Straw Purchasers Arrested in Colorado

Reuters reports on the arrest of two men accused of trafficking weapons from Colorado to California.

(The ATF) today announced the culmination of a six-month investigation that resulted in the arrest of two "straw purchasers," individuals who falsified information and purchased at least 37 firearms that were subsequently delivered to felons in Colorado Springs and Northern California. To date, 12 of the 37 firearms have been recovered in criminal investigations throughout the San Francisco Bay area.

This story seems to be a classic example of how States with more lax gun laws feed the States with stricter ones. I wrote about this about one year ago, it's in the 5th paragraph. In that case it was Nevada, but the mechanism is the same and it's repeated continually.

"Straw purchasers are responsible for illegal diversion of guns. Many of these firearms ended up in the hands of criminals and used in violent crimes," said ATF's Acting Special Agent in Charge Michael Gleysteen. "We must stop the flow of guns from legal commerce to the criminals."

Gleysteen praised his law enforcement partners and thanked the United States Attorney's Offices for their support throughout the investigation.

"No matter where one might fall in the debate over gun control, there is little dispute that firearms must not end up in the hands of convicted felons," said United States Attorney Lawrence Brown.

No one denies that, but the dispute comes in when trying to accomplish it inconveniences gun owners. They immediately start talking about "infringement" and "gun bans," when actually we're not talking about those things at all.

Simple record keeping and registration policies could solve this problem in a jiffy. What could be easier than identifying the buyers of multiple weapons and investigating them? Nothing could be easier than that except for all the interference on the part of the gun owners and their organization the NRA.

We're not talking about banning anything. And we're certainly not talking about denying anyone their rights. But that's how the gun enthusiasts insist on describing this discussion. We're talking about minimal inconvenience, that's all. But most of the gun owners who comment around here wouldn't even consider of it.

This is another example of why I blame them for the problem.

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.

The Picture of Lance Cpl. Joshua Bernard, USMC

Yahoo News reports on the controversy over the publication of the picture of a mortally wounded marine in Afghanistan.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates expressed disappointment Friday at news outlets that used a picture taken and distributed by The Associated Press depicting a U.S. Marine mortally wounded in combat in Afghanistan.

The AP distributed the picture despite personal pleas from Gates and the dead Marine's family in a case that illustrated the difficult decisions in reporting on a conflict where Americans have seen relatively few images of fallen U.S. troops over eight years.

The picture, by AP photographer Julie Jacobson, showed Lance Cpl. Joshua "Bernie" Bernard, 21, lying on the ground with severe leg injuries after being struck by a grenade in an ambush on Aug. 14, his fellow Marines tending to him. Bernard later died of his wounds.

Secretary Gates seems to be saying the same thing as the family, basically that it's a question of "judgment and common decency" not to use the photo. I'm a little suspicious of that. What do you think? Isn't it more likely that the government has an interest in keeping the war sanitized in order to continue getting away with it? Remember all that business a year or two ago about the returning coffins never being allowed in TV?

John Daniszewski, AP senior managing editor, said he respected Gates' view but that sometimes the government and press have different perspectives.

"We thought that the image told a story of sacrifice; it told a story of bravery," Daniszewski said. "We felt that the picture told a story that people needed to see and be aware of."

That sounds about right to me, what do you think?

Gates wrote that use of the photo of a wounded Bernard would mark an "unconscionable departure" from the restraint that most journalists have shown in covering the military since the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. The AP did not change its decision.

"Why your organization would purposely defy the family's wishes knowing full well that it will lead to yet more anguish is beyond me," Gates wrote. "Your lack of compassion and common sense in choosing to put this image of their maimed and stricken child on the front page of multiple newspapers is appalling."

I don't believe that for a second. I don't believe publishing the picture could increase the anguish of the family. Even if they themselves request privacy and to be left alone, I'm wondering what could possibly increase the suffering of losing a 21-year-old child? Compared to the loss itself, the treatment in the media would be inconsequential.

Yet Secretary Gates is pushing this as the reason. I don't buy it.

I say it's a mistake for us to be there in the first place and the suppression of photos like this has played a part in the continuance of it.

The controversy over the picture is very real however.

The AP had received dozens of e-mails and phone calls about its decision by mid-Friday, many of them critical, Colford said. It was a topic on Twitter, with one tweet saying: "as the wife of a retired Marine, and the mother of a soldier who is now in Afghanistan, I find the AP's `choice' to be a disgusting one."

The AP received an e-mail from some former military supporting its decision. Dan Cahalan, an Afghanistan veteran, wrote that "this is one of the realest accounts from a journalist I have ever read and just wanted to thank (Jacobson) for her honest reporting of the war."

Jorge Ruiz of Glendale, Ariz., said he and other ex-Marines had often talked about the sanitation of war and the social implications of a lack of images showing what war is really like.

"Death and the ugliness of war is not something we look forward to but a necessity to put the war in its proper context," said Ruiz, who also wrote the AP. "A picture is worth a thousand words. I applaud your courage to distribute the photo and the story of the death of Lance Cpl. Bernard."

What's your opinion? Is it right or wrong to publish graphic pictures of the war? Should the family's opinion be respected? Why couldn't they simply publish other photos about which the families don't object?

Do you believe the government has had an agenda to keep the war out of the living rooms of America in order to maintain whatever public approval they could?

Please leave a comment.

Tamara K. on Dr. Wintemute

On Tamara K.'s fascinating pro-gun blog called View From the Porch, today we find a post called Instant Expert: Just Add Sheepskin. The entire thing is dedicated to ridiculing Professor Garen Wintemute, MD, MPH, of the University of California, Davis.

This is what makes the latest study from Professor Wintemute, MD, MPH, especially hilarious: It seems that it consists of going "undercover" to gun shows and taking note of anything that "looks illegal". I'm sure it will be as packed with factual knowledge and sound research as his last effort.

Doc Wintemute has inspired me, however. I'm going to do a study on improper surgical procedures in the operating theaters of America. I'm just going to grab a mask and gown and go hang out in OR's, and note when stuff just looks wrong to me.

In her trademark condescending tone, Tamara mocks Prof. Wintemute as one who is unqualified to speak about gun violence. On the contrary, Dr. Wintemute is the Director of the UC Davis Violence Prevention Research Program, and as such is one of the most qualified to speak about this.

The treatment is similar for Dr. David Hemenway and Dennis A. Henigan and of course the biggest target of all is Paul Helmke.

Why do pro-gun folks resist these intelligent and highly educated men so aggressively? Why is it necessary to attack them on their expertise as well as their veracity? What's wrong with simply discussing the issues? I'll tell you what I think.

I think what explains the incredibly nasty attitude on the part of so many pro-gun writers is that they realize they're wrong. They realize that anyone who refuses to join in a common effort to find a way to diminish gun violence is in the wrong. Well, why would they do it then? Out of fear. Out of fear and insecurity.

What's your opinion? Do you have any other explanation for the behavior and rhetoric of the gun enthusiasts? Do you think they are representative of the whole, or are they just a very vocal minority? We've had a number of gun owners around here who do not fit this weird stereotype, Don and Zirgar, to name just two.

Please feel free to leave a comment.

Hero of the Day - Kaleb Eulls

CNN reports on the heart-warming story of a humble young hero.



My question is what is so wrong in Georgia that a 14-year-old girl not only has a gun in her possession but threatens other kids with it on the school bus.

What's your opinion? Do you think this has nothing at all to do with the lax gun laws in that state and the general attitude towards guns there? Do you see no connection between the lawful gun owners who fight so hard to keep things the way they are and situations like this?

Please tell us what you think.

Georgia Pastor Shot and Killed in Drug Sting

Thanks to our friend and frequent commenter PhuckPolitics, I had a chance to read this story on the wyff4.com site.

A pastor was shot and killed following a drug sting in Stephens County, Ga., on Tuesday, and the officers involved and friends of the pastor are giving different versions of what led up to the shooting.

The Stephens County coroner confirmed that 28-year-old Jonathan Ayers was pronounced dead at Stephens County Hospital on Tuesday.Ayers, a father-to-be, was the pastor of the Shoal Creek Baptist Church. He maintained a personal blog linked off the church's Web page, jonathanayers.blogspot.com.

Here's the official version of events:

Sheriff Randy Shirley said that officers had been involved in an undercover drug sting at an unnamed establishment in Toccoa. He said the target of the sting was a passenger in Ayers' car. Shirley said Ayers dropped the woman off and went to the Shell station. He said the officers followed Ayers there.

Shirley said, outside the Shell station, the plain-clothes officers identified themselves with a badge. The officers said that Ayers put his car in reverse and struck an agent. They said they opened fire on Ayers when he drove toward the second officer. Two shots were fired in the car, one hit Ayers. The officers said Ayers sped away and crashed about a half mile from the Shell station. They said they found him conscious and alert, but he died a short time later.

Here's another take on it, from one of many e-mails received by WYFF News:

Jonathon Ayers was shot and killed by a Toccoa police officer. Ayers was at a walk-up ATM machine to get money to have tires put on his wife's car. After getting his money, he saw men running at him. Thinking he was to be robbed, he ran for his car. He was shot through the door and the bullet went through his lung and liver. He eventually wrecked his car and was taken to Stephens County Hospital. The bleeding of his liver could not be stopped and Ayers died in surgery.

Guess which one I believe? Am I always against the cops, no, no more than I'm always for the criminals. But when policemen shoot innocent men, I'm very suspicious.

Isn't it interesting that the old police trick of shooting bullets at an approaching car comes up again in this case? I suppose that's become one of the things they say when the real story is too shady.

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.

Where Are All the DGUs

We often discuss the question of which type of gun incident is more common, the DGU (defensive gun use) or the incidents of gun violence. Here's one recent example.

Suddenly I realized that not once over the last year or so has a commenter reported a personal experience of this kind or one that happened to a close friend or family member. That's odd because such a story would directly rebut many of my remarks about DGUs, basically that they're not all that common.

Even the most reasonable pro-gun commenters say there are hundreds of thousands per year. The more passionate stick with Kleck's reported 2.5 million. The gun control side says there may be as few as 80,000.

But my question is, why from the 10 or 20 most prolific commenters who have visited here over the last year, and from their 10 or 20 closest family members and friends who own guns, has there not been one incident of a DGU reported?

Any ideas?

Bullets in Demand

It's certainly not news that ammunition is in demand, but the boston.com site ran a story with some interesting facts and figures.

Stacks of ammo, once piled high at gun shops across America, have dwindled. Prices paid by consumers for much sought-after Winchester .380-caliber handgun bullets (a common name for cartridges) have doubled. At weekend gun shows, trailers loaded with boxes of ammunition are drained within hours.

Budget-pressed police departments, which can’t be caught short, have increased their orders just to be safe, and the US military, fighting two wars, has seen its need for bullets quadruple in recent years.

Industry officials say the appetite for ammo in the United States is unprecedented.

The major ammo suppliers are working around the clock, seven days a week in an attempt to keep up with demand. There will be about 2 billion more American-made bullets produced this year over last year’s 7.5 billion.

US military demand for small arms ammunition has almost quadrupled this decade, increasing from 462 million to 1.6 billion rounds. The order used to be filled exclusively by the military-owned Lake City Army Ammunition Plant in Independence, Mo. But as consumption grew, the military turned to private contractors to fill demand.

That would mean that out of the 9.5 billion bullets produced this year, the military will take a billion-and-a-half. I guess the police departments are good for a billion or so, which would leave 7 billion rounds of ammunition for the average joe.

And they say it's not enough.

What's your opinion? What's really going on here? Remember we're talking about "per year" with these incredible numbers. When next year rolls around there's another 7 billion bullets distributed among the gun owners, less the ones they used this year, of course. Do you think this means that each year the stockpiles of ammunition in private hands increase? Is that a good thing? What are the ramifications of it?

Please leave a comment.