm owners, "shall issue" concealed weapon carry laws, child access prevention laws, zero tolerance laws for firearms in schools, and combinations of firearms laws. The Task Force found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws or combinations of laws reviewed on violent outcomes. (Note that insufficient evidence to determine effectiveness should not be interpreted as evidence of ineffectiveness.) This report briefly describes how the reviews were conducted, summarizes the Task Force findings, and provides information regarding needs for future research.
Now use some common sense here, how is less likely to lie - The CDC (which isn't a pro-gun agency) or an admitted biased Anti-gun group?
Now, let's say there is some truth to the study...the question becomes is it worth eliminating people's inherent right to self defense.
I can prove that every fraud case involved free speech, are you willing to have that right severely restricted to prevent future crime?
How about the issue of improperly executed search warrants; a simple technical or spelling mistake can get evidence thrown out...let's remove the 4th amendment protects against search and seizure. Willing to come to an America where the police are free to search you anytime, anyplace?
This is the thing that frustrates me most about your argument; it completely ignores our freedoms. It seems that in the desire to make the world a "better" place, individual rights, liberties and freedoms don't matter. That is sad, very sad.
Liberty is dangerous, people can confuse ability and right easily but isn't it better then the alternative?
Carry your gun control laws out to the logical conclusion Mike; see what happens.
First, you have to have a "reason" to buy a gun. Self defense isn't enough any more...you have to be an "authorized agent".
Second, guns are still being used in crimes, so we have to "find out" where they are coming from...implement a registration scheme. Make it illegal to have a gun that the government doesn't know about....and send people to jail for using an "unregistered" firearm in their defense.
Third, crime is still being committed with firearms, so round up all the firearms in civilian hands. Of course, the crooks didn't registered their guns, so only the law abiding citizens are affected.
Fourth, still gun crime - crack down on look-a-likes, air guns, etc. Make the rules so tough even the Olympic shooting team can't practice in the country.
Sounds very depressing and Orwellian, doesn't it?
Now you are about to say "That can't happen" and I tell you you are full of it. Respectfully, but you are full of it. It has happened already. In some states to a degree and to England as a whole. Check it out, read a little about England's efforts to control crime.
I'll let someone else or come back later to discuss the nonsense about "sniper rifles" and "assault weapons".
+1 to Bob. Mike you just based an entire blog post on an article you openely admit is deeply biased.
ReplyDeleteI'd say there was nothing wrong with this if you didn't constantly flippantly ignore articles and studies that contradict the above noted stupidity from the criminal organization "Mayors against Illegal Guns".
Do you apriciate crude and open bias? Because on this subject this is EXACTLY what you've become.
Still it does supply entertaining (while also deeply frustrating) reading and discussion.
I wish you and your family a Merry Christmas, and a happy new year, and good health and fortune so we can keep arguing in a respectful fasion on the internet!
Arrrrr
-Weer'd Beard
Also using ATF trace data to track "illigal guns" is much like using arrest records (rather than convictions) to track "Criminal Activilty". I'll note that I have been arrested, yet I have never committed a serious crime (the arrest was a simple mistake and my record is clean...hence all my guns)
ReplyDeleteThere are pleanty of legitimate reasons for ATF traces on a firearm that require no crime or police involvement that Mayors Against Guns consider "Criminal Activity" also let's take one item in my collection that will cover multiple issues. This gun was manufactured in 1952 by Remmington and bought by a Farmer in Vermont as a ranch gun to be used for pest control. The Farmer's son inherited the gun when his father died, and it became his deer rifle (the cartridge it uses is very versitile and can be loaded with light bullets for small animals like woodchucks and foxes, or medium game like deer) later in life he presented the gun to his Son-in-Law as a wedding gift. The guy (me) uses it as a target rifle, and a family heirloom. I'll pass it on to my children, and hope they'll do the same. (My father didn't care for his childhood guns, and they are worthless scrap now...I still am upset that my father never passed his guns on to me). If this gun was to be traced it would show up a a Vermont gun, tho it has legally lived in Maine and Vermont under several owners. Bloomberg and his fellow bald-faced liars would claim this was somehow trafficing of "illigal guns" from Vermont with it's lax gun laws (but in '52 who really had strict laws??) to Mass with its draconian and unconstitutional laws.
I also bring up this gun as it is fitted with a telescopic scope, and with proper bullet and powder loading it could easily punch through a police ballistic vest at 200 yards. Is my Wife's Grandfather's woodchuck gun *loaded with light bullets* or my Father-in-Law's deer rifle *using heavier bullets* or my distance target gun, and collector's piece a "sniper rifle"? Remmington rifles are based off of the mauser action (those were infantry and sniper rifles in WWI and WWII and beyond), with with the scope and the cartridge load it could easily be used as a sniper rifle.
Hell some of my WWII colletor's rifles (like my Mosin Nagant 91/30 infantry rifle) is likely STILL being used as a military sniper rifle to this day in places like Afganistan as well as any other place that can get one. The difference between mine and theirs is a few simple modifications, and the will to use it as such.
Bottom line a "Sniper Rifle" is simply the rifle being used by a sniper, nothing more, nothing less.
As for "Assault Weapons" that is simply an bullshit term that is constantly evolving because it has no real meaning, and essentially bans guns for cosmetic features....but cries foul when gun companies remove said features (like AR companies griding off bayonet lugs, and replacing threaded flash-hiders with pinned muzzle breaks, or standard straight barrels). In any other law (like car companies modifiying engines to meet emission standards, or compaines modifiying their diposal systems for EPA standards) such acts would be considered "Compliance", meanwhile Bushmaster's AWB Complaint AR-15 was considered an exploit of a "Loophole".
If you can tell me why the difference, you may find yourself several steps closer to becomming an honest man!
Oh and some more Grist for your mill.
ReplyDeletehttp://fromthebarrelofagun.blogspot.com/2008/12/carry.html
Will you ignore this heartfelt tale of life lost (note that even with the strict gun control the murder weapon *tire iron* would still be openly available to the murderers) and regret and guilt because it doesn't agree with your wrong-headed views?
If so, Why?
Will you read the story and say "Oh but that's just one event", but will give weight to a singular event that in fact supports your wrong-headed views?
Or will you understand the value of a life lost, and the preventability of such an event with the addition of a "piece of shit Bauer .25".
Note that I suspect that the murderers would have quickly abandoned the idea of killing a man with a tire iron when they noticed he was armed with a gun...even a cheap and under-powered gun as that Bauer, and very likely if the gun was delivered, or not forgotten NO lives would have been lost that day...and maybe the "Youths" could have been "scared straight" by the glimpse at their own mortality through the black hole of a 6.5mm gun barrel.
What are your thoughts on this story, Mike? How would you feel if this was one of your children writing this story? What would you do if three men with a tire iron planned to do you lethal harm for your humble purse?
Tom, All your blustering comments don't address the simple questions. I repeat: "Is there something wrong with registering all gun transactions? Do you think it would lead to eventual gun confiscation?"
ReplyDeleteBob, You can keep saying that your stats are unbiased and mine are biased all you want. I've always said ALL stats are suspect and to be taken with a grain of salt.
As far as the "logical conclusion" of "my" gun laws, I don't see it that way at all.
I repeat to you like I did to Tom: "Is there something wrong with registering all gun transactions? Do you think it would lead to eventual gun confiscation?"
Weer'd, Best Christmas wishes to you too. And Happy Birthday coming up. When I was a kid, we used to say never trust anyone over thirty.
ReplyDeleteAbout the tire iron and all the other articles like it, I don't ignore them, but I don't put too much weight on them either. Just like any single story I post about, can't be used to determine the whole pattern of things. That's where I use that well-known and nearly infallible Mikeb common sense and logic.
Is there something wrong with registering all gun transactions? Do you think it would lead to eventual gun confiscation?
ReplyDeletedon't forget to ask whether there's anything right with registering all gun transactions. how exactly would it help anything? please be detailed and specific when answering that last question.
no, personally, i don't think registration would necessarily lead to confiscation. but any number of other things might lead there, and having a registration system in place would make confiscation a lot easier than it needs to be, in the case some other factor does lead us down that road. why tempt fate?
[...] that well-known and nearly infallible Mikeb common sense and logic
it's well known: "common sense" is what tells us the world is flat. use more logic instead, mike.
Mike,
ReplyDeleteSorry if I've said your stats are biased, that wasn't what I said. I said the numbers used by MAIG were from a biased source.
Can you deny that the CDC is not pro-gun? And can you deny that their study found NO EVIDENCE that gun control laws made a difference?
As far as registering guns, yes there is a problem. How about invasion of privacy?
What right does the government have to know what property I have, what property I sold or not?
That is besides the simple fact that the 2nd amendment is very clean, right to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.
I'm experimenting a bit with Google Docs.
ReplyDeleteThis spreadsheet shows a couple of charts, comparing Brady Campaign gun law rankings by state, with crime rank by state.
A scatter chart with a correlation should show a pattern-Generally the points would be scattered around a diagonal line. In this case, they are very randomly distributed, indicating very low to no correlation between restrictive gun laws and crime.
This is slightly disappointing--I would have hoped to see strict gun laws associated with more crime. On the other hand, one of my data sources is biased against guns. Crime data is from the US Census bureau--Randomly selected as the first Google result with the data in a chart I could cut and paste.
The reason I mention the data sources is because sources can be manipulated. Did the Mayors pick the laws they consider "strict" before they ran the results? How many "unbiased" studies did they commission and reject before they got the result they wanted?
We already have laws that make it illegal to sell handguns across state lines without going through a dealer and a background check--What other laws would affect criminals more than the honest?
As far as registration--How will it make it harder for criminals to get guns? I'll register my guns if the law requires. Some of the currently law-abiding will only register the guns that can be tracked back to them. With no change in behavior, these people become criminals. Meanwhile the real criminals will continue as always.
Enforce existing laws before adding new ones. That would include investigating and if appropriate prosecuting the civilian people Bloomberg hired--If there was something illegal, the people who instigated the activity deserve prosecution as much as the shops they targeted.
What is the difference between a powerful "sniper rifle" and a hunting rifle? If you examine the requirements for hunting game, and compare them with hunting enemy soldiers, you will find very little difference.
Tom, All your blustering comments don't address the simple questions. I repeat: "Is there something wrong with registering all gun transactions? Do you think it would lead to eventual gun confiscation?"
ReplyDeleteYES,and it historically ALWAYS HAS. Centuries of evidence on that.
Except from people such as myself that will give them back one bullet at a time until you see me on television as another "gun nut run amock" because all he fucking wanted to do was be left alone.
CARVE THAT IN YOUR FOREHEAD IN REVERSE SO YOU READ IT EVERY MORNING WHEN YOU SHAVE SO YOU'LL REMEMBER THAT'S HOW I'VE ALWAYS FELT ABOUT IT AND I'VE GONE TO JAIL OVER IT ONCE TO PROVE A POINT.
Then you won't need to ask me again.
You also can't have my bolt cutters to keep me from stealing your bicycle or my locksmith kit that I use to legally open cars for people that have locked their keys in them or my Kitchen knives so I won't stab people.
Prevent criminals. Don't blame inanimate objects. It's stupid on your part and makes you look like a clown.
Just like Sarah Brady being on an assault weapons kick, when she's not on a handgun kick, when she's not on a .50 cal rifle kick, when she's, when she's...when Her husband was shot in the head with a shitty German .22LR revolver that you could buy at the time for 20 bucks because it was a shitty revolver makes her look stupid.
Sevesteen, a "powerful sniper rifle" for humans and one for game can be quite different. I wouldn't shoot a Cape Buffalo with a 7.62 NATO OR RUSSIAN bolt rifle as they would both be underpowered. That's why I own things in .458 Lott, .450 Ackley, and .577NE. As for people, with monolithic solids, they'd shoot through 10 BATFE agents and their body armor standing in single file line better than a .50BMG would.
Something in a 6-6.5mm wildcat would be my choice for sniping humans, 6.5mm is my eprsonal choice. That's why they win all the bench rest competitions and they have plenty of energy to blow the front of a human's face out the back of their head past 600 yards.
Tom:
ReplyDeleteMy point was that the things that make a sniper rifle can't be separated from the things that make a hunting rifle. How would an M24 be inadequate for hunting game suitable for harvest with a .308? How could you restrict a sniper rifle without also restricting most scoped hunting guns?
And how would my Uncle's ..30-06 Deer Rifle not be considered at LEAST a "Designated Marksman" rifle if not a "Sniper Rifle"
ReplyDeleteHell a 10/22 with iron sights in the hands of a military marksman is a "Sniper Rifle"
And why whould Thomas's .577 nitro express be considered a "Destructive device" by the ATF, while the other cartridges which are more powerful are of no interest?
Because you might feel the need to tap-dance with me, I'll state my thesis.
People who write gun laws know almost nothing about guns, and ultimately aren't conserned with the end result of their laws...just that they have one more angle to restrict guns to a more grotesque end.
Sevesteen
ReplyDeleteI can ring a 24" gong and kill a deer at 250 yards with no rest with my .41 RemMag with 6.5" barrel revolver. No optics needed. Is it a "cowboy style sniper handgun"?
I actually own a Carcano like the supposed Oswald rifle. It wouldn't be my pick for the job it supposedly did, but I can print in a 6" circle with standard WW2 issue surplus Italian military ammo at 300 yards with iron sights.
Scopes are irrelevant. Thousand yard matches and long range precision sniping came about before the invention of optics. Ask the English officers how they fared against the early Mauser iron sight bolt rifles in the Boer Wars. Hell, ask them how they fared against mountain men with iron sighted Long Rifles in their various skirmishes with us plucky Americans...
The difference between a sniper rifle (or pistol) and a non-sniper rifle (or pistol) is the operator of the firearm provided the firearm is reasonably accurate and the ammunition is of known performance. It has little to do with the mechanics or accoutrement of the rifle, although people that make their living as snipers do try to have the best gear.
Truthfully, a lot of American hunters are less successful in the field than they otherwise would be because of use of excessive magnification in the field. Makes it too slow to pick up game in the scope if your scope is set on greater than 2 to 8 power, depending on the circumstances. Hunting is a bit of a different game than being a human sniper. Usually the human targets aren't skittish and moving around much.
90% of my hunting other than prairie dogs at 500 yards is done with either open sights or a fixed 2X scope.
99% of being a marksman is practice not gear. Best scope in the world doesn't help a deer hunter that has his rifle sighted in and takes two or three test shots with it and then puts it up until he sees a deer because ammo is expensive. The guy with iron sights that shoots 50 rounds or more a day will outshoot him every time.
That's why "type of gun" gun laws are so silly to begin with. I'd rather have an unpracticed person with a .50BMG $5,000 custom rifle that can shoot 5 inch groups at 1000 yards shoot at me than a decent shot with irons on a .22LR. Odds are: the guy with the .50BMG, without a lot of practice, can't hit a school bus at 250 to save his life.
Sevesteen asked, "As far as registration--How will it make it harder for criminals to get guns?"
ReplyDeleteYou could probably answer that better than I could. I'd just be guessing.
But here's a personal story which was part of our Great Gun Survey a few months ago. Once upon a time, friends of mine in Los Angeles found themselves under threat. They drove across the desert to Vegas and in a couple hours bought a shotgun and a revolver, went back to LA to face the trouble, which I'm happy to report resulted in nothing. The guy in Vegas who actually bought the guns said he only had to show a driver's license, and I suppose he knew the laxity of the Nevada laws was such that he didn't have to worry about what happened after he sold the weapons to my friends for cash.
So, what's necessary to prevent that kind of thing? I'd guess all the things you gun guys complain about, registration, paperwork, background checks, and waiting periods. Maybe there's more that you'd know better than me.
sevesteen asked that question for a reason, mike. the reason was to point out to you that registration would not limit criminals' access to firearms, not in any way, shape, or form. if your desired end goal is to limit criminals' access to guns, then registration WOULD NOT HELP YOU. at all.
ReplyDelete(think we're wrong on this point? well then, explain to us how we're wrong. that's why we ask these rhetorical questions!)
it would just piss off us lawful folks and lose you our support for whatever else you might think up in the future --- that is, insofar as your past follies haven't already lost you that.
"But here's a personal story which was part of our Great Gun Survey a few months ago. Once upon a time, friends of mine in Los Angeles found themselves under threat. They drove across the desert to Vegas and in a couple hours bought a shotgun and a revolver, went back to LA to face the trouble, which I'm happy to report resulted in nothing. The guy in Vegas who actually bought the guns said he only had to show a driver's license, and I suppose he knew the laxity of the Nevada laws was such that he didn't have to worry about what happened after he sold the weapons to my friends for cash.
ReplyDeleteSo, what's necessary to prevent that kind of thing? I'd guess all the things you gun guys complain about, registration, paperwork, background checks, and waiting periods. Maybe there's more that you'd know better than me."
ummm, Mike, your friend's actions were openly criminal in the above story. They committed a FEDERAL felony, as did the man selling them the guns, and likely violated multiple state laws besides the federal ones.
What you propose is MORE laws to stop them...
Sung Cho was willing to muder 32 of his classmates, seemingly at random, then kill himself...does it come as a surprise to you that with that on his sick mind he didn't seem to be very afraid of the state crime of possessing guns and ammunition on a State College Campus....as well as the federal crime of defacing the serial numbers on his guns (which makes ZERO sense, as the guns were easily traceable as they were found on his dead body)
You claim "Logic" then give an illogical story to support it.
It's called being Wrong, Mike...we've all been there, but not all of us can be a proper gentleman when we get there.
If your friend acquired a handgun outside his state of residence he committed a federal felony, in addition to whatever local laws he broke.
ReplyDeleteIf he showed ID indicating he was not a resident of the state where he acquired the gun, the person or dealer who supplied it to him committed a federal felony.
There is something wrong with this story. I could see somehow arranging a private sale without ID, but I can't see any case where a seller would insist on ID, but continue the transaction when the ID was out of state. Unless your friend was using forged ID?
Was your friend a decent person, who would be trustworthy with a gun? Rather than showing that laws are unacceptably lax, this shows that gun laws are likely to affect decent people far more than criminals. Anyone willing to risk a felony can still get a gun, but decent people in danger are given the choice between obeying the law and their own safety.
Sevesteen, You must have not been reading when that post was made.
ReplyDeleteNo Mike's Friends were scumbags and felons when they made this illegal across-state-lines transaction, and Mike implies in his post that the seller of the guns was just as dirty.
Mike, what is with it with your connection to the dirt-of-the-Earth from your youth? Is that why you dumped America?
I'm also guessing since you didn't seem to rub elbows with any decent people that's why you have no problem branding the rest of us as criminals-to-be, and re-badging every dirt-bag with a gun as a "Lawful Gun Owner" and "Just like Us".
I think your bias goes MUCH deeper than guns, and likely ties in to your views on people.
Are all us good-heated gun owners criminals-to-be because you ran with a really nasty crowd state-side? Are all death row inmates, and convicted murderers and other violent criminals "Victims of Society" and people deserving deep sympathy because they remind you of your best buds in Highschool....or maybe of yourself. You indicated in one post that your father had a drinking problem, and that you had a strong rebellious period after your discharge from the Marine Corps. Do you have a few felony convictions and arrest records you haven't told us about?
I know you're now a devoted husband and father now, and I have no reason to question it...also honestly I would even give it some serious thought offering you and/or your family a bed and my hospitality (Something I would not offer lightly, and wouldn't even offer to some blood relatives)
But when you were closer to my age, were you in fact the criminal you paint us to be? If you had had a gun (legally or otherwise) back then would you trust yourself with it?
Would you trust yourself at all with one now?
None of these questions....or the ones in my above comment are Rhetorical, and I will consider avoiding any of them a Dodge.
I can go downtown and I can buy a bag of weed if I wanted to, if all guns were illegal I could go downtown and buy guns.
ReplyDeleteSuppy and demand. Many of the hot guns are of Italian manufacture, as low to midrange handguns are a significant industry in Italy. I suggest you write your local Italian representatives and complain about the fact that they are producing handguns used in crimes throughout the civilized world and if they don't do something about it you may pout. They'll laugh at you and keep building and selling guns.
Dear Weer'd, That's quite an interrogation you mounted there; I especially like the pseudo-psychoanalysis. I'm afraid, though, you'll have to wait for my autobiography to come out for some of those answers. I'm sure it won't hold a candle to Tom's, though.
ReplyDeleteI would like to straighten out some of your mis-characterizations of me.
“Mike's Friends were scumbags and felons.” Felons maybe, but scumbags? That’s quite a jump, isn’t it? And, “Mike implies in his post that the seller of the guns was just as dirty.” That’s another leap. I actually think the Las Vegas guy who bought the guns using his driver’s license was a nice guy who was trying to help out some friends in trouble. I didn’t imply “dirty” to any of them.
You said “what is with it with your connection to the dirt-of-the-Earth from your youth.” I ask, what is it with your characterizing people so harshly? I’ve know all kinds in my life, some of the colorful ones end up in blog posts and comments. Your “dirt-of-the-Earth” description is totally unnecessary. And, “Is that why you dumped America?” No, actually it’s not.
“I'm also guessing since you didn't seem to rub elbows with any decent people that's why you have no problem branding the rest of us as criminals-to-be, and re-badging every dirt-bag with a gun as a "Lawful Gun Owner" and "Just like Us".” I do no such thing. I’ve tried to describe what I see as a connection between the lawful gun owner and the misuse of guns in the criminal world, a theory which you soundly disagree with, but that’s not the same as calling you “criminals-to-be” and saying the bad guys are just like you.
”I think your bias goes MUCH deeper than guns, and likely ties in to your views on people.” Wild pseudo-psychology.
I never said or intimated that all the good-hearted gun owners are “criminals-to-be,” and I never said “all death row inmates, and convicted murderers and other violent criminals (are) "Victims of Society," and certainly not because they remind me of my “best buds in High school” or myself. That’s really pretty wild.
You say I paint you to be criminals. Nonsense. I'd suggest you stop reading my mind, stop psychoanalyzing me and stop putting words in my mouth.
So what were your felony convictions?
ReplyDeleteThis story reminds me of my son--He'd give a scenario, ask what I thought. He would then give more details
ReplyDeleteLet me see if I now understand what really happened:
A couple of felons got threats. Being felons, they could not legally buy a gun, so they found a friend, abused his friendship and induced him to become a felon himself by making a straw purchase on their behalf, knowing that they couldn't get their own guns.
...and somehow this string of felonies shows that our laws are too lax.
Mike,
ReplyDeleteMaybe the problem isn't the weak gun laws but the revolving door justice system.
Here is one of the rare defensive gun uses that you won't look for:
A 22-year-old uniformed security guard who was buying gasoline at a Murfreesboro Pike station on Sunday shot and killed a robbery suspect carrying an air gun.
Metro detectives are ruling the death of Jamie L. Sullivan, 37, a justifiable homicide.
Advertisement
Wearing a mask and carrying what appeared to be a pistol, Sullivan entered the Mapco market at 2101 Murfreesboro Pike at 1:45 a.m.
Eric Gordon, 22, was also in the market. Sullivan pointed his pistol at Gordon's head and threatened to kill him. Sullivan told Gordon to surrender his holstered gun and a struggle ensued. Gordon drew his 9-millimeter weapon and shot Sullivan once in the face. Sullivan died at the scene.
Shortly after, detectives discovered that Sullivan's gun was a BB pistol that looked like a real gun.
Metro police had charged Sullivan with 146 offenses since June 1989. His last arrest was for trespassing Nov. 20
146 offenses in 19.5 years is over 7 per year.....surely that is more of a problem then weak gun laws, eh?
Or a story similar to the one Bob S relates, except with a happier ending:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.tennessean.com/article/20081201/NEWS03/812010363/1017/news01
146 arrests since 1989. Tried to rob an armed, uniformed security guard--Stuck a gun in the guard's face, demanded the guard's gun. Guard shot the bad guy in the face. Turns out the bad guy's gun only looked real.
If the guard hadn't fought back, I guess that would have been flow...