Monday, May 23, 2011

Attempted Murder, Murder and Suicide in Illinois

The Quad-City Times reports all the gory details. But basically it's the same old story: abusive boyfriend, restraining order, he comes back with a gun.

The sister of the shooting victim wants to know one thing:

"How did a homeless man living in a laundromat get a gun?"
Now, that's a good question. The answer's simple though. Thanks to the gun-rights movement anyone can get a gun. The NRA and the gun lobby have worked hard and invested lots of money to ensure that anyone who wants a gun can get one. Of course they're talking about law-abiding folks, they certainly don't condone arming criminals. But, the easy access that criminals and mentally ill abusive boyfriends have goes hand-in-hand with the gun rights of the law-abiding.

It's called gun flow. Guns flow from the legitimate gun owning world into the criminal world like the mighty Mississippi.

For this reason gun control necessarily focuses on the law abiding. We hope that enough gun owners and even gun-rights activists are not of the fanatical kind and will eventually prevail along with their gun-control counterparts to improve the gun laws in the United States.

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.

14 comments:

  1. When some angry homeless Eff-tard gets a gun and gets angry he need to be taught to put the loaded gun in his mouth all the way to the gag reflex and pull the trigger, and how about allowing some poor woman to actually concealed carry in Illinois maybe she could have defended herself or at least got off a few shots and maybe stopped this mental jackhole from trying to harm someone else.....

    ReplyDelete
  2. Anonymous, you espouse views which reflect far more unfavorably on you as a human being than anything they say about other human being about whom you are writing.

    NO ONE should ever be taught to put a gun in their mouth and pull the trigger. What you have written only diminishes the viewpoint you espouse, not supports it.

    ReplyDelete
  3. MikeB: “But, the easy access that criminals and mentally ill abusive boyfriends have goes hand-in-hand with the gun rights of the law-abiding.”

    So specifically, you have to abuse the rights of the law-abiding to get at the criminals. I like the honesty here. Most gun control advocates say they can do it without affecting the rights of the law-abiding (that they don’t go hand in hand).

    ReplyDelete
  4. TS: "you have to abuse the rights of the law-abiding to get at the criminals."

    No. not at all. We need to INCONVENIENCE the law-abiding, we need to elicit their cooperation, we need to work together. Being such patriots and so righteous in their actions, this should be a small obstacle to surmount.

    ReplyDelete
  5. dog gone said...

    NO ONE should ever be taught to put a gun in their mouth and pull the trigger. What you have written only diminishes the viewpoint you espouse, not supports it.


    No what we should have done is pushed abortion/sterilization and on this mental giant before he could have procreated, sadly his mother could not be forced sterilized was born.... that would have solve all of these problems, right Doggone

    ReplyDelete
  6. Won't inconveniencing the law abiding just inconvenience the criminals- since they go hand in hand and all? Besides, many of your proposals involve incarcerating gun owners or ends up being complete prohibition for some people. Hardly an inconvenience.

    ReplyDelete
  7. "...we need to elicit their cooperation, we need to work together..."

    Thing is, working together implies some form of agreements that would inevitably include compromising.

    When reasonable compromises were suggested previously, you rejected any chance of compromise, stating that your law requirements were "about what's right and what's proper".

    Brushing aside the quite undisputable fact that said claim is rubbish, why should the law-abiding work with you if you're not willing to give as well as get?

    ReplyDelete
  8. No Guy, coming to agreement on something and finding the common ground has nothing to do with compromise. Working together and cooperating have nothing to do with compromise.

    Most gun owners agree with the need to have background checks on gun sales. Only you extremists are standing in the way of that becoming the law of the land. And shame on you because it would save lives. The cost to you: a little inconvenience, if that.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Without a clue MikeybMay 25, 2011 at 2:48 PM

    Most gun owners agree with the need to have background checks on gun sales. Only you extremists are standing in the way of that becoming the law of the land. And shame on you because it would save lives. The cost to you: a little inconvenience, if that.


    Background checks are the law of the land Mikey it is called NICS.

    http://www.nraila.org/Issues/factsheets/read.aspx?ID=82

    ReplyDelete
  10. "Without a clue", YOU really ARE the one who is clueless!

    Yes NCIS is the law of the land, but participation in it by each state is OPTIONAL, dummy. And 30 states haven't participated at all, they have supplied ZERO names, so any criminal, drug addict, illegal immigrant, or dangerously crazy person from any of those states can buy a gun because the NCIS check won't show their name.

    That is 30 our of 50 states and DC.
    Of the 20 that do participate, only a few have been current in any way with supplying names, and do not fund their participation to the NCIS data base.

    Therefore, the NCIS data base check doesn't protect anyone from those people buying guns. MikeB is correct, NOT YOU. Until we make particpation mandatory in the NCIS it is nothing more than a sham which fools like you hide behind, thinking we have regulation when we don't.

    That is the premise for http://www.fixgunchecks.org/

    You can see a comparison, by state here - this is just a graph of the states for reporting mentally ill people, not the other categories

    http://penigma.blogspot.com/2011/01/bangs-and-bucks.html

    If you read here long enough, you will also be better educated on how many gun shows have accidental shootings. The idea that gun show sold guns aren't used in criminal shootings, like domestic violence, thefts, rapes, etc. is also a myth.

    Smarten up Clueless, and get your facts straight.

    Or we can do that for you here for you if you have the guts to stick around. You need to improve your manners along with your grasp of facts though.

    ReplyDelete
  11. MAIG, that's your source, god get a life they have the worst agenda, you do realize that when they say that states do not participate in the program that means that the mentioned state uses it's own NICS, collation of data is from state records done by the BATF.... to prevent the duplication of effort and compiling of false records.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I would add one thing to what Dog Gone said. The background check is useless if private sellers can operate without it. So, not only is the data base for shit, you don't even have to go through it the way things are now.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Back ground checks are really more PR and perception then substance. Always have been. They really do little if anything from stopping people from owning guns.

    "Yes NCIS is the law of the land, but participation in it by each state is OPTIONAL, dummy."

    gog gone, actually that's not the case. Background checks are required for EVERY sale of a new gun though an FFL. Period.

    Secondary market with used guns is only regulated in 7 states. People freely trade, give away, pass down generation to generation and sell firearms person to person in the majority of states. They are called 'private party transfers' as in private property between private people.

    But if we must have background checks, there is an easy fix that gun proponents have suggested that is always rejected by proponents of gun control.

    2 Things.
    1) Simply open up the NCIS so that conscientious buyers can make a simple phone call to check eligibility whenever they sell a firearm. The Brady Campaign is against this idea and ought to change their stance. Their solution of going to a FFL for every transaction wouldn't have passed the last Congress, let alone the current one.

    2) Have Congress offer a tax incentive for people to use their time, energy, and money to do the right thing. Taking time off from work to drive to a FFL just to go through paperwork is a hassle, burdensome, and considered by many a waste of time. Offer a $100 deduction for each transaction and you'll find plenty of people more likely to use the NCIS. Promoting behavior is always better than punitive restrictions.

    Even in CA where every transaction has a mandatory background check required, people rarely comply with the law. In many areas gun shops have closed or been driven out by local ordinances. People do not comply with perceived silly laws especially when it may mean a 1 hour drive just to satisfy paperwork.

    If you want people to follow laws, they must be convenient, inexpensive, and without hassle. Othewise, you're just passing another law for perception and PR. One nobody will comply with.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Anonymous said, "If you want people to follow laws, they must be convenient, inexpensive, and without hassle. Othewise, you're just passing another law for perception and PR. One nobody will comply with."

    That sounds like a good obversation, but let's think about it. Aren't gun owners already complying with many laws they don't agree with or like? The reason for that is not that those laws are "convenient, inexpensive, and without hassle," it's because the downside is too steep. Serious people who want to own guns for serious reasons, like protecting their family, are not going to risk their right to do so by refusing to obey laws that are inconvenient.

    ReplyDelete