Gun Ownership

Does having a convicted felon(family member) living in my house hurt my chances of getting a gun permit?

headso
Jun '14

hope so

5catmom ✉
Jun '14

Do I think it should? No. Your rights still exist.

Do I think it will? Maybe. Depends on the decision from the local police when they review the application. At the very least means you will need to ensure the person with a felony history never has access to the gun. I agree with Caged Animal though that it *should* depend on what the felony was. My opinion is once someone is released all rights should be restored. If they can't be trusted with gun why are they trusted with anything else? I also think that too many crimes are considered felonies. (Ever download an MP3 that you didn't pay for? Felony)

Mark Mc. ✉
Jun '14

When I got my license I don't believe they asked who lived in my home.

Just Asking ✉
Jun '14

Good lord, I sure hope so.

Nat-test ✉
Jun '14

I don't know. Does it make sense to have lots of guns in a house with a felon guilty of armed robbery, maybe multiples.

Does not seem to be cut and dry so yet another place the 2nd amendment seems to come up a bit short in action.

mistergoogle ✉
Jun '14

I've thought about this issue for years. While I am no "softy" on criminals, or the way they are "treated" in the prison system, it does seem to me that if they have "paid their debt to society" that it is only right and fair that all their constitutional rights be re-instated. Right to vote, right to keep and bear arms, all of them.

However, since it is obvious ALOT of these released criminals have NOT be rehabilitated, because so many are repeat, and repeat-repeat offenders, the problem doesn't lie in whether or not they should get their rights back, but in the CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM.

It's a conundrum for sure.

All that being said, I do believe 100% that NO ONE ELSE'S rights should be infringed due to ANOTHER PERSON'S actions. Period. Again, what is this- the Minority Report? "we are removing your rights because you MIGHT commit a crime" or even worse- "because SOMEONE ELSE MIGHT commit a crime with your legal firearm."

It's not right.

JeffersonRepub ✉
Jun '14

the felon cannot own a gun, but non-felons still possess their rights. why would you want to abrogate them? for what reason?

the mere fact that a released felon lives in the same building as someone who has never been convicted of a crime should not negate that persons rights to own and possess arms.

what about air rifles and bb guns and air-soft guns, should they also all be confiscated? (and nerf-guns?)(what about super-soakers? they can be filled with bleach and used to attack people you know, it's been done already and in the news, and that's scary dangerous, right?) so should the cops go into a house and confiscate all of this stuff so you cam feel safer?

would you also ask that the cops take out all hunting knives, swords and machetes from the house as well? what about cross bows and long bows, should they also be removed? aren't they all considered to be weapons?

what about gas cans in the garage? they can be used to make bombs and explosive deivces, right?

where do you draw the line ?

i don't understand the constant push by people who want to take the guns away all the time. just don't get it. it's weird.

individuals have rights, not houses. not homes, it's the body of the people as individuals who have individual rights, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, freedom to be protected against unreasonable searches and seizures in the privacy of their homes, in their cars and when walking about,

all of these individual rights are inherent in our beings, given to us by our creator, and that includes the individual right to keep and bear arms.

it is this individual right to keep and bear arms that helps to protect and guarantee all of our other inherent rights as individual human beings.

this is why NJ needs to pass a 'shall issue' permit law without delay. This state is on the wrong side of history. New Jersey is behind the times.

BrotherDog ✉
Jun '14

"The hope so people really make me scratch my head though."

Really? You think it is a good idea and fine for guns to exist in the same house as a convicted felon? I respect people's second amendment rights, but I do hope having a felon in the house of a person looking to obtain a gun permit gives the issuer pause.

People also have the right to have children. Should people be allowed to house children in the same place where sex offenders live? I guess it depends on if the person was a rapist or some poor kid who dated a 17 year old when he was 18 or some silly situation like that. At some point common sense needs to kick in. Perhaps it is not a good idea to have a gun in the same place where a felon lives. Just sayin'.

Mark Mc, totally valid point and I agree with you - "felon" doesn't really indicate what type of felon they are. Someone convicted of a violent crime is certainly more "dangerous" around a gun than someone who committed fraud or something like that.

I wish there was less polarization on this issue and more common sense.

Interesting topic.

Natalie ✉
Jun '14

yes Rebecka and Natale, it would give me pause, i would have to evaluate each situation on an an individual basis,

if i felt i could not trust the released convicted felon in my house, then they would not be permitted to live here with me.

i would also keep a watchful eye out all of the time and use sturdy locks on safes, but if i ever got to that point where i was that concerned about it then i would kick them out of the house, period. even if they were family. love is love and family is family but enough is enough, door is always open, but you have to behave yourself, keep a job, stay off the sauce (or whatever) and try and live a good productive life.

that's my rules, my house, my rules, period.

BrotherDog ✉
Jun '14

"As far as I understand, a felon is not allowed to so much as touch a firearm."

Correct. So someone who egged a mailbox when they were a teenager can never use a shooting range (even under the supervision of others) can never plink tin cans off the fence with their children, and can never avail themselves the use of an effective self defense tool for the remainder of their natural life...

I know it's not a popular position, but I think even people with certain "violent" crimes in their past should be afforded the opportunity to regain all of their rights. After serving the appropriate time in prison, and a reasonable probation period (say 3-5 years or so) with limited rights, first time offenders should return to full fledged citizens again.

I highly doubt the gun toting drug dealers (who don't care about the felony restriction anyway) would make it 3-5 years without a repeat offense, and the penalties should increase dramatically for those cases.

This hits a touchy spot for all gun owners in NJ, because if we so much as forget to zip up a range bag or improperly latch a gun case on the way to the range, we are technically guilty of a felony. For a freaking zipper...

Mark Mc. ✉
Jun '14

Maybe you may need the gun to protect yourself from the felon?

Redwing
Jun '14

"Maybe you may need the gun to protect yourself from the felon?"

Roommate or relative, felon or not... if there is a situation in which a person is attacking you, self-defense using deadly force may be justifiable. There have been plenty of stories where parents attack their own children, or vice versa. I don't know about you, but if someone I know comes at me with a knife, a gun, or an axe I'm not going to regale them with stories of our friendship.

Mark Mc. ✉
Jun '14

Don't worry MeisterNJ, the state will eventually pass a law mandating that everyone simply "be nice" and that will solve the problem... because everyone follows laws, right?

Mark Mc. ✉
Jun '14

Too many assumption, not enough information.

Personally I don't understand the position of passionately wanting to take away someone's rights without a single shred of valid information, other than extrapolating a possible future based on two written words on a forum (and the emotions which they elicit). If we are to assume, I can think of an infinite number of other possible futures in which there are only positive outcomes. Whose assumptions will win out?

It would be a shame if any of our factless viewpoints won out, including mine.

justintime ✉
Jun '14

mg said
"Once again no matter what the issue, the answer is more guns."

No, once again the answer is the UN-infringing of our constitutional rights.

JeffersonRepub ✉
Jun '14

Ha headso. With gun in the title you shouldn't have expected any less.

MeisterNJ ✉
Jun '14

The answer to the op's question should have been "Apply for it and see", my opinion or anyone else's really does not matter and we have several other gun right threads to go to if thats what you want to talk about.

eapos ✉
Jun '14

"we have several other gun right threads to go to if thats what you want to talk about."

If you aren't interested in different gun topics, don't click on them.

Mark Mc. ✉
Jun '14

" if there is a situation in which a person is attacking you, self-defense using deadly force may be justifiable."

"Maybe you may need the gun to protect yourself from the felon?"

"all of these individual rights are inherent in our beings, given to us by our creator, and that includes the individual right to keep and bear arms.

it is this individual right to keep and bear arms that helps to protect and guarantee all of our other inherent rights as individual human beings.

this is why NJ needs to pass a 'shall issue' permit law without delay. This state is on the wrong side of history. New Jersey is behind the times"

Nah, it doesn't sound like more guns is a suggested solution............

mistergoogle ✉
Jun '14

"Nah, it doesn't sound like more guns is a suggested solution............"

So what if it is? There are plenty of privately owned guns in NJ that are not being used to kill people.

If I was so inclined to use my guns in a crime, do you think the "law" would stop me?

I guess the folks in Trenton and our other fine cities didn't get the memo that guns are illegal, since the murder rates are climbing in those cities. Would have been nice to give some of those victims a chance for self defense, no?

Mark Mc. ✉
Jun '14

Actually in Trenton, it depends. The murder rate high was in 2007 and decreased until 2011; it is expected to be lower this year after spiking for the past three years.

Camden is another story and one that has not looked good for years but when regional cops took over last year, murders went down 15% but Camden still ranks as one of America's deadliest cities.

Newark also has decreased since 2007 but has climbed close to those levels starting in 2011. Not sure what 2014 will be but probably not good.

Meanwhile, gun strict NYC and Chicago, the gunnies poster child for bad gun laws (bad = strict) are showing great improvements. Chicago's murders were down 16% last year and NYC boasts 3.9 murders per 100,000 residents.

However, Florida with it's loose gun laws still ranks as number one for the most deadliest cities in America covering the most geography.

mistergoogle ✉
Jun '14

"Florida with it's loose gun laws still ranks as number one for the most deadliest cities in America covering the most geography."


"Well, just keep increasing the square miles covered until the numbers make your argument, eh?FACT: Florida violent crime down 60% since 1993. That's the number most widely touted, so sounds like Mr. Charlie is right. However overall crime is down too across the nation and in most spots in the nation so is FLA with it's loose gun laws all that different?"

" FACT: Gun homicide is up in Fla. Up over 40% since 2000 from 491 per year to between 700 - 900 per year.

FACT: More important, rates are out of touch with the nation and with tough gun laws states like ----- NJ or CT. rate per 100,000 fla/US/NJ for homicide 5.3/5.1/4.0 Murder by gun 3.7/3.6/2.7. FLA clearly not doing better than the nation and notably worse than tough-gun-law-states like NJ.

FACT: According to neighborhoodscout.com, Florida hosts 11 of the top 100 most dangerous cities. While CA came close with 10, NY has 2, NJ 6. We may beat them on quality (higher city rankings for individual cities), but they have us on quantity (number of cities, number of locations, amount of area infected).

So in Florida, the state opportunity to be splayed by gun is higher than the national average and way higher than tough gun law states. They have 11 different cities that you should avoid."

Obviously you forgot...........

mistergoogle ✉
Jun '14

thank you Gadfly, I just want advice from people who maybe in the know...haven't read most of these opinion posts

headso
Jun '14

You can get a felony expunged? Didn't think that was possible.

MeisterNJ ✉
Jun '14

OK, so let's go per capita. That should even things out, right?

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/murder-rates-nationally-and-state#MRord

Worst state is Louisiana - low population but also low gun control.

Best states are New Hampshire and Vermont - low populations and Constitutional carry.

NJ (high gun control) is in the middle, but immediately flanked by Texas and Nevada (low gun control).

If gun control = safer states, why aren't NJ, NY, CA, CT, and MA the top 5? Actually, MA is the best ranking state widely known for it's gun control, and it comes in at #7.

Oh, and to stick with the FL vs CA debate... they are ranked side by side at #33 and #34 despite wildly different viewpoints on gun control.


This listing is similar. Some states shift by a position or two, but it still shows that there is little, if any, correlation. I'm going by TOTAL per capita murders.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state

Mark Mc. ✉
Jun '14

Um, how else would you measure something where the populations are different? Well, I know how *you* would (raw numbers), but I prefer to do it in a more mathematically acceptable manner.

Mark Mc. ✉
Jun '14

Oh geez, per 100K. Does that make you feel better?

If not, just divide all those numbers by 100,000. The relative positions stay the same.

We did start with cities, you started throwing around Florida and California stats.

Mark Mc. ✉
Jun '14

"please let us know if you get your permit, and also (for discussion purposes only) please (if you care to) share what kind of firearms you are looking to obtain. i like to discuss pros and cons and share knowledge back and forth."

Believe it or not, we're actually nice folks. Before you decide what to get you can always accompany one of us to the range to help narrow the choices.

Mark Mc. ✉
Jun '14

"AS I roll up my shirt sleave I am expressing my right to bare arms"

Hey, fists can be considered deadly weapons. ;)

Mark Mc. ✉
Jun '14

"Is there an actual form that has to be filled out to get the permit ?"

Yes, there are three specific forms (one online now) required to get an FID/Pistol Permit. None specifically ask questions about other household members, and if the local police add any requirements such as a household questionnaire or notarized employer letter, it's illegal and should NOT be completed. As mentioned earlier, the personal references can use whatever rationale they want in response to "is there any reason this person shouldn't have a gun" but that's between the OP and whoever he/she chooses as a personal reference.


"Has anyone been in the same situation and had a permit either approved or denied?"

Not personally. I've seen posts from other gun owners claiming there have been denials for similar situations, but some/most of those denials were reversed after going to court. Of course that's an additional expense.

Mark Mc. ✉
Jun '14

Once again no matter what the issue, the answer is more guns.
Message mistergoogle
20 hours ago



Or More Scissors! ............L O L

Embryodad ✉
Jun '14

I'm a member at Shongum, 10 minutes away on Jane's Chapel Road.

Mark Mc. ✉
Jun '14

Do I get a gold star too, eapos?

Mark Mc. ✉
Jun '14

The gun violence restraining orders are BS, but if they pass I envision a lot of politicians and their bodyguards having reports submitted against them.

Mark Mc. ✉
Jun '14

"...and then being ignored"

True, to a point. If they get a million reports against one person (perhaps Weinberg or Sweeney), they'll ignore them.

But what happens when they get reports for every staffer, police officer, bodyguard, assistant, etc? They can't ignore them ALL, because what happens if one of them ever does commit a crime and it turns out a judge ignored the warning?

Let's tie up the court system with their own BS.

Mark Mc. ✉
Jun '14

Because without having those 8,000 gang related deaths each year, how could people be convinced to give up all of their rights and privacy for "security"?

Just think... in a perfect world with no crime, would there be a need for FBI, CIA, DHS, ATF, DEA, TSA, and any number of alphabet agencies, as well as local police?

That's a LOT of people whose jobs depend on the existence of crime.

Mark Mc. ✉
Jun '14

JR: Interesting reading indeed especially since the 80% number from the CDC seems impossible to reproduce. Mark liked it though.

The CDC did run a gang homicide study "for five cities with high levels of gang homicide" from 2003 to 2008.

Five cities.
High levels of gang homicide.

And the average for these FIVE cities with HIGH levels of gang homicide was 29%.

However, 80% of the victims were male.

In another CDC study "2002–2006, gangs were responsible for approximately 20% of homicides in the 88 largest cities in the US"

Now of course your "article" has no links to it's sources that provide the statistics stated. Perhaps you have read about this elsewhere in all your reading.......

mistergoogle ✉
Jun '14

i think Codey's bill will be used to hurt people. it wouldn't take very much for some to drop a dime on someone they just didn't like. you know just like they do now with dyfs

using the long reach of government to mess with somebody's day.

where are the protections from feckless behavior?

(knock, knock), "This is the Police!! Open up!!, We got a report on you. We are here to secure your firearms"

BrotherDog ✉
Jun '14

Mark Mc You get a star but not sure what color, right answer but 60 posts too late. And the gun debate continues when a simple answer would have been fine.

eapos ✉
Jun '14

"Mark Mc You get a star but not sure what color, right answer but 60 posts too late. And the gun debate continues when a simple answer would have been fine."


Actually I answered the question in post #5 when I said "maybe". The OP didn't ask what forms were needed (you did) and I have no control over what information the police access or the response of the personal references.

If the police literally follow the application as written the answer would be different, but getting an FID card *always* results in a maybe because some PD's just don't like people to have guns and they have the discretion to just say no.

Mark Mc. ✉
Jun '14

OK, even if gangs killing other gangs are reponsible for only 20% of the homicides, that's ~2,200 thugs off the street (a good thing in my opinion).

Also note, approximately 600 of the remaining homicides, both police and self defense, are deemed justifiable per FBI stats (I can post the link if you want).

So there's probably a dozen ways to discuss this number, but I'll keep it simple. Let's call this ~8,200 homicides the "cost" to society. Then wouldn't the "benefit" be the number of times a gun saves a life? Simple risk-reward analysis then determines if guns are a net positive or net negative.

I've posted it before, but estimates from a number of studies (private and government) are that guns are used for self defense between 50,000 and 2.5 million times per year. Yes, that's a wide range - I'm sure it's based on the bias of the study sponsor. But even on the low end, guns save lives (or at least prevent rape/assault/etc.) at a rate 6x higher than guns end life in crimes. Sounds like a net positivie to me.

Mark Mc. ✉
Jun '14

Busted? LOL I didn't conduct the study, or write the report. But nice try, trying to discredit the MESSAGE by attacking the messenger. Classic liberal 101 rules for radicals.

See, to me, polls are irrelevant. Completely. It doesn't matter what statistics say, it doesn't matter what people think... UNTIL it's enough to change the constitution. Until then, step off.

Change the constitution, if you can.

JeffersonRepub ✉
Jun '14

"overly difficult to amend it"-

Purposely done by the founders. If it were easy to amend, we would end up with mob rule.

JeffersonRepub ✉
Jun '14

"will eventually cause the Constitution to collapse under its own weight."


Only when you continually try to undermine it.

Mark Mc. ✉
Jun '14

Enlighten me to any law that is hampered by too strict an interpretation of the Constitution. Damn near any legislation passed now violates due process or unwarranted search/seizure, at a minimum.

The Constitution is there to limit government power, but all you hear about is proposals (a lot of which pass) for the government to ban this, track that, tap your phones (via secret court approval answerable to nobody), enact restraining orders without evidence... They use secret lists (terrorist watch list) which nobody knows how they get on it, and nobody knows how to get off, to unilaterally deny rights without hearings or convictions of any crime.

No, I think the Constitution is fine just the way is and we need to actually start following its limitations again.

Mark Mc. ✉
Jun '14

"The Constitution is there to grant power, within limits."

This is somewhat incorrect. The Bill of Rights grants NO POWER WHATSOEVER to the government; it's specific purpose was to tell the government what things they CANNOT TOUCH because they DO NOT have the power to affect them.

It doesn't "grant power within limits", it LIMITS POWER.


This is one of the prime problems with people's understanding of govt; they have been mistakenly taught, through the years, that power comes FROM government. It does not (or it is not supposed to). Power comes from the PEOPLE, and the government can only do what the people ALLOW it to do. By design, the govt was supposed to be kept small and on a short leash. The Constitution/Bill of Rights was supposed to be the leash. Somehow, over the last 2 centuries, that concept has been turned upside down.

JeffersonRepub ✉
Jun '14

The main articles "grant" powers to create the absolute basic framework of government. Nobody is arguing that the government has the power to make laws, or that we actually have a president, congress, etc.

The amendments, however, specifically define what those laws and branches *cannot* do. There are a whole lot of "shall not" and "make no law" statements intertwined throughout the Bill of Rights.

Basically the Constitution is "Here's the Federal government you will have, and here's what it cannot do. The rest is up to the states or the people. Plus, due to the incorporation doctrine, Amendments 1 through 8 ALSO apply to each state government, so no funny business."

Mark Mc. ✉
Jun '14

The Bill of Rights IS the constitution; they are a part of the Constitution, being amendments TO the Constitution.

But I think we're into semantics here. We agree the founding documents, while granting a certain low level of power to the govt so that it can function, primarily restricts the power the govt can yield.

Which of course makes perfect sense, considering the war the had just fought to get away from an all-powerful, tyrannical, govt.

JeffersonRepub ✉
Jun '14

Going back to the original topic, and I apologize in advance if this has been mentioned as I am not going to read through all of these posts, but something to think about is if the convicted felon is on parole, it could be a problem with him living in a home with a weapon in it as part of his release conditions.

JrzyGirl88 ✉
Jun '14

No. Have you studied the revolution? It wasn't that they didn't want to pay taxes, it's that they didn't want to pay EXCESS taxes, and the certainly didn't want to pay taxes that would be used back in England.

The asked their (unelected- they were appointed by the crown) "representatives" for relief, they asked the king numerous times to address the issue, they were not only ignored by the crown, they were taunted and threatened with troops. Eventually, it came to a head. And the revolution began. But the colonists tried and tried and TRIED to "do it the right way"- without violence- but were ignored.

The revolutionaries weren't just a bunch of upstarts who didn't feel like paying taxes, as some history revisionists would have you believe. The revolution took decades to build.

JeffersonRepub ✉
Jun '14

Also note the thug in JR's link, had multiple (I'm guessing violent) felony convictions and parole violations, went through the revolving door of the criminal justice system, and despite being federally prohibited still managed to obtain a gun even though there are *laws* against it. I'm sure he would have complied with magazine limits and universal background checks though.

Mark Mc. ✉
Jun '14

Wow... reading comprehension is not MG's strong suit:

"At about 9:30 p.m., police went to Caroline Court apartments after family members called saying they believed "their father had been shot,"

"A scuffle ensued, but relatives soon fled to a neighboring apartment where they called police, Grant said."

Surprisingly, the thug didn't wait patiently while the police traveled to the scene... he continued assaulting people until one of them fought back and ended the situation.

Not every town has 15 officers circling the block 24/7. Some counties may have one or two officers covering hundreds of square miles, and a lot can happen in the 20 minutes it takes to get on scene.

For someone who has claimed to not be "anti-gun" you certainly are parroting all of their talking points and twisted logic.

Mark Mc. ✉
Jun '14

Already sounds like a dysfunctional house hold lol why do you need a gun? ahh i know because its your constitutional right.
Why even post this just apply and see what happens.My father had guns and hunted but now a days to many crazy people out there. There needs to be better screening.
Our whole mental system is overloaded and to many people slipping through the cracks.I think people need to do a better job in there own households first of all and raise better,smarter,nicer,kids !!!!!
I'm just saying wake up my friends and alot of this starts at home! remember home? I hate to sound like my parents did when they were my age but its scary out there.
Lets do a better job with raising future generations cause they sure lookin scary to me LOL !!!!!!!!!

Patti ✉
Jun '14

And since the article JR posted was a man defending himself, in his house, with a legally owned gun, and no mention of LCM's, why do you find it necessary to STILL use it as some sort of anti-gun case? Sounds to me it's exactly what you support.

Because the guy didn't make a head-shot? You do realize the torso is the largest part of a human body and therefore the best place to aim if you actually want to hit your attacker to make them stop.

Mark Mc. ✉
Jun '14

"On the issue of shooting to wound, that gains you absolutely nothing in terms of mitigating either criminal or civil liability. If you put a bullet in someone, you’ve shot them, deadly force, period. Shoot them in the leg or shoot them in the chest, from a legal liability perspective it’s all the same (the only variance is whether they die or not, obviously the consequences are more severe if they die, but a gunshot to the thigh can accomplish that quite as effectively as one to the chest).

Further, if you are foolish enough to state out loud that you only shot to wound, it opens the door to the State arguing that you lacked the good faith subjective fear of imminent death or grave bodily harm necessary to justify your use of deadly force. After all, if you’d feared imminent death, you’d have shot to neutralize the threat decisively, not just make him more angry with a pistol-caliber bullet wound to an extremity. If there was no genuine fear of death or grave bodily harm, your use of deadly force was not lawful self-defense, and off to jail you go.

The whole “never say you were shooting to stop, only shooting to kill” is not exactly untrue (and it IS better to phrase it that way), but it’s a bit of an overblown concern. If someone is trying to imminently kill you, the law says you are allowed to kill them first if (and only if) necessary to defend yourself from their deadly attack. That’s the law, it’s permitted, justified even. Merely having said “I shot to kill in order to save my life” is not going to lose you self-defense.

Of course, what we want to avoid is the “he only killed him because he wanted to, not because he had to,” line. But in most cases of genuine self-defense, that’s not a very effective attack. If it’s a concern in a case I was involved on I’d just bring in a defensive force expert and have him testify to the “coincidence” that the most effective way to stop also has the unfortunate consequence of being the most likely to cause death–but it’s exactly how every bailiff in the court room, every cop in the city, county, state, country, was trained." - Andrew Branca - The Law of Self Defense

skippy ✉
Jun '14

First off Marky, I was just responding to JR's polarized 2A vision that it is possible to be for the 2A and limitations at the same time while still living within the constitution.

As far as "should have shot him in the head," this beyond bad guy murdered a stroke victim in a wheelchair, terrorized a family, and then was beating a unarmed women after firing a few shots along his merry way across the neighborhood.. So if you all want to support wounding him in the stomach, torso, foot or leg, be my guest. I say if you're going to do something, do it right.

But, and just asking, if you're going for the marksman special of wounding the creep in the third digit of his left hand, do you still need the 100-round LCM automatic to do that?

mistergoogle ✉
Jun '14

" the fantasy hypothetical rhetoric questioning the expertise of the one who successfully defended their family from the blitz attack is just another pathetically weak attempt at character assassination. It's laughable and designed specifically to denigrate and dismiss any validity to the self-defense argument. clearly that attempt has failed. and it's refreshing to see that right minded individuals are calling it out for what it is."

I am continually amazed how much work you put in to attack a flip off-handed comment.

But hey, I'm all for arguing support for my ridiculous flippant suggestion on something I know nothing about, without facts, to the point of stupidity. Speaking of which, to your point of the shooter performing perfectly ---- after being shot the assailant got up, walked across the street, tossed the gun into the woods, walked back across the street, came up to the porch, sat down, and waited for the EMT.

Sounds to me not like someone put down but rather someone who had reason to pause and reconsider. And that's what they train you to do? Or did the shooter just get lucky? Well, did he p....? :>) (<; I think he would have been just as "put down" with a snarky comment so fire away.

mistergoogle ✉
Jun '14

yes to that Mark, and the head of ISIS has said,

"See you in New York"

they are coming back here as soon as they can make it happen

and where is our president? he's 'considering' options, while Iraq falls apart. and he was out playing golf and attending fundraisers, completely out of tune, detached and not involved , what an excuse for a leader. just horrible.

ISIS has banned/outlawed guns because if regular everyday people can defend themselves with firearms it makes it harder for the radical jihadists in ISIS to nail them up on crosses and behead them for not being Sharia Islamic enough.

BrotherDog ✉
Jun '14

What do you want the Pres. to do BDog?

At least the Kurds will extract themselves from this mess so that's a one-third win.

mistergoogle ✉
Jun '14

Nice Mark...I assume that means all the innocent children, women and men who are not involved. Collateral damage, right? No problem too big if your gun is bigger...

yankeefan ✉
Jun '14

Oh come on Mark, there is no similarity whatsoever with ISIS and US gun control or Japan and what you want to do.

mistergoogle ✉
Jun '14

mark you are correct in this: "I just thought it was interesting that one of the very first things the ISIS terrorist "government" has mandated in Iraq is exactly what NJ politicians have attempted to do here " the restrictions on gun ownership is what you are referring to of course.

the ISIS leadership has banned the individual ownership of firearms.

the radical extremists know that a disarmed population is more easily controlled. taking away individuals rights to keep and bear arms gives them a strategic atvantadge.

As the ISIS jihadists disarm the populace it will be much easier for them to institute strict Islamic Sharia law.

they have already beheaded and crucified non-muslims, Christians are literally running for their very lives.

the ISIS leadership has already issued new rules: Women cannot leave home unless fully covered (they say by wide clothing) and accompanied by a man who they are related to, women cannot venture out alone, it is forbidden,

and they have promised (and i quote):

"We'll see you in New York"

they fully intend to come here.

BrotherDog ✉
Jun '14

it's the individual right to keep and bear arms that is the common link. easy to ignore for those on the gun control side because recognizing that right as an individual right doesn't fit their agenda, NJ is on the wrong side of history regarding this.

the radical extremists know that a disarmed population is more easily controlled. Taking away individuals rights to keep and bear arms gives them a strategic advantage over them.

much easier for ISIS to implement harsh Sharia law if the people cannot defend themselves with their own firearms. this is a very basic concept that is not hard to understand.

ISIS ordering women to stay indoors when not accompanied by a man that they are related to and subjecting them to death by stoning if they are out on the street with a man they are not related to, also implementing the cutting off of hands, beheadings, stonings, honor killings, all this is much easier to do if individuals cannot defend themselves with their own firearms.

the right to self defense is a basic human right. The right to defend yourself, and having the means to do it, meeting force with equal force.

It's because of this that the individual right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, that's the tie in.

ISIS has promised to bring it here to this country, so i support women's fundamental individual rights to keep and bear arms, so that if ever needed, a woman can defend herself from one of these 'honor killings'. 'Honor Killings' have happened here already. with more to come,

jealous angry abusive ex-boyfriends/husbands have also committed rape/murder, it's past time that NJ allows women the right to carry firearms for their own defense.

individual rights, that's the tie in.

please support CCW here in NJ, we need a 'shall issue' law passed asap.

BrotherDog ✉
Jun '14

"please support CCW here in NJ, we need a 'shall issue' law passed asap."

Agreed 110% but before that, we need to stop criminalizing the possession of guns even inside one's own private home such as magazine limits, firearm bans, etc.

This is what 95% of non-gun owners don't understand. NJ doesn't just make a law here or there to address a particular facet of firearms. It literally bans *EVERYTHING* (possession, ammunition, carrying, etc.) and then makes extremely narrow exemptions that allow certain things and you are guilty until proven innocent. I'm not kidding. The state doesn't have to prove you broke the law (because everything is illegal), you have to prove that you were exempted.

If nobody can get a CCW permit in NJ (Sweeny's own words) then what does it matter what firearms I own or how large my magazines are?

Mark Mc. ✉
Jun '14

mark said quite correctly: "NJ doesn't just make a law here or there to address a particular facet of firearms. It literally bans *EVERYTHING* (possession, ammunition, carrying, etc.) and then makes extremely narrow exemptions that allow certain things and you are guilty until proven innocent."

this is similar to what the extremists are doing in Iraq. infringing individual rights.

NJ certainly has not sanctioned "Honor Killings" here, but the state not allowing women to defend themselves with their own firearm makes them easier victims to their husbands and close male relatives.

and in the case of restraining orders issued to ex-boyfriends and abusive husbands, it should be easy to understand that those women have a justifiable need to carry their own firearm for protection. Sadly the state of NJ creates an environment that puts women at more risk.

so that's one more reason why we should all support a CCW law here in NJ,

BrotherDog ✉
Jun '14

"How can you compare any NJ politician, living or dead, with ISIS. You should be ashamed."

You're right, at least ISIS is honest enough to plainly state their end-goal.

The funny thing is, they're just continuing a policy put in place by the USA when we "liberated" Iraq.

Mark Mc. ✉
Jun '14

Wow, one of you is praising ISIS and the other recommending guns for women in "abusive threatening relationships." Can't wait to hear how you tell the kids to deal with bullies.

I really hope you folks are just tweaking us.

mistergoogle ✉
Jun '14

"DO think a criminal applies for a permit to purchase a gun? Only law abiding citizens go through the lengthy process of applying for a gun permit."

You're joking right?

Gadfly ✉
Jun '14

I'm not praising ISIS. I'm chastising our government for having the same goals as a terrorist organization. Not saying our legislature wants to behead women who leave the house unaccompanied, just that both NJ and ISIS want the power and arms centralized in their hands, not that of the citizenry.

If ISIS enacting strict gun control doesn't prove that criminals *love* gun control, I don't know what will.

Mark Mc. ✉
Jun '14

Nice try Mark, but that wasn't the statement. There are plenty of criminals that apply for permits, and plenty of more would be criminals. Deny it?

Gadfly ✉
Jun '14

[1] People who identify themselves as "victims" harbor excessive amounts of rage at other people, whom they perceive as "not victims."

[2] In order psychologically to deal with this rage, these "victims" utilize defense mechanisms that enable them to harm others in socially acceptable ways, without accepting responsibility or suffering guilt, and without having to give up their status as "victims."

[3] Gun owners are frequently the targets of professional victims because gun owners are willing and able to prevent their own victimization.

Works cited:

1- Lott, John R., Jr. 1998. More Guns, Less Crime. University of Chicago press. pp. 11-12; proposition B: More Security Or Greater Danger?, St. Louis post–Dispatch. March 21, 1999.

2 - Lott 1998, pp. 1–2.

3 - Kaplan, Harold M. and Sadock, Benjamin J. 1990. pocket Handbook of Clinical psychiatry. Williams & Wilkins. p. 20.

skippy ✉
Jun '14

Boy you makeup A LOT of BS when you can support your argument. Sorry mark, but were arguing over a very specific statement, and you're wrong. You know you're wrong, so you're your trying to twist this way and that, but you cannot support the original statement. Maybe you should just admit that?

Gadfly ✉
Jun '14

You know damn well that plenty of people are turned down for FID cards for previous crimes. I'm sure that you also know some people who legally purchase firearms go on to commit crimes. The statement is therefore false.

"DO think a criminal applies for a permit to purchase a gun? Only law abiding citizens go through the lengthy process of applying for a gun permit."

Gadfly ✉
Jun '14

women who have been beaten and raped actually are real victims. they aren't professional victims. or pretend victims, but have been victims and often are targeted by their abusers for more attacks. many times court restraining orders are violated by these abusers.

why shouldn't they be allowed to protect themselves by keeping and bearing their own firearm?

skippy, not sure what you are trying to convey, are you suggesting that women who have been criminally assaulted are not victims?

some of these women have been murdered by their abusers, are they not real victims?

BrotherDog ✉
Jun '14

Mark, found some more here:
http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbse&sid=13

justintime ✉
Jun '14

Gadly, I was replying to this:
"The problem here is that people generally cannot be neatly divided into criminals vs. law-abiding citizens."

My comment about assuming everyone is a criminal should be obvious. Would you check everyone if they are assumed to be innocent? No, you only check people if you assume they are guilty or if they are a member of a group of people that you assume are guilty.

But checking is preventative, right? OK, I get that. Still, the assumption that causes the check in the first place is that you will find some that are guilty, thus there is an assumption of guilt. Surely you can agree with that?

justintime ✉
Jun '14

I don't know if I can agree with you JIT. Background checks are done bc we know that some of the populace have disqualifying histories and some don't. That's not an assumption, it's a fact. And how do you know the difference without background checks?

Gadfly ✉
Jun '14

"And how do you know the difference without background checks?"

If the *only* concern is background checks, why not just open NICS to private individuals so when you or I sell a firearm we can call the system and have peace of mind that the person buying it is not prohibited?

That will NEVER happen, because the entire goal of the "background check" system is to keep a record of make/model/serial number of every privately owned gun since you have to fill out Form 4473 at the FFL. That form is inspectable by the ATF at any time and must be retained forever (if the FFL goes out of business the records are sent to the ATF).

Mark Mc. ✉
Jun '14

"I'm not praising ISIS. I'm chastising our government for having the same goals as a terrorist organization."

This is such a ludicrous statement that I have to believe you are tweaking. Our government has the same goals as ISIS. I would gather you are restricting that to guns. Still ludicrous.

"Despite repeated claims about his concern only for LCM's and safe storage laws, he's proven himself to be as anti-gun as they come with his recent positions defending complete bans, chastising lawful self defense, etc."
Again, ludicrous. You read way too much into things are fear way too much. Questioning and examining is not anti.

"why shouldn't they be allowed to protect themselves by keeping and bearing their own firearm?"
Absolutely. However, my point would be that the gun probably should not be the first choice. Perhaps leaving the premise and the relationship might be a better first solution, followed by the court order, and then a gun. My point was personally I don't think the gun should be the first choice or only choice. That's why the original statement was laughable.

mistergoogle ✉
Jun '14

"My point was personally I don't think the gun should be the first choice or only choice. "

Here's the problem, MG, as of right now it's *not even an option at all*.

Maybe the woman DID leave the relationship and move out (or kick out the abusive husband/boyfriend). However, a restraining order is just a piece of paper and nothing prevents a physical attack from occurring even after taking those first steps.

Nobody is arguing that a gun is a last resort for self defense. Why can't you open your eyes and see that NJ is completely taking that option off the table for anywhere other than inside your own home. Even inside your home, NJ needs to get their grubby little mitts all over your rights and tell you what kind of gun and how many rounds of ammunition you're "allowed" to use to defend your own life.

"If it saves one life" right? That's the line you guys always use. Someone is murdered in NJ every 22 hours. Someone is raped every 8 hours. Someone is assaulted every 40 minutes. Sounds like a lot of opportunities for people to stop attacks against themselves if simply given the chance.

Mark Mc. ✉
Jun '14

"So, the issue with CCW would be outside the home, right?"

Yes, do you not believe the crimes occur outside the home? I'm also talking about rescinding ALL limitations on make/model and magazine limits. If we can't carry outside the home anyway, what difference does it make how many rounds are in the magazine?


"Even though you cherry picked last year's seven year high for your example, once again, your primary and only solution to violence in NJ is to arm everyone with a concealed weapon?"

I simply took the data from most recent NJ Uniform Crime Report available (2012). No cherry picking. If the most recent report details the highest crime rates, well that's telling all by itself.

http://www.njsp.org/info/ucr2012/index.html

I don't want to arm everybody. That's a decision everyone needs to make for him or herself. I just want everyone to have the right to make that decision... you know, like the Constitution says (and people can do in approximately 49 other states).

Mark Mc. ✉
Jun '14

BD, the protector and savior of women in NJ...I think Gabby Giffords has a different opinion:

WASHINGTON -- In a rare public speech Wednesday, former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.) spoke out about the need to pass "common-sense" gun bills that keep guns out of the hands of domestic abusers.

"Dangerous people with guns are a threat to women," Giffords told a crowd at the Corcoran Gallery of Art in Washington, D.C. "Criminals with guns. Stalkers with guns. Abusers with guns. That makes gun violence a women's issue."

In 2011, Giffords was shot point-blank in the head while meeting with constituents near Tucson, Ariz. She and her husband, Capt. Mark Kelly, started a gun violence prevention PAC called Americans for Responsible Solutions to help elect candidates supportive of key legislation to prevent gun violence.

Giffords and Kelly spoke Wednesday at a discussion of policy solutions to protect women from gun violence, sponsored by the Center for American Progress. One such solution, a bill proposed by Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), would add convicted stalkers and non-cohabiting dating partners to the list of domestic abusers who cannot legally purchase a gun. Statistics show that stalking often leads to physical abuse and homicide, but a new report released by CAP on Wednesday found that there are at least 11,986 convicted stalkers living in the United States who can walk into a store, pass a background check and legally purchase a firearm.

Kelly, a retired U.S. Navy captain and former astronaut, said he and Giffords are both responsible gun owners and that he believes the vast majority of gun owners use their weapons safely. But part of protecting the Second Amendment, he said, is ensuring that the right is exercised responsibly.

"Today we're talking about keeping guns out of the hands of men who stalk and abuse women," Kelly said. "We're talking about passing laws that will absolutely save lives, especially the lives of women. ... Today we are closer than ever to doing this, but we can't do it if we don't all work together."

ARS is advocating for Klobuchar's bill, for stronger background checks and for prohibiting the sale of firearms to domestic violence abusers under restraining orders by encouraging faster record reporting into the National Instant Criminal Background Check System.

yankeefan ✉
Jun '14

the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right that the state of nj has infringed on unconstitutionally

this makes it easier to attack and assault a victim.

simple basic concept, not hard to understand and that's why it needs to change,

New jersey is on the wrong side of history on this issue.

one day soon it will change

BrotherDog ✉
Jun '14

OMG... kids and guns!

From what I can gather, these pony clubs host "tetrathlon" events (shooting, swimming, riding, running). It's nice to see the kids get involved in shooting sports.

Yes, the guns are CO2/air guns, but I'm sure many of the kids advance to firearms in other types of sports as they get older.

Who says guns aren't fun and women shouldn't shoot?

Mark Mc. ✉
Jun '14

You miss the point on kids. When everyone is armed and cc-ing; only the kids are not.

Myopic in the sense that if your first and only answer is more guns in more places you have raised the bridge, but also raised the water. You have not attacked the root cause: violence. You have made it clear that everyone is armed and trained so criminals, who will have an easier time than every to be armed, will have to assume everyone they criminalize is going to shoot them. And there's just as much chance that the violence will escalate as it would lessen.

Guns should not be the first and only answer; we need a comprehensive approach to solving violence in America.

mistergoogle ✉
Jun '14

Shooting someone in self-defense is not an "escalation" in violence.

Just like criminals who are shot in self-defense are not "victims" of gun violence, despite their inclusion in the annual totals and emotional lists painted on the sides of buses (like the Boston bombers).

But keep on truckin' the anti-gun rhetoric MG. It's working... for us... I know of at least one woman from this site that has asked me to help pick out her first firearm.

Mark Mc. ✉
Jun '14

Wait, we have more guns than ever and you just said a few posts above that NJ is getting safer (as is the rest of the country despite - maybe because - of loosening gun laws in most states).

Oh well, guess my house got more dangerous tonight (for criminals) since I just picked up another one.

Mark Mc. ✉
Jun '14

Ohh, I have that same exact gun! Bought it three years ago, or so, Great for teaching newbies how to safely shoot a pistol. Everyone loves that gun! Ruger sr-22

Darrin ✉
Jun '14

You and everybody that shoots that ruger will love it!

I hear you on stocking up, But I do try to stay diversified, with .22, 380, 9mm, 45, 45 long colt, 454 casull, and 460 magnum just in pistols> I though having a range of calibers would be good, but it has turned into a chore and needing a second safe!

Darrin ✉
Jun '14

"Wait, we have more guns than ever and you just said a few posts above that NJ is getting safer (as is the rest of the country despite - maybe because - of loosening gun laws in most states)."

Again you mix data statistics to make a bad point. I could not tell you whether guns are increasing in NJ; gun growth is a national statistic. But as of 2007, NJ ownership was at 12.3%; the third lowest in the nation. Again, that does not say whether the number of guns is increasing or decreasing. It does say that you are in the minority, a minor data blip in the scheme of things.

But across the US:

- more guns = more gun murders.
- more gun murders = more murders.
- more murders = more violence.

Now, as I have stated before, this national trend does not necessarily hold for each individual state. There are states with high gun ownership but very low %/gun murder per 100,000. There are many other factors, too many to draw correlations on a state level. I have posted the lack of perfect correlations above; probably too long for you to read. But one conclusion was that given the large number of variables, the ability of either side to prove a gun case exactly is not possible. So we continue to speak in a general sense which is why, when combined with emotion, this argument continues.

On a national level though, the general trends I just listed seem to hold validity.

mistergoogle ✉
Jun '14

"It does say that you are in the minority, a minor data blip in the scheme of things."

A minority is something that a Democratic Republic (you know, like the United States) is supposed to protect (you know, through a Constitution).

So we're the state with the third lowest gun ownership rate (12.3% as you correctly stated) but we're only the 31st safest in gun murders per 100k people (2.8) and 26th safest in ALL murders per 100k people (4.1). That puts NJ in the BOTTOM half of the country for both statistics. Apparently less guns doesn't equal safer.


"On a national level though, the general trends I just listed seem to hold validity."

Except for the fact that they don't. See the attached chart for murder rates (overall in blue and gun related in red) vs. gun ownership rates.

More guns doesn't equal more murders. In fact, the worst rate is in the state with the lowest % ownership, and one of the best rates is in the state with the highest ownership %. Gun murder seems to be a consistent subset of overall murder *regardless* of the ownership rate in each state.

Data charted from this source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state

Mark Mc. ✉
Jun '14

So rather than compare the U.S. to a variety of completely different countries, which you note have vastly different geographical, cultural, and social values... why not compare states, since NJ has a lot more in common with PA, or VA, or any other of the 50 states than it does with Brazil, Dominican Republic, Somalia, etc...

Why does the murder rate (per 100k - so population is mostly accounted for) vary so widely state to state, seemingly unrelated to the gun ownership percentage? It isn't the tool, obviously.

Eliminate the desire for people to kill each other and it won't matter what items they purchase. Eliminate one specific tool, and you'll just change the causes of murder, not the quantity.


Also, having 100 guns doesn't make someone 50x more dangerous than someone with 2. You only have two hands, after all. Owning 50,000 rounds of ammo also doesn't make a difference if it's only physically possible to carry several hundred. So I think gun ownership % is a better "X-axis" than quantity of guns.

Mark Mc. ✉
Jun '14

I agree the real problem is being ignored and that gun control is only a partial solution.

However, more guns = more gun murders whether it jumps off the table, an adult, a teen or a kid uses it..........and they all do in America.

"So rather than compare the U.S. to a variety of completely different countries, which you note have vastly different geographical, cultural, and social values... why not compare states, since NJ has a lot more in common with PA, or VA, or any other of the 50 states than it does with Brazil, Dominican Republic, Somalia, etc..."

I noted this a number of times above about the number of variables making a statistical conclusion impossible without further study; that's why we continue the debate. And I would suggest that Louisiana and NJ have "vastly different geographical, cultural, and social values" too, for example.

And thanks to the NRA we may never do the type of analysis that helps us to come up with a solution to our violence problem, a which I guarantee guns are a major factor. Apparently, they just don't want us to know: http://abcnews.go.com/Health/cdc-ban-gun-research-caused-lasting-damage/story?id=18909347&singlePage=true

However, the world stats I showed are so compelling that they should give anyone pause to consider. First the gun stat shows just how many guns we have versus the world. Sure, we are richer, but apparently more needy of lots of arms as well. And then the murder rate: double, triple, and much higher. These are notable distinctions for the U.S. although, again, not a valid statistical study.

And I would gather that "Also, having 100 guns doesn't make someone 50x more dangerous than someone with 2." is also not true and we would find that folks with large stockpiles of guns and ammunition are indeed more likely to put them to the primary use intended. But at this date, no one can prove it statistically one way or the other.

So, back to Darrin's thought, do guns kill. Yes and no. No, guns by themselves do not kill. But if you have enough guns, it is a virtual guarantee that you will have not only more gun murders, but more murders as well with the only difference being the fact of more guns. Humans were the constant, guns were the variable. And as long as the NRA keeps blocking attempts to conduct valid statistical studies of our major attribute of violence, gun murder, we may never find a solution.

mistergoogle ✉
Jun '14

I think it's the general violence in America. But added to that is the lethal nature of our violence. (PS --- that's where the guns come in.....)

http://www.salon.com/2013/01/09/us_suffers_far_more_violent_deaths_than_any_other_wealthy_nation/

Now I think Darrin will say violence too but he won't be naming guns as a contributing factor. Noooooooo.

mistergoogle ✉
Jun '14

"the individual right to keep and bear arms is not dependent on the murder rate, at all.. it is an individual right that is protected by the bill of rights, "

This is true. It's a personal decision where you stand on our violence, murder rate and our HUGE murder by gun rate when compared to any other civilized nation. Any.

It is also true that the people can limit the Constitution, by law, any time they want. For the second amendment, the Supreme Court ruled that the states can regulate firearms. In Heller, the most recent decision: "The Court stated that the right to keep and bear arms is subject to regulation, such as concealed weapons prohibitions, limits on the rights of felons and the mentally ill, laws forbidding the carrying of weapons in certain locations, laws imposing conditions on commercial sales, and prohibitions on the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. It stated that this was not an exhaustive list of the regulatory measures that would be presumptively permissible under the Second Amendment."

http://www.loc.gov/law/help/second-amendment.php

That is the current law of the land. Don't like it, file with the SCOTUS.

Other Bill of Rights elements have limitations as well.

mistergoogle ✉
Jun '14

I just read todays Medina Ohio paper. Never happen in NJ

http://medinagazette.northcoastnow.com/2014/06/21/open-carry-gun-walk-medinas-business-district-goes-without-hitch/

Old Gent ✉
Jun '14

Tim, here's a bit of history.

Basically, NJ has always been anti-gun.

http://cemeterysgunblob.com/2012/01/14/when-did-new-jersey-become-so-anti-gun/

Mark Mc. ✉
Jun '14

New Jersey's limitations on our 2nd amendment rights are unconstitutional, they go too far , are not reasonable and have nothing to do with common sense.

the almost impossible to get CCW permits are unconstitutional, and one day soon they will be tested in a higher court and thrown out as unconstitutional.

also the overly broad and non-nonsensical bans on long guns with certain features will be shown to be unconstitutional in court cases currently filed.

the NJ supreme court is partisan, corrupt and agenda driven as it continually creates law which is also not constitutional. We need a better balance on the court. So support the govenor's choices for the opne court seats. It's a good thing.

we need the NJ legislature to pass a 'shall issue' CCW law ASAP.

New Jersey is behind the times and on the wrong side of history.

BrotherDog ✉
Jun '14

Rebeka, sorry for not getting back to you, got married on Sunday...."But in a nutshell - what do you consider to be the real problem? I do agree that guns are not the real problem!"

In a nutshell, mental instability, parenting, and responsibility is the problem. Parents who have children that have severe mental disorders should not be allowing children access to the gun safe.

Same as for guns being left out, if you have children, or people in the house, you need to lock you guns up, that's your responsibility.

I have a huge issue with media celebritizeing these school shooters and bombers. Its a quick way to pull a told you so...

the bottom line is people are the problem, and people who do have problems need to seek help, not ignore it.

Pointing fingers at one of the tools used is absurd, we could save many lives by eliminating personal vehicles and making everyone take mass transit....after all you should trust your safety in the hands of someone else....just like some want, they claim you should not have to defend your home, that's what police are for.

Darrin ✉
Jun '14

SWAT? As in "special" weapons and tactics?

Lately it's more like "typical" weapons and tactics... Watch out for the TWAT team...

Mark Mc. ✉
Jun '14

"They said stay in the house and 2 hours later they left. Turns out they had the wrong house."

Something's fishy about that story... the dog lived.

Mark Mc. ✉
Jun '14

"I can also give you a long list of gun owner ooopsies that result in the death of very little kids; hundreds every year. And another list for the teens."


I'm betting there's a much better linear relationship between gun owner oopsies and their punishment for doing so than there is between police officer/SWAT oopsies and them being held responsible.

But hey, as long as the officers went home safe that night, that's all that matters... flash-banging a toddler is all in a day's work (he probably got three points for making it in the basket (crib).

Mark Mc. ✉
Jun '14

While all tragic there's an order of magnitude difference in negligence between not sufficiently hiding a gun and throwing an incendiary device into a baby's crib.

Mark Mc. ✉
Jun '14

BD wrote:

"using false strawman arguments about swat teams mistakes compared to the negligent handling of firearms around children are all non-starters. They are as invalid as they are nonsensical and non-applicable.

honest right minded people can see clearly through the false arguments that are presented as 'fact-checked' and 'busted'; What a sad pathetic and desperate joke it is for the self-titled 'progressives' to keep offering these quid pro quo arguments. they congratulate themselves on keeping up with the debate when in reality nothing could be further from the real truth"

What the hell are you talking about? I believe it was your buddies that brought the unrelated SWAT story in to the discussion. I agree it's a red herring, but you should point the dirty stick in the right direction.

Gadfly ✉
Jun '14

"What the hell are you talking about?"

this is what I'm talking about:

The inalienable right of the people to keep and bear arms is protected by the constitution of the United States of America.

please keep this point in sharp focus as you read the back and forth nonsense.

New Jersey is not in concert with the rest of the nation on this basic human right,

New Jersey needs to come up to speed with the rest of the nation

BrotherDog ✉
Jun '14

That's what happens when you train (and equip) police like soldiers. By that I mean that soldiers have VASTLY different mission requirements (and operating environments) than police, but we're training them side by side so why are we surprised at the results?

Yes, there is a place for SWAT, when verified intelligence/observation confirms that they have the right place and there is imminent danger to other people (i.e. hostage situations - not drug busts). Knocking down the wrong door, killing innocent people, maiming babies, and then saying "oops, my bad" should not be tolerated - especially when the "target" is just a few ounces of dope...

Mark Mc. ✉
Jun '14

Now wait a second Oblio. I thought the NRA trained the police :>)

And they have been knocking on the wrong doors well before SWAT was a word.

Why do you care about maiming babies? The NRA has supported that for years.

mistergoogle ✉
Jun '14

"We agree. Exactly why we need stringent gun control"

Let's start with the police then...

Mark Mc. ✉
Jun '14

"maiming babies?" Well, if you want to start talking about ABORTION, it's on....

JeffersonRepub ✉
Jun '14

"Does Eddie save lives or sell guns?"

Considering that you can't even get the basic premise of this program correct, all of your points are just fear mongering...

Read the top 5 or 6 bullet points here: http://eddieeagle.nra.org/rules.aspx

Eddie Eagle is specifically prohibited from "taking sides" on the gun issues or even being present in the same location as firearms.

I guess the goal of sex-ed classes is to promote promiscuity, huh?

Mark Mc. ✉
Jun '14

Like Joe Camel was cool and never spoke to kids, Joe certainly made them cigarettes cool too. https://www.vpc.org/fact_sht/eddiekey.htm

What amazes me is that's the first point you pulled on when discussing maiming babies. The fact that we kill and maim more in the US versus any other affluent nation does not seem to faze you.

And you seem to be just hunky dory with the NRA's lobbying since the main intent is to sell more guns and make more types of guns readily available.

And you are fine with the current laws that let over 90% of the negligent parents off-the-hook since the laws are not specific enough to do the job and allow police/prosecutors to let the tragedy be a tragedy and not a crime.

So suffer the little American children in your world. Don't fix it, don't try to help, it's A-OK with you.

mistergoogle ✉
Jun '14

I think mg just flew over the cuckoo's nest. I haven't seen a post that non-sensicle from him in quite awhile.

He might as well have said "the sky is green and NOAA caused it". I haven't seen such desperate straw-grasping in a long time.

JeffersonRepub ✉
Jun '14

"NRA is a 144 year old fine upstanding organization that is comprised of over 5 million regular every day American's. The NRA takes seriously the proper handling and safe responsible use of firearms."
If money is power then the power driving the NRA is gun manufacturers, not citizens.

The NRA's safety program is not working.

The "generic" laws are not working.

Children are being shot, are shooting each other, and more often than not, no one is held accountable.

If the NRA promotes gun sales and if their safety programs are not working then yes, they are causing it and not doing enough about it. It's not enough to say "we told em not to touch it" if the kids keep shooting.

Is it really straw grasping to say too many kids are dying needlessly from gun shots and that the gun lobbying organization should do more about it than have a silly mascot preaching "don't touch the guns?" The numbers say it does not work.

Is it really straw grasping to say that very few adults are charged with criminality when kids shoot themselves and each other that the gun lobbying organization should do more about it than lobby against any law aimed at lessening the death toll?

Is it really straw grasping when we kill more kids with guns than any other affluent nation in the world and the gun lobby seems content to just tell kids "don't touch the guns?

The NRA and our current safe storage and negligence laws are not saving them, are not protecting them, are not working.

Look at the numbers of kids who die; look at the numbers who are charged with criminality.

And you say I am over the cuckoo's nest to think this is wrong, this is important, and that the NRA should be more proactive in improving the situation. Yes, crazy man.

mistergoogle ✉
Jun '14

in actuality the NRA is proactive in protecting children. the NRA promotes the responsible use of firearms and firearms safety and has been doing so for generations.

the majority of NRA funding comes from it's individual members, regular everyday citizens just like your neighbors, your boss, the guy who fixes your car, membership dues and voluntary donations make up the vast majority of the NRA's funding. this is a matter of record. it's a popular urban myth propagated by the anti-gun lobby that the NRA is owned by gun manufacturers. it's not, it's the oldest civil rights organization in the United States; it's is made up of indiviuals (5 million+) and the truth needs to be told, because the lies and disinformation campaign is in full gear.

More children are protected by the NRA's efforts than are harmed by the irresponsible use of firearms.

it's sad really this OCD knee-jerk obsession to ascribe guilt and responsibility for reckless tragedies to this venerable civil rights organization. there is no 'common sense' reason to do so. the pure hatred comes out clear. i'm calling BS on it right now.

NRA is absolutely part of the solution, and has been since it's founding in 1871. maybe those who think not enough is being done should join the NRA and be part of the good work efforts already under way to increase safety and responsible use of firearms.

New Jersey is out of touch with most of the country and need to come up to speed with the rest of the nation

BrotherDog ✉
Jun '14

Guys, this one seems cut and dry to me.

The problem: America has more child gun deaths than any other developed nation in the world. Many are kid to kid.

Current solutions:
NRA gun training has been going on for decades. It has not reduced the numbers to acceptable levels. Increasing coverage is just making the Eddie Eagle failure bigger.

Hardly anyone is being charged under current negligence laws so in most cases where an adult leaves a gun for a child to shoot a child, the adult is not held criminally libel.

Safe storage laws are only available in 20 states.

Going forward.
I believe we should have less child gun deaths in America. I think that would be a good thing.

The anti-gun-nuts can't do it. We will lose the vote. Only the gun nuts can make it better; they have to stand up and make positive changes.

Your response is not good enough.

"in actuality the NRA is proactive in protecting children. the NRA promotes the responsible use of firearms and firearms safety and has been doing so for generations." No, the numbers would say they have failed. The US/other country comparison would say they have failed.

"the majority of NRA funding comes from it's individual members, regular everyday citizens" No, the majority comes from the gun manufacturers, but that is unimportant. What is important is that the safety programs have failed and doing more of them will not change that.

"More children are protected by the NRA's efforts than are harmed by the irresponsible use of firearms" The child gun death loss is not acceptable to me. Plus if you look at the NRA lobbying efforts I have posted above, you can see that the NRA owns many of these child gun deaths and huge number of injuries. The have stopped any legal action, they have stopped any technical safety actions, they have even stopped the government from studying the issue (and yet still blame the government's lack of data as reason not to take action).

"If negligent people are not being pursued it is not the fault of the NRA or any gun manufacturers" Yes it is. They overtly lobby to stop any laws that would improve the situation. Your funding is going to stop laws that would hold adults liable for child gun deaths. You are in support of it.

The solution.
I don't think safe storage laws would help as much as strict gun child death negligence laws. Just not enough teeth and who's gonna run around checking up. I think the easiest, most acceptable solution would be to put specific child gun death negligence laws on the books in every state. Nice ones with mandatory sentencing limits upon conviction. The chances of criminal charges being brought would be much greater if the cops and prosecutors would be losing their jobs if they didn't. No loopholes, no weaseling. If guilty, judges couldn't shed a tear and reduce the sentence. And if we consistently charge adults in child shootings, then maybe Eddie won't have to tell kids not to pick up that gun found just laying around (which does not work either).

Only the gun nuts can make this happen, the anti-gun-nuts can not. You have to do it, you have to try to reduce the number of child-related gun deaths in America. Otherwise, yes, you are part of the problem.

mistergoogle ✉
Jun '14

Actually you can not prove that even one child has ever been protected by the NRA.

On the other hand, the fact that the US has more children killed by guns, more children who kill other children with guns, than ANY other developed nation in the world proves that Eddie Eagle and the NRA has failed. Either the program does not work, does not reach the right people, or both. I just say simply that Eddie Eagle has failed.

We have the worst record of defending our children from guns in the world and you all say it's OK, the programs are working, the laws are sufficient and the gun lobby is doing "god's work." At some point admit it; you don't care.

mistergoogle ✉
Jun '14

BD, It's for the children, Dont you know?

Old Gent ✉
Jun '14

mg,

"The problem: America has more child gun deaths than any other developed nation in the world. Many are kid to kid."

So, obviously, all those gun control laws already on the books HAVEN'T WORKED. At least not to your satisfaction.

Maybe you should just go full circle and prohibit private gun ownership. I'm serious. It seems you want to limit, infringe, increase difficulty, tax, pass legislation.... everything BUT outlawing the gun. Just get to it, man. Because nothing you propose is going to stop the deaths you are seeking to stop. 50 years of gun control legislation hasn't stopped them. A populace can not be guaranteed safety from cradle to grave. Change the constitution. Throw everyone who will not abide by the repeal of the 2nd Amendment into prison for life.

Guess what. Children are still going to die. Alot of them at the hands of other children, using illegal weapons. Just like today.

JeffersonRepub ✉
Jun '14

Ah, yes.

NJ making all firearms ownership illegal (if you don't believe me, read the first few lines of NJ's firearm laws 2C:39-5), with very limited exceptions is "too watered down".

NJ also has just about *every single* gun control law that's ever been proposed.

* We still follow the restrictions of the 1994 Federal assault weapons ban.
* We have magazine limits.
* We require permission/background check to obtain a firearms ID card.
* We require permits for every single handgun purchased.
* We have "universal" background checks for handguns.
* We are not allowed to use hollow point ammunition.
* We have laws against allowing access to minors.
* Effectively zero concealed carry permits are issued to citizens.
* No other state concealed carry permit is recognized in NJ.
* Transporting firearms in a vehicle is severely restricted.
* You cannot possess firearms if you are on the "secret" FAA no fly list.

And despite all that, NJ still has a couple of the country's most dangerous cities. Yep, it's "limp" laws that are the problem.

Mark Mc. ✉
Jun '14

Perhaps you are right and it's OK to kill more kids with guns than any other developed nation in the world. After all, we need to be first in something.

Perhaps the NRA is doing the best that they possibly can when we kill more children with guns than any other affluent nation in the world. I mean if Bobby didn't listen to Eddie Eagle and he shot his sister, perhaps the NRA has done it's job. The NRA is doing such a good job that we kill more kids than anyone. If the NRA stopped today then we would be in the exact same position ---- killing more kids than any other modern nation in the world.

Perhaps kids die from other things so dying from someone leaving a gun on the table is not really a crime. I mean kids die every day. They die from common household objects. It's not even collateral damage. It's barely even a tragedy so why pass any specific laws to hold adults liable, we already have general ones on the books that we barely use when kids die from guns. I mean just because we shoot more kids than anyone else, I mean, why change.

Perhaps you all are loons and are totally part of the reason the our kids die from guns. You acceptance is deplorable. I mean, JR states that he seems satisfied.

This is not leftist, anti-gun, anti-2A agenda; this is our kids shooting themselves and each other because you are too afraid to do anything more about it than you already have except ask some bozo in a bird suit to preach the safety gospel even though the facts clearly indicate: IT DOES NOT WORK.

Since you are the ones advocating no additional laws specific to gun negligence and since you have no other workable solutions, I say you can hold a good part of the blame for the US's number one status when it comes to shooting kids with guns. We can't change this unless you change and support some form of action. And if we keep doing what we are doing, it won't change.

mistergoogle ✉
Jun '14

" It's barely even a tragedy so why pass any specific laws to hold adults liable, we already have general ones on the books that we barely use when kids die from guns."


THE LAWS TO HOLD PEOPLE RESPONSIBLE FOR FIREARM NEGLIGENCE ALREADY EXIST!

Anything more is just an effort to demonize firearms.

You're simply following the NJ logic of guilty until proven innocent, just because a firearm was involved. I know what you want... Gun involved = automatically negligent with the onus on the person charged to prove their innocence.

Call me crazy (you always do), but because there is already a law that allows prosecution for negligence, it should be up to the prosecutor to prove that was the case, otherwise the person is innocent.

Innocent doesn't mean nothing bad ever happens, just that it wasn't criminal.

And yes, other causes SHOULD take precedence - more lives would be saved. 10x as many children die from drowning than because of firearm accidents. Where are you proposals for pool neglicence?

Mark Mc. ✉
Jun '14

mg,

The problem with your "this isn't anti-gun or anti-2A/I don't want to take away anyone's guns" position is, it's a lie.

And everyone sees right through it. More and more every day. Which is precisely why most of the anti-gun legislation since newtown has fallen flat on its face. Sure, CA and NY got some stuff passed... (CO is still up in the air, caught up in appeals), but EVEN NJ COULDN'T... and that's saying something in this country today.

It's a lie, mg. And it's transparent- more transparent every day. Your sides' arguments don't add up, and worse they don't make sense. People "in the middle" on this issue can even see that.

Your ship's sinking on this one.

JeffersonRepub ✉
Jun '14

this statement form the other thread is spot on:

"The NRA offers a variety of safety courses for kids and adults. If people decide to not take advantage of them, it isn't the NRA's fault."

http://training.nra.org

I myself have taught many, many young people how to handle firearms safely and supported the NRA's community outreach programs. What have the chief complainers on this thread ever done to improve this situation other than complain, cast accusations, falsely ascribe blame, conflate unassociated facts together in a pathetic unsuccessful attempt at associating the NRA with the deaths of children and then throwing temper tantrums from their easy chairs? What have they actually done to address the problems that they have identified other than pontificate endlessly, pithily, illogically and unintelligently? Wait a minute, what's the sound? oh, yeah, i thought so, silence, (crickets)

they got nothing, honestly nothing of substance to add to the discussion, and even less to add in real effort at addressing the issues they themselves have raised.

BrotherDog ✉
Jun '14

It's a good thing we have such trained people handling and selling guns on a daily basis.

http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local/Vendor-Accidentally-Shoots-Woman-at-Gun-Show-265125091.html

As I've said before, some people are too stupid and/or unstable to be allowed to own a gun. There are plenty of responsible and stable people. Find a middle ground.

As far as people complaining and doing nothing, that's ridiculous. Just another unsubstantiated rant. Just because you don't like what the opposition proposes doesn't mean they haven't done anything.

emaxxman ✉
Jun '14

No argument there.

emaxxman ✉
Jun '14

Here's one last link for MG... you want safe storage laws? Start with law enforcement.

If I had a full auto M16 go missing (and unnoticed for 8 years) there would be hell (and a lot of jail time) to pay.

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2014/04/robert-farago/irresponsible-gun-owner-day-davis-county-sheriffs-office/

Mark Mc. ✉
Jun '14

"Yes, what they have done is failed; Eddie Eagle program is a failure if you look at the results of more kids dead by guns than any other developed country in the world."

Is Driver's Ed a failure simply because there are still car accidents?

Is Sex Ed a failure simply becuase there are still teen pregnancies?

Nothing in this world will ever be 100% effective. It's a fact of life. However, it's BECAUSE of programs like Eddie Eagle (as well as Boy Scouts, Appleseed, etc.) that the accidental death/injury rate for children is as LOW as it is.

From CDC (look at pages 106 onwards): http://www.cdc.gov/safechild/images/cdc-childhoodinjury.pdf

Out of 73,052 deaths between 2000 and 2005 there were 1,009 (1.38%) due to firearms.

Out of 55,074,860 injuries between 2001 and 2006 there were 100,912 (0.18%) due to firearms (and most of those: ~77K were due to BB guns.)

Firearms are one of the LEAST likely ways for a child to be injured/killed in the USA.

Sorry if the government supplied FACTS don't jive with the FEAR you are trying to spread.

Mark Mc. ✉
Jun '14

"Stopping any legal action to have specific gun negligence laws. In states without such laws, the number of parents charged with negligence is minimal. They says "it's a tragedy." Yupper. So far, they have been successful in 32 states. "

Why should someone who tragically loses a child due to gun negligence be subject to a stiffer penalty than one who loses a child to swimming pool negligence? I'm guessing that far more kids accidentally drown each year than are accidentally shot, no? What's the difference?

It's almost as ridiculous as having to itemize each and every thing a person isn't allowed to do while driving, when there is a perfectly effective "careless driving" statute on the books already. Criminal negligence is criminal negligence, whether the cause of death is gunshot, drowning, explosion, poisoning, etc. Only someone with an agenda would try to single out guns and make it an offense all of its own.

ianimal ✉
Jun '14

done what exactly?

By ignoring the truth, deflecting the conversation, castigating blame where it doesn't belong, conflating unrelated facts together illogically? Is this what counts as action these days? (lol x 2)

NRA members partner with educators, police forces, District attorneys at all levels to keep raising the bar on gun safety. the outreach is consistent, professional, value added, proactive and has a positive result in lowering crime rates and tragic incidents.

Many parents/adults are being charged with reckless endangerment, involuntary manslaughter and other applicable charges under current law partly thanks to the the NRA's focus at holding individuals accountable in cases where young toddlers get easy access to loaded weapons. Acting like this isn't happening is another false assertion.

to cast total blame at the NRA and it's members for all of the tragedies that occur is not valid. The NRA as an organization has done more than anyone else to promote gun safety and hold people accountable for their own decisions. that's the real fact.

NRA programs actually save children's lives, in every state, every year.

Those who want to do more should seriously consider joining with other NRA members (like me) who are doing more to help.

you know, get out of the easy chair, go out of the house and actually do something positive. Actually become part of the solution, like i have done and the rest of membership of the NRA has done and continues to do.

there are many NRA programs that educate young people beside the eddie eagle program, which has not failed, it has been successful, has saved lives and should not only be continued, but expanded in it's scope and reach.

It would be even more successful at saving children's lives if public schools would let this program be part of the curriculum. many schools won't allow it in, and by using the flawed logic offered above that makes the public school system responsible for causing the deaths of more children, correct? When has the public school system ever offered any education about the dangers of firearms to their young students? Any? Ever? so that makes the public schools baby killers right?

this type of logic is completely flawed and valueless, (lol)

btw, smokey the bear has saved lives also, big guy in a bear suit has saved lives by teaching about the dangers of forest fires. Is that program a failure because there are still forest fires? 'Common Sense' says no it's not a failure but is a successful program, the logic offered above is completely flawed, laughably silly in it's attempt at blaming an organization for causing the deaths of children.

The reality is that the positive outreach, defined programs, published charters and mission statements, are all good efforts that have good results. More can and should be done, but enacting knee jerk undefined legislation should be looked at with a jaundiced skeptical eye.

yes, agreed, more can be done, and should be done and is being done by concerned citizens from both sides of this debate

At least the 5 million members of the NRA are doing something proactive and positive. Maybe other concerned citizens should give it a try.

BrotherDog ✉
Jun '14

JR, your Hitler reference is classic NRA BS, and as usual, you perpetuate that BS. Here's the facts:



University of Chicago law professor Bernard Harcourt explored this myth in depth in a 2004 article published in the Fordham Law Review. As it turns out, the Weimar Republic, the German government that immediately preceded Hitler’s, actually had tougher gun laws than the Nazi regime. After its defeat in World War I, and agreeing to the harsh surrender terms laid out in the Treaty of Versailles, the German legislature in 1919 passed a law that effectively banned all private firearm possession, leading the government to confiscate guns already in circulation. In 1928, the Reichstag relaxed the regulation a bit, but put in place a strict registration regime that required citizens to acquire separate permits to own guns, sell them or carry them.

The 1938 law signed by Hitler that LaPierre mentions in his book basically does the opposite of what he says it did. “The 1938 revisions completely deregulated the acquisition and transfer of rifles and shotguns, as well as ammunition,” Harcourt wrote. Meanwhile, many more categories of people, including Nazi party members, were exempted from gun ownership regulations altogether, while the legal age of purchase was lowered from 20 to 18, and permit lengths were extended from one year to three years.







Meanwhile, much of the Hitler myth is based on an infamous quote falsely attributed to the Fuhrer, which extols the virtue of gun control:


This year will go down in history! For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration! Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!

The quote has been widely reproduced in blog posts and opinion columns about gun control, but it’s “probably a fraud and was likely never uttered,” according to Harcourt. “This quotation, often seen without any date or citation at all, suffers from several credibility problems, the most significant of which is that the date often given [1935] has no correlation with any legislative effort by the Nazis for gun registration, nor would there have been any need for the Nazis to pass such a law, since gun registration laws passed by the Weimar government were already in effect,” researchers at the useful website GunCite note.

yankeefan ✉
Jul '14

Yeah, I hate when I use an extra humongous word and something screws up. Even a small one like the mute points I used to always note :>) Ur forgivin.

The point is the US kills more kids by guns than any other developed nation. That's a horrific fact. Perhaps we try another approach along with Eddie.

The fact that the NRA provides gun training is nice, but it's not fixing the problem. And I really doubt that more will mean less. Perhaps we should try another approach along with the Eagle.

You are not baby killers because of that and neither are the schools. You are baby killers if you give money to an organization that aggressively takes actions to make the situation worse. And the NRA does as I have noted above. All the good works in the world can not erase that fact.

You can't prove the NRA has had any success with it's training, just that it's done. The same can be said for Smokey. Doesn't mean it's not nice, just that the NRA's job is not enough. It just means that the NRA has offered no empirical evidence that it's program actually works, it just keeps telling you how often they have done it. No proof of concept exists. But the death toll says it is not good enough.

Why would any sane gun nut be against specific gun negligence laws. Where's the downside? What are you afraid of?

But speaking of training:

"Another study published in the late 1990s by the Violence Policy Center (VPC) noted that Eddie Eagle was like “Joe Camel with feathers,” pointing out that: “The primary goal of the National Rifle Association’s Eddie Eagle program is not to safeguard children, but to protect the interests of the NRA and the firearms industry by making guns more acceptable to children and youth… The hoped-for result is new customers for the industry and new members for the NRA.”" democracy-tree.com

From CNN:
"For instance, a 2004 study on firearm-related injuries in children, published by the American Academy of Pediatrics, found that gun safety programs for children were ineffective, "do not prevent risk behaviors and may even increase gun handling among children."

Another 2004 study of the "Eddie Eagle" program, published by North Dakota State University's Department of Psychology, found that children were able to verbally repeat the program's message, but when they encountered a gun in a role-playing scenario, they were unable to put the skills to use.

The North Dakota study said one shortcoming of programs like "Eddie Eagle" was the absence of active learning approaches.

When and how do parents educate children about guns?

"Information-based programs are less successful because they do not actively allow the children the opportunity to practice the skills being taught," the study said.

Former police investigator and gun safety expert Steve Albrecht said "kids don't have the emotional maturity at that age."

Albrecht is a security consultant for schools and workplaces and is also a parent. He said schools have to play a bigger role in the gun safety discussion but "in concert with the parents."

"Part of the issue has to be educating the parents to keep the guns secure first. Because it doesn't matter if the kids have been to a gun safety program or not," said Albrecht."

"But LaPierre told the Senate in January that "teaching safe and responsible gun ownership works" and stressed that firearms accidents are at their lowest levels in more than 100 years because of safety programs like "Eddie Eagle."

First, how Peppy Le pew can know gun death statistics from 1914 or earlier is astounding, but child gun deaths have been flat for the last decade; when you have the highest number in the world that's not a trend to be proud of.

I can find other empirical studies on the failure of Eddie Eagle and have posted program improvement recommendations as well. But the biggest problem is the Eddie preaches the gospel but Eddie never practices the gospel. No role play. So Johnny who can recite Eddie's duck and cover mantra also is highly prone to seeing a gun, picking it up and shooting someone. It's a statistical fact that I have posted before.

But I still come back to if we are shooing too many kids, if kids are shooting too many kids, and generic negligence laws are not being utilized, then wouldn't the easiest fix be to have specific laws with mandatory sentencing upon conviction to remove all ambiguity? Again, what is the downside? (I know, Iman is afraid it will affect his ability to teach jr. to swim or used a paring knife......but that's just not true).

mistergoogle ✉
Jul '14

"Why should a person who's negligent with a gun be singled out for imprisonment when someone who is negligent with a swimming pool, or a bottle of Drano not go to jail?"

Funny that you should mention Drano.

In the same time period covered in the report I linked above, poisoning killed 3,638 children (compared to 1,009 for firearms) and injured 819,725 children (compared to 100,912 for BB/firearms).

I trust that you have a secure safe for all your kitchen/bathroom cleaning supplies. You can't tell me that they are simply stored under the sink or in a closet with no biometric access codes, right?

Mark Mc. ✉
Jul '14

Almost 7,000 died due to drowning in that same period. And 23,826 were "injured" due to "near-fatal drowning" compared to 23,421 injuries from firearms. And let's not kid ourselves, "injury" from near-fatal drownings means "brain damage" in all likelihood, while a firearm injury could be a flesh wound that heals in a week.

To be clear, I'm not against charging people with negligence when the situations warrant it, but let's not single out one group of people. If people who are negligent with guns deserve to go to jail, so does anyone else who is negligent and whose negligence results in the death of a child.

ianimal ✉
Jul '14

One other tidbit...

A little over 18,000 (of the ~23K total) firearm injuries were in the 15 to 19 year old range. It's not broken down, but I'd guess the proportions are similar for firearm deaths.

I thought 18/19 years old was "adult" not "child"... and at 15 I think you can stop blaming your parents for not knowing the business end of a gun.

The notion that we have an epidemic of toddlers falling out of their crib into the nearest unlocked gun cabinet is simply not true. Additional laws would have no measurable impact, not to mention the fact that they are unenforceable without unwarranted home inspections and thus would only be applied after a tragedy occurred anyway.

ianimal's statement that this is purely agenda driven is spot on. If you're worried about the "volume" of a particular tragedy occurring, why on Earth would you start with the lowest quantity on the list?

Mark Mc. ✉
Jul '14

Now, I counter your "college professor" (leftist) source with a rightist source: The National Review:

"The perennial gun-control debate in America did not begin here. The same arguments for and against were made in the 1920s in the chaos of Germany’s Weimar Republic, which opted for gun registration. Law-abiding persons complied with the law, but the Communists and Nazis committing acts of political violence did not.

In 1931, Weimar authorities discovered plans for a Nazi takeover in which Jews would be denied food and persons refusing to surrender their guns within 24 hours would be executed. They were written by Werner Best, a future Gestapo official. In reaction to such threats, the government authorized the registration of all firearms and the confiscation thereof, if required for “public safety.” The interior minister warned that the records must not fall into the hands of any extremist group.

In 1933, the ultimate extremist group, led by Adolf Hitler, seized power and used the records to identify, disarm, and attack political opponents and Jews. Constitutional rights were suspended, and mass searches for and seizures of guns and dissident publications ensued. Police revoked gun licenses of Social Democrats and others who were not “politically reliable.”

During the five years of repression that followed, society was “cleansed” by the National Socialist regime. Undesirables were placed in camps where labor made them “free,” and normal rights of citizenship were taken from Jews. The Gestapo banned independent gun clubs and arrested their leaders. Gestapo counsel Werner Best issued a directive to the police forbidding issuance of firearm permits to Jews.

In 1938, Hitler signed a new Gun Control Act. ******Now that many “enemies of the state” had been removed from society, some restrictions could be slightly liberalized, especially for Nazi Party members.******** But Jews were prohibited from working in the firearms industry, and .22 caliber hollow-point ammunition was banned.

The time had come to launch a decisive blow to the Jewish community, to render it defenseless so that its “ill-gotten” property could be redistributed as an entitlement to the German “Volk.” The German Jews were ordered to surrender all their weapons, and the police had the records on all who had registered them. Even those who gave up their weapons voluntarily were turned over to the Gestapo.

This took place in the weeks before what became known as the Night of the Broken Glass, or Kristallnacht, occurred in November 1938. That the Jews were disarmed before it, minimizing any risk of resistance, is the strongest evidence that the pogrom was planned in advance. An incident was needed to justify unleashing the attack.

That incident would be the shooting of a German diplomat in Paris by a teenage Polish Jew. Hitler directed propaganda minister Josef Goebbels to orchestrate the Night of the Broken Glass. This massive operation, allegedly conducted as a search for weapons, entailed the ransacking of homes and businesses, and the arson of synagogues.

SS chief Heinrich Himmler decreed that 20 years be served in a concentration camp by any Jew possessing a firearm. Rusty revolvers and bayonets from the Great War were confiscated from Jewish veterans who had served with distinction. Twenty thousand Jewish men were thrown into concentration camps, and had to pay ransoms to get released.

The U.S. media covered the above events. And when France fell to Nazi invasion in 1940, the New York Times reported that the French were deprived of rights such as free speech and firearm possession just as the Germans had been. Frenchmen who failed to surrender their firearms within 24 hours were subject to the death penalty.

No wonder that in 1941, just days before the Pearl Harbor attack, Congress reaffirmed Second Amendment rights and prohibited gun registration. In 1968, bills to register guns were debated, with opponents recalling the Nazi experience and supporters denying that the Nazis ever used registration records to confiscate guns. The bills were defeated, as every such proposal has been ever since, including recent “universal background check” bills.

***I THINK THIS NEXT BIT IS ESPECIALLY THOUGHT-PROVOKING***

As in Weimar Germany, some well-meaning people today advocate severe restrictions, including bans and registration, on gun ownership by law-abiding persons. Such proponents are in no sense “Nazis,” any more than were the Weimar officials who promoted similar restrictions. And it would be a travesty to compare today’s situation to the horrors of Nazi Germany.

Still, as history teaches, the road to hell is paved with good intentions."

JeffersonRepub ✉
Jul '14

"Well for pools there ought to be a law: wait there are special pool safety laws......."

Yet, 7,000 kids died over a five year period. Seems that the laws aren't very effective. Plus, we aren't talking about safety laws, we're talking about mandatory jail time laws. Does NY have a law that mandates jail time if a child drowns in your pool?

ianimal ✉
Jul '14

"Hey Markey, does that mean we can leave some more guns out, polish off a few more, let the adults off the hook, call it a day and still come in under the wire of your acceptability? "


Hey, if you're fine with 3,600 poisoning deaths and 820,000 injuries just so you can have a shiny crapper... Who's the baby killer now - the Scrubbing Bubbles lobby?

And unlike firearms, poisoning IS towards the top of the list for the younger children (as opposed to 19 year old "children").

Mark Mc. ✉
Jul '14

OK, the chart from UofUtah Medicine shows the top ten countries for child-death-by-guns and the rate per 100,000. Besides Ireland being very depressing and Finland very angry, basically, the US sucks overall in every catagory. And our cure-all answer is a man in an Eagle suit preaching the duck and cover mantra while not even showing a picture what a gun looks like. It's a concept thing. And then we try to minimize kids shooting kids by saying "well, other things hurt more so get over it."

All I am saying is we ought to have specific gun negligence laws in every state to punish offenders because they are offensive. All I am saying is other countries can do it, why oh why can't we? They don't even have Eddie.

With out death toll and with the numbers of negligent adults moving ahead scot free, I would think we would want to do at least what we do for other safety hazards.....like pools.

RE POOLS: Again, there are strict laws SPECIFICALLY governing pool safety and most states have building codes specific to pools including fences, etc. Failure to comply with pool regulations invites "strict negligence" meaning no need to prove negligence to convict. An open gate is a failure to comply. A gate that a child can open is a failure to comply. You are convicted. It happens all the time.

There is no such laws for guns in over 30 states. All I am suggesting is that the same scrutiny be brought to bear with guns in every state of the land as we do with pools.

According to the CDC: "Overall, drowning death rates in the United States have declined in the last decade" They have declined 7% from 2005 to 2009 according to the CDC. Oooops, laws have been making it better for over a decade and let's face it: kids use pools much more than they use guns, thank God.

Now even with that if you say the pool deaths are too high for you, bully, you are right so rant on, start a thread. But that does not diminish the need to bring specific gun laws to bear for negligence in every state in the land.

But since it doesn't matter if kids die from guns cuz the death toll is lower than poisoning or swimming or falls, here's what happens when you mix guns and pools: "Sometimes a death will be considered a homicide even if self-inflicted, as in the case of an Ohio boy whose father momentarily left the gun he was going to go out and shoot with later underneath the sofa cushions he was sitting on while he went out to set up an inflatable swimming pool (The father was later convicted of negligent homicide and endangering a child. Ohio is one of less than 20 states where the law mandates that a firearm be secured properly in the presence of children)." DailyKOS. Oh shoot, it's one of the states with a law.........

Oh wait, there's more: "Even within the same jurisdiction, there is no consistency. Bexar County, Texas, found that the death of the 9-month-old above was a homicide; yet a 2-year-old inadvertently shot dead by his older brother in the same county a year later was ruled to have died accidentally." Oh shoot.

Fact is, we suck when it comes to killing kids with guns and we ought to do more for the kids than give them the bird.

mistergoogle ✉
Jul '14

"Now, if you were to advocate prison time for someone every time a child dies of unnatural causes, I could probably get behind that. But to arbitrarily and capriciously only automatically apply that level of punishment to gun owners is illogical, especially when you consider the relatively minor problem of accidental death by gunfire when compared to all the other causes of accidental death in children."

+1000.

JeffersonRepub ✉
Jul '14

"First, it would be nice to know the actual numbers for accidental shootings and their impact so it would be nice if the NRA stopped lobbying against the CDC studying the issue. "

I was biting my tongue on this, but I can't let you post your little "sound bite" and get away with it like you tried to do with the whole "NRA is against smart guns" statement.

The NRA doesn't object to the CDC aggregating and reporting on the occurrences of accidental death/injury. Back in 1996 they only objected to funding that would have attempted to classify guns as a public health issue based on extremely faulty studies and coming from an obviously biased angle. *Even others within the CDC and Congress shared this concern.*

From the article below:

As C.J. Peters, head of its Special Pathogens Branch told the Pittsburgh Post- Gazette in 1996, “The CDC has got to be careful that we don’t get into social issues. If we’re going to do that, we ought to start a center for social change. We should stay with medical issues.”



The result is that the CDC had a whopping $2.6M cut from it's budget (which totaled $2.2B), so I really doubt that the 0.1% reduction crippled their ability to accurately gather and report the TYPES of injuries that are observed annually, without getting into the politics of WHY they occurred. They also got the $2.6M back the next year, earmarked for actual *medical* research.

So, to put it another way... the CDC is perfectly free to count/study/report the types of injuries that hospitals see every year, whether it be firearm injuries or victims of a plane crash. But just like it shouldn't be their job to determine if the plane crash was pilot error, equipment, or weather related, they shouldn't be in the business of studying whether a gunshot was justifiable self-defense or murder. At a minimum, that's the job for the judicial system.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/02/12/why-the-centers-for-disease-control-should-not-receive-gun-research-funding/

Mark Mc. ✉
Jul '14

because guns are bad and pools are good, that's why.

how about putting in jail all the engineers who designed a toy with parts so small that a toddler chokes to death on them, how come they get off scott free as baby killers?

shouldn't all baby killers be put in jail?

BrotherDog ✉
Jul '14

"Makes you wonder why you and the NRA are so afraid of even a tiny winy bit of empirical knowledge just like the tobacco purveyors before you."

Oh, boo hoo, the CDC has to impartially count the number of injuries/deaths due to certain causes with a budget of "only" $2.197 billion dollars each year. There's plenty of empirical knowledge. The reports the CDC was relying on to attempt to paint guns as a health crisis falsely (but intentionally) *excluded* the quantity of positive outcomes where a gun was drawn in self defense but not fired in order to skew the data to the "guns are bad" side. In other words, completely ignoring the crime deterrent effect of privately owned firearms. Such an impartial endeavor, that...


"Of course you avoid the fact that the NRA has successfully lobbied against including guns under the purview of the Consumer Product Safety Commission."

How could I be avoiding the "fact" when you're just bringing it up now? Perhaps there's no need for the CPSC to regulate firearms since that falls under the purview of the BATFE. Did you know that the CPSC *also* has no oversight into the top killers of children... namely automobiles (covered by the NHTSA) and drugs (covered by the FDA).

Come on, you should be happy. CPSC has to worry about 15,000 different things. Guns almost have their own government *bureau* all to themselves.

But why have one inefficient government agency dealing with a particular product category when you can have TWO inefficient government agencies dealing with them, right?

Mark Mc. ✉
Jul '14

So have you written letters to the DA's in all those locations asking why no charges were filed per existing child endangerment/negligent homicide laws?

The solution to bad laws is to either enforce them or fix them. Not just add another layer of badly written and poorly enforced laws on top of them.

Mark Mc. ✉
Jul '14

Game, Set, and Match to ianimal.

All these numbers and statistics and polls and studies.... all of which can be spun any way you want them to read.... and it really all comes down to "because mr google thinks so", with no logical explanation why.

I can't believe the guy is still typing.

JeffersonRepub ✉
Jul '14

"We don't need no stinkin empirical data nor extra laws to protect our kids.


I don't think we need "extra" laws for anything. Just sufficient laws that are actually enforced. There is nothing... zip... zero... nada.... preventing a prosecutor from charging a person with negligence in any of the 57 states if they leave a gun laying around.

Yes, I meant 57... that's everywhere Obama has visited...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpGH02DtIws

Mark Mc. ✉
Jul '14

" Because the losses are acceptable to keep our 2A the way the Founding Baby Killers wanted it."

Wow... as if you hadn't already shown your hand.....

JeffersonRepub ✉
Jul '14

Oh JR you stereotyped me from my first post :>)

Iman, Yeah, it is pretty emotional especially when one considers most of them sounded like negligence to me. Brings me to my point; while I can find anecdotal data since you are very emotional I will not bother. But statistical data for negligence convictions, indictments, etc. for drowning, poisoning, and guns I can not find. Give it a try, seems to be a void.

Re: near fatal drowning's, my source appears to be wrong. According to the CDC "•More than 50% of drowning victims treated in emergency departments (EDs) require hospitalization or transfer for further care (compared with a hospitalization rate of about 6% for all unintentional injuries).1,2 These nonfatal drowning injuries can cause severe brain damage that may result in long-term disabilities such as memory problems, learning disabilities, and permanent loss of basic functioning (e.g., permanent vegetative state)" which does not sound trivial as I had been led to believe. I stand corrected on that one.

Meanwhile, like the guns, I agree that if parents are leaving stuff around and kids are being poisoned and no one gets convicted, that there should be a specific poisoning negligence law per state. The question is, like guns, are a large number of adults skating after what I would consider to be a negligent death.

On the poisoning numbers, our stats are not only high, but once again we are in the top tier of this compared to other countries. Some interesting facts that would mitigate the numbers somewhat and explain why we rule. A huge amount, 90% are drug related, legal and illegal. As you know, we are a druggie nation on both counts. Of the 90%, 40% are opioid analgesics which have tripled from 1999 to 2008. Apparently we are pain relieving ourselves to death and mostly above the child age.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db81.htm

I have attached a chart showing the age distribution, you can see poisoning is mainly an adult issue. Still does not change the negligence issue but puts some background behind the HUGE number.

mistergoogle ✉
Jul '14

I'll post the "raw" data instead so it's easier to see how each risk changes through the age groups. I tried to chart this a few different ways, but it just wasn't really impressive.

Not that it didn't prove my point... it actually proved my point too well. Firearm injuries are such a low risk that the chart effectively drew a line right over the X-axis (i.e. almost ZERO across the board).

You might say that's because firearms don't injure, they always kill, right? Not so fast, Batman... There were ~23K firearm injuries in the data set compared to ~1K deaths. That's a 23:1 ratio skewed towards the injury side. Even if the CDC is too underfunded to perform proper studies, as some would imply, they'd need to be off by 2300% just to break even. Somehow I think their stats are a little more accurate than that.

Anyway, a couple things to learn from these numbers:

* Firearm injuries do spike in the 15-19 range (and peak in the 20-24 range per MG's chart), so they are certainly not the "baby killer" epidemic some would have you believe.

* It's incredibly dangerous to be a 1-4 year old. This age group has the highest risk of injury (relative to other ages) in a lot of categories - while firearms continue to be an order of magnitude lower than ANY other injury.

* As I alluded to above, poisoning does spike in the 1-4 range where it is 1,243x as dangerous (on an occurrence basis) as firearms. It again starts to climb in the 15-19 range as well. My take is the young kids are getting into the cleaning supplies and the older kids (into adulthood) are getting into the medicine cabinet.

* Drownings ARE baby killers (and causes of severe injury)... but look... just about the age where kids start getting swimming lessons the rate of injury drops like a rock (so that the kids don't have to). Hmm.. is there anything to learn there? Maybe teaching kids how to do/use something properly mitigates some of the accident risk... am I crazy?

* Did I mention that firearms are basically off (the bottom of) the charts?

If you were going to pick a problem to tackle on this list, where would a typical person start? At the top, right? Where is MG starting?

Mark Mc. ✉
Jul '14

"Seems your chart also proves that firearms are an adult issue as well.
Unless you consider 20-24 to still be classified as "children"."

You got to be kidding, right?

Meanwhile, for the most part, there are things being done to combat most of the injuries on your chart, most of which have a much higher usage rate so therefore a much higher incident rate given all things being equal. I mean if you walk, you fall, I think we all have experienced that. If you drive, you crash, most of us, as much safety as we have employed, have experienced that.

But for many of the products/actions you list, there are safety programs (like Eddie), safety regulations and oversight by Consumer Product Safety Commission, etc., empirical studies and improvement recommendations by the CDC, etc. etc. etc. etc. For the most part, none of this is done for the product called a gun, and in many states, far less.

Sure, you can say, "but it doesn't work, look at the numbers," and I will say that in many of these products/actions, it does work, the trend line is positive and reductions in injuries and fatalities has occurred as shown on an empirical basis, unlike with guns. Cars for example, with their high incidence rate due to high usage rate, have become much safer with regulations for safety equipment like seat belts and car seats.

But the point I have been making with guns is that in 32 states, the generic law lets negligent parents be negligent and not be charged and those states should change that since the current law does not work and just saying, "well enforce it," is not getting the job done. All I am suggesting is that if parents leave these things lying about, and some kids gets hurt or hurts another, the parents should be punished.

The numbers you show do not change that.

I think we can changes this and chew bubble gum at the same time.

mistergoogle ✉
Jul '14

"the self identified tweakers are trolling just to get a rise out of you, it makes their day to provoke a reaction, it's sad, pathetic and kinda of weird. through name calling, denigrating and cyber-bullying they like and enjoy seeing someone else gets upset, this makes their day, jazzes them up, and gives them power, and it's sick imo." again, you got to be kidding....... talk about taking the cake.

Mark,
No, I was wondering about ""Seems your chart also proves that firearms are an adult issue as well." Seems? Of course I think there are issues with firearms for all Americans although I do respect the 2A. Just not the way you do.

I think where we end up is I think too many kids are killed by guns where negligent parents are not indicted. You say the losses are acceptable against the benefits.

I say it would be nice if 32 states put specific gun negligence laws in place so that these, IMHO, crimes where kids get guns and shoot kids, are handled like the 22 states that do have laws on the books. You say not necessary, should enforce what we have, extra laws either encumber everyone, the 2A, or both.

And BDog just spews spurious injurious ad hominem labels while blaming anyone who does not agree with him of doing the same. To use, his words, and I quote: "it's sad, pathetic and kinda of weird. through name calling, denigrating and cyber-bullying they like and enjoy seeing someone else gets upset, this makes their day, jazzes them up, and gives them power, and it's sick imo.

bottom feeders only know one way. it's who they are, it's what they do."

Have you been getting upset Mark? Because I am certainly not jazzed.

mistergoogle ✉
Jul '14

"Declare this in the house of Jacob And proclaim it in Judah, saying, 'Now hear this, O foolish and senseless people, Who have eyes but do not see; Who have ears but do not hear. 'Do you not fear Me?' declares the LORD. 'Do you not tremble in My presence? For I have placed the sand as a boundary for the sea, An eternal decree, so it cannot cross over it. Though the waves toss, yet they cannot prevail; Though they roar, yet they cannot cross over it.…"

In this passage, the 2A is the sea, the sand is gun control laws, and you are the sensel........... oh, never mind :>)

mistergoogle ✉
Jul '14

FYI
Yahoo News



Veteran With Concealed Carry Permit Shoots Back At Chicago Gunman
The Daily Caller
12 hours ago

.Veteran With Concealed Carry Permit Shoots Back At Chicago Gunman
Veteran With Concealed Carry Permit Shoots Back At Chicago Gunman
One of the spate of shootings that took place in Chicago, Ill. over the July 4th holiday weekend involved a veteran with a concealed carry permit who was forced to a shoot a man who began firing on him and a group of friends.

The incident occurred Friday night, the Chicago Tribune reports.

The veteran and three of his friends were leaving a party on the city’s south side. When the group reached their vehicle, a container with liquor was sitting on top of it. A woman from the group asked another group gathered next door who the liquor belonged to and removed it.

The move angered 22 year-old Denzel Mickiel, who approached the veteran and his friends shouting obscenities. The man then went into his residence and returned with a gun.

As Mickiel opened fire on the group, the veteran took cover near the vehicle’s front fender, according to assistant state attorney Mary Hain, the Chicago Tribune reports.

The veteran fired two shots, hitting Mickiel both times.

Two of Mickiel’s friends also began shooting at the group, which was able to flee the scene in their vehicle.

Mickiel was transported to the hospital and is in critical condition. A woman in the veteran’s group was hit twice – once in the arm and once in the back – but was stabilized and taken to the hospital.

Mickiel is charged with attempted murder and will be held on $950,000 bond.

Had Friday’s shooting occurred a little more than a year ago, the veteran would not have been legally permitted to conceal carry his firearm.

Illinois was the last U.S. state to allow citizens to carry concealed weapons with a permit, finally passing a law on July 9, 2013. The state began issuing conceal carry permits in February.

Seven people died and approximately 50 were injured in shootings that took place in Chicago over the weekend. The city has among the highest violent crime rates among major U.S. cities.

Old Gent ✉
Jul '14

Ah, but it's OK for emotional anecdotes that prove your point.

High moral ground indeed.

"On November 1, 2009, concealed handgun permit holder William
Phillips, 63, allegedly shot and killed 62-year-old auto dealer John Robert Baugh Jr.
Phillips surrendered to Little Rock police approximately 10 minutes after Baugh’s body was found in his crashed red Ford Crown Victoria. Phillips and Baugh, a father of two, reportedly knew each other from auto auctions Baugh conducted. Phillips told police that he had stopped to urinate by the side of the road when Baugh pulled up in his car, threatened to “knock his head off,” and then attacked him with a weapon. Police became suspicious of Phillips’ story when his description of the alleged weapon used by Baugh was inconsistent and the weapon itself was never found. Their suspicions increased when, despite the fact that Phillips claimed that the shooting occurred outside the vehicle, a bullet was found inside the car. Phillips son, Billy, testified that there had been a prior confrontation between the two men. Billy stated that his father told him that if there were any further conflict he would “take care” of the situation himself. Phillips was charged with first-degree murder and released on $25,000 bond.

UPDATE: On September 28, 2011, a court upheld William Phillips’ conviction of
second degree murder and sentence to 20 years in prison plus an additional eight years for the use of a firearm."

mistergoogle ✉
Jul '14

The thing is we don't deny that some people abuse the right (despite CCW holders being vastly more law abiding then most if you actually check the stats) where some gun control advocates claim that defensive gun uses never happen...

We also don't punish the many for the crimes of the few... I know it's crazy to actually hold the individual that broke the law responsible for their own actions, huh?

Mark Mc. ✉
Jul '14

potatoes have eyes.

mistergoogle ✉
Jul '14

"you continue to prove the points for me"

cool, anything I can do to help you understand.

mistergoogle ✉
Jul '14

I never saw this before.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uamEo4I2qPc

ignatz ✉
Aug '14

Oh boy, gunnievision
I found a Charlton Heston tribute instead.

http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/0433b30576/cold-dead-hand-with-jim-carrey

The final chorus is to die for........

mistergoogle ✉
Aug '14

Jim Carrey was a army cadet rifleman and grew up in Canada, no draft.

mistergoogle ✉
Aug '14

This is so sad.

http://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/watch/joe--why-is-a-9-year-old-holding-an-uzi--322412099683?cid=eml_mda_20140827

PBM ✉
Aug '14

Even when I take adults shooting for the first time I generally start with only a few rounds of .22LR so they know what to expect as far as recoil.

Giving any first time shooter (regardless of age) a 9mm with a full magazine is not the wisest choice, especially if it's a fully automatic firearm.

And when you are teaching kids to shoot, the safest way is to put your hands OVER theirs so that YOU have control of the gun at all times.

Mark Mc. ✉
Aug '14

It's unfortunate, but they are using a loss of a life because of dumb mistakes to try to make guns look bad. There was so many things wrong with how this happened

*Gun too big for a 9yr old
*9yr old + full auto
*Range official standing to the side/partially in front of the weapon
*He lets her fire only one shot and then goes to full auto immediately, she wasen't even used to the weapon
*He did not have his hands on hers for control of the weapon

So many things just do not line up with any gun range or gun safety I have ever been taught

When I went to heritage guild and shot a SAW and a G36 full auto they have you shoot a few single shots, and a few burst shots before even thinking of switching you to full auto, you go through almost half a mag while they determine if you can handle full auto....further more there is bullet proof dividers in the lanes that wouldn't even allow someone to stand next to you. And further yet, the first question they ask is what is your experience with fire arms. I have a lot of experience and it still did not change the way they treated me over someone who was with us that had a little.

Darrin ✉
Aug '14

We have been over this before.They always do, you can't blame guns for people's stupidity.

Darrin ✉
Aug '14

If someone let their 9 year old use a blowtorch, chainsaw, or wood chipper, and it led to the child's death or the death of someone else, I'm willing to be that child endangerment charges would be filed.

Gadfly ✉
Aug '14

You boys bring up some really good points but miss the point.

This was a legal shooting establishment complying with all laws. It's all good.
Shooting ranges routinely place guns in children's hands for training, it's all good n legal.
The parents freely made this choice relying on the shooting range management for safety. It's good.
Shooting ranges basically make up their own guidelines for who gets to shoot what and what precautions are taken or not taken. They're all good.
Kids like to shoot guns so why not let them. Many parents let their kids do whatever they want. That's cool.
There are no charges pending; everything was freakin a skippy, above board, and just the way it ought to be. Thank goodness nothing was wrong.
Shooting ranges should be free to do whatever they like. It's the second amendment. God bless.

(all quotes from cbs.local.
"The owner of the range said instructors are trained to push weapons out of the students’ hands if something goes wrong, but it’s unclear what happened in this case."

"“Our guys are trained to basically hover over people when they’re shooting. If they’re shooting right-handed, we have our right-hand behind them ready to push the weapon out of the way. And if they’re left-handed, the same thing.”"

"Shooting ranges legally place high powered weapons in the hands of children regularly with "trained" people "usually" having their hands on the kids hands."

"Scarmardo said kids 8 and older were allowed to shoot firearms, but as a result of the accident, the range has changed it policy.
Shooters now have to stand at least 5 feet tall or be at least 12 years old."

MG --- see, there's improvement in the wind, one shooting range at a time post horrendous incident. Now to grab an UZI, you have to be the same age as Palestinian soldiers or lanky. With thousands of ranges across the country, this vast improvement means that's one down and only thousands to go before national improvement is achieved. That's almost victory! We don't need no stinkin laws to tell us what to do.

"“Everybody is held responsible. The parents have to live with this for the rest of their life, the child has to live with this, the person who died, his family, his coworkers. Everybody is going to live with this for the rest of their life,” Dickerson said."

MG-- well, isn't that special but not entirely correct. One guy is certainly not living with it. He was foolish, stupid, but apparently a very nice guy. Too bad he didn't have that additional guidance earlier.

Again, this was a legal training exercise and just one of those things in a land of limited mandatory safety regulations for gun ranges. It's just the price of stupidity and foolishness ---- we call it freedom.

OR ------ there ought to be a law that sets national behavior standards for safety rather than a wild west attitude. You know safety regulations --- like for most products and services.

mistergoogle ✉
Aug '14

See, didn't take long for the legislation fanatics to show up.

Gotta make a new law to prevent 1 accidental death every handful of years by restricting the rights of 300 million other people.

MG - I'll say it again. Any mandated product safety typically ensures that things don't break or fail in dangerous ways, not prevention of misuse (even unintentional).

Mark Mc. ✉
Aug '14

Hey Mark,

In your opinion, how young is too young when it comes to placing a fully automatic Uzi in a child's hands? Is 7 too young? How about 4?

Gadfly ✉
Aug '14

"After all, it's one of your clubs, let the bullets fly, consistent rules need not apply. Let the few die so the many can be free, free, free, free.

Hyperbole much? With a little bit of false dilemma, thrown in? We're extremely far from "letting the bullets fly", especially from fully automatic weapons in the hands of those who have been improperly trained. There *are* consistent gun safety rules, hammered home in EVERY gun course or range safety orientation I've ever taken with no exceptions just because I've shot guns before - and they have nothing to do with "laws".



"In your opinion, how young is too young when it comes to placing a fully automatic Uzi in a child's hands? Is 7 too young? How about 4"

I think Darrin hit the main points in response here. There are some 9 year olds I'd trust with guns more than some 30 year olds. Just like there are some people I wouldn't trust in a car, despite being goverment "approved" to be on the road in a 3 ton death missile.

Here's a 6 year old (in 2009) that could outshoot some of us, especially by the time he's our age, using a .45 that some adults think "kicks" too much.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ei_m1mesIo4

Here's Tori Nanaka (at 15) knocking them down. Think she just started shooting the day before or when she was much younger?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7KnBDIbgbMk

Mark Mc. ✉
Aug '14

9 year olds should not be shooting Uzis....that said, a big reason why ISIL/ISIS will never be able to "take over America" is because unlike Iraq and Syria where there is no 2nd Amendment rights, we will greet them with a barrel if they attempted to take over our town. Take away our guns and let them cross our unsecured boarders, well that's a different story.

I do NOT own a gun ✉
Aug '14

victims family can sue the range for poor management,

little girls family can sue the range for having unqualified, poorly trained and unsupervised instructors, maintaining an unsafe environment

county DA can bring a variety of charges related to the above.

it's not about new laws or getting money, it's about taking responsible leadership positions

what is the history of this range and the dead instructors education as a firearms trainer? what certs did he hold and when were they obtained? from what issuing authority was he certified?

BrotherDog ✉
Aug '14

i don't disagree with your main points, just want it fully vetted out in the bright light of a clear day on as many fronts as is possible.

we need to walk our own talk when it comes to handling firearms safely and responsibly.

wouldn't you also like to know when and how this instructor was certified? by who, how was he checked out? any prior incidents at this range or with this instructor?

these are all good questions that deserve honest and clear answers.

not about money or laws, it's about making a clear statement that we can behave as responsibly as we keep claiming. and that's by policing ourselves when it's needed, like in this case.

ranges and instructors like this make us all look bad to an already fearful and distrusting public. not good for us long term, that's why we need to do this, pursue charges and civil court cases with the help and assistance of the NRA legal team.

BrotherDog ✉
Aug '14

Since you say it that way I completely agree, but I do not feel a lawsuit is not necessary to have those checks done

Darrin ✉
Aug '14

"So that obliterates the need for just about any law. Good job!"

That's a ridiculous statement MG and you know it

Darrin ✉
Aug '14

"That's a ridiculous statement MG and you know it"

Of course it is as ridiculous as the claim it references.

mistergoogle ✉
Aug '14

MG, If you believe that laws are created to replace common sense and good judgment you have become a puppet of our government, wake up and smell the roses buddy.

SMH

Darrin ✉
Aug '14

Obama's failure pass new gun laws has nothing to do with a lack of desire to pass them.

He's signed plenty of executive actions that create more impediments to ownership and availability.

If you can't see that, your eyes are certainly closed. Thankfully more people "woke up" to defeat just about all of their efforts.

The national park carry permission started under Bush, got delayed in courts, and was then attached to a must sign credit card reform bill. I assure you Obama does not like it, which makes me happy.

Mark Mc. ✉
Sep '14

In July of 2013, Obama passed 2 executive actions impeding Mark's gun ownership and gun availability including:

- Stopping Mark from joining a trust or corporation just to avoid getting a background check for some more dangerous weapons like machine guns and sawed-off shotguns.

- Stopping Mark from buying Mil-spec weapons sold overseas via reimportation (unless Mark is a museum).

Darn, now the CEO of Mark Corp will need a background check, that's not progress.

mistergoogle ✉
Sep '14

"- Stopping Mark from joining a trust or corporation just to avoid getting a background check for some more dangerous weapons like machine guns and sawed-off shotguns."

Quick, when was the last time a privately owned class III (automatic) firearm was used in a crime? I think it was some time back in 1988 and 1992 - both times involving a former police officer killing someone. I'm sure the use of trusts and ATF tax stamp/background check are of utmost concern to the felons who grab a sawz-all for their shotgun modifications, right? It has nothing to do with being allowed to even have your family *touch* those weapons without becoming felons or to pass along an inheritance. Background checks are STILL performed oin the person completing the transfer, you realize...


"Stopping Mark from buying Mil-spec weapons sold overseas via reimportation (unless Mark is a museum). "

Ah yes, those mil-spec WW I / WWII / Korean / Vietnam era firearms that are pretty much collectors items? The type of firearms that the CMP has been selling to citizens for decades? How many M1 Garands do the gang bangers in Newark use again?


"Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act"

Yes, unnecessary legal barriers like HIPAA privacy. How inconvenient that doctors can't rat out someone they don't like without due process, right?


Do we really need presidential executive actions to encourage "enforce the law"? These are all little building blocks working towards further bans, declaring people "prohibited" because they went to their doctor, and chipping away at private individual's ability to keep firearms in the family upon someone's death.

Not to mention he banned cheap Russian ammo (and some firearms from Russia that are 100+ year old collectors items), so yes that does affect my ability to enjoy my hobby in an economical manner.

Keep your eyes closed, MG. Just remember...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhYJS80MgYA

Mark Mc. ✉
Sep '14

What better way to encourage getting help for mental illness than by proposing new punishments (loss of rights) for being mentally ill, right?

We're not even talking seriously mentally ill people that have rights taken away. If you get a divorce and seek out a therapist for some help, that can disqualify you from gun ownership under some of these proposals.

Just another counter-productive initiative by those in charge. They want less guns on the steet so they jump start record sales. They want people to seek treatment for mental health, so they put laws in place to punish you for doing so... Brilliant!

How about just increase funding for research, rather than poke holes in HIPAA and ask the AG to create bigger lists of disqualified people? Do you really think that nationalizing health care and databasing all of your private health info for any Fed to get their hands on is for *your* benefit?

Mark Mc. ✉
Sep '14

"Ah, Darrin, only a round this time before the name calling. If as you say, you have SMH, I hope it gets better."

Please tell me what name I called you?

The statement was "MG, If you believe that laws are created to replace common sense and good judgment you have become a puppet of our government, wake up and smell the roses buddy."

There was no names being slung.... if you rely on laws to decide what you can and cannot do and allow them to replace your common sense, putting the full trust of your life in "laws" you are a puppet of the government....simple

Unless, of course, you are upset I called you buddy, in which case I appologize

Darrin ✉
Sep '14

The gun laws are as effective as the drug laws... I think there's another topic on here discussing the drug problem right here in Warren County... laws be damned.

Making something "illegal" doesn't magically make it go away, which is why trying to legislate behavior is asinine. Create and enforce laws that dole out punishment for those who do harm against another (after establishing guilt through due process), and leave it at that.

Anything more makes the government and law enforcement more akin to thought police.


"So get your mil-specs here, buy American! Don't you like to buy American?"

You realize the ban against "re-imports" means I cannot buy an American made firearm (which may be a piece of history) simply because it was shipped overseas at some point in it's life, whether with an enlisted man/woman or for use by that foreign country.


"Wait....now you are supporting HIPA regulations to hide mental health data from background check access?"

When did I ever give the impression that I didn't support privacy of medical records? If someone presents a danger to themselves or others there are existing mechanisms in place to deal with that. It doesn't need a fast track for NICS to determine the last time you were temporarily prescribed some anxiety medicine in order to deny your rights.

Mark Mc. ✉
Sep '14

"You called me a government puppet which, given my torture behind enemy lines via hand shadow puppets, leaves a deep emotional scar."

Actually I said "IF you believe that laws are created to replace common sense and good judgment you have become a puppet of our government

With a big emphasis on the if....so in feeling that you were insulted, you agree that you allow laws to replace your common sense, and rely on them for your every day judgement calls? It was listed more as a question, had you been your own person, as am I, and use good judgment as well as common sense before relying on laws you wouldn't be a puppet, get my drift?

""And if my memory serves me correct, most of what you posted was bogus, as we proved"
No you didn't, how could you? The data system flaws are documented. Are you saying they don't exist?"

Do we really have to keep going in circles? It's getting old, it has all been discussed before, look back in the other forum

Darrin ✉
Sep '14

Strawman, false choice, or whatever other logical fallacy aside... We're not going to convince MG of anything, just like he's not going to convince us of anything.

However, I have convinced one person on this forum to pursue their FID card and become a new gun owner by bringing them to the shooting range for a little plinking. THAT'S how we'll eventually take this state back, by increasing our numbers through actual exposure to firearms, where people can decide for themselves which arguments are the truth and which arguments are BS.

Nothing is as effective as bringing a newbie to the range and (after teaching them the actual "common sense" gun safety rules) letting them blow up a few water bottles or soda cans, while showing them that responsible gun ownership has NOTHING to do with the criminal misuse and baby-killing that MG and others try to pin on us.

Mark Mc. ✉
Sep '14

Strawman? Strawman? Gee, someone suggests that there might be improvements in gun control and tracking data systems and you get all up in arms ---- so to speak..... You don't kill babies, guns kill babies. Wait, guns don't kill babies, people kill babies. You are a people, so you kill babies. Really? You bought that?

Lots of guns, lots of dead babies. We kill em in the street, we kill em in their homes, we kill em at the common sense shooting range with trained common sense trainers. But don't worry, we don't kill enough to be bothered, we don't kill more than other things, it's all OK and right and as safe as it's gonna be.

Of course responsible gun ownership has NOTHING to do with criminal mis-use and baby killing.

But I would think responsible gun owners would applaud universal background checks. Do you?

I would think responsible gun owners would fight for up-to-date technology to be used for crime-gun tracking data systems when guns are used in crimes. Do you?

I would think responsible gun owners would fight for appropriate-disease-diagnosed mental illness patients to be included in the background check data system. Do you?

Because that's the data system breakage Darrin says you have proven is not there and that Mark feels I am pinning the "baby killer" moniker on you about. So are you OK with these breakages or can you prove they don't exist or do you just want to hide behind the usual strawmen arguments you consistently put out there?

Darrin: Nope, I don't believe laws replace common sense so your conditional insult does not apply. Thanks.

And nope, you did not disprove that data systems for guns are broken. You can't disprove that the background check system, crime-gun tracking system, and mental health reporting systems are broken. You might be OK with the fact that you can get a gun without a background check, that it can take days or weeks to trace a crime-gun even if the data exists, or that diagnosed mental cases who shouldn't buy a gun are not reported --- legally. But you can't disprove that the systems are busted, broken, inefficient and ineffective. And never did except in your mind.

BDog: Oh no, it's the strawmen police trying to keep "original argument" order in HL. To what strawman are you referring; the one that Darrin and Mark started? Something I started? And what is the original argument the strawman is refuting? Let's see if you can actually use those 25-cent words you love to toss about.

Gonna need a bigger boat if all we can stick to is the original argument in HL.

mistergoogle ✉
Sep '14

So there's one vote against universal background checks, improving the crime gun trace system from paper files distributed at gun shops around the country, and mental health tracking.

Blah is right.

And I would rather be on the side of the angels than the majority.

mistergoogle ✉
Sep '14

"So there's one vote against universal background checks"

WHERE? WHO? NOBODY VOTED! all Mark said ideas you are suggesting have been tried and failed all over the country, he never said that he was against background checks, you made that up!

I have said it many times, I am going to say it again, MG, we cannot go on like this, we played your circles in the last forum on this debate, we debunked some info you posted, that was when we could read though your play of words. If you have info to post or a debate to make I suggest you just make it, clearly, playing with words or poking fun get you no where but taken as a joke.

I agreed that mental health checks and background checks are a good thing, yet you seem to think I never did and that every "gunny" is against this

I explained to you why the NRA has been fighting these checks, because of how the government wants to go about making the laws, for example anyone who was ever diagnosed with ADD or ADHD would never be allowed to legally buy a gun. The government will not fix the problem without including a ridiculous side to it which does nothing but limits and bans, it has been proven time and time again. The government will not make a sleek, easy to use, fast system, they will make (like in jersey) a system that takes 3+ months to get a single hand gun permit, so that they make it more difficult to buy and hope to deter people from buying. This has been PROVEN here in NJ

As in the last forum, you keep saying that people are disagreeing with you, but I don't see who you are talking about

Darrin ✉
Sep '14

Mr G. likes Government to CONTROL everything. From what you eat to , to how you think to what you say and what you can own. Some times I think he just like to hear himself talk.

Old Gent ✉
Sep '14

The point is Darrin that YOU are the government. YOU are the responsible gun owner.

So rather than blather, rather than taunting naysayers to the range, perhaps you should put viable solutions into process for progress.

Instead you spend more words than I in nitpicking the obvious which is you're against any change to background checks, crime-gun tracking system improvements, and mental health tracking improvements whether through your own words or the actions of your proxy, the NRA.

And then you go all lawyer on me detailing the specifics of what Mark said or meant.

Of course, neither Mark nor you for all your blathering said we should improve those systems. The best you can come up with is either yes you believe we should fix the systems but no because the fix always ncludes something else or yes but with contingencies.

It's easy to say, "well the law is not right as written," and then accuse mental health record background check databases to include ADHD as a reason, but can you source that? Can you source the proposed mental health gun background check law that includes ADHD as a restriction worth tracking?

And no, I don't think the government should control everything. That concept would be stupid. STRAWMAN !!!!!!!

mistergoogle ✉
Sep '14

Of course you want to invite people to the range to see the truth about firearms ownership because every gun owner is on their best behavior at a range. It's when the responsible gun owner gets home that a lot of responsible gun owners showed their true colors. Leaving loaded weapons around the home. You know the most dangerous gun around is the I thought it was unloaded gun that's the excuse responsible gun owners tell the police when they have accidentally shot or killed someone. A lot of people out there are not responsible enough to own a water pistol let alone a real one

oldred
Sep '14

"The point is Darrin that YOU are the government. YOU are the responsible gun owner.

So rather than blather, rather than taunting naysayers to the range, perhaps you should put viable solutions into process for progress."

you are combining what two people said into one mg, we are each individuals, although you group us as "gunnys"

"Instead you spend more words than I (IMPOSSIBLE)in nitpicking the obvious which is you're against any change to background checks, crime-gun tracking system improvements, and mental health tracking improvements whether through your own words or the actions of your proxy, the NRA. "

How many times do I have to tell you I am not against the changes, I am against the other laws the package into these changes, do you even listen to ANYTHING?

MG, You are so hard set in believing whatever it is you believe that you will not even comprehend what other people are saying, even if it is their beliefs as opposed to "facts"

MG "Can you source the proposed mental health gun background check law that includes ADHD as a restriction worth tracking?"

Why don't you do yourself a favor and do a simple Google search on that fact before calling me out, there is plenty of discussions online about it.

Darrin ✉
Sep '14

I did google and can find no reference to ADHD or ADD being included in the mental health records being forwarded to or proposed for NICS. Matter of fact, that would be unusual indeed at the Federal level since NICS only tracks name, date of birth and stuff like that. There is no clinical information in NICS.

So are you talking about the incorporation of ADHC at the state level and, if so, pray tell which states?

mistergoogle ✉
Sep '14

Now you are saying NICS? Your question originated as mental health database

Try spelling it right, I got 620,000 results

Without reading it, here is the first one:
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/15615-mental-illness-diagnoses-are-the-slippery-slope-to-gun-confiscation

This is something that was brought up after sandy hook and it was one of those "hidden" details that hid under the law which would give the government full control on deciding who is "metally fit" to own a gun.

Until the government can come up with clear cut laws that do not hinder our rights, and without leaving open loop holes the size of Alaska for their own use later, the NRA will keep fighting it, and I will too, the government has made it very clear what they want to do. Thankfully we have the NRA

Also, you seem to group the NRA, me, mark, and anyone else who disagrees with you into one group...."gunys" Why is that?
Do you realize we are each individuals with our own perspectives and ideas? I may possibly not agree with Mark, and he may possibly not agree with me, as well maybe we don;t agree with some things the NRA has said.....this is not MG vs Guns

I would appreciate it if you would stop mixing together statements from all groups and spitting out what you call "facts" then we would have more time to discuss statements that were actually said.

Darrin ✉
Sep '14

Rebecka, the list of people who cannot be trusted grows each and every year, mostly because we've become a society in which most laws are made based on the fear that something bad might happen someday, to someone, somewhere, using inanimate objects that apparently have a mind of their own. That and the fact that a majority of us are simply too dumb to understand what the heck we're doing!

Welcome to the list btw ;-)

justintime ✉
Sep '14

Well, I have no plans to apply for a permit, but am certainly curious about the restrictions. And BTW I like reading everyone's opinions on this thread (but don't usually comment).

Rebecka ✉
Sep '14

Gadfly, mark hit the nail on the head, and that is exactly what the article is about, the "slippery slope" that allowing the government to use their digression on who is mentally fit, the article even gave two examples of when guns have been confiscated just off of a doctors concern, hope you trust your doctor is not working with the gun grabbers!

The way they purpose new laws leaves way too many grey areas, and they do this on purpose. Until they can make clear cut laws with clear cut plans everyone is going to fight them, simple.

Gladfy, I will tell you the same thing as MG, do your own research there is cases out there where people with ADD were denied, main in part because they were sent to a phsyc at a young age, but they fought to get a permit, so be shocked!

http://offgridsurvival.com/guncontrol-mentalhealth/

http://www.defensivecarry.com/forum/concealed-carry-issues-discussions/137602-nys-pistol-permit-add.html

Darrin ✉
Sep '14

Gun range owner weighs in on the tragedy with the 9 year old.

http://www.lehighvalleylive.com/breaking-news/index.ssf/2014/09/gun_range_owners_call_fatal_ar.html#incart_river

Calico696 ✉
Sep '14

"Again, at the Federal Level for NICS, neither of the cases referenced in Darrin's first piece would apply"

AND AGAIN, you are changing your question, as I already stated your original question asked about mental health, not NICS, two different things in case you didn't know.

Point proven, when you get viable information, you back petal, as usual, you are the one who is BUSTED!

Darrin ✉
Sep '14

That was tuesday, the judge ordered return on thursday, he pick em up on Monday. He got his guns back within a week.

While they said it was a federal case, I can find no evidence any actual lawsuit against the state or in federal court.

Meanwhile, another David Lewis did have his guns taken away.........

mistergoogle ✉
Sep '14

Define strawman:

The argument is: ""Our mental health data tracking system is porous and broken; you can be severely damages, be diagnosed as dangerous, and never reported ---- legally. And that's how you like it."

The response is about nonexistent possibilities like: "the government COULD include (ADHD) while implementing new laws they were passing due to the massive loopholes they were creating by allowing their own disgression (sic)"

The second response is there will be a slippery slope: " until the government can clearly make laws and not try to hide loop holes for the benefit of possible confiscation"

The third response regards your feeling that government: "has proven time and time again they are sneaky."

So I think the picture illustrates no matter what is proposed, the timeframe you when you would see a fix to broken gun data systems based on your three strawmen of the no-nothing-alypse.

Like I said, the systems are broken and it would be great to make them work as intended to track the appropriate things that I and most gun owners agree should be tracked for background checks and crime-gun tracking. Apparently you see it as an impossible task due to the strawmen. Sorry if spelling out how they are broken offended you as not being on point to your silly ascertain.

mistergoogle ✉
Sep '14

And I also noticed you changed to ADHD now, but you never answered my question, I do realize it may of been a honest mistake, but considering you listed it 8 times through various posts as AHDC makes me wonder if you even really know what you are talking about, or if you even care to know what you are talking about

Darrin ✉
Sep '14

" No, you did not answer the three questions, none of you hard core advocates did. But look where you did go, the defenses thrown up, and the assumptions made. "

Umm, I reposted every one of your questions with responses, just because you did not like the answers does not mean I did not answer.....straw (as you would say)

If you want simple yes or no they are all yes, but that unfortunately is not the world we live in, it is not as simple as you may (want to) think, and the government throughout the years has poked at what they really want to accomplish with the laws, which is the way I responded to your questions originally, because as with our purposed laws, your questions have many loop holes.

For example:

1. "But I would think responsible gun owners would applaud universal background checks. Do you?" What process are you purposing and how will it be carried out?

2. "I would think responsible gun owners would fight for up-to-date technology to be used for crime-gun tracking data systems when guns are used in crimes. Do you?"
Up to date technology in what way...smart guns?

3. "I would think responsible gun owners would fight for appropriate-disease-diagnosed mental illness patients to be included in the background check data system. Do you?"
define appropriate disease diagnosed mental illness

These are questions to your purposal that the government left open, for their disgression

I understand you have full faith in our government, and trust they will make the right choice, and that's fine, it is your choice. But others of us are concerned what doors they will open and how they will proceed because of past actions that have ended poorly for legal responsible gun owners.

" it's a board not a debate"

When you scare everyone else off with essay length posts, it becomes a debate, because only the truly interested people stay involved

Darrin ✉
Sep '14

I have nothing against tracking people, mental illness, background and such, to buy weapons or ammo, as long as it is efficient and honest, but when you include database tracking of guns, that's when it all goes south.

The government has proven, that when given a list of what guns are where, they confiscate, again look at Connecticut.

"Again, congrats on stepping up to the questions. Thanks."

As i said, i always answered the questions, just not to your liking so you considered them unanswered, it was always a yes, but with factual info on how the government has tried to carry out these laws.

You will never convince gun owners that it is a good thing to register your serial numbers, it happened in Connecticut, it happened during the assault rifle ban, it can happen again. The government burnt that bridge

Darrin ✉
Sep '14

Source and details for CT?

Because of your paranoia,

First off, we have been over the happenings of CT numerous times, and there is TONS of info out there about it, as well on our last gun post, but I know your memory is not that bad (and you even reference it further down in your post), and secondly I take that as borderline name calling, please use a more professional term, may I suggest the word concern instead? After all, that is all it is, concern because the government has PROVEN what they want, stopping them from getting what they want is what I want. And we know what "want" mean here, it mean control for confiscation.

I would be interested in seeing facts on how many "ill" people have purchased the guns themselves, my money is on more people take guns they were taught to use. (as in sandy hook)

Darrin ✉
Sep '14

MG, you talk on a federal level, but then when a point is made you say this whole thing is state to state.....what level are we talking about, because you are flipping back and fourth. The point is, if it can happen in a state, it can happen federally, and it kaboshes you theory of "that will never happen"

also, if I told you that the word paranoid is borderline name calling, why would you continue using it? I though we have grown out of that? Well..... at least I did.

Also yes we are talking about the same CT incident, problem is, they made everyone register their guns which created a database, law abiding citizens did, if you missed the deadline, your gun was to be confiscated. Also after the registration period they changed the laws as to what is legal/illegal, sent out letters to everybody who had these now illegal pieces using their new "database" and confiscated them or demanded they be deemed unusable. So it proves why databases are dangerous, just like in CT, they could use this on the federal level for a all out ban, as soon as they have their "database" of who owns what.

Darrin ✉
Sep '14

"OK, one more time; the only involvement for the FED in the crime gun database (CGD) is to save data from failed FFLs and to run the trace needed by police departments through the real database held by the FFL. I have included a picture of a very tiny piece of the FFL database for your edification."

We are talking about two totally different things, I don't think you realize how many un-serialized guns there are floating around, most likely more then legal guns, so tell me again how you plan on tracing crime guns, or guns that are not even there to begin with?

"When a crime is committed and a gun is found, the ATF can run a trace for the police by emailing or calling different FFLs to see if they might have the record.'

Do you honestly think if a person committed a crime with a gun that is in their name and traceable they would leave it at the scene? Most guns that are used in the way you describe are stolen. I also don't see how you plan will help us lower the number of murders, as you see it, it will only speed up the process after the crime has been committed, which in no way helps us fix the problem you are portraying.

Darrin ✉
Sep '14

More confiscations on the way... but don't worry... "they aren't coming for your guns..." right?


http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/09/03/gun-shop-owner-says-hes-been-forced-to-turn-over-165-customer-records-why-he-fears-door-to-door-confiscation-could-be-next/


Here's a scary snippet:

"Palumbo claimed he was told by an undercover officer that police first considered raiding his business with an armed SWAT Team to retrieve the records. The lead investigator, however, opted to take a more peaceful approach, he said."

A SWAT team... for paperwork. Let that sink in.

Mark Mc. ✉
Sep '14

Oh I agree, straw men perhaps and sure, guns last forever, how unfortunate. But they do wear out eventually.

Are you actually proposing no doing crime gun traces because you surmise they are not valuable? Beyond conjecture, where is your proof? Instead of posing questions and making a conclusion before you even bother to look for the underlying data........ maybe you should do your own work.

For example, what do you know about the criminal mind? Your conclusion presupposes either you are an expert or you are just guessing. If gun traces were useless, why do they do over 300,000 each year one might ask? Because ATF is dumber than criminals? Local police just like to spin their wheels? Gun traces are voluntary actions on behalf of police; some departments trace all, some on demand only, but there is no law forcing them to do so. I looked for data regarding resulting arrests, but could find none yet.

However, gun traces have other benefits too: about 30% of the ATF gun trafficking cases start with a trace. This helps the ATF in curbing trafficking due to straw sales, trade show malfeasance, and unscrupulous FFLs.

But my point is simpler. At 300,000 traces per year, each one a manual effort spanning an average of one week but often lasting months, all at the taxpayers expense, all using technology rom the 1960's, including many people doing manual things, is a system that wastes the taxpayer's dollars. Unless you can prove the lack of need for something we do 300,000 times a year, I am pretty darned sure we can save time and money by modernizing the system to remove the manual aspects through automation. I am also pretty sure, given a few minutes and access to the cost data, that I could put a positive business case for taken such actions. The fact that it would be more effective and efficient is a bonus for saving taxpayer dollars.

PS: "because the government at anytime can force the NRA to expose the information under warrant or another way." The government can do that today so who do you trust to protect the data ----- the NRA or the FFL. Matter of fact you can suggest the "doomsday" program be embedded just protect against that eventuality (in your mind!).

mistergoogle ✉
Sep '14

"a SWAT Team..... for paperwork."

Man, if that doesn't concern you- even you anti-gun lefties- you are out of your effing minds. ALL of us should be VERY concerned with the militarization, overuse, and MISuse, of our law enforcement agencies. It's escalating rapidly.

You people are like the frog in the "how to boil a frog" story. [yes, yes, I know.... snopes says you can't really boil a frog that way, so that story isn't true, so anything discussed using that analogy is also not true. ] FOOLS.

Willful ignorance and useful idiots will be the end of our country as we have known it.

JeffersonRepub ✉
Sep '14

"But yes, government seizing paper would take longer than government seizing data files"

MG you answered your own question again. Nothing much can be said about the no warrant part, considering they sent in a swat team, a warrant is a pretty mute point.

"Gov wants a search, calls NRA, NRA conducts search, send gov info. Gov is never networked to the database. Databases can be "doomsday" protected to self destruct upon tamper. There are all sorts of ways to protect."?

You make all sorts of "it's a perfect world" references and ideas, but the truth is it would NEVER work the way you portray and believe. The government has proven they are not afraid to strong arm the little man.

"Why don't you give it a try?"
Because I am not the one who used it as viable info, you should be able to backup what you are saying

In the first article you posted the gun was only able to be traced to it's first owner, the rest of the people ratted each other out it seems, as after the guy bought it legally at a pawn shop the rest of the transfers were illegal and thus would not be traceable even by your high tech perfect world system. Seems the rat did a better job to me.

Your second site is from 2006 statistics and is outdated. (8 years old)

Darrin ✉
Sep '14

They did not send in a SWAT team, the FFL owner alluded to a undercover officer saying they might; it's a he said, he said. Then he turned the names over without even a warrant.

"The government has proven they are not afraid to strong arm the little man." Hey, it's your call if you think paper in a file cabinet protects you more that encrypted off-line data files. But as your own anecdote shows, the paper was turned over instantaneously with a whimper. Your guy ratted out over 100.

I did back it up; there are 300,000 searches conducted each year on demand from police who voluntarily use the system. I also provided anecdotal examples of multiple arrests off one search as well as ancillary arrests based on other searches. My anecdotal data now outpaces yours about 5:1 arrests versus jackbooted government thugs stealing data. The fact that one search caused the ratting process to commence only heightens the search value thank you very much. The fact that the second search is 2006 not shows the long term value. And trust me, trafficking arrests due to ATF searches nets hundreds each year from gun shows, unscrupulous FFLs, and straw men sales. It's their bread and butter......

The insurance company analogy is not a valid match; you sign away marketing rights somewhere in the process. The mental health database would be more appropriate; I don't think you can find Federal Government or even State level abuse of that database.

But like I said, if the gun industry nor the NRA does not want to enhance our crime gun search capabilities, it probably won't happen making it easier for criminals to remain free longer. If gun enthusiasts advocate a crime gun database featuring handwritten paper files tucked away at the FFLs to help police track down guns used in crimes versus a modern digital database; that's business as usual and gun traces will continue to be manual, taking at least a week, sometimes months, and we the taxpayers will pay our hard earned tax dollars to continue this archaic, inefficient and ineffective system to support your fear of jack booted thugs learning about your gun sales. Just does not sound like responsible citizenry to me to decry your second amendment rights from the rooftops and then be afraid someone will find out you have a gun.

I say the system should be modern, efficient and cost effective. And if responsible gun owners, responsible gun industry and the responsible NRA does not support that nor want to take the bull by the horns to own it and make it safe, then we will continue to fill out forms by hand, stuff em in file cabinets and give the bad guys and extra week or more ever time we find a gun involved in a crime. I guess that's at least 300,000 times a year.

So I guess your answer to this question is "yes but no, actually no."

mistergoogle ✉
Sep '14

Well, I finally found out why I can’t find accurate crime gun trace results. Thanks to the NRA, it’s the law! Darrin, were you sending me on a wild goose-gun chase?

Until 2003, such aggregate gun trace data was available but then the Tiahrt amendment in Congress blocked it. “At the time, the National Rifle Association and others argued that gun research studies using tracing information were biased against guns and that the data allowed unfair scrutiny of legal gun dealers and owners. Tiahrt has also said that the law aimed to protect undercover police and informants.” Same law that blocked CDC from researching gun damage to humans. http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2013-02-05/news/bs-md-sun-investigates-guns-20130204_1_tiahrt-amendment-gun-trace-data-gun-research

Based on what’s available since Obama opened some data portholes in 2009, we can see that in 2013, 3,834 traces done for NJ. 2/3rds were pistols, no machine guns but they did have 4 in 2012 and 4 in 2011, 2 in 2010 so they usually pull a few. Most of the guns were traced to out-of-state origins, PA being the largest supplier. https://www.atf.gov/content/About/statistics But you can’t see much more. Oh yeah, over 10 million guns were produced for US consumption is 2013. It was a good year. Ten million paper records…….

So have at it, here's all the data there is: http://www.atf.gov/content/About/statistics

The agency is allowed to publish its agent’s arrest records which in 2009 “agents made 10,892 arrests, including bringing cases against 4,076 gang members.” Wouldn’t expect the numbers to change much year to year since the number of agents does not change year to year. And it’s not like the data system is making them more efficient…..:>(

But I think an ATF agent said it best; every single successful crime-gun search, and about 70% of the 300,000 per year are successful , results in at least one positive lead.

Here’s how responsible gun owners belonging to the responsible NRA working on behalf of the responsible gun industry go after criminals via their modern gun trace data system. It’s even more frightening than I described: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/25/AR2010102505823.html

It just seems to be that if gun enthusiasts and the NRA really cared about catching criminals with guns, they would do something about the archaic data system that supports that. It would seem that catching criminals who use guns would be high on their agenda of responsible gun ownership.

I mean the current paper data base is just crazy stupid. Look at it in the picture. That's the cleanest one at the ATF. Imagine what each FFL's looks like. You go there, ask them to show you next time. Watch him fill out your form; that's the final database right there.

But I will tell you how this will go if they don't seize the day. Sooner or later, enough of the populace will get fed up with this, not just stupidity, but activity that abets criminal activity. Then a heinous act will bring it to the forefront and we will make a proper database, probably at the state level. I would think the NRA and gun advocates would want to avoid that eventuality and instead of lobbying against progress, embrace it to protect themselves as well as helping others.

mistergoogle ✉
Sep '14

well, well, well.

NY times: "assault weapon" term is a myth"

[I]n the 10 years since the previous ban lapsed, even gun control advocates acknowledge a larger truth: The law that barred the sale of assault weapons from 1994 to 2004 made little difference.

It turns out that big, scary military rifles don’t kill the vast majority of the 11,000 Americans murdered with guns each year. Little handguns do.

In 2012, only 322 people were murdered with any kind of rifle, F.B.I. data shows.

The continuing focus on assault weapons stems from the media’s obsessive focus on mass shootings, which disproportionately involve weapons like the AR-15, a civilian version of the military M16 rifle. This, in turn, obscures some grim truths about who is really dying from gunshots.

Annually, 5,000 to 6,000 black men are murdered with guns. Black men amount to only 6 percent of the population. Yet of the 30 Americans on average shot to death each day, half are black males.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/14/sunday-review/the-assault-weapon-myth.html?_r=2

JeffersonRepub ✉
Sep '14

the ar-15's and similar should be legal to own and use.

they should not be banned from the citizenry.

thanks for posting a good article JR. even the grey lady is coming around on this issue. that's 'progress' right there.

BrotherDog ✉
Sep '14

darrin is spot on as usual, i am so very tired of the dishonesty all around us

BrotherDog ✉
Sep '14

While assault rifles are included in less than 10% of all mass murders, about a third of all mass shootings incorporate one or more LCM-equipped guns. The fact that it CAN be done with a smaller magazine does not change the fact that it is OFTEN done with an LCM. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/mass-killings/index.html#explore

Additionally, of the past 62 mass shootings
"42 guns with high-capacity magazines, across 31 mass-shooting cases
20 assault weapons, across 14 mass-shooting cases
33 cases involving assault weapons or high-capacity magazines (or both)"
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/02/assault-weapons-high-capacity-magazines-mass-shootings-feinstein

Bumping the LCM over 50% and making it the mass murderer's tool of choice.

Do armed civilians stop mass murderers. No. Not yet. Never. Matter of fact, the two who tried were either severely wounded or fatal. http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/armed-civilians-do-not-stop-mass-shootings

However, when citizens DO STOP mass murderers, the vast majority are stopped while reloading. The theory behind an LCM ban would be more-reloads = more-chances-to-stop.

Would ending the world of LCMs reduce the number of mass murders. Probably not. Would it reduce the number of dead. Yes, by a small number. But in mass murders, small is large since each mass murder greatly affects our national sense of wellbeing and pain is logarithmic to the body count.

Again, I think ridding the world of LCMs, combined with Universal Background Checks, Digital Crime-Gun Tracking, and 100% compliance to Mental Health Tracking laws would go a long way to reducing the gun violence in America.

mistergoogle ✉
Sep '14

Wow, where did you pull that stat out of?

Source please........

Eight states and DC have bans on LCMs; that's 15% or more of the populace, more so since they are generally high population states. Add in Cook County and a couple of metro's to that.

Now LCMs were illegal to manufacture and distribute from 1994 to 2004 so toss that in.

According to experts (sourced: CSMonitor); there's 40M LCMs out there. Based on BAFTE 3/2013 numbers, there's 300M guns in America. Add in another 20M for 2013 and 2014 and you have 320M or so.

So that's 12.5% LCMs if it's one to one for LCM per gun.

So where did you pull your statistic from?

And even if "LCM's are used disproportionately *infrequently* in crime relative to their population" is that a good thing?

And we were talking mass murder by gun; did you just jump shift to another suit........

mistergoogle ✉
Sep '14

"Eight states and DC have bans on LCMs; that's 15% or more of the populace, more so since they are generally high population states.

But not all of them ban magazines to below what you consider LCM. Some of them (New Jersey, Colorado) are at 15 rounds, and ALL of those states that do have a 10 round limit are in the bottom 10 of states by gun ownership %. That means across the vast majority of the country, semi-automatic firearms come standard with "large" capacity magazines (except sub-compacts, etc. where the physical size is a limitiation).

In other words, at *least* 85% of firearms that are capable of accepting LCM's are delivered with LCM's, meaning it isn't necessarily the choice of the criminal to use an LCM because of its lethality, it just happens to be what's inside the gun they steal/acquire illegally.

Just as one data point, 52% of Glock's (a very popular manufacturer) lineup is delivered standard with anywhere from 13 to 17 round magazines.

Check the retail availability of 10 rounders versus all others to get a sense of the disparity:

AR rifles: http://gunbot.net/mags/
Glock handguns: http://gunbot.net/mags/Glock/

If Virginia Tech didn't prove that magazine capacity means *NOTHING* when the criminal has *unlimited* time to just walk around shooting people without any armed resistance, I don't know what will.



"And how do you plan on doing that? none are serialized and there are MILLIONS out there"

At least 40M according to CSMonitor's unsourced "experts" which I actually think is low. Since 1998, there have been 20.4M semi-auto pistols manufactured, and 25.9 rifles (of all types) manufactured. Certainly not all have 10+ round magazines, but that a potential pool of 45M firearms in just the past 16 years. People usually have more than one magazine for each firearm as well. To say the horse has left the barn is quite an understatement.

Mark Mc. ✉
Sep '14

Once again, no source Mark. And even though we were talking about mass murder where most are conduced with LCMs, multiple weapons, and most, when stopped by civilians, are stopped during clip exchange, if you can prove that most gun crimes (not mass murders) are enacted with LCMs because there is no other choice ---- gee, I think you made my point.

The fact that one mass murder by gun, the biggest, was not accomplished with an LCM, while most of the others with a combined body count quite a bit higher proves that it does not matter, I would say it seems to matter most often.

Darrin, I have always recommended an LCM ban at above 10 per clip. Yes, I know there's states with a cut-off at 15 and yes, I would see no reason for those states to change, and yes, if the ban was at 15 instead of 10, I am sure I (and many others) could live with it.

And no, there was no reason to bring up LCMs again while discussing the failures in the three data systems that support responsible gun ownership and help protect us from criminals and those with mental health issues. It's a different topic.

I don't see myself as anti-gun; I think these changes would be prudent.

mistergoogle ✉
Sep '14

Your stats also neglect to point out the obvious...

Even if 40M is the correct number of LCM's in existence, that means approximately 39,999,000 of them were used in exactly zero crimes. Hardly just a tool for the criminals when greater than 99.9% of them simply go to the range or harmlessly take up space in the gun safe.

Mark Mc. ✉
Sep '14

"I don't see myself as anti-gun"

When you use statements like why should you need

or

Gunnies

sorry, but, you're anti-gun

Darrin ✉
Sep '14

"DPMS AP4 - can be bought with 10-round fixed clip ---- BUSTED
M16A2 - can be bought with 5- or 10-round mags ---- BUSTED"

I never said they "can't" be bought with 10 round magazines. Those are offered for states that have the restrictions (the 15% you mentioned). That's why you'll typically see firearms with reduced magazine sizes marketed as "compliant" versions. Walk into a gun store in PA and see how many "compliant" versions are on the rack vs. standard versions. Not many (if any at all).

Let's count the options available in the Smith & Wesson M&P-15 lineup:

http://www.smith-wesson.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/Category4_750001_750051_787653_-1_757785_757784_image

Standard Versions (30 rounds): 10 models (generally differentiated by scope/rail types for personal preference)

Compliant Versions (10 rounds): 9 models (generally differentiated by nit-picky state specific rules (i.e. California bullet button).

Even if we assumed that sales were even across all models (but why would you buy a CA compliant model unless you were in California?) that means *at least* 52% of them are delivered with LCM's... Funny, that's the same % of Glocks and within the window that I predicted, and it aligns with the ~50% of LCM's in crime simply due to that being their population for ALL uses.

So, NOT busted.

(You also fail to mention that Glock offers 33 round magazines for some models as well... Also, even if you did buy a CA/NJ/etc. model, AR rifles of any manufacturer/model use the same magazines so someone moving from CA to a free state could buy larger magazines when they get there.)

Mark Mc. ✉
Sep '14

"You really see anti-gun in that Darrin, because you voted yes to all. Mark didn't vote at all. "

I would say Mark is smart enough and has seen how you work people long enough to stay out of your liberal bullshit. Look where it got me, I said one thing, trying to be a honest person, and you believe and portray it as something completely different. I correct you, and you still portray it as something else

And you wonder why people don't answer your questions

Darrin ✉
Sep '14

it makes, me for one, not even want to continue a conversation.

If we cannot have a honest debate, why even bother?

I honestly do not blame MG though, I know his type, I have discussed similar topics with most i know. They seem to be so head strong in "what the actually believe" that they let their mind twist how things were said and why they were said sub-conscious to them...at least I can hope MG doesn't do it on purpose, if that is the case it is just a utter waste of time talking to him.

Darrin ✉
Sep '14

" (I'm just messin around here"

Yes, as usual.

" but you are really getting petty. Let's talk issues instead.)"

Pot meet kettle? Reading one of your "fact filled" posts is like walking through a house of mirrors. You throw so much shit up in the air, it's like chaff. A distraction. By design, methinks.

JeffersonRepub ✉
Sep '14

You should just give up, at least here on this forum. You've been beaten, friend. Or should I say "BUSTED"? Ad nauseum. Gun control lost in NJ, and lost in the US, overall.... even after the tragedy at Newtown. The country has spoken, and they disagree with you and your kind on this issue. You're just embarrassing yourself at this point. But if that's what turns you on, by all means.... carry on....

JeffersonRepub ✉
Sep '14