Friday, March 13, 2009

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 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.

25 comments:

  1. "for opposing programs like the Youth Crime Gun Interdiction Initiative (YCGII), for blocking every effort at closing the so-called gun show loophole."

    The gun show loophole is a farce Mike. It doesn't exist. What they mean when they say "close the gun show loophole" is that they want to ban all private sales. Not going to happen.

    You know why we opposed the youth gun initiative? Because the gov. has no business keeping records of firearms purchases. The ATF can and does trace guns used in crimes WITHOUT gun registration records.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Mike,

    If there was a federal program that only initiated action in less then 1% of all the cases, would you continue to support it?

    The YCGII had over 76,000 traces, but only had 640 investigations....that is 0.8421%.

    It only referred 57 cases for STATE prosecution....hardly an overwhelming success rate, wouldn't you agree?

    All numbers are from your links. Sorry but the facts are it didn't do anything useful.

    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?

    Apparently a jury did feel that he was partly responsible and they acted.

    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:

    And this is why I blame ex-pats living in Italy for all the child porn. You choose to turn a blind eye to the problem, you continue to buy equipment that makes it possible for child porn to be produced. You resist calls to eliminate your right to free speech...that means no body can effectively act against child porn.

    You just slandered every law abiding gun owner, but won't take the same responsibility for child porn Mike.

    People like the FFL are criminals. they should be prosecuted as criminals when they are caught. But to throw everyone under the bus because of the actions of a few is INSANE.

    for questioning my sincerity when I say these things and for relegating me to the ranks of the ignorant or the mendacious.

    We don't question your sincerity for saying these things. We question your sincerity for saying these things without evidence, for saying these things without a shred of proof.

    We question your sincerity when you continue to act like a child and refuse to examine the evidence.

    We question your sincerity when you refuse to counter any of the evidence we present and dismiss it out of hand with an breezy "I don't trust statistics".

    We question your sincerity when you turn around and accept any statistics proposed by the pro-ignorance anti-freedom side with little doubt.

    We question your sincerity when you continue, day after day, to refuse to tell how we can "reduce the availability" while keeping the rights of the law abiding.

    We question your sincerity when you say you only want reasonable restrictions and then push for complete elimination of firearms...and blame us for standing in your way of accomplishing that.

    We never say that availability doesn't have anything to do with it. NEVER. What we have said is that availability isn't the controlling factor, heck isn't even a major factor. WE SHOW YOU EVIDENCE on International, National, State, City and even time based scales to PROVE that availability doesn't have anything to do with the AMOUNT OF CRIME overall.

    It is easy to say "if there were no firearms, there would be no firearm crimes." But that is like saying if the Earth didn't have any water, no body would drown.
    It is senseless to even argue that point because we have water, we have firearms and nothing can be done to get rid of them all.

    Why can't you accept that???????

    We question your sincerity when you admit no laws would stop the killings but push for more laws anyways.

    Why shouldn't we question your sincerity Mike?

    ReplyDelete
  3. I doubt the facts will matter Bob. so-called "assault weapons" are only used in a fraction of a percent of all crimes in this country and he still wants to ban them.

    ReplyDelete
  4. What I find ironic is how much MikeB parrots the anti-freedom group line without determining if it makes sense.

    I didn't find those numbers on another website, I found them in the linked document; rather prominently in the document.

    Most people would read the PDF file, see the few numbers, the relative lack of success and conclude that it failed to achieve it's mission.

    Most people, except anti-freedom people who don't want to think for themselves.

    ReplyDelete
  5. MikeB,

    Want to explain how the Brady Campaign, and you via parroting it can make this statement?

    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."

    NICS background check stops, and is proven to stop criminals, terrorists, and other prohibited purchasers from buying firearms.

    Denial
    When the NICS check returns disqualifying information on the buyer, the transfer is denied. During the first seven months of NICS operation, the FBI blocked 49,160 gun sales to disqualified persons, a denial rate of 2.13 percent. The FBI estimates that a comparable number of sales have been blocked by state POCs.

    Reasons for NICS denials during the first seven months of operation broke down as follows:

    * 76% - Criminal History for Felony
    * 8% - Criminal History for Domestic Violence
    * 6% - Criminal History for Other (Multiple DUIs, Non-NCIC Warrants, etc.)
    * 3% - Criminal History for Drug Abuse
    * 3% - Domestic Violence Restraining Order


    http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa010200b.htm

    Now, if someone lies (breaking the laws), provides false documents(breaking the law), uses a straw purchaser (breaking the law) or if the FFL proceeds with the sale in spite of the NICS check (breaking the law); what do you suggest we do?

    So, getting back to the point. How does retaining the records from the background check would result in more criminals, terrorists, and other prohibited purchasers with guns?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Wow I didn't even pick up on that little gem of idiocy from the Brady's! The retaining of records has NOTHING to do with the background checks themselves.

    The NICS is just a basic background check. Within a few minutes you are either "approved," "delayed" or "denied."

    The Brady's seem to think that requiring destruction of NICS records is going to result in more prohibited persons getting guns.

    How does the destruction of the record AFTER the purchaser has been approved,delayed, or denied have ANY impact on whether said person can get a gun?

    Surely even Mike B. can see the gaping hole in the Brady Campaign's "logic" here.

    ReplyDelete
  7. You know why we opposed the youth gun initiative? Because the gov. has no business keeping records of firearms purchases.

    And yet you'd gladly surrender the pink slip to your car...

    Morons. At least cars have a use beyond destruction. Grow the hell up and see if you can buy as pair of testicles at Wal-Mart, mmmmk, little man?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Carl, guns can be used for more than just destruction. Guns are used to fight for freedom. They are used for food. They are used for protection. That last one is a duel purpose argument. First for protection of ones self. The second is protection of ones property.

    I think I will pick the second type of protection. The protection of property. Now, you as a farmer, raise livestock. A dog, or a group of dogs trespass onto your farm, into your fields and they start killing off your crop. Your sole means of supporting yourself and family. What do you do? You cannot put out poison for the dogs. To much risk of your livestock getting into it. So you can go talk to the owners of the dogs. Well most people say, my "Fido" wouldn't do that. In which case, you continue getting damage done to your livestock. So what choice do you have? You turn to a long gun, or a handgun. You shoot the dogs in your field, preferably before they maim or kill anything else. Then you let the neighbor reclaim "Cujo", who is innocent as the virgin mary, according to the owner.

    Just remember the gun debate is not about handguns, but all guns. And just because you personally seen no need for them, there is a need for them. Look up the Mine Wars. Something that is not well known, but vitally important in American History.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Mike. W., Thanks to you guys, I now know very well what the "gun show loophole" refers to. It's anything but a farce. The only question, like in a number of our other points of contention, is how big a problem is it? From what I've read, and deduced using my famous common sense, a quite high percentage of crime guns comes from uncontrolled private sales, some at actual gun shows, many done privately in other locales.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Bob said, "We never say that availability doesn't have anything to do with it."

    Consider yourself warned, Bob. I'll give you 24 hours to admit that's not true. If you don't comply, I'll be forced to turn this entire unpleasant affair over to the Global Internet Truth Police. I know you don't want to deal with them.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I cannot speak for Bob, or anyone else, but I can for me. I say bring them on.

    ReplyDelete
  12. "Morons. At least cars have a use beyond destruction. Grow the hell up and see if you can buy as pair of testicles at Wal-Mart, mmmmk, little man?"

    Ah yes, an anti-gunner resorting to penis jokes because he lacks the intellect to actually present a reasoned argument.

    And you wonder why we have so little respect for anti-gun folks.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Mike - Who's talking about the "gun show loophole?"

    My comment had nothing to do with it, though you conveniently failed to address what I actually said.

    Oh, and care to present proof of those problems caused by the "gun-show loophole?"

    ReplyDelete
  14. A lot of problems are caused by the "Criminal loophole" the loophole where people breaking laws will continue to break laws despite more laws being created.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Reread your first comment, Mike W. You're talking about the gun show loophole.

    The only proof is when reasonable people agree to discuss the facts using common sense and logic. That stops when you begin calling the opposition "liars."

    ReplyDelete
  16. You say things you know aren't true, Mike.

    Open a fucking dictionary you liar!


    If I called you a "Pig" that would be an insult....but when I call a swine a pig it's simply true.

    Stop lying and I'll have no choice but to stop calling you a liar.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Mike,

    What is the definition of a HYPOCRITE?

    The only proof is when reasonable people agree to discuss the facts using common sense and logic.

    YOU DISMISS FACTS, STATISTICS, AND EVIDENCE WITHOUT DISCUSSION

    Time after Time again, I've presented information that completely negates your arguments and you refuse to even use common sense in talking about the facts.

    You've dismissed statistics as being biased, without presenting any evidence of the supposed bias.

    You've repeatedly have been presented opportunities to counter our points...you typically ignore them.

    You are incredible brazen in calling someone else out on lying; especially when presented with incontrovertible proof of people like Byran Miller and Paul Helmke lying and you don't admit their lies. In fact, not only do you not admit their lies, you support them.

    Repeating known lies MAKES YOU A LIAR.

    You talk about common sense and logic, but you won't back up any of your points with anything supporting them except your own opinion.

    Where is the logic in continuing to insist on a position without providing evidence to support that position???????

    ReplyDelete
  18. Bob said, "You are incredible brazen in calling someone else out on lying."

    Listen, I don't do that, you do. I give you the benefit of the doubt, I make jokes out of some of the outlandish things you say. I allow for your exaggeration and hyperbole. I'm not the one who says stuff like, "You, sir, are a liar." You and some of your friends are the ones who do that.

    You would do better to adopt some of my methods, Bob. All the huffing and puffing and name calling that you do does not help the dialogue.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Mike,

    You repeat the lie that the Brady Campaign says, Doesn't that make you a liar?

    Prove me wrong, Prove that destroying the NICS records would result in more criminals, terrorists, and other prohibited purchasers with guns and would undermine public safety."

    In order not to be a liar, not to be called a liar; don't LIE.

    Sorry Mike, but adopting your methods means that I repeat things without proof, don't provide evidence of my assertions or opinions...and continually call for the removal of people's rights.

    You want to "further the dialog", how about addressing our questions instead of continually ignoring them.

    You want to "further the dialog" how about providing some evidence to back up your claims.

    You want to "further the dialog", how about addressing how your ideas will ...I don't know....actually reduce crime.

    You blather on about how "availability" is an issue, but when presented with multiple lines of argument, you dismiss them.

    You talk about the methods my friends and I use, but ignore how your own methods contribute to the problem.

    There is a biblical saying that is quite appropriate....Don't worry about the mote in my eye until you remove the plank from your own.

    You want to further the dialog:
    Answer the question:
    So, getting back to the point. How does retaining the records from the background check would result in more criminals, terrorists, and other prohibited purchasers with guns?

    ReplyDelete
  20. Hey MIKE?

    How about answering the QUESTION?

    ReplyDelete
  21. Sorry, Bob, I really don't know how that business works with the records. That's why I don't answer a lot of your questions, because I don't know.

    Could it be that by destroying the records of people who apply and are turned down, we make it more possible that they'll be approved in a future application? I remember one of the "anecdotal" stories was of a guy who'd been denied a few times, finally got approved and committed some terrible crime with his guns. I don't know, Bob. I'm just guessing.

    Besides, isn't destroying records kind of questionable in itself?

    ReplyDelete
  22. Mike - Bob's question is simple and doesn't require any technical knowledge of records keeping.

    Try answering it.

    ReplyDelete
  23. How does the destruction of the record AFTER the purchaser has been approved,delayed, or denied have ANY impact on whether said person can get a gun?

    simple question mike.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Also Mike, you freely admit that you lack even basic knowledge of even the most simple gun laws, yet you advocate passing MORE laws.

    Do you see a problem with that? How can you come to a conclusion as to the efficacy of our current laws and need for additional laws if you lack even basic knowledge on the subject?

    You admit you're guessing most of the time. Someone with such a vast lack of knowledge can hardly be considered to have much (if any) credibility wouldn't you say?

    ReplyDelete
  25. Mike,

    Destroying the record is questionable?

    Isn't that the wrong question?

    how about why should we have to have a requirement to begin with?

    You don't have to submit to a background check every time you blog.

    Madoff and other crooks don't have to submit to a background check every time they talk to a client.

    Why should we? I may be against the grain with many gun owners on this one but I think the background checks are wrong.

    Either we have or rights and any restrictions apply across the board or we don't have them - they are privileges the government grants us.

    On your anecdote, ever consider the guy LIED, used someone's else's name...got a fake ID?

    It may not be a failure of the system.

    If you don't know the answer, why don't you research your fellow anti-freedom groups' sites and find out what they say about the issue?

    I'm betting dollars to donuts they don't explain how keeping the records will prevent criminals from getting firearms.

    Because that isn't the purpose of retaining the records.

    ReplyDelete