A new measure aimed at eliminating the steady flow of illegal guns into New York is being advanced by U.S. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand and Rep. Carolyn McCarthy who point out that nearly 90 percent of the guns used in gun crimes in New York City come from out of state, and approximately 90 percent of these guns are illegal.
Uh-oh, here we go with the 90% claims again. Do you think in this case the phrase "nearly 90% of the guns used in gun crimes in New York City come from out of state, and approximately 90 percent of these guns are illegal," will stand up to criticism? To me it doesn't seem couched in tricky language like the more famous claim that "90% of the guns traced in Mexico came from the U.S." What do you think?
By creating more options and providing flexibility for prosecutors and judges, we increase the tools that are available for prosecutors in the federal criminal justice system to appropriately crack down on individuals who are engaged in every aspect of gun trafficking.
I often hear the complaint that laws like this are unnecessary because the things they legislate are already illegal. This one, however does call for longer prison sentences for gun trafficking as well as increasing the focus on criminal gun dealers.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
Feelgood legislation. Criminals keep committing criminal acts so they are going to make it a crime again.
ReplyDeleteI'm sure someone just made up that 90% number but at least it is far more believable than the Mexican canard.
making it unlawful to deliver or receive two or more firearms where the individual knows or has reason to believe that the firearms are being, or will be, used in a felony.
ReplyDeleteVague, and likely discriminatory. "you should have known that a woman wouldn't want a gun that powerful"
empowered to impose heightened restrictions, levy tough financial penalties, and suspend or revoke the license of any corrupt gun dealer. Corrupt gun dealers will be subject to a license suspension of up to six months and a fine of up to $2,500 per violation. This is the first time that the levying of civil penalties will be widely available as a deterrent for corrupt gun dealers.
I don't know enough here to judge--is this fines for inconsequential procedural errors, or as an alternative to shutting down dealers for moderate violations?
special restrictions on high-risk gun dealers,
Depends on how "high risk" is determined. This could be an excuse to shut down high-volume or urban dealers regardless of their procedures.
requiring that the dealer not complete firearm sales until the national instant background check system informs the dealer that they may proceed with the sale.
I think this is somewhat deceptive, implying that dealers don't wait for NICS results. There needs to be a time limit on how long it takes to approve a sale to prevent arbitrary and avoidable delays by the government.
the bill provides a defense for an individual seller who obtains a background check on the person to whom he or she is selling prior to the sale. This serves to protect individual gun owners who make a good faith effort to ensure that they are not selling their firearm to a person who is prohibited from possessing those guns.
Is there any provision to make it easier for private citizens to run a background check? This also sounds like "if you don't run a check and it turns out the buyer is prohibited, you are likely to be found liable".
"The Gun Trafficking Prevention Act would make it illegal to traffick or assist in the trafficking of a firearm,"
ReplyDeleteAlready illegal.
"requiring that the dealer not complete firearm sales until the national instant background check system informs the dealer that they may proceed with the sale."
That policy is already in place.
What about the 300+ million firearms already in circulation?
I once asked an NRA official why the NRA often opposed reasonable-sounding gun laws that did not appear to greatly infringe upon gunowner's rights. The NRA official then told me about the unusual way in which the NRA evaluated proposed new gun laws, which I will share with you:
ReplyDeleteFirst, they disregard the title of the law and what the sponsor and the media have said about the law -- none of that matters (it's true).
Before they read the text of the law (the part that matters) they do a mental exercise that goes like this:
"I hate guns. No civilian should own guns. Keeping civilians from owning guns is a worthy goal. I am the new Attorney General, now in charge of enforcing this gun law which has been enacted. Is there any way that I can use this gun law to further the worthy goal of keeping civilians from owning guns?"
If the answer is yes, then the NRA will oppose the law.
Hi, Mike:
ReplyDeleteI didn't know you had a blog.
One of the recurring plaints that I hear from people who feel that the government of the U.S. is out to strip them of their rights to the quiet (or not so quiet) enjoyment of their firearms is in a nutshell, that we:
"already have this, that or some other law on the books. People already violate this law and, when caught, are prosecuted for it. So we don't need more laws."
Okay, so far as it goes. However, we also have laws, rafts and windrows and cords of laws that prohibit everything from adultery to zoophilia (bestiality just sounds, y'know, soooo harsh!). Oddly enough, people still insist on violating every one of them. Are those other thousands upon thousands of statutes also just "feel good legislation"?
I truly understand someone being concerned about actual government plans or programs to deprive them of their firearms. Such a plan or program is not, presently in the works. I have a compromise position (he said snarkily). Why not just make selling a weapon without following extant local, state or federal firearms laws a capital crime? No death penalty, just a mandatory life sentence without possibility of parole.
I know that might sound a bit harsh, but it's really no more over the top than the breathless handwringing by some proponents of the "An armed society is a polite society" argument.
Just so we're clear on this. I don't hate guns or gun owners. I often go into someplace like Dick's or Gander Mountain and just look at all the beautifully made firearms for sale. I even think about buying one from time to time. However, since I don't hunt and I don't really think I want to shoot anybody in or outside of my home I realize that I have other uses for my scant financial resources.
Mike, you say you've lived in Italy for 20 years. Is there not a fairly restrictive application of firearms possession laws there?
Where are the penalties for the FBI agents who approved the sales?
ReplyDeleteDon't they share responsibility?
Of course, the reality is the NRA is in the business of selling and marketing guns, so if criminals find it harder to get guns--it hurts the NRA.
ReplyDeleteThat's the reality.
Today, there are absolutely no barriers for any law-abiding citizen to procure as many firearms as he wishes. In fact, there's very little barrier preventing the law-abiding citizen from procuring just about any type of weapon.
So, why does the NRA oppose laws to make it just a little harder for criminals to get weapons? The answer is apparent.
--JadeGold
To comment a bit on Democommie's comment.
ReplyDelete"already have this, that or some other law on the books. People already violate this law and, when caught, are prosecuted for it. So we don't need more laws."
Actually, there aren't many laws at all. The "over 20,000 gun laws" canard is just that--a canard. Plus, most gun laws are unenforceable--thanks to the NRA. As an example, gunloons point to the NICS form 4473 and say it's a crime to lie on the form. In reality, the NRA watered down the law which makes it virtually impossible to prosecute someone who lies on the form, unless they confess. As a result, less than 5%of cases involving lying on a Form 4473 are ever prosecuted.
--JadeGold
Wow Jadegold! You really do live in an alternate reality.
ReplyDeleteDo you actually believe anything you write? If so I feel sorry for you
JadeGold:
ReplyDeleteSorry if I wasn't clear. I was referring to the volumes of law pertaining to all the crime that is committed. Also, if you want to go past punitive criminal law and into the various codes that affect virtually any activity by one person that affects the wellbeing of another person or the commonweal at large then we're talking some large number of terabytes or digital or thousands of metric tons of paper.
While the Darwin Awards are testament to the capacity for the truly stupid to kill themselves despite safeguards, legal prohibitions and what some of us have--common sense--it hardly means that laws and regulations will save every life. Laws and regulations just try to manage the carnage commited against others, or self-inflicted, with everything fom potato peelers and hair dryers to 600 HP Corvette. Reasonable folks might assume that guns which are inherently more deadly--by design--than the Corvette, should be dealt with accordingly.
mikey says that you live in an alternate reality. I would suggest we all live in the same realtity, it's just that some of us realize that our wants are not everyone else's needs.
MikeW: I have the truth on my side, so I have you at a diadvantage.
ReplyDeleteWhat, specifically, do you take issue with?
The "over 20,000 gun laws?" That was debunked by Johns Hopkins several years ago; they found there were about 300 relevant Federal and State statutes.
The 4473 prosecutions? Again, DoJ has the numbers along with an explanation: the NRA requires it be proven a defendent "knowingly" lied on his form. Any prosecutor will tell you, short of confession, it is impossible to prove someone "knowingly" breaks any law.
However, I suspect you are unable to comment intelligently.
--JadeGold
JadeGold, Thanks so much for mentioning that Johns Hopkins study which addressed the "20,000 laws" nonsense. I didn't know such a study existed, but it's always been clear to me that a serious person would not use the "20,000 gun laws" in an argument. I've found Mike W. to be more contentious than serious.
ReplyDeleteDemocommie, I don't know much about the gun laws here. I do know that I've never met an Italian person who's into guns unless he was a hunter or policeman. One of the best things about living here is I almost never have to worry about people acting violently with guns.
I've found Mike W. to be more contentious than serious.
ReplyDeleteReally? It sounds like you're just trying to discredit me because you're tired of being proven wrong over and over again.
Bring facts to the table and have a rational discussion based on the merits of your position. I dare you.
Jade - Cite your study. I know you can't and won't. Show me the actual data rather than numbers pulled from your ass. You can't and wont.
The NRA does not require anything with regards to 4473 prosecutions. They are not law enforcement nor do they enact or enforce Federal laws.
The NRA does not require that the prosecution PROVE the guilt of the defendant. That's one of the most basic tenets of the American legal system. If you don't like that particular freedom I suggest you try and amend the Constitution.
As usual someone with no respect for the 2nd Amendment has no respect for other individual rights.
Mikeb: Much gunloon "evidence" is apocrypha that has been repeated so many times, it has come to be accepted as true.
ReplyDeleteApparently, the "20,000 gun laws" was cited once in a Congressional hearing in 1965 but provided no reference or citation. From that point, it was repeated as if it were gospel.
Democommie: Appreciate what you're saying. To a large degree, gunloons are lemmings and they largely wind up killing each other or their acquaintances. That's bad enough but each of us get to bear the costs of that violence.
To be sure, there is no group or organization in the US that is advocating a total ban on gun ownership. In fact, there never has been. So, why all the fear from gunloons?
--JadeGold
Mikeb: Much gunloon "evidence" is apocrypha that has been repeated so many times, it has come to be accepted as true.
ReplyDeleteApparently, the "20,000 gun laws" was cited once in a Congressional hearing in 1965 but provided no reference or citation. From that point, it was repeated as if it were gospel.
Democommie: Appreciate what you're saying. To a large degree, gunloons are lemmings and they largely wind up killing each other or their acquaintances. That's bad enough but each of us get to bear the costs of that violence.
To be sure, there is no group or organization in the US that is advocating a total ban on gun ownership. In fact, there never has been. So, why all the fear from gunloons?
--JadeGold
One of the recurring plaints that I hear from people who feel that the government of the U.S. is out to strip them of their rights to the quiet (or not so quiet) enjoyment of their firearms is in a nutshell,
ReplyDelete"The Government" as a whole isn't out to strip our rights, but some in it are. Note that statement isn't limited to gun rights.
that we:
"already have this, that or some other law on the books. People already violate this law and, when caught, are prosecuted for it. So we don't need more laws."
Okay, so far as it goes. However, we also have laws, rafts and windrows and cords of laws that prohibit everything from adultery to zoophilia (bestiality just sounds, y'know, soooo harsh!). Oddly enough, people still insist on violating every one of them. Are those other thousands upon thousands of statutes also just "feel good legislation"?
I think we have too many laws period, not just too many gun laws. My problem is with laws that add burdens to the law abiding for minimal or no impact on criminals. The 1994 Assault Weapons Ban is a good example--For a week or two, I even managed to convince MikeB that it was silly.
Should we require annual veterinary exams for all pets to detect bestiality?
Register all sexual encounters to reduce adultery? A waiting period before one-night stands?
I truly understand someone being concerned about actual government plans or programs to deprive them of their firearms. Such a plan or program is not, presently in the works.
How do you know? If you mean an official government policy, you're probably right. If you mean "no federal politicians have a plan to severely restrict gun ownership" or "no governments in the US restrict gun rights to an unacceptable degree", you are absolutely wrong.
I have a compromise position (he said snarkily). Why not just make selling a weapon without following extant local, state or federal firearms laws a capital crime? No death penalty, just a mandatory life sentence without possibility of parole.
There are lots of conflicting local laws, many unenforced for years, often with no rational basis. There are odd federal rules and regulations. Can you tell if an 11 round magazine was produced before 1994? I have 9 round .40 caliber magazines that will hold twelve 9mm rounds, and work (albeit with reduced reliability) in a 9mm gun. Is that legal to own where there is a 10 round limit? Is that SKS a curio and relic requiring it to remain in its original configuration, or have enough parts been replaced with US made so that it is it 922(r) compliant? Or did someone accidentally swap parts between a C&R and a 922(r), making both of them illegal? Is that thing on the front a flash hider or a muzzle brake? Did someone use the wrong solder to attach a flash hider to a short barrel? Are the sights adjustable? Does the grip have a thumb rest? Is a ticket for paraphernalia a drug crime?
Depending on your location, any of these things can make the difference between legal and illegal.
How about we limit prison to people who harm or seriously endanger others, so we have room to keep violent criminals incarcerated?
I know that might sound a bit harsh, but it's really no more over the top than the breathless handwringing by some proponents of the "An armed society is a polite society" argument.
Polite is irrelevant. That legal gun owners tend to remain law abiding, and may deter crime is the pragmatic argument.
However, since I don't hunt and I don't really think I want to shoot anybody in or outside of my home I realize that I have other uses for my scant financial resources.
I don't hunt, and I don't want to shoot anyone. I hope neither of us ever needs to.
JadeGold: "So, why does the NRA oppose laws to make it just a little harder for criminals to get weapons?"
ReplyDeleteHow interesting: I answered JadeGold's question BEFORE he asked it. See my post on the NRA's evaluation of proposed new gun laws, above.
JadeGold: "the reality is the NRA is in the business of selling and marketing guns"
ReplyDeleteI LIKE to hear this. The reality is otherwise, but to the extent that anti-gunowner advocates believe such misinformation, they are less of a threat.
I had the opportunity to talk privately with Josh Sugarmann of the Violence Policy Center. I was prepared to prove him wrong about various things, but to my horror he seemed to know the truth despite his propaganda. IMO, that makes him MORE dangerous.
One can only hope that JadeGold actually believes his own bogus claims.
"That legal gun owners tend to remain law abiding, and may deter crime is the pragmatic argument."
ReplyDeleteNeither statement is true.
Plus, ignored are the negative externalities such as the fact easy access to firearms for the law-abiding also greatly facilitates their access by criminals.
The illogical beauty of the "law-abiding gunowner" meme is that once the law-abiding gun owner commits a crime, he no longer is law-abiding. Therefore, all "law-abiding gunowners" remain so eternally.
--JadeGold
Sevesteen:
ReplyDeleteI actually agree that there are far too many conflicting laws about guns on the books. A large part of that problem is due to a decidedly laizzes faire approach to the situation by the Feds.
As for whether some politicians might want to push some legislation that would deprive gun owners of their rights; I have no doubt that they are out there. I also have no doubt that there are people who want to teach ID in public school science classes--and they keep making the overburdened legal system get involved in THAT debate.
"How about we limit prison to people who harm or seriously endanger others, so we have room to keep violent criminals incarcerated?"
I would say that selling weapons to people that later use them to rob or murder other folks, when those folks have not been properly vetted is a pretty substantial indication of "depraved indifference".
"Polite is irrelevant. That legal gun owners tend to remain law abiding, and may deter crime is the pragmatic argument."
It's a pragmatic argument that is not based on much more than anecdotal supports.
We live in a world that is dangerous in all sorts of different ways. I have been nearly killed on a number of occasions. In those instance, having a gun would have made zero difference to the outcome.
I don't doubt that there are people who foil crime by having a weapon at the ready. I also know that a lot of people in this country die by the gun--far too many in my opinion. As for having guns and being safe. There are lots of murders in L.A., Miami, NYC and other places in the U.S., committed by people who KNOW that their victims are as well armed as they are--they just don't care.
We will never, I'm fairly certain, agree on this stuff. That's okay, I don't need or want, at the moment, a gun. If I change my mind I'll get one.
"Plus, most gun laws are unenforceable--thanks to the NRA. As an example, gunloons point to the NICS form 4473 and say it's a crime to lie on the form. In reality, the NRA watered down the law which makes it virtually impossible to prosecute someone who lies on the form, unless they confess."
ReplyDeleteCite some evidence or shut the fuck up.
P.S. When are the post office police going to kick in my door, Jade?
"Today, there are absolutely no barriers for any law-abiding citizen to procure as many firearms as he wishes. In fact, there's very little barrier preventing the law-abiding citizen from procuring just about any type of weapon."
ReplyDeleteAs it should be.
If we reopen the machine gun registry and do away with the NFA tax, things would be almost perfect.
"Of course, the reality is the NRA is in the business of selling and marketing guns, so if criminals find it harder to get guns--it hurts the NRA.
ReplyDeleteThat's the reality."
Jade,
Glad you are here to point out the reality. So, just how many guns did the NRA sell last year? Or the year before, Or ever? What is their FFL number?
A brilliant description, which I've been trying to come up with for months but never got it just right.
ReplyDelete"The illogical beauty of the "law-abiding gunowner" meme is that once the law-abiding gun owner commits a crime, he no longer is law-abiding. Therefore, all "law-abiding gunowners" remain so eternally."
FishyJay said, "I had the opportunity to talk privately with Josh Sugarmann of the Violence Policy Center. I was prepared to prove him wrong about various things, but to my horror he seemed to know the truth despite his propaganda. IMO, that makes him MORE dangerous."
ReplyDeleteNow that would be worth a post, if you cared to share it.
Sevesteen said, "For a week or two, I even managed to convince MikeB that it was silly."
ReplyDeleteActually I'm still with you on that one. I've become completely convinced that the problems in describing "assault weapon" make the whole business "silly."
"Glad you are here to point out the reality. So, just how many guns did the NRA sell last year? Or the year before, Or ever? What is their FFL number?"
ReplyDeleteThis is a pretty standard dodge per the gunloon talking points.
The NRA is a lobbying outfit. They exist for the purpose of promoting gun sales and the gun industry as a whole. In return, they are funded by the gun industry--as well as gun enthusiasts.
Pretending an organization doesn't sell a product--be it guns, snack foods, cars, bottled water, etc.--just because it doesn't retail them out of their offices is naive at best and dishonest at worst. Especially when that organization is funded by that product's industry and promotes easier consumer access to that product.
--JadeGold
There are many things to say regarding Josh Sugarmann. Here is one of them. I asked him what his number one gun law goal was. His answer: A government agency with the power to regulate firearms.
ReplyDeleteTalking more about about it, I realized that it made sense. It's a vehicle for granting all of Sugarmann's other wishes. Consider:
Someone famous is shot. Sugarmann does what he does, and releases a report about how the gun used is somehow especially deadly. The media pick up on in, and Sugarmann's hoped-for government firearms regulatory agency decrees a ban on that type of gun.
And that unprogressive "voting in Congress by elected representatives of the people" step is neatly bypassed.
A large part of that problem is due to a decidedly laizzes faire approach to the situation by the Feds.
ReplyDeleteSo you're advocating even more Federal power and control over states and localities?
Why am I not surprised that someone with such disdain for the 2nd Amendment would lack respect for the 10th as well.
JadeGold: "The NRA is a lobbying outfit. They exist for the purpose of promoting gun sales and the gun industry as a whole. In return, they are funded by the gun industry--as well as gun enthusiasts."
ReplyDeleteNot quite. They exist for the purpose of promoting gun OWNERSHIP -- and any gun sales are a by-product of that effort.
This can be seen in the book "Ricochet: Confessions of a Gun Lobbyist" by Richard Feldman. Much of the book is an ATTACK upon the NRA. Feldman headded tha ASSC -- which was the REAL gun industry lobbying group. Feldman and the gun industry WANTED to compromise with gun control advocates, but that was unacceptable to the hardline GUNOWNER advocates at the NRA, who used the threat of boycotts to get the gun industry to back off and fire Feldman.
It's the hardline GUNOWNER advocates at the NRA who use the threat of boycotts to call the tune to which the gun industry dances. JadeGold has it EXACTLY BACKWARDS.
Mikeb: To me it doesn't seem couched in tricky language like the more famous claim that "90% of the guns traced in Mexico came from the U.S."
ReplyDeleteFrom the Washington Post 12-26-09: "Some 90 percent of the guns seized from operations against organized crime in Mexico come from the United States." http://tinyurl.com/yadk75z
This isn't "tricky language." It's not some blogger -- it's the Washington Post! It's not old -- it's 3 days ago!
This raises a question that gunowner advocates frequently ask themselves: "Are our opponents really that ignorant about things upon which they claim expertise, or do they know the truth but intentionally lie to further their agenda?"
" His answer: A government agency with the power to regulate firearms."
ReplyDeleteWow, you went down that slippery slope fast.
Omnipotent Govt. agency? Check.
All powerful anti-gun group? Check.
Media conspiracy? Check.
Bans and confiscations? Check.
Time for a Civics 101 course.
That's not how a federal regulatory agency works.
Let's take one of the more powerful federal regulatory agencies overseeing consumer products, as an example: the FDA. The FDA, among other things, regulates prescription drugs. The FDA, as a regulatory agency, derives all of its authority from Congress. IOW, the FDA cannot ban or prohibit a product on the basis of media publicity or notoriety. It must first demonstrate how the product violated regulatory standards (approved by Congress).
It's prett difficult to discuss policy, of any sort, with someone who believes the Government is an oppressive, alien enemy.
--JadeGold
BTW, FJ, you mat want to become familiar with a trove of documents called the CFR.
ReplyDelete--JadeGold
mike w.:
ReplyDeleteDid I say NEW federal laws? Re-read my comment. I understand your visceral response to any imagined attack on your sacred 2nd Amendmen rights. I understand, really, I do. I am,however, totally unconvinced by the bogeyman arguments put forth by you and your fellow fearmongers.
It's true that the NRA does not sell weapons or ammo (although they do sell just about everything in the way of accessories. This article (http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2009/05/15/20090515nra0516sidebar.html) about last May's NRA convention indicates that there are LOTS of guns displayed at the convention. This sort of thing might lead a reasonable observer to conclude that the NRA's executives are fine with having their tacit endorsement of those firearms be public.
Of course the fact that guys like Wayne LaPierre get paid a dollar a year proves that he is just a staunch supporter of the 2nd Amen---wait, what's that? Oh, he gets paid around a $M or so a year. Hmm, nothing to see here, Johnny, move along.
JadeGold slams me for things said by Josh Sugarmann. Of course, many of these things were said in a private conversation, so one has to take my word for it. If not, just say so -- that's OK.
ReplyDeleteSo let's discuss that which perhaps CAN be verified. I say that Josh Sugarmann claims that a federal gun regulatory agency WOULD have the power to ban all handguns.
JadeGold, do you deny that?
"The illogical beauty of the "law-abiding gunowner" meme is that once the law-abiding gun owner commits a crime, he no longer is law-abiding. Therefore, all "law-abiding gunowners" remain so eternally."
ReplyDeleteStrawman. It is possible for the law abiding to go bad, and the definition I am using includes that possibility. Take a group of law abiding and another group of criminals, measure their arrest and conviction rate over a year or more. You'll find a very low percentage of formerly law abiding with fresh convictions, and a fairly high percentage of recidivist criminals.
Sorry, FJ, I have nothing backwards.
ReplyDeleteThe NRA is funded by the gun industry. Playing semantical games such as saying the Snack Food Association (yes, there is one) is about snack food consumption vice snack fook sales makes you look silly.
WRT "
From the Washington Post 12-26-09: "Some 90 percent of the guns seized from operations against organized crime in Mexico come from the United States." http://tinyurl.com/yadk75z"
This statement is absolutely true. As usual, NRA talking points attempt to make the statement include all crime in Mexico--which was never the intent.
--JadeGold
Demo - Reread my comment. It appears you have a serious reading comprehension problem.
ReplyDeleteJadeGold: "The NRA is funded by the gun industry."
ReplyDeleteThe NRA is funded by membership fees and additional donations by members. I don't doubt that they also get business donations.
However, as can be seen in the book "Ricochet: Confessions of a Gun Lobbyist" by Richard Feldman -- a strong OPPONENT of the NRA -- the NRA is CONTROLLED by hardline gunowner advocates, and the gun industry kowtows to THEM.
"Some 90 percent of the guns seized from operations against organized crime in Mexico come from the United States."
JadeGold: "This statement is absolutely true."
Mikeb, do you learn something about Jadegold from this?
FJ:
ReplyDeleteI know you misrepresent Richard Feldman. How do I know?
Here's an op/ed:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/14/AR2007121401328.html
Key graf: "During my tenure at the NRA, the theme was "We're not in the business of fundraising; we fundraise to stay in business." The "business" of the NRA then was defending the Second Amendment rights of a considerable number of Americans (if pollsters are correct that guns are kept in almost one of every two American homes). But today, the association's primary business is fundraising. And nothing keeps the fundraising machine whirring more effectively than convincing the faithful that they're a pro-gun David facing down an invincible anti-gun Goliath."
Let's see--Feldman says the NRA incites its followers by claiming gunloons are going to have all their guns taken away, etc.
BTW, here's an excerpt from his book:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=16324652
As you can read, Feldman notes the membership are largely outsiders to the NRA's inner circle.
FJ writes that Feldman is opposed to the NRA. Yet, Feldman admits he's an endowment member of the NRA here:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-feldman/the-nras-double-standard_b_133136.html
Feldman writes that he agrees with the NRA "most of the time."
So, what have we learned about FJ's veracity?
--JadeGold
WRT thew "some 90 percent of the guns seized from operations against organized crime in Mexico come from the United States" claim, this is a pretty typical NRA talking point tactic.
ReplyDeleteWhen the NRA runs up against some fact that is embarrasing to them, they seek to rephrase the fact so they can declare it false or bogus.
Let's look at this.
Here is the quote from Wm. Newell of the ATF on 24 Mar 09: "In fact, 90 percent of the firearms recovered in Mexico, and which are then successfully traced, were determined to have originated from various sources within the continental U.S."
Maxim Lott (son of Mary Rosh/John Lott) wrote an article for Fox that disputed this by stating about a third of guns found at Mexican crime scenes are traced by the ATF. And that many guns can't be traced. Lott then goes on to say the actual number of US guns is closer to 17%.
First, nothing in Lott's argument refutes what Newell stated. Newell stated that of those guns that were successfully traced--90% came from US sources.
Second, Lott's 17% figure assumes that all the guns that weren't traced come from non-US sources. That's a whopper of an assumption. After all, it would be just as easy (and equally a whopper) to assume all the guns that weren't traced were also from US sources.
In short, the NRA attempts to debunk this entirely accurate statement by claiming they have some secret insight into the the source of weapons which they acknowledge haven't been traced.
--JadeGold
What JadeGold posted about Richard Feldman SUPPORTS what I wrote about Feldman:
ReplyDeleteThe "business" of the NRA then was defending the Second Amendment rights of a considerable number of Americans. But today, the association's primary business is fundraising.
1) NEITHER is representing the gun industry -- as I wrote about JadeGold's bogus claim.
2)Feldman ATTACKS the NRA -- as I wrote. JadeGold also quotes several other ways in which Feldman slams the NRA -- irrelevancies to this dicussion except that they support my claim that Feldman is a strong NRA critic.
JadeGold: Feldman writes that he agrees with the NRA "most of the time."
More of that quote: "Most of the time I agree with NRA's stand supporting the rights of gun owners"
So the NRA supports the rights of gun owners, not gun makers -- as I wrote.
And I never said that Feldman was not a supporter of gun rights. As a gun rights supporter, he has extra credibility when he attacks the NRA. And as a critic of the NRA he has extra credibility when he writes in his book that it's the NRA that bosses the gun makers around -- and made the gun industry back off when they tried to compromise with gun control advocates.
That it's the NRA that bosses the gun makers around is the point of this subject, remember?
Mikeb,
ReplyDelete"Some 90 percent of the guns seized from operations against organized crime in Mexico come from the United States."
I beleve that this subject was much discusssed on this blog, mostly before my time here. I get the impression that you have noticed many gun control advocates and much of the media back away from or "re-word" that claim.
Yet Jadegold writes, with passion and certitude: "This statement is absolutely true." Mikeb, what do you think of that?
mike w. @ 5:34 AM
ReplyDeleteWhich comment, bonehead?
FishyJay asked, "Yet Jadegold writes, with passion and certitude: "This statement is absolutely true." Mikeb, what do you think of that?"
ReplyDeleteI think JadeGold is great. So far around here he's been pretty respectful and very informative. He's kept the focus on the discussion and added a lot to it.
As you said, even you weren't here for our discussions about this and JadeGold joined us more recently. I don't know what he thought of the whole "90% Mexican gun" thing when it started.
My own opinion was that it was a purposeful attempt to spin the reports, I think in the very beginning they used to omit the part about "of the guns traced." After a tremendous and rightful uproar from the gun crowd, the reports started to include that qualifying phrase every time. JadeGold is right, stated this way, it's true.
As usual MikeB allows straight-up namecalling as long as its one of his anti-gun buddies doing it.
ReplyDeleteAnd Democommie - Bonehead? really? How old are you? 5? You may as well call me a "poopyhead" as that's about on par with your level of discourse.
Mike W., You know very well it's not true.
ReplyDelete"As usual MikeB allows straight-up namecalling as long as its one of his anti-gun buddies doing it."
I give all commenters as much tolerance as possible. You've had more than your share. You ignored my frequent overtures to tone down the nastiness and name calling and personal attacking. So, you get no more leeway. You've got some nerve to complain about a couple remarks by democommie after what you've dished out.
Mikeb: I think JadeGold is great.
ReplyDeleteI welcome the addition of someone else to debate too, despite his habit of attacking me for things I never said. It's easy for me to point that out and it provides me with opportunities to make more points.
Mikeb: My own opinion was that it was a purposeful attempt to spin the reports, I think in the very beginning they used to omit the part about "of the guns traced." After a tremendous and rightful uproar from the gun crowd, the reports started to include that qualifying phrase every time. JadeGold is right, stated this way, it's true.
Except that the WaPo is STILL omitting the part about "of the guns traced," and JadeGold is proclaiming that bogus version to be "absolutely true" with passion and certitude.
Sorry, Mikeb, but IMO you evaded my question.
Really MikeB? I'm damn sure I've never called you a "twit" "loudmouthed asshole" or "bonehead."
ReplyDeleteThose are personal attacks that your esteemed friend Democommie has used against me when he can't be an adult and have a rational discussion (which apparently is most of the time.)
Would you allow me to call you or your commenters such things? I suspect not, but you allow your fellow anti-gunner to do so in violation of your commenting policy.
You ignored my frequent overtures to tone down the nastiness and name calling and personal attacking.
ReplyDeleteUsing an analogy you don't like might hurt your feelings but it's not a personal attack.
Can I call you a twit, bonehead, or loudmouthed asshole? You allow such comments so I assume that means such overt name-calling is acceptable?
Mike W., You know very well it's not true.
ReplyDeleteBTW Mike how is what I said "not true."
Demo's comments are in fact "straight-up namecalling."
Do you dispute this?
Mike W., you said, "As usual MikeB allows straight-up name calling as long as its one of his anti-gun buddies doing it."
ReplyDeleteI said that's not true, referring to your false claim that I delete your comments and post his based on who agrees with me. That's bullshit and you know it.
But in your contentious way, you now challenge me about whether it's true or not that someone else did "straight-up name-calling." I wasn't denying that which you also knew. You are Mr. Contentious, my friend.
I wish you a happy New Year and all the best in 2010.
nice post. thanks.
ReplyDelete