Saturday, June 13, 2009

von Brunn's Rifle Impossible to Trace

CNN reports on the failed attempts of the authorities to trace the weapon used in the fatal shooting at the Holocaust Museum. James W. von Brunn, a convicted felon with a history of association with hate groups, went into the Washington D.C. museum last week, and opened fire killing one guard.

It is not possible for authorities to trace the rifle used in this week's shooting at the Holocaust Memorial Museum to the original purchaser, a law enforcement source said Friday.

The source, who was not authorized to speak publicly about the investigation, said the weapon is a Winchester Model 6, .22 caliber rifle -- a type of gun manufactured between 1908 and 1928 -- long before records were kept on gun purchases.

Authorities also were checking to see if the weapon had been used in any other crime, the source said.


Now, that's very interesting. The "authorities," whoever they are, seem to be focusing on the gun. Maybe they're taking their cue from Paul Helmke, do you think?

I would imagine the reason they focus on the gun, in all seriousness, is because of all the variables in a crime like this, the weapon is one of the most concrete. You've got the impossible-to-predict behaviour of a human being who is acting criminally, you've got whatever influences have played a part in his personality, involvement in the hate groups, etc., you've got the random instances of other people being in the wrong place at the wrong time, and then you've got the gun.

Because of its age, they were unable to determine who the original purchaser of the gun was . But they also tried to learn if it had been used in any other crimes. I guess that's two different types of traces. I'm not sure exactly how it works. Let's say they had been able to trace the weapon to a gun shop in Virginia. Would that help to prove the theory that strict gun laws in D.C. are useless if just over the bridge they're lax?

What kind of gun is that anyway, the Winchester Model 6, .22 caliber rifle? Isn't that the kind often given to kids to learn with? Don't they use that one in summer camp for target practice?

What's your opinion? Do you think trying to trace the gun's provenance could yield valuable information. How difficult is it to purchase a rifle like that? Can you still just walk into a store and buy one, like in the good old days?

Please leave a comment.

12 comments:

  1. "The "authorities," whoever they are, seem to be focusing on the gun."

    Incorrect.

    Any firearm recovered from a crime scene will be traced to the last known purchaser if possible. That's just routine procedure.

    "Winchester Model 6, .22 caliber rifle -- a type of gun manufactured between 1908 and 1928--long before records were kept on gun purchases"

    Although I'm not familiar with the Winchester Model 6, I do know that any gun manufactured in the U.S. or imported into the U.S. prior to 1968 did not require a serial number. I happen to have a Marlin Model 55G which dosen't have a serial number, so any trace attempt of such a gun is futile. This has nothing to do with records of the guns' purchase. You simply can't trace a gun which has absolutely no individual markings.

    "Authorities also were checking to see if the weapon had been used in any other crime, the source said."

    This simply means they entered an image of a fired round/case into whatever database they had to see if the markings on the round/case matched any images they had stored in that database.

    "Maybe they're taking their cue from Paul Helmke, do you think?"

    Not likely. Everything so far is standard routine procedure developed by people other than Paul Helmke.

    "I would imagine the reason they focus on the gun, in all seriousness, is because of all the variables in a crime like this, the weapon is one of the most concrete."

    You start out stating that the authorities "seem to be focusing on the gun" which I have already addressed, and then theorize as to to why they are focusing on the gun. Can't stress this enough, it's just routine procedure.

    I do agree however that the weapon is the most concrete piece of evidence which I surmise is the reason why trying to trace it both to retail or ballistically is...uh...routine procedure.

    " You've got the impossible-to-predict behaviour of a human being who is acting criminally"

    This is just wrong on so many levels I'm going to simply move on.

    "you've got the random instances of other people being in the wrong place at the wrong time, and then you've got the gun."

    Actually you have other people in the right place at the right time; that is armed security gaurds who ended the attack before von Brunn could shoot more people. They accomplished this by drawing their own weapons and shooting him down.

    " Because of its age, they were unable to determine who the original purchaser of the gun was . But they also tried to learn if it had been used in any other crimes. I guess that's two different types of traces."

    correct

    "Let's say they had been able to trace the weapon to a gun shop in Virginia. Would that help to prove the theory that strict gun laws in D.C. are useless if just over the bridge they're lax?"

    As noted in the article, the gun was maunfactured AT LEAST 80 years ago; long before the first gun control laws in America. When the gun was first purchased is immpossible to say but I'm willing to put money on the premise it was purchased prior to the 1934 NFA passed, which wouldn't have affected this firearm in the first place.

    "What kind of gun is that anyway, the Winchester Model 6, .22 caliber rifle? Isn't that the kind often given to kids to learn with?Don't they use that one in summer camp for target practice?"

    This is, in my opinion, the most interesting point in this sad debacle.

    Here we have someone who is 88 years old and has embraced the ideology of hate for most of his life and he one day decides to finally carry out his revenge against perceived enemies and he does it with a .22?

    This is someone who had a life time to plan and prepare to exact revenge on those he hated and he chooses a weapon which is great for jack rabbits and ground hogs, and more realistically, tin cans for target practice.

    I don't want you to think that I'm sorry he didn't choose a more powerful weapon, I just find it odd that someone filled with so much base hatred for so long would pick a weapon like a .22 for his "blaze of glory."

    ReplyDelete
  2. "long before the first gun control laws in America."

    Not entirely true. There were plenty of gun control laws around written to keep minorities like blacks and native Americans disarmed.

    Excellent post Kave. Expect it to be dismissed.

    ReplyDelete
  3. OK MikeB. We have at highest, about 15,000 people murdering others w/ guns each year. Assuming each and every one were a legal firearm owner at the time (they weren't, over 80% nationwide are prohibited persons) and using your 50m number (short about 30m btw), that puts the number of people becoming murderers at .03%. Note the decimal.

    Would you support a plan that would reduce gun crime by nearly 30% that only effected one portion of the population?

    ReplyDelete
  4. "Not entirely true. There were plenty of gun control laws around written to keep minorities like blacks and native Americans disarmed."

    Most excellent!

    I knew when I wrote my piece that someone would slap me down on that point. It is true.

    I would counter that those laws are/were racist in nature and that The NFA was the first federal law that applied to ALL individuals, not just those pesky minorities.

    This is why I like debate on this issue. Even those within our community will gladly slap down a false statement by others, regardless of their stance on said issue.

    We police ourselves because we represent a community we all respect. If any of us steps out of line, we get the smack down from our own, which is much more telling than a smack down from the antis based on an emotional argument.

    Thirdpower is correct. There were gun control laws prior to 1934.

    And I'm man enough to admit my error.

    I shall now flog myself with the utmost passion for my transgression.

    And I'll enjoy it.

    ReplyDelete
  5. "How difficult is it to purchase a rifle like that?"

    Same as any other. You must not be prohibited by law, fill out the paperwork, and get the FBI to approve the sale to you. Same anywhere around the country.

    And, sadly, no, it is not like the good 'ole days when sales were unrestricted and such crime was virtually unheard of.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Off topic, but interesting.

    How about heading over to the Huffington Post and reading the comments.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-barron/concealed-carry-if-youre_b_213912.html

    ReplyDelete
  7. Thirdpower and Kaveman, Yes indeed it's great when someone can correct another who is on his side of the argument. It's speaks volumes for your credibility as a group.

    About the numbers, the suggestion that .03% become murderers, I must point out that we aren't talking about only murderers. That 15,000 quickly becomes 30 when we add the accidents and suicides. And when we also include the non-fatal incidents, it skyrockets. I say we also need to include the aggressive incidents of firearm misuse in which no shot is fired. If Kleck can count them as DGUs, we need to count them here as well.

    Total all that up and tell me the percentage is too small to worry about.

    ReplyDelete
  8. "Total all that up and tell me the percentage is too small to worry about."

    It's your argument MikeB. Do the work to make your case.

    ReplyDelete
  9. "Can you still just walk into a store and buy one, like in the good old days?"

    Nope.

    But one thing worth examining is why in the "good old days" when you could walk into any hardware store and buy a gun as easily as a bag of nails, we had less crime.

    ReplyDelete
  10. It's a fascinating angle kavemen brought up. Why would a seething hatemonger like von Brunn use such an ineffectual weapon?

    ReplyDelete
  11. About the numbers, the suggestion that .03% become murderers, I must point out that we aren't talking about only murderers. That 15,000 quickly becomes 30 when we add the accidents and suicides.

    Oh boy, it jumps from .03% to .06% That definitely bolsters your argument Mike.

    ReplyDelete
  12. "Why would a seething hatemonger like von Brunn use such an ineffectual weapon?"

    Probably because he wasn't a "gun nut".

    Much to the chagrin of the critics of gun rights, not every hatemonger is a gun enthusiast.

    ReplyDelete