The victim was a retired policeman. He failed to report the ammunition theft, which might have alerted the local authorities to the fact that his home was a known target.Maryland Heights Police Chief Tom O’Connor says Tuesday’s thefts weren’t the first at the home in the 1900 block of Rule Avenue, “7,62 military ammunition was stolen some time back from the same resident.” O’Connor says that ammunition was taken from the home’s garage about a month ago, but the theft wasn’t reported until after the guns were stolen. O’Connor says it’s possible whoever took the ammunition, came back for the guns, but that’s not been confirmed. In fact, he says, police have no suspects at this time.
I'll bet he didn't have one of these babies either, which would have been well within the budget of the reward now being offered.
In other words, this former law enforcement officer made it easy for the theft to take place. For that he's 100% guilty and should be made to pay.
What's your opinion? Do you think if a person can afford 70 guns they can afford a safe to keep them in? Sounds simple doesn't it?
Please leave a comment.
"...which might have alerted the local authorities to the fact that his home was a known target."ReplyDelete
Which would mean what exactly?
I took the phrase was 'a known target' means that the police would have known, had the crime been reported when it was, that 1. there was a special temptation for thieves seeking weapons and ammo, the way that they would know someone with an art collection was a target for art thieves, unusual and especially valuable jewelry was a target / temptation for jewel thieves.ReplyDelete
Knowing that would have helped them to concentrate their efforts on those who might be looking to supply someone with the ammo, and who might be the more likely criminals to return for more. It would also have given them the opportunity to advise this guy on the stupidity of keeping these items in a garage where they were less secure, even if they couldn't and wouldn't coerce him to do so. It would have given them a greater lead time on any subsequent crimes and on solving that particular crime.
And 2. in case he wasn't really robbed, in case he was doing an illicit business in guns - which is the reason to my mind a former police officer who more than anyone should know and understand the value of reporting a theft, it would also mean the authorities could be aware of his activities, legal or illegal, as it related to their appropriate duties in law enforcement.
But you are assuming the police would do more than make a report.ReplyDelete
Don't get me wrong, he should have reported the theft but I seriously doubt that had he done so, there would be a team staking out the house waiting for the bad guys to descend.
My first thought was "What an idiot". My second thought was, has CSI found evidence of a break-in or anything else that indicates that the place was actually burgled.ReplyDelete
It just comes off as naive to me to think that the cops would treat any private residence as a known target seen as it means you would be removing resources needed to protect the public just to protect one private citizen. this would render the police as nothing more that personal body guards for "spechial" people or property. secondly a gun safe that can hold 70 firearms is a massive custom made item that has a lot of added costs beyond creation of the safe.ReplyDelete
lastly why is anyone advocating punishing a victim? there is an issue of failure to report a crime from the first break in but to say that this guy some how deserves to be punished because some one else did something bad is ridiculous.
I read the linked story--it sounds a bit fishy to me. Interestingly, on the same wepbage I found a story about the St. Louis Sheriff's saying that CCW was a good idea, as it kept people from being afraid of being robbed or assaulted--a theory which had no data to back it up.ReplyDelete
He said there was one problem that the increased CCW had created, weapons being stolen from cars.
Otoh, there was this:
which the Sheriff did not feel a need to address.
I've heard that as many as 40% of firearms used in crimes are actually stolen from homes. One veteran policeman I read about was quoted as saying that he doesn't know of a single firearms that was stolen which had been stored in a safe or locked in some manner. It's a vicious cycle. Person buys a gun for safety, but it gets stolen from them when they aren't home, then buys another for fear of being broken into again, and the very gun stolen from him in the first place now may be used against him. Come on, folks, use some common sense. Don't buy in the first place, but if you do, lock it up!ReplyDelete
Perhaps we ought to have a law requiring us to lock up our kitchen utensils as well and our televisions and our computers and our jewelry and on and on? Your article blames the victim, instead of the criminal who makes our homes insecure. Yes, storing valuables in a safe is a good idea, but it's not always practical. Put your focus where it belongs--on the goblin who invaded the sanctity of another's home.ReplyDelete
Baldr Odinson except i can point out at least 2 cases where peoples gun safes have been broken into and guns taken out. any safe can be broken into with an angle grinder a pry-bar and some time. most robberies are day time robberies when no one is home meaning that the crook has time to get into safes that they think holds something valuable. and to quote one Police officer who has a skewed perspective is never good.ReplyDelete
Any safe can be broken into? I guess they need to make them better; I mean if it ain't "safe" it ain't a safe. If someone goes to the trouble and expense of buying a gun safe that costs up to thousands of dollars, what's the sense in not having an alarm system with a REALLY LOUD EXTERNAL ANNUNCIATOR?ReplyDelete
"Perhaps we ought to have a law requiring us to lock up our kitchen utensils as well and our televisions and our computers and our jewelry and on and on?"
Gunzloonz like to stress that they are prudent and thoughtful people. Why wouldn't prudent, thoughtful people take whatever precautions were prudent and thoughtful. If you live in a home or apartment that is subject to burgling or home invasion and cannot fortify it or alarm it to some level of safety, my prudent, thoughtful advice would be that you move. But why would an LGO want to do that when he can just blow the perp to hell and feel all manly about it?
democommie now your just being antagonizing and at what point do you take cost into consideration quality gun safes start at 2 grand for 10-12 guns and then go up exponentially from there. plus what another 4 grand for a decent alarm system and no ADT/Brinks are not decent alarm systems.ReplyDelete
we make risk reward analysis every day with every desision we make it is impractical to think the simple solution is to just ad more security with out regard to price at some point you have to make the desion on price to likelihood of risk.
"Perhaps we ought to have a law requiring us to lock up our kitchen utensils as well and our televisions and our computers and our jewelry and on and on? Your article blames the victim, instead of the criminal who makes our homes insecure."
You have an obligation to make things secure from harming others. Kitchen utensils are not inherently classified as weapons, although I admit that butulism and salmonella can be deadly. However none of these items is designed as either offensive or defensive weapons, nor do they have the demonstrated pattern of causing death and injury, or being used in the way firearms are used, to commit crimes, to threaten and intimidate. When was the last time you heard of a can opener being used with any frequency to commit suicide or homicide? How about that collander, or whisk?
I've been presented with some unfortunate cuisine efforts in my day, but none of them which rose to the above standard.
You are conflating dissimilar things in an improper argument, until you can show me how jewelry can be stolen and then used directly to kill someonel. Ditto a computer.
Just as one is required to put a fence around a swimming pool to prevent drowning, one can and should be required to provide extra security for a weapon compared to an item which is not similarly dangerous or a weapon by intentiona in its design.
Dog Gone so what do you call a 12 inch chopping knife but a cutting tool your telling me people haven't gone after each other with kitchen knives? I mean I have a cheap set of OXO cooks knives my mom has a much nicer set of cutco knives if you cook you know how dangerous a proper kitchen knife can be, and i do read about stabbings plenty living in the DC area so it seems odd to put firearms in one category then say nothing else is like them because they aren't intended to hurt people. well my target pistols aren't really meant to hurt people just as my car isnt meant to hurt people it doesn't mean I cant hurt people with my car, my target pistol or a kitchen knife. all three have the same or similar capacity to harm others yet as a society we only focus on blaming one of these items for the crimes that are committed with them. we don't blame the car when someone runs a red light and slams into another car we blame the driver. is it so hard to do the same for fire arms or do fire arms some how generate a until now undetected field that reduces ones culpability for their actions.ReplyDelete
to the question of should the Gun owner take the responsibility to keep the fire arms safe, that is a definite yes but that can be as simple as hiding them away in the back of a closet, under a bed or some where that is not noticed by the average person or in a gun safe.
"Dog Gone so what do you call a 12 inch chopping knife but a cutting tool your telling me people haven't gone after each other with kitchen knives? "
I call them essential part of cooking, which is not nearly as effective a weapon,particularly at range as a gun.
How many people commit suicide with knives, compared to guns? How many people injure others accidentally, compared to firearms, or damage other people or property or effectively hunt animals with knives - compared to guns?
They are not equivalent, they do not exist for the same primary purpose, and they are not equally effective as weapons.
These guys seem to think that decent gunsafes can be had for a reasonable price:ReplyDelete
I'm not a craftsman but I've built enough sheds and storage boxes to know that I can build one that, while not particularly pretty would be pretty hard to breach without some fairly setious equipment.
If someone is bound and determined to get your guns why not just lay in wait, ambush you when you come home and torture you or someone you love to get what they want? I mean, I think the chance of that sort of scenario happening is exceedingly slim, but then I don't feel like my house is about to be attacked by anyone, anyway.
Wireless, cellular alarm systems are available for somewhat less than $4K if my research is correct.
"well my target pistols aren't really meant to hurt people just as my car isnt meant to hurt people it doesn't mean I cant hurt people with my car, my target pistol or a kitchen knife. all three have the same or similar capacity to harm others yet as a society we only focus on blaming one of these items for the crimes that are committed with them. we don't blame the car when someone runs a red light and slams into another car we blame the driver. is it so hard to do the same for fire arms or do fire arms some how generate a until now undetected field that reduces ones culpability for their actions."ReplyDelete
Unless your target pistols are shooting blanks, they ARE designed for killing, the fact that you use them only for target practice notwithstanding.
I can kill you with a book, given the right circumstances and it's not really that difficult. I can kill you with a garden hose, a beer bottle or a bottle of aspirin. None of those items has, inherent in their design, a use as a weapon. Cars, cars, cars--you folks really need to stop using cars as some sort of equivalent to guns. Cars ARE used to kill people, deliberatley, from time to time. They are not DESIGNED to kill people but someone, in a rage, can certainly employ them as a weapon. If I really wanted to kill somebody and had a choice between using a gun or running them down--assuming I didn't care if I got caught--a gun is much easier to use.
"How many people commit suicide with knives, compared to guns? How many people injure others accidentally, compared to firearms, or damage other people or property or effectively hunt animals with knives - compared to guns?"
the same question can be reversed and be just as relevant. All the Kids in high school that I knew who tried to commit suicide used knives.
on the point of danger of knives i would argue they are more dangerous than guns cause they are easier to get, far more affordable, and can be thrown the same distance and still be lethal as the distance that the average shooting happens at. not to mention fire arms have a limited amount of ammo before they cease to be a threat while a knife can be used as long as you want in a fight as the blade doesn't snap.
"They are not equivalent, they do not exist for the same primary purpose, and they are not equally effective as weapons."ReplyDelete
Just what do think the primary purpose of a gun is?
It is defense. To defend yourself.
I've got news for you, there are many more kinds of knives than just kitchen utensils. Ever heard of switchblades, stilettos, or military issued knives, etc. Excellent defensive weapons against an unarmed attacker.
It should be obvious that knives and guns do have a primary purpose. Defense.
Guns are apparently important enough to you gunzloonz that you base your entire argument for them on your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. You may have noticed that knives, cars and thousands upon thousands of other items are not mentioned in the Constitution re: a right to keep and bear.ReplyDelete
And yet we don't need to have any sort of permit to own over 99% of those items. If guns aren't inherently more likely to be used as weapons why even mention them?
The primary purpose of a gun is to shoot a lead pellet of some sort in the direction of a selected target. Whether the use is offensive or defensive is not part of the gun's design criteria.
DAG and Greg, My idea is that too many gun owners have no provision at all for preventing thieves from getting their guns. Often the weapons are in the closet or in the night stand.ReplyDelete
I don't disagree that any safe can be broken into, but it's also true that a decent safe is plenty enough to thwart your average burglar.
I blame the victim for only what the victim is guilty of, making a theft too easy.
I know about that site and there are plenty like it but the safes they sell are the mid to low end safes. they are made in china and an angle grinder with edge grinding disk can cut through those safes fairly quickly. there was a post on a website called "the High road" where a guy was showing pics of his safe which had been cut into and then a pry bar was used to bend the metal back so that the theives could get into the safe quicker than making the last cut across the bottom of the safe.
what I think you are forgetting is if you leave your house for a few hours that's the window the crook will take. if you are like me or my parents where everyone in the family works all day a crook can easily take his time to ransack either of our houses cause we will be out of them for a period of time during the day.
lastly us defenders of the concept that you should blame the criminal and not the fire arm use cars is because you have just proven our point. In my explanation of why its silly the double standard presented i used a car running a red light which you did not touch instead you decided to decry the idea of the comparison not the point of it. and Knives in the European Tradition were actually designed first for warfare not for other uses.
Democommie, see if you can find the word 'gun' in the 2nd amendment.ReplyDelete
I suggest you write that 2nd amendment 500 times. lol
its funny you say if something is so dangerous why don't we have to get a permit for it, except in the case of a car you have to get a permit and part of the permit process is proving competency. for planes its the same, motorcycles its the same, heck to buy more than a few pounds of fertilizer you have to get a permit. really the only thing i listed as a significant threat that doesn't require a permit is the knife which is why I'm more concerned about being stabbed in my daily life than shot because everyone has kitchen knives.
tell me how a 22 bolt action rifle is designed for killing people. if your talking squirrels yes i could see that but a 22 lr is not what i would call a menacing round, could it be done sure with really good shot placement but its not what its intended for, and i do mean the bullet not the gun.
"tell me how a 22 bolt action rifle is designed for killing people.'ReplyDelete
In the same way that any gun is designed to kill. It has a magazine, a receiver, a trigger and firing pin and a barrel. You put your bullets in the magazine, you aim the gun, you pull the trigger. Since the IDF has managed to kill some folks (never mind the dozens who have died in this country from being shot with .22 cal. rifles and handguns--.22 cal handguns are a hitman's friend, I'm told). This:
is by some one who appears to know what he's talking about.
DAG, let's take you as an example. If someone breaks into your house at night when you're away, how difficult would it be for them to get away with guns? Would they need special safe-cracking equipment? Would they have to go on a type of easter-egg hunt? How would it work exactly?ReplyDelete
democommie as I stated you have to aim for specific places with a 22. and the hitmans preference comment that's a nice bit of hype but nothing to really back it up. its kinda like how you can kill with a beer bottle or a book yes you can do it but it takes a fair bit of effort.ReplyDelete
and just for reference a 22lr puts out 115-150 foot pounds of energy as a general reference an average person can kick with double that force. the argument that guns are only good for killing is silly. we don't say beer is only good for destroying your liver or making you fat. or that cars are only good for getting you from point a to point b so why make convertibles or anything other than supper efficient gas sipping cars. yet this is the argument your making with regards to guns.
and Mike on your question my gun safe could be opened with an ANGLE GRINDER and pry bar and they could get into my gun safe, i cant imagine it taking more than 30 min.
Lethality of the .22ReplyDelete
Another Made in USA “less-lethal” weapon kills in Palestine
by Jeff Klein on January 14, 2011
The recent killing of Jawaher Abu Rahmah in Bil’in – and the death or injury of many others -- by Israeli tear gas munitions imported from the US has spotlighted the collaboration of American companies in the lethal suppression of unarmed protests in the West Bank. However, another US-made “less lethal” weapon has also caused many deaths and injuries, but has received less attention.
Live fire “crowd control” rounds attributed to .22 caliber sniper rifles, made by Sturm, Ruger Co. in Newport, NH, have been responsible for at least six – and possibly more -- deaths and scores of injuries during the past couple of years:
On January 28, 2008, Kusai al-Afrandi, age 17, was killed in Bethlehem
on 29 July 2008, Ahmad Musa, age 10, was killed in Ni’lin
on 28 December 2008 Mohammed Khawaje, age 20 (and Mohammed Hamid, age 22)
on 13 February 2009, Izzedine al-Jamal, age 14, was killed in Hebron
on 5 June 2009, Yusuf Aqel Srour, age 36 in Ni’lin (28 other than Srour were injured by 0.22” bullets in Ni’lin alone)
B’stelem claims to have documented injuries from these weapons in Ni’lin, Bil’in, Jayyus, Bitunya, and Budrus, including at least one foreign national
"After several incidents involving the death of Palestinians by the Ruger fire, the IDF conducted a field experiment in the Ruger at the IDF Sniper School in Mitkan Adam under the supervision of the IDF Judge Advocate General (JAG). The test showed that the Ruger was more lethal then thought especially in upper body injuries. Also, since it's suppressed and was considered less lethal by the troops, the soldiers were much more likely to use the Ruger loosely then intended.
As a result of this test, the JAG reclassified the Ruger as a lethal weapon."
Dog Gone the article you linked has this line which i think ilistrates my point. "Nevertheless, the Israeli security forces began to deploy the Ruger 10/22 again, with lethal effect, to suppress West Bank protests against the Apartheid Wall in 2008-09. Court testimony last October indicated that the cost of .22 caliber ammunition fired in Bil’in and Ni’lin from August 2008 to December 2009 was NIS 1.3 million, or about $350,000. That’s a lot of bullets. The ammunition retails in the US for as little a 5 cents per round, which would suggest that millions of bullets may have been fired"ReplyDelete
so if 22lr is so deadly where are all the dead Palestinians? I have not said a 22lr cant kill just that you really have aim at one or two specific places and being off by a hair will not be lethal. secondly if you didn't notice the first article you posted talked about how SNIPERS aka SPECIALLY trained people to be extremely accurate are using 22lr.
the second segment you posted is talking about snipers using the gun not the average person, and again this fall into the category of yes i can be potently lethal with a 22lr if i was trained well enough to consistently put my shots on top of each other but most people including myself cant. its always fun when people make arguments using the special case rather than the normal case scenario.
and again there are other uses for guns than killing people, yes hunting kills animals but guess what we already kill animals for beef chicken and pork and we even use guns to do that. we use them for recreational activities like target shooting. just like you can use a pocket knife for lots of different things some are violent some are not. to treat a fire arm as only a tool to kill some one is like treating a bed as only a place to sleep and that any thing else done on that bed is not relevant.
we as humans are inventive and have the ability to see what something MAY be used for not just what it was INTENDED to be used for should we punish people and treat recreational objects as only intended for killing just because that's what the original intent was back in the 1300's.
DAG, I bolded the pertinent point:ReplyDelete
"The test showed that the Ruger was more lethal then thought especially in upper body injuries.
That was not in the context of sniper fire; it was addressing lethality in riot control use.
Dog Gone i would still love to hear your argument against the rest of my points. and secondly the 22lr in the article was issued to snipers to use in crowd control. so the fact of who was using it does matter.ReplyDelete
secondly i have not said that 22lr is incapable of killing i have said that you have to intend to kill just like if you used a book or a bottle as a weapon. no one would say beer is only intend to kill because it damages your liver, and the bottles some beer comes in can be used as a weapon. just the same distinction can be made for specific calibers of ammunition.
and again $350,000 worth of 22lr used is in the range of 1 million rounds fired, so again where are the massive collection of Palestinians killed by 22 lr?
Using it for riot control killed when it was not being used for killing.ReplyDelete
It is a gun designed and built and sold with the intent to kill, it has never been manufactured to be anything except a weapon, not a kitchen utensil, not a paperweight, not a research-entertainment-communication device.
There are a good long list of people killed by this. There are far fewer directly killed by the other means you offer; they are not equal or equivalent in lethality.
The incidents of people using their vehicles - as one example - to commit homicide is drastically lower than the use of firearms for that purpose. The use of a vehicle to coerce someone to hand over their money in a robbery? Not something you see routinely on the evening news or in the morning papers.
Firearms are weapons, they are overwhelmingly used as weapons, sold as weapons, issued to the military as weapons.
If it walks like a duck quacks like a duck, swims and lays eggs lie a duck and tastes like duck when you cook it, it is a duck. And firearms are weapons, including the .22.
dog gone i find it odd you talk about how effective the 22 lr is yet millions of rounds fired in and only 6 people attributed to have been killed by those rounds, does that not sound like oh i don't know an ineffective tool for what your claiming. and to say Knives are used less than guns for committing crimes i would like to see those stats please.ReplyDelete
and no fire arms are not overwhelmingly used as weapons seen as that would mean that our violent crime rate would have been increasing since 2008 when gun sales started to sky rocket. guns are used overwhelmingly for recreational activities, skeet shooting, hunting, target, and shooting.
You informed us that a firearm is a weapon. Really? I would never have known. . .
We know that guns are weapons. That's exactly what we want them for. We simply hold a different view of life from yours. We don't have a problem with free people having small arms.
The fact is that as long as there's a disparity in force, there will be violence. If an elderly person is attacked by a youthful bodybuilder, who do you think will win? Now, if the elderly person has a firearm, the result can be different. As the old line goes, God created men, but Sam Colt made them equal.
Your premise is flawed; in most instances an elderly person in a physical conflict with someone fitter, younger, and stronger is going to lose.ReplyDelete
If the old guy has a firearm he is more likely to miss, to have it used against him than to come out of the encounter having defeated the larger, younger stronger bad guy.
You know in what scenario he does win? If he evades the bad guy, calls the cops, and the cops arrest the bad guy.
You live in a mythical fantasy world that ignores and denies the decline in crime, that ignores how often those crimes involved guns, compared to countries with less gun crime / gun violence because they have fewer guns and stricter regulations regarding them.
And yet those are perfectly free and successful countries, and by many metrics they are more successful than we are, The key differences - more rational and reasonable people who are better educated than you lot.
DAG, even bank vaults can be opened with the proper equipment and enough time. You safe sounds as secure as it needs to be to defeat the usual break-in artist. Good for you. I'll bet the Marylands Heights guy didn't have one of them, or in his case more then one or a bigger one.ReplyDelete
Greg, society has a vested interest in keeping dangerous objects, which weapons are, out of the hands of certain people.ReplyDelete
There is no right to own a weapon--especially if it is detrimental to society.
So, thanks for admitting they are weapons and not anything else.
Laci The DogReplyDelete
so you disagree with the Supreme court then seen as they have ruled twice that individuals have the right to own firearms?
DAG, yes, the majority holdings in Heller-McDonald are an incorrect interpretation of US v Miller, which still happens to be valid precedent.ReplyDelete
In fact, you are mistating that individuals have the right to own firearms--"the right" that was granted by Heller-McDonald is a very limited one.
That is, law abiding citizens have the right to own registered firearms in their home.
Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott 333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Heller at 54-5
But, you are going to have your work cut out for you if you want to persuade me that this:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Relates to anything other than the militia organised under mikeb302000.blogspot.com/search/label/Second Amendment HIstory
Last paragraphs should read:ReplyDelete
Relates to anything other than the militia organised under article I, Section 8, clause 16.
You can find the answers to your questions and arguments in the material I have posted under mikeb302000.blogspot.com/search/label/Second Amendment HIstory
This is what you said:
"tell me how a 22 bolt action rifle is designed for killing people. if your talking squirrels yes i could see that but a 22 lr is not what i would call a menacing round, could it be done sure with really good shot placement but its not what its intended for, and i do mean the bullet not the gun."
states that .22 rimfire cartridges have probably killed more people in the U.S. than all other calibers combined. Just "find" for .22 and read it yourself, it won't cut'n'paste. It's the FBI's document and they likely have the stats to back it up.
.22 rimfire cartridges have probably killed more people in the U.S. than all other calibers combined. Just "find" for .22 and read it yourself, it won't cut'n'paste. It's the FBI's document and they likely have the stats to back it up.ReplyDelete
Damnit if I am lighting you up with one of these bad boys you sure better be dead......
Laci The Dog,ReplyDelete
I'm pleased to learn that you know which Supreme Court cases were decided correctly and which weren't. You do realize that others disagree with you? Cases are a matter of interpretation, and we who support gun rights interpret things differently from your view.
Laci The Dog the decision provides for owning firearms. I have at no point said anything other than the second amendment allows for individuals to own firearms. i have not said anything about how or what should be legal just that fire arm ownership is legal yet you seem to be implying that i mean something else.ReplyDelete
its odd how the 10th amendment is the only one that does not directly or indirectly apply to rights of individuals. this includes the second. militias did not provide weapons for the citizens the citizens had to provide their own weapons as members of the militia and all able bodied men were required to serve in the militia. if the second amendment doesnt provide for an individuals right to own then you wouldnt be able to use your own gun back when militias were the the military force of the USA.secondly why include the passage "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." when they could of removed of the "people" and instead put "militia" instead.
then you have to balenc your stance with that of the founding fathers,
"The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good"
-- George Washington
"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."
-- Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-188
Men trained in arms from their infancy, and animated by the love of liberty, will afford neither a cheap or easy conquest.
-- From the Declaration of the Continental Congress, July 1775
Are we at last brought to such a humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defence? Where is the difference between having our arms in our own possession and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defence be the *real* object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?
-- Patrick Henry, speech of June 9 1788
That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United states who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms...
-- Samuel Adams, in "Phila. Independent Gazetteer", August 20, 1789
clearly some of the most prominent founding fathers disagree with your point of view.
I'm not sure what you mean. If you disagree with the statement by the FBI find some stats.
Guns aren't manufactured to be toys. They're made for killing, even if their only use is to shoot paper targets.