Scott Moss, as a third-generation gun store owner, feels he has his finger on the pulse of the nation. According to Scott, gun sales are skyrocketing because, "people are scared." Do you agree with that? Are the customers in your local gun store lined up three deep at the counter? Or, are these guys exaggerating?
If they're exaggerating, which I feel is a pretty good bet, the question is "why." Would that be to entertain the listeners, or something more like the fear-mongering of recent history? What's your opinion on that?
What do you make of Glenn's story about his daughters? "They both cried," after the shooting lesson. I read elsewhere, since I'd never seen or heard of this Glenn Beck before, that his eldest daughter has cerebral palsy. I wondered if it might have been a bit much to "teach" two girls to shoot when one is severely handicapped and the other is just 17. What do you think? Frankly, to me this guy seems like a bit of a bully. Anybody else see him that way?
Friday, March 13, 2009
Air Soft Guns
Here's an interesting discussion I found about air soft guns. Isn't what Paul Helmke says reasonable? The Brady Campaign does not want to take guns away from people; they're not against the 2nd Amendment. He says common sense dictates that more regulations on toy guns than real ones is absurd.
What's your opinion?
What's your opinion?
Youth Crime Gun Interdiction Initiative (YCGII)
During the Clinton Administration there was an attempt to address the gun violence in American Cities. It started as a pilot program in Boston but was so successful that it was expanded to 50 other cities nation wide. The ATF was able to trace the history of a certain percentage of crime guns. This obviously provided invaluable information for investigators, especially those interested in identifying "bad apple" gun dealers.
This program was called the Youth Crime Gun Interdiction Initiative (YCGII). Like many another useful program, it reached its peak as Bush took office and thereafter fell by the wayside.
My question is why would anyone object to something like this? Are the legitimate gun owners so afraid that their precious weapons will eventually be taken from them that they oppose even sensible programs like this?
The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2004, which The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence fought against, contained a provision requiring the destruction of certain NICS records within 24 hours. This, according to the Bradys, "would result in more criminals, terrorists, and other prohibited purchasers with guns and would undermine public safety." You know how they like to tack special provisions on to large bills and sort-of slip them in.
From the Brady site:
The owner of Bull's Eye, Brian Borgelt lost his FFL (Federal Firearms License), so what did he do? He transferred ownership to his friend and continued to run the place. Does anyone feel he's not partly responsible for the shooting spree? Is there anyone who is so focused on the individual responsibility of the two convicted shooters that they deny the guilt of Borgelt? For me it's a no-brainer. Brian Borgelt is probably a criminal of the first order who sells guns under the table. Either that or he's one of the stupidest businessmen around. He claimed these guns were stolen from his inventory.
After years of legal battles, he agreed to an out-of-court US$2.5 million settlement which would presumably go to the relatives of the dead victims.
This is why I blame gun owners: for opposing programs like the Youth Crime Gun Interdiction Initiative (YCGII), for blocking every effort at closing the so-called gun show loophole, for claiming to have Divine permission and calling it the 2nd Amendment, for turning a blind eye on gun dealers like Borgelt, for insisting that more guns is the solution and not the problem, for continuing to say gun availability has nothing to do with it, and most of all, for questioning my sincerity when I say these things and for relegating me to the ranks of the ignorant or the mendacious.
All comments are welcome.
This program was called the Youth Crime Gun Interdiction Initiative (YCGII). Like many another useful program, it reached its peak as Bush took office and thereafter fell by the wayside.
My question is why would anyone object to something like this? Are the legitimate gun owners so afraid that their precious weapons will eventually be taken from them that they oppose even sensible programs like this?
The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2004, which The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence fought against, contained a provision requiring the destruction of certain NICS records within 24 hours. This, according to the Bradys, "would result in more criminals, terrorists, and other prohibited purchasers with guns and would undermine public safety." You know how they like to tack special provisions on to large bills and sort-of slip them in.
From the Brady site:
The snipers who terrorized Maryland, Virginia, and Washington, D.C. obtained the assault rifle used in their sniper attacks from a Tacoma, Washington gun store called Bull's Eye Shooter Supply. After the sniper suspects were apprehended and the gun was recovered and traced, Bull's Eye claimed to have no record of selling the gun, and did not even know it was missing until the shooting spree was over. The snipers' gun was just one of more than 238 firearms "missing" from Bull's Eye's inventory during the previous three years.
The owner of Bull's Eye, Brian Borgelt lost his FFL (Federal Firearms License), so what did he do? He transferred ownership to his friend and continued to run the place. Does anyone feel he's not partly responsible for the shooting spree? Is there anyone who is so focused on the individual responsibility of the two convicted shooters that they deny the guilt of Borgelt? For me it's a no-brainer. Brian Borgelt is probably a criminal of the first order who sells guns under the table. Either that or he's one of the stupidest businessmen around. He claimed these guns were stolen from his inventory.
After years of legal battles, he agreed to an out-of-court US$2.5 million settlement which would presumably go to the relatives of the dead victims.
This is why I blame gun owners: for opposing programs like the Youth Crime Gun Interdiction Initiative (YCGII), for blocking every effort at closing the so-called gun show loophole, for claiming to have Divine permission and calling it the 2nd Amendment, for turning a blind eye on gun dealers like Borgelt, for insisting that more guns is the solution and not the problem, for continuing to say gun availability has nothing to do with it, and most of all, for questioning my sincerity when I say these things and for relegating me to the ranks of the ignorant or the mendacious.
All comments are welcome.
Anna Nicole Smith
The Miami Herald reports on the indictment of the companion and doctor of the late Anna Nicole Smith.
What I find interesting in this story is the question of personal responsibility. If she was an adult person, who took drugs willingly, and that caused her death, how can the boyfriend and the doctors be held responsible? I realize they're not being charged with murder or even manslaughter, but I take that to be only a technicality. The charges of fraudulent prescriptions are probably the best the government can do in a case where these people are being blamed for her death. Do you agree with that analysis?
It sounds to me like they were lucky to be cleared of more serious criminal charges at the time of her death. What's your opinion? Is Anna Nicole Smith an example of a person with diminished capacity? Was her tremendous pill addiction such that she was no longer fully responsible for her actions, in this case, actions which resulted in her own death? Would that cast some of the burden on those around her? I say yes.
Please feel free to leave a comment.
Anna Nicole Smith's boyfriend Howard K. Stern and two doctors were charged Thursday with giving thousands of prescription drugs to the former Playboy Playmate in the years leading up to her fatal drug overdose in 2007.Everyone probably remembers who Anna Nicole is from the time of her headline-grabbing inheritance case after the death of her billionaire husband, J. Howard Marshall. Just in case, you can find all those gory details as well as those of her titillating modelling career on Wikipedia.Stern and doctors Sandeep Kapoor and Khristine Eroshevich were each charged with three felony counts of conspiracy and several other charges of fraudulent prescriptions. Prosecutors said the doctors gave the drugs - including opiates and sedatives - to Stern, who then gave them to Smith.
The prescriptions were issued between June 2004 and January 2007, just weeks before Smith's death.
What I find interesting in this story is the question of personal responsibility. If she was an adult person, who took drugs willingly, and that caused her death, how can the boyfriend and the doctors be held responsible? I realize they're not being charged with murder or even manslaughter, but I take that to be only a technicality. The charges of fraudulent prescriptions are probably the best the government can do in a case where these people are being blamed for her death. Do you agree with that analysis?
Documents obtained by The Associated Press after Smith's death showed Eroshevich authorized all 11 prescription medications found in the model's hotel room the day she died. Most of the drugs were prescribed in the name of Stern, her lawyer-turned-companion, and none were prescribed in Smith's own name.
The quantity was staggering. More than 600 pills - including about 450 muscle relaxants - were missing from prescriptions that were no more than five weeks old. Ultimately, it was a syrup - the powerful sleeping aid chloral hydrate - blamed with tipping the balance in the toxic mix of drugs and causing her death.
It sounds to me like they were lucky to be cleared of more serious criminal charges at the time of her death. What's your opinion? Is Anna Nicole Smith an example of a person with diminished capacity? Was her tremendous pill addiction such that she was no longer fully responsible for her actions, in this case, actions which resulted in her own death? Would that cast some of the burden on those around her? I say yes.
Please feel free to leave a comment.
Thursday, March 12, 2009
R. Gil Kerlikowske, New Drug Czar
The Washington Post reports on the appointment of the new Drug Czar. Seattle Police Chief R. Gil Kerlikowske will head the Office of National Drug Control Policy. In a clear departure from the Bush Administration's approach, treatment instead of incarceration will be part of the new plan.
Chief Kerlikowske said "it's an incredibly complex problem." Formerly the focus was on cutting the supply of illicit drugs from foreign countries; now it will be on curbing drug use in communities across the United States.
What about the question of personal responsibility? Isn't a lot of this policy based upon the idea that drug addicts are less culpable for their actions simply because they're addicted? Is that a problem? Does it undermine the foundation of holding people to a standard of personal behaviour? If the addict gets a break, say treatment instead of prison, does that somehow harm the non-addicted offender who has to do jail time? Is that what the responsibility demanders are upset about, that it's not fair?
What's your opinion?
Chief Kerlikowske said "it's an incredibly complex problem." Formerly the focus was on cutting the supply of illicit drugs from foreign countries; now it will be on curbing drug use in communities across the United States.
"The success of our efforts to reduce the flow of drugs is largely dependent on our ability to reduce demand for them," Kerlikowske said yesterday at a ceremony attended by his former law enforcement colleagues. "Our nation's drug problem is one of human suffering, and as a police officer but also in my own family, I have experienced the effects that drugs can have."During the campaign, President Obama promised to offer first-time, non-violent offenders a chance to serve their sentences in a drug rehabilitation center rather than in prison. With this initiative, the administration will be embracing an idea that has broad support in theory but has yet to be widely practiced. What do you think? Is this part of the solution? Certainly this would ease the prison overpopulation problem, but would it produce better results with regards to reducing the demand for drugs in America?
Kerlikowske's adult stepson, Jeffrey, has been arrested in the past on drug charges, an issue that the police chief referenced in his remarks yesterday.
What about the question of personal responsibility? Isn't a lot of this policy based upon the idea that drug addicts are less culpable for their actions simply because they're addicted? Is that a problem? Does it undermine the foundation of holding people to a standard of personal behaviour? If the addict gets a break, say treatment instead of prison, does that somehow harm the non-addicted offender who has to do jail time? Is that what the responsibility demanders are upset about, that it's not fair?
What's your opinion?
Got to. This America, Man
Thanks to Kottke and John Cole.
Suspect: I’m sayin’, every Friday night in an alley behind the Cut Rate, we rollin’ bones, you know? I mean all them boys, we roll til late.
McNulty: Alley crap game, right?
Suspect: Like every time, Snot, he’d fade a few shooters, play it out til the pot’s deep. Snatch and run.
McNulty: What, every time?
Suspect: Couldn’t help hisself.
McNulty: Let me understand you. Every Friday night, you and your boys are shootin’ craps, right? And every Friday night, your pal Snot Boogie… he’d wait til there’s cash on the ground and he’d grab it and run away? You let him do that?
Suspect: We’d catch him and beat his ass but ain’t nobody never go past that.
McNulty: I gotta ask you: if every time Snot Boogie would grab the money and run away… why’d you even let him in the game?
Suspect: What?
McNulty: Well, if Snot Boogie always stole the money, why’d you let him play?
Suspect: Got to. This America, man.
Suspect: I’m sayin’, every Friday night in an alley behind the Cut Rate, we rollin’ bones, you know? I mean all them boys, we roll til late.
McNulty: Alley crap game, right?
Suspect: Like every time, Snot, he’d fade a few shooters, play it out til the pot’s deep. Snatch and run.
McNulty: What, every time?
Suspect: Couldn’t help hisself.
McNulty: Let me understand you. Every Friday night, you and your boys are shootin’ craps, right? And every Friday night, your pal Snot Boogie… he’d wait til there’s cash on the ground and he’d grab it and run away? You let him do that?
Suspect: We’d catch him and beat his ass but ain’t nobody never go past that.
McNulty: I gotta ask you: if every time Snot Boogie would grab the money and run away… why’d you even let him in the game?
Suspect: What?
McNulty: Well, if Snot Boogie always stole the money, why’d you let him play?
Suspect: Got to. This America, man.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)