The news release, issued on March 24th, 2009, was entitled, Brady Campaign Urges Stronger Laws To Curb Guns To Mexico: Enforcing Existing Laws Is Not Enough.
“Our polices help enable this cross-border violence,” said Helmke at a news conference in Washington D.C. “For too long, we have been putting our own citizens at risk by making it so easy for criminals to get guns. Now our neighbors are threatened as well, and our national security is at risk. We must do more to keep dangerous weapons away from dangerous people.”
It's interesting that the theory of "gun flow into Mexico" has been in the news so much lately. In spite of the fact that Mr. Iknadosian has been exonerated, at least for the time being, public awareness of this problem seems to be on the rise. Tom Diaz, senior policy analyst at the Violence Policy Center spoke to the House of Representatives on March 12th. The New York Times published an article the other day about the violence in Tucson AZ.
What's your opinion? Do you think they're all wrong? Do you think they all have ulterior motives? Why do pro-gun people accuse the anti-gun folks of being biased? Aren't the gun guys the ones who have something to be biased about? What does the anti-gun movement have to gain except what they say, a decrease in gun violence?
Please leave a comment.
" What does the anti-gun movement have to gain except what they say, a decrease in gun violence?"
ReplyDeleteMoney. If the general population sees them as doing good (rather than the truth, harm, and lots of it) they do better in fund raisers, and donations.
How many "Million Mom Marches" have you seen post 2004?
The repeal of the AWB, increase in carry rights, the VT Shooting, and the Heller Decision, as well as the Democrats speaking out against the President's desire for a new gun-ban has crushed the anti-gun group's coffers.
Hell Ceasefire NJ is just Bryon Miller making media appearences, and nothing more:
http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/2009/03/05/is-ceasefire-new-jersey-defunct/
California, rated #1/A+ on the Brady Scale, is the second highest source for traced guns into Mexico.
ReplyDeleteTheir ulterior motives and blatant dishonesty have already been shown.
Interesting to note that none of the anti-gun groups support firearm safety training. In fact they demean it. There are also no efforts by anti-gun groups to increase penalties for criminal use of guns. Their only solutions are to try and limit firearms by those who actually follow the laws.
ReplyDeleteWhy do you think that is MikeB?
"What's your opinion? Do you think they're all wrong? Do you think they all have ulterior motives?"
ReplyDeleteyes and yes Mike. They want to BAN GUNS. How's that for "ulterior motives?"
What I would find as 'ironic justice' would be a scenario that finds well-armed Mexicans attacking border towns in the US, akin to Morgan's Raiders of the Civil War era.
ReplyDeleteWouldn't all of those right-wingnuts who preach the anti-immigration babble find themselves on the other side of the barrel, so to speak?
that's a lousy simile, muddy. you could have made a much better comparison to the Mexican civil war and Pancho Villa's ride.
ReplyDeletebut either way, i don't see the ironic justice in it. unless you think there's something "just" in the inevitable outcome --- that is, Mexico being invaded and conquered. probably not kept for very long, but still.
Tom Diaz, of the VPC.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5h_lxdamGL72UQyZnOAx07zCcjhiwD9748GU00
Tom Diaz, an analyst at the Violence Policy Center, a gun control group, said cartels use military-style weapons such as the Armalite AR-50, a .50-caliber sniper rifle.
He brought one to a recent congressional hearing — with the help of two police officers — and said he found the weapon on the Internet, bought it for $3,200 from a Maryland "kitchen table" dealer and had it registered in the District of Columbia, all in about six hours.
So Diaz puts on his little show for Congress in order to show how easy it is to buy / traffic guns. The problem is he lies Mike.
Does he have ANY EVIDENCE that the cartels are using AR-50's? Bought from the US?
As far as his claim that he bought an AR-50 from a "kitchen table" dealer in MD (what the hell is a "kitchen table" dealer?)
I guarantee you a DC resident CAN NOT buy an AR-50, get it transferred and registered in DC in 6 hours. There are a whole host of reasons why not, the most blatantly obvious being that Armalite, who manufactures the AR-50 is NOT on the approved firearms roster for DC.
http://mpdc.dc.gov/mpdc/frames.asp?doc=/mpdc/lib/mpdc/info/pdf/firearms_eligible_registration.pdf
Gee Muddy,
ReplyDeleteYou don't know your history very well or you would have found a better example.
Wouldn't you say Pancho Villa, would be a better example of an armed mexican raiding the border?
Columbus, New Mexico, in the early spring of 1916 was a sleepy little border town. As the Mexican Revolution raged to the south, most Americans perceived little threat from this conflict, including many of Columbus' citizens, who felt safe in their village. To add to this feeling of security, a detachment of approximately 350 U.S. Army soldiers from the 13th Calvary stationed at Camp Furlong on the outskirts of Columbus stood between Mexico and the town.
In the middle of the night on March 9, 1916, life in Columbus changed dramatically. At 1:00 A.M., between 500 and 600 Mexican revolutionaries, led by General Francisco "Pancho" Villa, crossed the border into the United States. Villa divided his troops and attacked Columbus from the southwest at approximately 4:20 am. This attack caught the entire town, as well as the army camp, by surprise.
The Villistas concerned themselves more with raiding than killing, otherwise the town might have been erased. That morning majority of the destruction of the town came from the burning and pillaging of the business district.
So we have a situation where there is war in Mexico and they raid across the border.....and we should give up our rights to help them stop their violence? How does that work again?
Surprisingly, the army camp and stables received little damage, even though the horses and armaments must have been attractive to the raiders.
Surprisingly, My buttocks. The ARMY was ARMED and able to use their weapons. Wonder if there is anything we can learn from that...that maybe firearms can prevent destruction and deaths?
Alerted by the gunfire and burning buildings, many Columbus residents fled to the desert, or sought refuge in the school house, the Hoover Hotel, or private homes.
Since many of them were unarmed,that was the only response they could make...me I would rather fight for my property and family.
The noise and fire sealed the fate of the raiding Mexican Army. U.S. Army officers and soldiers, awakened by the commotion, set up a Benet-Mercier machine gun in front of the Hoover Hotel and produced a murderous rain of bullets. Another machine gun set up on East Boundary Street fired north and caught anyone in the intersection of Broadway and East Boundary in a deadly crossfire. The raid lasted until dawn, or approximately one and a half hours. By this time, the death toll totaled 70 to 75 Villistas. In addition, during the attack on Columbus, eighteen Americans, mostly civilians, died.
What was in that 2nd amendment about Militia and the arms appropriate for them..that was in the Miller decision right?
Imagine raiders running into a "well regulated militia" instead of frightening villagers. The results would be close to the same as when they ran into the army.
Those who don't remember history are doomed to repeat it.
Do you think they're all wrong?
ReplyDeleteOf course they are wrong. If you can buy antitank missiles in an Arizona Wal-Mart, then I'll listen to that tired argument with a more open mind.
Do you think they all have ulterior motives?
Yes. They are out to ban guns, anywhere, anytime that they can. They are more than happy to use this Mexico nonsense to their end.
What does the anti-gun movement have to gain except what they say, a decrease in gun violence?
They have gun bans to gain. Even Helmke has admitted that the Assault Weapons Ban did nothing to stop crime or violence. Silly gun control experiments have failed all over the world in Australia, England and Europe. All their silly bans do is to deprive law abiding citizens of arms--which of course is a goal of world socialism.
Brady rated California as the best state in the U.S. for gun control and look what just happened in Oakland. And how's that whole gun control thing working out in Germany?
Mike,
ReplyDeleteWhat was wrong with my Pancho Villa comment that you wouldn't post it?
Was I insulting to you or anyone else?
Did I imply any improper legal activities?
We do not need more laws, or gun controls. We need to focus on enforcing the laws we already have.
ReplyDeleteWell it's nice to see not everyone falls for the anti-rights lobby's nonsense.
ReplyDeleteHB 48, the Illinois Bill banning personal sales, failed in the house.
http://daysofourtrailers.blogspot.com/2009/03/private-sales-ban-fails-in-illinois.html
Thirdpower said, "Interesting to note that none of the anti-gun groups support firearm safety training. In fact they demean it. There are also no efforts by anti-gun groups to increase penalties for criminal use of guns."
ReplyDeleteI doubt that's true. Even if you've seen one or two examples of firearms training being "demeaned," you can't extrapolate from that and say none of the anti-gun groups support it.
Your second statement is similar. How do you know "no efforts" have been made?
Mike W., Let me ask you this. If you wanted to, could you yourself buy an automatic weapon, you know the ones that are so restricted that they're practically banned? I'll bet you could. I'll bet you could probably buy anything you wanted, if you were willing to circumvent some gun laws, maybe deal with some crooked gun sellers. And if you could do it, imagine how much better and faster and bigger the real gangsters could do it.
ReplyDeleteAnd in the course of doing this stupid little dare he could end up in prison for the rest of his life.
ReplyDeleteMoral, the law works, MikeB is Wrong!
Mikeb:
ReplyDeleteMike W., Let me ask you this. If you wanted to, could you yourself buy an automatic weapon, you know the ones that are so restricted that they're practically banned? I'll bet you could. I'll bet you could probably buy anything you wanted, if you were willing to circumvent some gun laws, maybe deal with some crooked gun sellers. And if you could do it, imagine how much better and faster and bigger the real gangsters could do it."
Mike, I think you finally got it! Gun laws only affect the law abiding. They do nothing to stop criminals.
One other note. Now Paul Helmke thinks we need to adopt the superior Mexican gun laws in the U.S. Yeah, they are working so great down there.
Yeah Mike, you're right I could! I'll bet I could go down to the street corner where I park and buy a bag of heroin. I bet you could too! How shocking!
ReplyDeleteWhat was your point again?
And no Mike, no anti-gun group (Brady's or VPC etc.) have EVER gone on record supporting firearms safety training.
Fine MikeB,
ReplyDeleteProve me wrong. Find an anti-gun group that supports firearm safety training.
BTW, now the Brady Campaign, the 'we don't support gun bans' group, has admitted that it's goals are:
* Any pistol larger than .38 caliber is illegal.
* Shotguns must be 12 gauge or smaller, and must be 25 inches or longer.
* Rifles in military calibers, or smaller than .30 caliber are unlawful.
* Licenses for purchase, possession, and transportation required.
* Licensed collectors subject to home invasion inspection, and inspections are frequent.
* Full registration
Yup, the reason I DON'T do that is the same reason I don't carry a concealed weapon around this state everyday.
ReplyDeleteI mean I certainly could. A small single stack is easy to conceal Mike, but guess what? Unlike the thugs and gangbangers running around Wilmington I actually obey the law even though I'd much rather carry my gun.
The law only constrains those who care enough to obey it. The gangbangers, thugs, & drug dealers around here know it's illegal for them to carry and they do it anyway because it's a risk they're willing to take and they don't give 2 shits about the law.
"Yup, the reason I DON'T do that is the same reason I don't carry a concealed weapon around this state everyday."
ReplyDeleteI've never bothered to look into a concealed carry permit because so many buildings I frequent don't permit firearms. As a result, it would be ridiculously inconvenient to carry a handgun when I'm away from home. I'd have to leave it in the car whenever I go anyplace the gun can't go, which is most of the time. And, while I'm in my car is the time I'm least likely to need a gun.
Consequently, my gun is stored at home, except when I head off to the firing range.
OK, so no anti-gun group has ever been in favor of firearms training. Does that prove something? Maybe, they feel it would be inconsistent with their mission.
ReplyDeleteAbout the fact that Mike W. could probably buy any gun he wants, even those fully automatic ones, I say that proves that they are available in the U.S. Who said they had to be available legally? A few of you guys said the fact that they're not available legally here in the States is proof that the Mexican gangsters couldn't be getting the stuff from north of the border. But it's not proof of that at all. As Mike W. said, anybody could get whatever he wants. That's my point.
My other point is that the line between legitimate FFL guys and black market gun sellers is a very blurry one. It's among those guys that you have your risk-takers and your scofflaws. Iknadosian's probably a good example. So's that guy up in Seattle who keeps "losing" inventory. Remember him?
MikeB,
ReplyDeleteTry to follow along:
OK, so no anti-gun group has ever been in favor of firearms training. Does that prove something? Maybe, they feel it would be inconsistent with their mission
Why do anti-freedom groups want gun control -- to reduce injuries and deaths related to firearms, right?
So the fact that NO Group, not a single one wants to train people to handle firearms safely kinda does prove that they aren't really out to reduce deaths and injuries...wouldn't you say?
A few of you guys said the fact that they're not available legally here in the States is proof that the Mexican gangsters couldn't be getting the stuff from north of the border.
Sorry but you are getting OneUtah disease, your reading comprehension skills are failing.
What we've said, repeatedly is they can't be legally buying those firearms in the quantities that are being reported.
But it's not proof of that at all. As Mike W. said, anybody could get whatever he wants. That's my point.
That's our point also MikeB!
You want more and more and more laws until firearms aren't available to the law abiding but the fact that the current abundance of firearm laws isn't working shows that CRIMINALS DON"T OBEY THE LAW.
So the laws you want to emplace won't take firearms away from the Criminals....just the law abiding.
So, your goal therefore isn't disarming criminals...but disarming the law abiding.
My other point is that the line between legitimate FFL guys and black market gun sellers is a very blurry one.
Right now the way I see it, you've only got one point and you sit and talk out of it.
Any evidence the line is blurry?
Is it any blurrier then the line between people with cameras and computers and the scum that produce child porn?
The line is very clear MikeB, it's called the law, some people follow it and some don't.
Iknadosian's probably a good example.
It is absolutely INCREDIBLE that you keep trying to point him out as someone breaking the law.
The JUDGE, an impartial observer and arbiter of the rules, determined the state did not have a single piece of evidence to show that Iknadosian did anything wrong.
And you still call him a criminal, gee wonder why some of us call you a LIAR.
Mike - Buying guns from an FFL and buying them on the black market is about as similar as buying drugs from your neighborhood pharmacy vs. on the street corner.
ReplyDeleteIn other words, not the same at all.
I say that proves that they are available in the U.S. Who said they had to be available legally?
Well if they're avaliable on the black market (which they likely are) then they're NOT coming from legal FFL's, and no law you pass is going to impact that market.
Iknadosian DID NOT COMMIT A CRIME. Get that through your thick skull Mike.
H/T to Clayton Cramer -- whose self defense blog validates the reality you deny
ReplyDeletehttp://volokh.com/posts/1238081250.shtml
Who Are the Murderers (and Voluntary Manslaughterers)?
Are they mostly ordinary folks like you and me who just snap? Or are they disproportionately likely to have criminal records?
I know of no truly comprehensive data on this, but here's what we learn from the intentional homicide line in Justice Department's Felony Defendants in Large Urban Counties, 2004 (a sample that is representative of the large urban counties that account for roughly half of the nation's violent crimes):
* 83% had a prior adult arrest (compared to likely 25% or so of the adult U.S. population).
*76% had two or more prior adult arrests.
*55% had five or more prior adult arrests.
*65% had a prior adult conviction.
*44% had a prior adult felony conviction (compared to about 7.5% of the adult U.S. population, see Christopher Uggen et al., Citizenship, Democracy, and the Civic Reintegration of Criminal Offenders, 605 Annals Am. Acad. Pol. & Soc. Sci. 281, 288 (2006)).
This does not include "arrests or convictions that occurred while the defendant was a juvenile" (I quote here from an e-mail from the author of the report). Since nearly half of all homicide offenders are 24 or under, the exclusion of juvenile arrests and convictions is thus likely to substantially undercount the actual arrest and conviction record. This also doesn't include arrests or convictions that the state effectively expunged or never logged, for instance because someone was allowed a "deferred adjudication," which is essentially probation in lieu of a conviction, so that no conviction would be entered if the probation is finished with no observed violations.
Hmm, doesn't seem that very many "law abiding" citizens are out there loosing their cool and snapping....as you've claimed repeatedly.
What say you MikeB?
BTW, why are you ignoring the fact that anti-gun groups are profeteers of the exact unfounded hysteria and misinformation you freely publish here.
ReplyDeleteAs well stated above, they don't seem to much care about illigal trade or black market channels, nor do they care (like gun rights goups do) about enforcing existing laws (note that you and every anti-gun group out there talk a LOT about innefective laws, but never about actually REPEALING laws that don't work....tho you do like to misuse the word "compromise" a lot)
And of course comes pro-ignorance anti-freedom's modus operendi for stifling debate on the issues, as you now do here.
Those all seem to add up very badly for your side.
"OK, so no anti-gun group has ever been in favor of firearms training. Does that prove something? Maybe, they feel it would be inconsistent with their mission."
ReplyDeleteYou're right. It would be inconsistent w/ their mission to restrict legal firearm ownership in any and every form they can muster.
What it proves is that they really don't care about reducing 'gun crime' or accidents.
Now that you have been shown that your assertion that some groups do support safety is wrong, perhaps you should re-analyze all your other views on these organizations.
Thirdpower said, "You're right. It would be inconsistent w/ their mission to restrict legal firearm ownership in any and every form they can muster.
ReplyDeleteWhat it proves is that they really don't care about reducing 'gun crime' or accidents."
That's some wild conclusion you've got there. The fact that they don't support training doesn't necessarily mean they don't care about reducing gun crime. It could mean they just want to be consistent in their approach to reducing gun crime. A lot of people feel that the only way to do that is to reduce the number of guns.
Mike,
ReplyDeleteHow can you be so blatantly dishonest and not expect us to call you on it?
The fact that they don't support training doesn't necessarily mean they don't care about reducing gun crime
The name of the group is the Brady Campaign to Prevent GUN VIOLENCE
If they include accidents and suicides in their statistics, which they often do, then shouldn't things which reduce accidents and suicide be something they support?
But no, you can't even be honest about that!
It could mean they just want to be consistent in their approach to reducing gun crime.
If they are trying to reduce gun crime, why do they focus on the "gun show loophole" when every statistic available, include and especially from the government show that isn't where criminals are getting their firearms????
Face it Mike, the group isn't about guns, it is about control. They want to reduce an enumerated constitutionally protected right that the people enjoy to a privilege only granted to a few select.
I don't expect this comment to be posted, but it would interesting to get your reply.
Think I'll save it and if I don't see it, I might ask Weer'd to post it.
You know Bob, that's about the third time you've said something like that, you don't expect me to publish your comment. The fact is, there's only one thing I've objected to in your posting, which I made very clear in my commenting policy. If you're not including that, then you know very well I'll publish what you have to say.
ReplyDeleteMike,
ReplyDeleteWant to revise your statement a little bit?
The fact is, there's only one thing I've objected to in your posting, which I made very clear in my commenting policy. If you're not including that, then you know very well I'll publish what you have to say.
I can provide a list and actual comments that haven't made it through your censoring process.
I can also simply point to my comment on Pancho Villa- a comment you didn't publish until I called you on it. It met all your requirements, but it didn't get published.
See the problem is once you start censoring comments, you've introduced a bias into the discussion. Don't expect me NOT to call you on that bias.
Now, how about addressing the points in my comment.
Shouldn't an organization dedicated to reducing violence be teaching safety?
The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence includes deaths from accidents and suicides in their statistics. Surely teaching gun safety is a laudable way of trying to reduce accidents, right?
How about teaching gun safety as a way to prevent suicide? If only a single suicide is prevented by someone learning about the proper handling of firearms, isn't that a laudable goal?
After all the Brady Campaign is famous for saying we should put up with multiple restrictions on our rights because if it saves just one life it is worth it.
Face it, the Brady Campaign isn't about saving lives, preventing injuries; it is about controlling people....and you are helping them.
You know what, maybe the Brady Campaign is in favor of safety training with guns. What do I know? The point I've been trying to make, and the place where I disagree with you is that even if they officially oppose it for whatever reason, that does not mean they are bogus in their claims to want less gun violence.
ReplyDeleteWhat is wrong with you guys that you can't accept that we "gun grabbers" have good intentions? Why do you have to demonize us?
On the other hand there's you gun guys. Have you seen that cute video Sevesteen posted a link to? The comedian Tell was carrying on about how the freedom to own guns is more important than whatever down side there may be associated with them. He says even if it were proven that more deaths would result, it would still be worth it.
Now that puts a whole new light on the subject doesn't it? That would mean that it's not the Bradys who have no regard for safety, it's you guys.
As Kirk said to Khan, "Ha ha ha, I'm laughing at the superior intellect."
MIKEB.
ReplyDeleteWhat is wrong with you guys that you can't accept that we "gun grabbers" have good intentions? Why do you have to demonize us?
Have you ever engaged your brain in the last several months that we've been debating this?
We "demonize" you because you aren't just trying to take guns; but to destroy our means of defense.
We demonize you because you want to destroy our RIGHTS.
We demonize you because you repeatedly, WITHOUT EVIDENCE, accuse us of crimes and being complicit in crimes and having moral responsibility for the actions of criminals.
And you do that without accepting any moral responsibility for rape, assault, murder that occurs in citizen disarmament zones.
We demonize you because you want to destroy something that is integral to our way of life - self reliance.
The comedian Tell was carrying on about how the freedom to own guns is more important than whatever down side there may be associated with them. He says even if it were proven that more deaths would result, it would still be worth it
Absolutely correct, why can't you get that through to your little mind?
We could prevent most child pornography by banning cameras and computers; isn't the freedom of speech, the right to assemble (even electronically) worth the downside of the rare but horrendous crime of child porn?
(note I'm not accusing you of anything, so don't moderate my comment).
There can be and probably is a downside associated with just about every freedom. We, as American Citizens, have decided to accept those downsides because the freedoms are so important.
That would mean that it's not the Bradys who have no regard for safety, it's you guys.
I don't know how you can make that statement with any seriousness.
We, accept the risks, but that doesn't mean we aren't concerned about safety. Far from it, We want to teach the safety to minimize the risks associated with exercising our FREEDOM.
What we won't do is allow the fear, allow the misuse of firearms to stop people from being allowed to exercise their rights.
Big difference between the two view points; if you don't get that you are either lying or ignorant.
You decide what you are.
What is wrong with you guys that you can't accept that we "gun grabbers" have good intentions? Why do you have to demonize us?
ReplyDeleteYou want to completely eviscerate a Constitutional right, that's why we demonize you. Well that and the fact that there's no lie you won't tell to push that agenda & no blood you won't dance in.
By the way Mike, the road to hell is paved with "good intentions" We've seen plenty of times thoroughout history where people were disarmed by their governments "for their own good" or for "the good of society" and we've seen how that worked out.
Given what we know from history I'll keep my guns thank you, and I'll do everything I can to arm everyone I know.