Ohio shooting of girl in Amish buggy a homicide

[ellisonz]

AP – 3 hrs ago

FREDERICKSBURG, Ohio (AP) — The fatal shooting of a 15-year-old Amish girl who was driving a horse-drawn buggy in northeast Ohio has been ruled a homicide, a medical examiner said Tuesday.

Rachel Yoder was shot in the head Thursday night while traveling from a party to her home in Wayne County, between Columbus and Akron. She died Friday from the wound, Summit County Medical Examiner Lisa Kohler said.

Wayne County sheriff's Capt. Douglas Hunter said Tuesday that there had been no arrests. Authorities first thought Yoder may have fallen from the buggy and hit her head, The Cochocton Tribune reported.

The teen was shot while riding alone and returning from a Christmas party for employees, most under 18 years old, who work at an Amish produce farm, Hunter said. He said his department found a trail of blood along the road and traced it about three-eighths of a mile into Holmes County in an area of farms and rolling hills.

http://news.yahoo.com/ohio-shooting-girl-amish-buggy-homicide-141657408.html

Senseless gun violence is everywhere in this country - even the Amish are not immune. Why can't we have homicide rates as low as other Western countries?

[SteveW]

1. What is the point of your post? nt

[ellisonz]

2. What's the point of your post? n/t

I'm illustrating how far spread and how persistant gun violence has become with evidence. That's a story from today.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

32. Ahem...

That story is not "gun violence". Its an accident.

[Remmah2]

100. Why is gun violence any different than any other type of violence?

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/brooklyn/klyn_teen_critical_after_being_stabbed_TRfwJG3T8SQUHbC4QRRL8L

BTW Einstein, overall violent crime is down, we have a media hype problem.

[SteveW]

106. Actually, the illustration is how "persistant violence has become."

But even here, you are misleading by describing with "...has become." This country has ALWAYS had persistent violence; secondarily, the main method is with guns. I believe Russia (which has a much higher homicide rate than our's) must be using other means (since they have oh, so strict gun laws). What are they? Knives? Clubs? The garrotte?

[gejohnston]

121. the means does not matter

because their murder rate makes us look like western Europe.

[rrneck]

3. Why can't we

have income parity equal to other western countries? Why can't we have health care equal to other western countries? Why is Texas even a state? Why do birds sing every time she walks by?

How you fixed for answers?

[ellisonz]

4. I'm fixed.

We are weak willed as a nation because blithering right-wing idiocy has been allowed to fester and infect with opposition to common sense gun control being symptomatic.

[rrneck]

5. Ah.

Moral outrage masquerading as social policy. It worked so well in the fourteenth century...



Now, have you got any real answers? You can run but you can't hide.

[ellisonz]

6. What does the fourteenth century have to do with this?

We live in the 21st century.

Helloooo, anybody home in there??? *knock* *knock*

[rrneck]

7. So you got nothin'.

Alrighty then.

[ellisonz]

8. I thought I was pretty damn clear.

We don't have it because a large portion of this country won't let it happen.

[rrneck]

9. Awwww.

It's Christmas. Maybe Santa will bring it to you. Until then, I guess you'll just have to settle for the majority of voters exercising their constitutional rights.

[ellisonz]

10. Or maybe I'll just make a pest of myself.

If I was so wrong, I would just be ignored right, or is correcting my views of your misguided sense of your constitutional rights that threatening?

[rrneck]

11. You're not up to pest yet.

So far, you're just entertainment. Why don't you produce some sort of workable solution to whatever problem you perceive. For that matter, why don't you clearly state the problem.

[ellisonz]

25. I have. You're just not reading.

The problem is that too many legal guns come into illegal possession or those whose only intent is misuse.

Mandatory locks, limits on the number of firearms without special permit, mental health screening for all purchasers, license required to buy ammunition, reinstatement of the assault weapons bans, limits on the number of buyers/resellers, more oversight of current regulations.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

29. We've read what you've said

Almost all of your suggestions violate the rights of those who have done nothing wrong and increase costs for no valid reason.

Mandatory locks? How will you ensure they are used?

Limits on number without permits? By what authority?

Mental health screening for all purchasers? Good lord, the sheer cost alone is prohibitive.

Licensing required to buy ammo? That's been tried - it is illegal.

Reinstating the AWB? WHY? It didn't do a DAMN thing except cost the Democrats the House.

There is already a defacto limit on dealers courtesy of the BATFE.

As far as more oversight, that's a great idea, but it isnt like the enforcement agencies aren't doing their best. You realize this has to be paid for, right? Where's the money come from?

[ellisonz]

91. You're going to pay for it with increased taxation and fines.

Also: as far as I can tell it is only a State Courts that have made that ruling on ammunition. Federal restrictions on age still apply.

[rrneck]

31. Oooh. Let's look.

Mandatory locks
How will that be enforced? There are over 1.2 million NICS checks a month adding to an existing 300 million firearms. Prosecute after the firearm is found to be used in a crime? Fine. "I gave the combination to my roomate/boyfriend/girlfriend/house sitter/parent/adult child/uncle/aunt/cousin... need I go on? Regulating how something is stored and who has access to it amounts to regulating interpersonal relationships. How do you feel about same sex marriage?

limits on the number of firearms without special permit
Why? It only takes one to shoot somebody. Another impossible to define criteria designed to satisfy personal moral outrage.

mental health screening for all purchasers
Mental health screening is very expensive and time consuming. But I'll bet you're willing to make those buying the guns pay for it, right? That's called regulating something out of existence. But lets say you get your wish. Here's a history lesson:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_abuse_of_psychiatry
Political abuse of psychiatry is the purported misuse of psychiatric diagnosis, detention and treatment for the purposes of obstructing the fundamental human rights of certain groups and individuals in a society.[1][2]:491 In other words, abuse of psychiatry including one for political purposes is deliberate action of getting citizens certified, who, because of their mental condition, need neither psychiatric restraint nor psychiatric treatment.[3] Psychiatrists have been involved in human rights abuses in states across the world when the definitions of mental disease were expanded to include political disobedience.[4]:6 As scholars have long argued, governmental and medical institutions code menaces to authority as mental diseases during political disturbances.[5]:14 Nowadays, in many countries, political prisoners are sometimes confined and abused in mental institutions.[6]:3 Psychiatric confinement of sane people is uniformly considered[by whom?] a particularly pernicious form of repression

I suggest you get rid of that pesky second amendment first. And while you're at it, the fifth amendment. People have to be adjudicated mentally incompetent before they can be denied any constitutional right.

license required to buy ammunition
Useless without a gun. Why are you afraid to advocate licensing the purchase of guns? And if you got your wish for the guns, how efficient do you think it will be to track the movement of every gun made into perpetuity when a tiny fraction of them are used in crime, and a tiny fraction of those will leave a sufficient paper trail to be useful in prosecution? Now, multiply that by the billions or rounds of ammunition sold in this country every year and add to that the millions more that are made at home.

reinstatement of the assault weapons bans
You don't even know what an assault weapon is. How do you know what to ban?

limits on the number of buyers/resellers
You plan to accomplish that how? Please see above "regulating interpersonal relationships".

more oversight of current regulations
I assume you mean more effective use of current regulations. Not a bad idea. How do you plan to make that happen?

[We_Have_A_Problem]

36. Don't you know by now...

...facts don't matter? All that is important is having the appropriate sympathy for the victims. That justifies all manner of controls on the people.






For the humor impaired, yes, that was

[rrneck]

38. Yeah, I had some time to kill.

It's been a while I indulged those who can't seem to read previous threads. It's not like it's news or anything.

[ellisonz]

69. It's really not that confusing.

1. No trigger lock or safe, no gun and possession without proof of a license, which you can only get by certifying that you have them results in a fine.

2. The problem is that all too often multiple firearms, bought for no legitimate purpose, or either stolen or used in a criminal act.

3. I can think of plenty of people who should be preemptively banned from firearm ownership: such as schizophrenics. This is a last ditch measure to already existing laws - I mean if the Sheriff's office thinks you're nuts and you can't fake an interview you probably shouldn't be allowed to buy a gun.

4. Prevents people with stolen guns from buying ammunition easily - common sense and non-punitive.

5. Insult.

5. Licensing - all sales outside of a Federally monitored store are now illegal.

6. By properly funding law enforcement from my new excess firearms special permit.

[AtheistCrusader]

78. lawl.

1. 10 states already have laws on the books requiring trigger locks be sold with new firearms. Surely you can cite some material benefit in homicide rates for those states. One state even has safe storage laws. Most gun manufacturers include a lock with a new firearm purchase pro-actively. Some firearms have the lock built-in, like two of my taurus pistols.

2. Define 'legitimate purpose', etc. This sounds like an empty, emotional, personal definition.

3. You might be shocked to learn, but in the 'legitimate purpose' category, people with mental health issues are LESS likely to commit violent crime, and MORE likely to be victimized by violent crime, than the 'general public' (11.8 times more likely). Currently we only ban people who have been ADJUDICATED by a court of law to be mentally unsafe, or involuntarily committed for a period of more than 24h. Do you think you have a 'better' bar or litmus test?

4. Well I'm sure they won't steal the ammo, and I would certainly hate to feed the republican trolls that harp about databases and lists.

5. Unlikely.

6. Illegal. Immoral. Unworkable. Political suicide.

7. Punitive, may be found by the SC to amount to a de-facto ban.

[ellisonz]

99. rofl.

1. Go Federal. - and yes, there is evidence -http://articles.sfgate.com/2005-07-21/bay-area/17382333_1_grand-jury-witnesses-homicide-charges - but as we should know correlation and causation are messy business. Please read this before replying to me any further with requests for statistical evidence: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_arguments_of_gun_politics_in_the_United_States#Logical_Pitfalls_in_the_Gun-Violence_Debate

2. Not for illegal diversion, not for stockpiling, not for entertainment purposes. Why do you need a dozen firearms unless you're an antique collector?

3. Yes. Medical diagnosis. You and I both know that our mental health system is failing. Take Jared Lee Loughner and Seung-Hui Cho for example - would have never passed. You're not seriously suggesting we allow the deranged to possess guns to defend themselves? I'm not trying to deny legitimate users - I'm trying to stop the mentally ill and those who want weapons to cause others harm (that's the idea behind waiting periods)

4. There would certainly be less in circulation at one time and again you'd need proof that you're a legal owner to buy. "Both Illinois and Massachusetts require people to display a firearm identification card when purchasing ammunition. The card is comparable to a permit. Applicants must meet specified criteria to be eligible for a card, including a criminal history record check requirement." Say it again: Federal - http://www.cga.ct.gov/2007/rpt/2007-R-0217.htm

5. Are you against trying to fight illegal gun sales?

6. How is a user-fee unreasonable - are you scared of the Republican pro-gun lobby? I think the bigger issue is Democrats not taking a strong stance on this issue

7. I only had 6 points - so you get a cartoon:

[SteveW]

107. Ha! Betcha that cartoonist will get a royalty payment from the NRA. nt

[ellisonz]

117. How so?

[SteveW]

158. Kates and Kleck reports this in "The Great American gun Debate"...

The NRA has paid royalties to editorial cartoonists who create stridently anti-gun/pro-gun control/ban cartoons, and re-prints them in its in-house magazines, mailers, etc. I'm sure the cartoonists did not draw these bubble messages up with those expectations, but apparently they didn't turn down the money, either.

"As one analyst notes,

prolonged exposure to this debate convinces America's handgun owners that they are
a hated minority whose days are numbered by mortal enemies—enemies who hate
them more than crime. With the die cast so, gun owners are made to think that they
have everything to lose if those who loath [sic] them have any success at all.
[Knowing this, the gun lobby actually] disseminate[s] the nastier [anti-gun] cartoons
and vituperative op-ed pieces in publications read by gun owners to fan the flames
of incipient paranoia.4

"The last point is both remarkable in itself and telling in its implications: in reprinting anti-gun
cartoons the gun lobby is actually paying anti-gun cartoonists royalties for penning those cartoons!"

http://www.constitution.org/2ll/2ndschol/54bigsym.pdf

[ellisonz]

160. You're actually making a terrific argument against yourself...

If they NRA engages in such cravenly fascist behaviors as this what would make you think their interpretation of the Second Amendment isn't total cooked bullshit?

[SteveW]

161. Your hoping. You seem fascinated with the NRA. Are you a member?

What "cravenly fascist behaviors" have you in mind, specifically? You seem to know a lot about them, strange.

BTW, I don't look to the NRA for an interpretation of the Second Amendment.

[AtheistCrusader]

126. You didn't even read your own link.

1. That 'trigger lock' law is regarding federal enforcement against criminals convicted of firearm related crimes. It has nothing to do with actual trigger locks. Good game, next map. As to statistics, I didn't refer to privately conducted studies, I refer to trusted sources like the Department of Justice. Whom, of course, you will disagree with because they do not support your claims.

2. I have at least two dozen. 3 pistols are for personal defense under different condtions, and for use by different people. (My wife and I do not have the same size hands) 2 pistols are for target practice. I have three shotguns, again, for use in different purposes. My duck gun isn't useful for home defense. Nor is my 'big game' shotgun for slugs. In fact, my duck gun can't fire slugs at all. I have a variety of rifles. .223 (AR-15 and Mini-14) is ok for human, but illegal in my state for deer, because it isn't powerful enough for a clean kill. So, ok for home defense, and small game, but no good for deer, ram, bear, etc. I have two .30-06's, same make and model, one for sentimental/family hand-me-down value, one for crawling through the muck after a deer. Firearms are tools, you don't own ONE screwdriver, for all purposes. You need flatheads, and phillips, in various sizes to get various tasks done. Right tool, for the right job. Some for clean shots/kills, some for hunting certain types of game, and some for safety reasons, as my wife and I don't have the same length arms, etc. A firearm should fit you properly, for safe operation.

3. You are using an over-broad and fuzzy meaning for 'mentally ill'. You will lump in people who are not only statistically unlikely to harm others, but statistically likely to be victims of violent crime. That is unconscionable. There are already mechanisms in place to report and block these people who are actually dangerous, from lawful purchases of firearms. I will agree it has some problems, as a couple states aren't doing a good job of reporting, and this has been honestly and productively discussed in other threads, that you apparently haven't been a part of.

4. There are trillions of rounds in circulation. Good luck. Certainly you can demonstrate some productive result of that law in those two states?

5. No. Thanks for smearing.

6. We already pay various state fees, and federal excise taxes. I bet you don't even know how much. Ah, but just a little bit more will make it all better right? 'Lists' and registration are effective tools the NRA and republicans use to motivate voters hostile to progressive goals across the board. Stop giving them fuel via stupid assed legislation attempts that don't fix anything anyway.

[ellisonz]

136. sigh

1. It still demonstrates that trigger locks are effective. Would you care to link or just bluster?

2. Well if you have multiple adults - the by my count 13 guns you describe possessing would be more than okay. I'm just going to refer you to the German system of permitting: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Germany

3. I'm not seeing your point. The system as is didn't stop Loughner, and this is still after VT. Care to be more specific? Are you suggesting that we should arm the mentally ill to defend themselves? You're actually making my point quite well of the predatory nature of gun crime.

4. So let's start working on it - at the very least we wouldn't have a situation where someone with a stolen gun can legally buy ammunition.

5. It's not a smear to ask if those who advocate only very minor changes to the status quo care about illegal gun sales. Listen to the Bloomberg tapes.

6. It's not my property that's creating nightmares for law enforcement and victims. Why should all taxpayers bear this burden? Gun crime is estimated to cost $100 billion a year - http://books.google.com/books/about/Gun_Violence.html?id=3xi31fs1y-oC

From 6 it seems like you're really just afraid of the Republicans on gun politics - how is that a proper way to go about setting a Democratic Party position on gun control. Should we adjust our tax, education, and health care proposals to please the Republicans too? I think they're pretty damn well motivated without any of the talk of gun control.

[AtheistCrusader]

140. No it doesn't.

1. TRIGGER LOCKS ARE NOT INVOLVED AT ALL IN THE LINK YOU SUPPLIED. It is just a NAME of a FEDERAL PROGRAM to reduce plea bargains, etc, keeping people squarely in the sights of full penalties when caught multiple times violating various laws while in possession of a firearm. So no, it doesn't show trigger locks are effective. They aren't. Please do supply something that shows they are, if you feel strongly about it. And please read your own links.

2. I have a hell of a lot more than 13. My wife only owns about 5. Our household contains more than 24. And they get used.

3. There is another active thread on this very topic, including statistics on violent crime against the mentally ill. You seem to have trouble focusing. Not all violent crime is committed with a firearm. I never suggested we should arm people with mental health issues. The very term itself is overbroad and useless for the purpose you seem to wish to employ it.

4. Cart/horse. Ammo can also be stolen. Much easier to restrict access to the single point of failure: a firearm in the hands of a criminal. Ammo, are you serious? Also, most gun stores at least verify ID for all ammo purchases, particularly to keep pistol ammo out of the hands of sub-21 year olds. Doesn't seem to do shit about the 14-20 gang banger age range, does it?

5. Bloomberg is a republican piece of shit. So, no. Yes, we all care about illegal gun sales. Question answered?

6. Nice of you to ignore what firearms SAVE you every year. Keep in mind, the Department of Justice pins legal defensive uses of firearms at between 60,000 and 100,000 per year, depending on the year. That's money in the bank, saved, as well as lives saved.

I don't like losing elections that have broad negative consequences for health care, gay rights, voter rights, civil rights and a boatload of other shit, for your pet cause when the proposed legislation is bollocks anyway. You want something effective? Force the states to report mental health disqualifications on pain of facing the goddamn DoJ, not, 'oh we'll give you a little money if you do it, and we'll withhold it if you don't' nonsense.

[rrneck]

97. You failed to answer any questions

You only restated your opinion.

Fail.

[ellisonz]

98. You get a cartoon for polemic.

Fail.

[rrneck]

102. Well, if that's the best you can do...

since you're only trolling with you mother's computer here is the intelligent half of our conversation reposted for the convenience of those who might still be interested in rational thought on the matter.


Mandatory locks
How will that be enforced? There are over 1.2 million NICS checks a month adding to an existing 300 million firearms. Prosecute after the firearm is found to be used in a crime? Fine. "I gave the combination to my roomate/boyfriend/girlfriend/house sitter/parent/adult child/uncle/aunt/cousin... need I go on? Regulating how something is stored and who has access to it amounts to regulating interpersonal relationships. How do you feel about same sex marriage?

limits on the number of firearms without special permit
Why? It only takes one to shoot somebody. Another impossible to define criteria designed to satisfy personal moral outrage.

mental health screening for all purchasers
Mental health screening is very expensive and time consuming. But I'll bet you're willing to make those buying the guns pay for it, right? That's called regulating something out of existence. But lets say you get your wish. Here's a history lesson:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_abuse_of_psychiatry
Political abuse of psychiatry is the purported misuse of psychiatric diagnosis, detention and treatment for the purposes of obstructing the fundamental human rights of certain groups and individuals in a society.:491 In other words, abuse of psychiatry including one for political purposes is deliberate action of getting citizens certified, who, because of their mental condition, need neither psychiatric restraint nor psychiatric treatment. Psychiatrists have been involved in human rights abuses in states across the world when the definitions of mental disease were expanded to include political disobedience.:6 As scholars have long argued, governmental and medical institutions code menaces to authority as mental diseases during political disturbances.:14 Nowadays, in many countries, political prisoners are sometimes confined and abused in mental institutions.:3 Psychiatric confinement of sane people is uniformly considered a particularly pernicious form of repression

I suggest you get rid of that pesky second amendment first. And while you're at it, the fifth amendment. People have to be adjudicated mentally incompetent before they can be denied any constitutional right.

license required to buy ammunition
Useless without a gun. Why are you afraid to advocate licensing the purchase of guns? And if you got your wish for the guns, how efficient do you think it will be to track the movement of every gun made into perpetuity when a tiny fraction of them are used in crime, and a tiny fraction of those will leave a sufficient paper trail to be useful in prosecution? Now, multiply that by the billions or rounds of ammunition sold in this country every year and add to that the millions more that are made at home.

reinstatement of the assault weapons bans
You don't even know what an assault weapon is. How do you know what to ban?

limits on the number of buyers/resellers
You plan to accomplish that how? Please see above "regulating interpersonal relationships".

more oversight of current regulations
I assume you mean more effective use of current regulations. Not a bad idea. How do you plan to make that happen?

[AtheistCrusader]

130. Once upon a time

I removed a cable lock from my shotgun with two rocks, because we got all the way out to the gravel pits, and realized we'd left the key at home. Put one rock under the cable, used the sharp edge of the other to bang away and gnaw through the cable. (basalt is good for this, holds an edge)

Not a scratch on the gun, good to go.

[SteveW]

108. ....more royalty payments from NRA. nt

[rl6214]

88. So let's look at your list

Mandatory locks...all new guns are sold with locks, you can't make someone put them on and use them.

Limits on the number of firearms without special permit...I collect curios and relics. Why should there be a limit on what I can buy when none of my guns have ever been a problem.

Mental health screening for all purchasers...are we going to require a mental health screening to excercise all constitutional rights?

License required to buy ammunition...are we going to require a license to purchase printer ink, computer supplies...

Reinstatement of the assault weapons ban...what exactly did this ban accomplish? NOTHING. It banned certain features but the weapons and accessories were still available throughout the 'ban'. It also did absolutely nothing to alter the crime rates.

Limit the number of buyers/seller...they are already limited. You are required to have a license to be a dealer and are required to pass a background check to be a buyer.

More oversight of current regulations. You mean enforce the laws that are already on the books?

[ellisonz]

89. ...

1. I can certainly make it a misdemeanor not to do so...

2. If you've got the money for a gun collection, you've got the money to pay for gun education and enforcement...your guns can be stolen and quickly become a problem. I also think an exception for people such as yourself would not be unreasonable. Please tell me why someone needs a half-dozen semi-automatic handguns.

3. You can already be denied for exactly this reason. This would just close the loophole.

4. You are basically conceding this point. What does printer ink have to do with bullets?

5. The gun lobby exploited the loopholes to the full extent. Ask the police officers at the North Hollywood Shootout what it was like to face those - or in fact, any officer how he feels when he's told he's going to serve a warrant on someone who may have an assault weapon.

6. I'm talking about banning private sales and capping the number of licensed dealers to make law enforcements job less ridiculous in this regard.

7. Yes, and find new sources of funding to ensure it by increasing taxation on gun sales.

[rl6214]

93. Well

1. I can certainly make it a misdemeanor not to do so...

And who gets to enforce this, no knock warrantless searches? You get caught at the gun range while firing your pistol and you don't have your lock on it?

2. If you've got the money for a gun collection, you've got the money to pay for gun education and enforcement...your guns can be stolen and quickly become a problem. I also think an exception for people such as yourself would not be unreasonable. Please tell me why someone needs a half-dozen semi-automatic handguns.

I have paid for gun education when I got my concealed carry permit. My guns are ALL in safes unless on my person. Why does someone "need" a half dozen semi automatic handguns? I didn't know there was a department of needs in the government.

3. You can already be denied for exactly this reason. This would just close the loophole.

Don't know what this one was about

4. You are basically conceding this point. What does printer ink have to do with bullets?

Constitutional rights, you gonna apply your way of thinking to everything on the BORs?

5. The gun lobby exploited the loopholes to the full extent. Ask the police officers at the North Hollywood Shootout what it was like to face those - or in fact, any officer how he feels when he's told he's going to serve a warrant on someone who may have an assault weapon.

North Hollywood Shootout had NOTHING to do with the AWB. Those were full auto weapons not covered by the AWB. An "assault weapon" is no different functionally than any other weapon. They all work the same.

6. I'm talking about banning private sales and capping the number of licensed dealers to make law enforcements job less ridiculous in this regard.

So what other private item to you think we should ban private sales on and how are you going to prevent these private sales from happening? The number of licensed dealers is capped by how many licenses the ATF is willing to give out.

7. Yes, and find new sources of funding to ensure it by increasing taxation on gun sales.

So you're gonna make it so only the wealthy can afford guns?

[ellisonz]

96. Do I need to state the obvious...

1. If the police catch you without or if there's reasonable suspicion, you can be investigated and cited.

2. I wish all gun owners would be as responsible as you. They're not, as we see time and time again. If you refuse to answer the question of people are allowed to buy a half dozen semi automatic handguns, you're basically just conceding that you have little interest in public safety beyond yourself.

3. ...Really? Do you not know the laws? - 18, U.S.C. §922 (g) (4) Has been adjudicated as a mental defective or committed to a mental institution - http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics/general-information/nics-index

4. You got nothing - the Constitution expressly states that government has the right to regulate.

5. Modification - again, you sound like you don't have much idea about what goes on in this country: http://www.weaponscombat.com/full-auto-conversion

6. Red-herring. Nothing is really comparable to guns in this country - evasive argument indicates you agree that monitoring gun sales has become unmanageable.

7. I'm going to make a firearms a prized possession again, instead of just a toy for every Bill and Bob to collect as many of as he likes as if they were pokemon cards or autographed baseball cards. I'm going to reduce the supply and range of available firearms with an aggressive buyback program. You'll still be able to get a weapon for home defense and a couple for hunting - but no more mini-arsenals.

[rl6214]

124. AAAAAAAAahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

"7. I'm going to make a firearms a prized possession again, instead of just a toy for every Bill and Bob to collect as many of as he likes as if they were pokemon cards or autographed baseball cards. I'm going to reduce the supply and range of available firearms with an aggressive buyback program. You'll still be able to get a weapon for home defense and a couple for hunting - but no more mini-arsenals. "


Just



Aaaaahahahahahahahahahahaha

"5. Modification - again, you sound like you don't have much idea about what goes on in this country: http://www.weaponscombat.com/full-auto-conversion"

You don't know a whole lot (if anything) about how guns work and what would be required to "convert" one to full auto. It's not a simple matter and if you are capable of converting one, you are capable of making one from scratch. I won't say it can't or dosen't happen but I will say it almost never happens.

"2. I wish all gun owners would be as responsible as you. They're not, as we see time and time again. If you refuse to answer the question of people are allowed to buy a half dozen semi automatic handguns, you're basically just conceding that you have little interest in public safety beyond yourself."

I own half a dozen semi auto pistols. My wife also shoots as do my three sons. All of my guns will be passed down to them when I die. Again, there is not dept of needs so it's nobodys business.

[ellisonz]

125. As long as we do nothing, we will continue to have...

...murder rates 4 to 5 times those of other Western countries. Please, think about that and why it is that way.

[AtheistCrusader]

134. Actually, the murder rate has continued to decline as we have LOOSENED gun laws that don't overlap

or make sense, or infringe on obvious civil liberties, and continue to sell record amounts of new guns into the marketplace.

Please, think about that and why it is that way.

[ellisonz]

138. Oh I have...

I think it's plateauing and will probably increase in time as more and more guns enter the black market. Just my guess. Also, I think it bears mentioning that really it's just more of the same people buying more guns on average in households where there are already guns.

Such a sociological analysis cannot be made by a single variant analysis - you need a a much more complex analysis than that - please consult this overview of the sociological arguments relating to gun control and academic analysis: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_arguments_of_gun_politics_in_the_United_States#Logical_Pitfalls_in_the_Gun-Violence_Debate

[AtheistCrusader]

142. Oh, we agree more than you think.

I think the decline in murder rates is entirely unrelated to the possession or non-possession of firearms.

But no, I disagree and 'think' it will continue to decline.

[ellisonz]

144. You're optimistic.

I can assure you that the black market is stronger than ever and expanding as more guns enter circulation. With the declining economy, failing educational system, and reduced law enforcement budgets will only likely produce more gun violence; both from the black market and from legal owners. Sociology generally suggests this to be true.

Aloha.

[AtheistCrusader]

145. 'Assure me' how?

Source?

[ellisonz]

147. Sure.

http://www.nytimes.com/1999/12/21/us/criminals-black-market-in-guns-detailed.html

Listen to the Bloomberg tapes if you don't think it's still going on: http://www.nyc.gov/html/cjc/html/news/gun.shtml

[AtheistCrusader]

150. Nice attempt at sleight of hand.

I of course, am intelligent enough to notice the two links you provided are unrelated to the claim that "the black market is stronger than ever and expanding as more guns enter circulation."

[AtheistCrusader]

131. "Please tell me why someone needs a half-dozen semi-automatic handguns."

I have a very light .380 for use when running or biking.
I have a 9mm Springfield XD for daily concealed-carry.
I have a .45 Taurus for daily concealed carry with a different holster depending on the clothing I have selected for concealment.
I have a .40 S&W because I like spending my time clearing stovepipes at the range.
I have a very old .380 that was handed down, I don't use it because it's a pain in the ass to dissasemble and clean.
I have another 9mm for competition shooting.
I have another .45 for competition shooting.
I have 6 Walthers that my dad passed on, 6 to me, 6 to my brother. Haven't decided what to do with them, they have historical value, as well as sentimental value, but I don't particularly care for them, and will probably sell them at some point.

Omitting, of course, the ones my wife owns for carry and practice. Also omitting revolvers.

What now?

[ellisonz]

139. Sounds like you're really concerned about your self-protection...

...and how it relates to your wardrobe, you have a collection you don't care for, and you "like spending my time clearing stovepipes at the range."

Do you keep all these under lock and key when they're not in use?

[AtheistCrusader]

141. Of course I keep them secured.

I have a child in my house.

Nice backhanded insult there. Good to see how honest you are. I listed why I have various firearms, because it directly related to your question.

[ellisonz]

146. Good. Y

ou'd be surprised at the number of Americans who don't. Would you support a policy of no trigger lock/safe no gun sale?

Coyne-Beasley and UNC School of Public Health graduate students Kara McGee and Renee M. Johnson, limited their current analysis to the 94 people who owned guns and also had children under age 7. Among the findings was that 36 percent of people reporting gun ownership and younger children in the home admitted to keeping their firearms loaded. Forty-five percent didn't store their guns locked, and 57 percent failed to store them in a locked compartment.

http://mentalhealth.about.com/library/sci/0501/blguns501.htm

Mele Kalikimaka!

[AtheistCrusader]

149. New guns include trigger locks.

Industry-wide, nation-wide. If you go buy a new gun, you will get a new trigger lock with it. So, done?
We also abrogate sales taxes on gun safes, to better encourage their use.

I ALSO fall afoul of your little survey there. Of course I keep them loaded. They don't work if they aren't loaded, and they can't be used if they are inaccessible. That would sort of make them pointless for self-defense, wouldn't it?

[ellisonz]

152. Doesn't regulate the large secondary market.

Well I don't really think the extra 30 seconds it might take to load are going to make a huge difference...and it is taking a risk, so that's the researchers point.

How do you feel about gun owners who don't use gun safes but still have multiple firearms? They're clearly out there in great numbers and are logically easier targets for theft. Why shouldn't they be mandatory for permitting?

I certainly think the average DU gun owner is much more responsible than the average owner at large.

[AtheistCrusader]

153. Based on what?

Why do you assume the average DU gun owner is more responsible than XYZ person on the street? By what justification?

30 seconds? We don't use muzzle loaders for self defense much anymore.
And no, it's not a risk. Every firearm is supposed to be treated as if it is loaded at all times anyway.

No one is going to regulate the 'secondary market'. It's just not going to happen. You should probably just come to terms with that and move on. That ship sailed when states like california fucked up registration and abused it to seize firearms. You should go yell at them.

[ellisonz]

156. Based on...

...just about every person I've asked so far has acknowledged having a safe or using trigger locks. I could do a more formal poll if you like - or you could create such a thread.

I'm optimistic that eventually this country will come to its senses and adopt the model most other Westernized states are using. I don't try to yell at anybody.

[rl6214]

87. "Or maybe I'll just make a pest of myself"

Now you are finally figuring it out.

[ellisonz]

90. I'll be here all week long.

In fact, I'm going to beat the drum until the 8th when we remember last years Tucson shooting.

[rl6214]

94. Knock yourself out

[AtheistCrusader]

132. He only owned two guns, and used his own, so not sure what a couple of your earlier bullet points ar

e about.

Presumably, one could remove a lock from one's own firearm.
Two firearms didn't trip your 'too many guns' bullshit.
He was able to buy guns and ammo despite federal mental health reporting requirements, that the state failed to meet.

So what the fuck? Do you want the states to meet federal reporting requirements? Me too. What else?

[DonP]

21. But ... we, the "weak willed", don't want your version of "Common Sense Gun Control"

You know, the one where the police have the right to come into your home at random and inspect your official gun storage facility and count your "approved quantity" of ammunition. Or your vague, undefined idea of limiting the "types of gun dealers", whatever the hell that means? The same "Common Sense" that requires prior police approval, before you are even allowed to exercise that right.

Nope, not gonna happen anytime soon or ever, no matter how many crime stories you post to tug at the heartstrings of all of us unfeeling, heartless gun owners and sport shooters.

Ah, sadly, you missed the whole heyday of gun control back in the early '90's, when most gun owners were still sleep walking and never thought their sport would be targeted. By the 2000 election it was all over, ask Al Gore or Bill Clinton about that. Mr. Clinton had a particularly dim view of what the AWB did to the party and to Mr. Gore. Never going to let that happen again.

Now we're all busy supporting organizations, with our own money, that are working to actively repeal the more stupid and clearly unconstitutional of the local, state and Federal laws in court and through elections, the way you're supposed to change things here. See, we don't like the idea of a police state approach as much as you seem to. But we have a friend in Italy, who works for the UN that would welcome you with open arms.

In the meantime, all 80 million of us "weak willed" types will continue to go to the range, buy more firearms of our choosing even the ones that have "that shoulder thing that goes up", 10 million of us or so will carry concealed if allowed to by local laws ... and watch the crime rate drop.

Our President, that Constitutional Law instructor you rely on, the Supreme Court and both Houses of Congress have said very clearly the 2nd amendment represents an individual right, not connected with service in any Militia. So you'll excuse us if we ignore any blithering to the contrary from the peanut gallery.

But feel free to regale us again with more details on Michael Bellisles, Hennigan and Hemenway's et. al. bought and paid for "insights" into the gun culture ... and be sure and include more of those "Brady facts" and YouTube posts. We'll all show them th respect they deserve as shills for big money Foundations.

Oh and write the Brady bunch a nice check, nobody else does and it would be mean a lot to them to know they still have a fan.

[MicaelS]

37. Superb post, thank you...

Expresses my opinion exactly.

[ellisonz]

44. Aren't you just a dandy...

Frankly, you're completely misreading the Second Amendment, you're scaring the rest of the country, and you're cooking the evidence.

I hope that your family is never the victim of senseless gun violence like mine; after my grandfather, a Holocaust survivor and convenience store owner, lost the sight in his right eye because some lady thought she would carry out a robbery and shoot out the glass window to keep him from seeing the license plate.

One day this country will come to its senses, and see the NRA anti-gun control movement for what it actually is, a bunch of senseless, fearful malingerers who put themselves far ahead of their fellow man in distorting the facts, intimidating the public, and causing needless pain and suffering to millions.

[DonP]

67. Well, you know what they say about people that "assume"?

So, the President, SCOTUS and all those elected officials are wrong and must be stupid and only you know the real truth on the BoR? You're smarter than people like Alan Dershowitz, Laurence Tribe and even that right wing nut Ruth Bader Ginsburg too, huh?

Thanks, but we've already had our share of Messiahs down here in the Gungeon for this year. But we'll put you at the top of the list for 2012, if you last that long.

FWIW, several members of my family have been the victims of violence, including armed robbery. So have others here. Don't make a bigger ass of yourself by assuming you have the corner on experience with violence in the real world or the moral high ground. The assumption by you that we are some monolithic, less than educated group is obvious. FYI you have been talking to cops, doctors and lawyers here as well as blue collar union members and more than few veterans. Which, from your posts, it's easy to tell that either you never served or you were a REMF. The common thread is, most of us have been working for the party long before you were probably born.

One difference between us is, I don't run around waving my grandfather's bloody shirt like you keep doing, as if it gave me some kind of soap opera moral authority or more than one vote on anything.

And your "just give them what they want" approach to armed robbery? That works really well. There are five women that followed your oh so sage advice to just cooperate less than a mile from my home in a Lane Bryant store in Tinley Park a two years ago. Compared to them, your grandfather got off lucky. Maybe you'd like to explain, Mr. Sympathy, that it's all because some gun got stolen somewhere by somebody to their surviving families? I'm sure they'll be comforted by your wisdom, caring and insight.

The country already came to it's senses, you missed the memo 10 years ago. Get used to it. Or you and your little buddies could start working on repealing the 2nd amendment. That's all clearly laid out in the constitution too.

Simply and pragmatically put, there are way the fuck more of us and we are all way more active and supportive of our point of view than you and your gun control friends. Let us know when your gun control group reaches 4.5 million dues paying and voting members, OK?

[ellisonz]

68. I didn't until I got told, well I'm a gun owner and I know more than you possibly ever could...

Last edited Wed Dec 21, 2011, 02:47 AM - Edit history (1)

Want to see a bloody flag - here's a bloody flag: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=2171

Also - here's what I could find about that incident - "It appeared to be a robbery that "went rather poorly," he added."

http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/02/03/us-usa-shooting-store-idUSN0244670020080203

You don't know enough specifics to make that judgment...also who says having a gun wouldn't have produced the same result. For waving them like a bloody shirt after accusing me of doing that in talking about my own experiences, you get a cartoon:



You're wrong about gun control. Period. Very experienced people got us into senseless ground wars in Vietnam and Iraq. Look at Hillary, "experience" doesn't mean shit when your on the wrong side of the issue.

[SteveW]

109. ...make a cartoon; get NRA royalties! nt

[ellisonz]

116. Obviously they're working...

[We_Have_A_Problem]

118. Have you ever stopped to wonder...

...if you may be wrong? Just a thought.

You have yet to present a workable solution or a single accurate claim.

[ellisonz]

119. You have a problem...

...because nothing could be further than the truth. Debating you at this point is like debating a dining room table.

[SteveW]

159. For whom? The gun-controllers? With NRA paying royalties? nt

[AtheistCrusader]

80. So you're just going to ignore his point about the President, both houses, and the supreme court?

I guess you just think everyone is stupid but you?

[ellisonz]

83. What point?

It's a baseless claim and an attack on something I'm not claiming. They're just against gun control because they don't like the idea of being responsible for the expressions of their rights.

Here, have a cartoon:

[DonP]

103. "LA-LA-LA-LA, I can't hear you and you can't make me!"

Congratulations! You have now officially achieved the status of "Punch Line" in our beloved Gungeon.

You have successfully avoided responding to multiple questions and substantiated facts by any number of DU posters here and continue to post repetitive tripe and contradicting yourself.

In short, pretty much what we have come to expect from a gun control supporter that's desperate from losing 10 years of court and election battles, with a perpetually dim outlook waiting for that mythical "backlash" that is always just over the horizon line.

You have claimed, in multiple posts, that the Militia clause rules and when it's pointed out that that particular canard is no longer accepted by anyone, including the President, you deny ever saying it? Or are you just denying the President ever said it? Hard to tell from your disjointed "logic".

But the big question is; How many outdated cartoons (that we've had posted dozens of times already) and outright lies do you think you'll need to post to offset over 80 million gun owning, politically active voters that think your ideas are silly and unconstitutional?

[ellisonz]

115. The truth is a powerful.

The fact that all you can do is attack and demean to attempt to deflect the argument that improperly regulated gun ownership results in gun violence shows the intellectual dishonesty of the gun lobby and its groupthink riddled mouthpieces. Claiming that all 80 million "gun owning, politically active voters think my ideas are silly and unconstitutional" is presumptuous just like the claim that increasing the amount of guns is the main reason that the crime rates are down.

I'm willing to bet the President in his heart disagrees with you and just scared by the political power of the gun lobby and its concurrent hatred of him personally - how else do you explain the "Obama's" going to take my guns let me go buy another 3 rush of the lunatics?

Also, the Courts have maintained that serious regulation is perfectly legal so long as it does not approach a total ban on handguns like in Heller.

For multiple distortions and the attempt to demean, you get another cartoon (also, I wouldn't call within the last decade old when you're claiming 10 years of court battles):

[SteveW]

110. Oh, Margulies just has to have received some NRA $. nt

[friendly_iconoclast]

114. "....something I'm not claiming". Then how do you explain this post?:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/11721786#post131

"Clearly, the Second Amendment does not provide for an individual right - it provides for a civic right and authorizes government to establish it as such..."

[DonP]

120. I'm sure you're mistaken. He never said that, he just told us that.

I'm getting really close to hitting the ignore button on this poster and I've only put one poster on ignore in 10 years (and, like many gun control supporters, they are no longer with us).

Most of us have actually tried to engage him and offered neutral reference sites so he can actually learn something but it appears he has no interest in doing anything but disrupting discussions.

Aside from mere rudeness, (small i) ignorance and juvenile behavior he's misrepresented, lied and then denied ever saying what he just posted. It's like arguing with a 13 year old who keeps changing his story as they get caught in their own web of lies and deceit.

It's become obvious they seek to only provoke and stir the pot and add nothing to the conversation on the subjects. Eventually he'll most likely go the way of Bob Boudelag and so many others.

Ultimately, a single opinion doesn't really matter, especially one as as skilled at alienating people, instead of getting them to question or change their POV.

[friendly_iconoclast]

122. I understand the feeling, but consider what's happened to gun control in those same 10 years

I'd argue that gun control supporters that conspicuously lack social and/or forensic skills are and have been some of our best
allies. Let them act out, and be ready to point out the obvious howlers and contradictions.

To use a baseball analogy: Would you rather face a skilled, unpredictable pitcher or one that throws the same pitches
all the time?

[AtheistCrusader]

128. Hahahah exactly.

[gejohnston]

135. even Laurence Tribe disagrees with you

about the 2A. If you lost Laurence Tribe, you just lost.
gun violence goes both ways. A kid I went to school with shot and killed his step father. Why? Abusive step dad was in one of his drunken rages and was beating him and his mom to death. The kid got free and was able to get mom's gun and probably saved both of their lives.

This country is coming to its senses, and see the VPC gun control movement for what it actually is, a bunch of senseless, fearful malingerers who put themselves far ahead of their fellow man in distorting the facts, intimidating the public, fucking up the larger progressive movement, and over paying themselves with that astro turf Joyce money that could be better spent.

[ellisonz]

137. 1. Laurence Tribe is one man.

2. That situation could have easily gone the other way. Domestic violence accounts for a substantial portions of homicides. Where were the neighbors? Where were the schools? Where were the police?

3. Or they're just letting the Republicans win the debate without even trying - should we be letting them win the debate on healthcare, education, and taxes too because we're afraid of them? I'm sorry you feel that way, but I'm proud to be a Democrat, and I'm proud to stand for strong gun control measures.

[gejohnston]

154. you don't get it

the collective rights theory is losing it's steam and Tribe was one of the big believers in it. The SCOTUS never gave the collective theory much thought. The lower courts decided individual. The lower court before the 1939 Miller case, did rule the NFA violated 2A. The SCOTUS decided nothing either way. Miller was dead and his council was not there to give arguments or file a brief.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/06/us/06firearms.html?pagewanted=all

It didn't. Homicide or murder? That was a homicide, but it was not murder.
It was a small town in the late 1960s.

Gun control doesn't have a fucking thing to do with the other issues. They don't care about guns anymore than they care about abortion. The Democratic party don't give a shit until 1965. JFK was a member of the NRA. The governor of Montana is as progressive as it gets, working on single payer for the state etc. He is also pro gun. Rudy Giuliani agrees with you, but he wants to make the Sullivan Law nation wide, until he decided to run for national office, because that does not play outside of New York. It is not as simply right/left as you think.

It has nothing to do with being afraid of the Republicans. The vast majority of people, that huge middle that makes elections, are with us on everything else. This they are not. That is the reality.
This is the wedge issue the Dems screw themselves royally. It is not really about guns per se. It is connected to much larger issue that has been screwing the party since about that same time. There is a perception that liberals in general don't give a rat's ass about rural, working class people. Or what Keith O. and Bill Mauer disdainfully calls the unwashed. You can't win when out of the one side of your mouth you say "we know what's in your best interest and now we care abut unions" then out of the other side of their mouths say "look at those redneck trailer trash gun toting pieces of shit." That is why the NRA made your cartoonists rich, it is a regular part of NRA propaganda. There is a reason why I call some progressive sites free republic left, because there is no fucking difference. The only difference is who the other is. Read the comments sections in Crooks and Liars whenever the subject comes up. Would you trust them? So mister blue collar union member trailer trash votes Republican, because at least the Kochs have been smart enough to keep their disdain to themselves. Same with evangelicals. Tucker Carlson admitted the GOP money bags looks down on evangelicals, but fill them full of shit about abortion to vote for them. That was over ten years ago and down the memory hole outside of an obscure youtube video. We are open about our bigotry. We talk about embracing diversity, but not that diversity and they are smart enough to see the hypocrisy in it.
Afraid of Republicans? No.
It is a philosophical thing, it is also a cultural thing. I am proud of being a rural hick that grew up in Wyoming, including the gun culture. I am proud of being left wing libertarian that votes Democratic and agrees with most things Democratic. I am also proud to work to maintain all of the ideals of the enlightenment, including gun rights. Two countries were born of the enlightenment, both countries have the right to own guns, and both have gun cultures. Tell that to the next teabagger that bitches about France. No, I think the French gun laws are more complicated than they have to be. I like the Czech model better.

Why is theocracy bad everywhere but Tibet? I get the whole thing with the Chinese occupation and annexation, but is restoring a theocracy really freeing them?

[ellisonz]

155. One day...

I really don't get what you're talking about in regards to theocracy. Can you clarify? Tibet has been a religious kingdom since like the 9th Century. It is their choice and the Dalai Lama is beloved. Buddhism is a beautiful faith and is in no real way practiced as a theocracy as you conceive - how could it? It's non-violent.

I think gun control will be a winning issue down the road - I understand what you're saying about the fear-mongering the GOP engages in; but denying that we have a problem with gun control is not going to get us anywhere in the long run. But let's be clear - nothing I proposed should cause any concern to a responsible gun owner. Nothing I've said would inhibit hunting, the ability to participate in target shooting, or the right to self-defense. All I'm asking for is some common sense measures to stop criminals and other dangerous elements from obtaining all the guns they want for whatever purpose they want. You're smart enough to know that the GOP is going to fear-monger irregardless of what we propose, so we might as well propose something worthwhile unless we're just going to not talk about gun control in the Convention Platform at all.

Now that you know that only like 1/10 of all fatal shootings are gang-related, you can now recognize that many are over domestic violence, money, and hatred and there are common sense steps we can take to reduce the homicide rate. I don't think we get anywhere by letting the Teabaggers suck up all the air in the room - we ought to stand up for the good responsible gun owners in this country and demand responsibility from the irresponsible one's and from ourselves to stop criminals and the mentally ill from easily accessing firearms again and again with tragic consequences.

[gejohnston]

157. one thing

Just thought I'd ask. If that is what they want, great.

I don't think it will be anytime soon. Research done by serious criminologists found no evidence either way. The CDC said there is no evidence. There is no such thing as common sense and the GOP supports gun rights only because the Dems does not. Guns should be removed from the platform. It stemmed from an over reaction of the 60s, with some regional bigotry thrown in. It is nice feel good theater.

only fatal? That number is of people who are known to be formal members of a gang. That is not the same as all others are law abiding gone wild. Most murders and victims have criminal records. Many have at least one felony. The law abiding gone wild is very rare. Even Europe and Japan have them. Again Research done by serious criminologists found no evidence either way. It is an article of faith with you. Good responsible gun owners don't trust you for the reasons I said above. Once you find that the law did not work as well as you hoped, there will be a cry for more laws and tighter regulations. We only got the working classes trust only after Koch over reached. Define mentally ill? How many teabaggers are now at OWC? I am guessing more than we like to think. Cardboard characterizations and stereotypes make nice propaganda and that is it.

Some of us have proposed changes that would realistically work in the US. You are stuck on the German model, which would not work for a number of reasons. One is the history of gun laws in the US. The reason Florida banned open carry in 1893 because black migrant workers with pistols scared the shit out of some white people. At least now the law is evenly enforced.

[Starboard Tack]

16. Excellent questions, except maybe the birds singing. Who is she?

[rrneck]

42. Oops, my bad.

I misquoted a Karen Carpenter song. "Why do birds suddenly appear... "

[DissedByBush]

12. You mean like Mexico?

They have strict gun laws, and their homicide rate is over triple ours.

Jamaica has very strict regulation and registration of guns and ammunition. Illegal possession of a bullet could get you life in prison. Gun cases are prosecuted by a special secret court. They put a $6,000 a year licensing fee, over a year's per-capita income, on ownership. Police did massive sweeps of house to house searches (no warrant or probable cause) to confiscate all unregistered weapons and ammunition. They went total police state to achieve your no-gun nirvana.

Their murder rate is over ten times ours.

[ellisonz]

15. Our guns get smuggled to Meixco.

Guns get smuggled into Jamaica...Jamaica is desperately poor - do you not know that or is it just another dark place on the map?

[We_Have_A_Problem]

17. Some do, yes.

So what?

[gejohnston]

22. if your more legal guns=more crime

theory is true to the degree you think it is, the economics of the place should not matter.

[DanTex]

35. Of course the economics of the place matter.

Why is it so hard to understand that there are many factors and gun availability is just one of them.

How about an analogy. In football, it's really important to have a good offense. For the most part, teams with good offenses do better than teams with bad offenses.

But, wait a second! There's this other important thing called a defense. Mind-boggling as it may seem, team A might have a better offense than team B, but if team B has a much better defense, then team B may actually be the better overall team.

[gejohnston]

49. that is the worst analogy you have ever came up with

since crime rates did not change (or at least drop) after gun laws were passed in any country that I know of (including the countries of western Europe during the post World War One red scare) I fail to see how any of it is very significant degree. For example, did the use of machine guns in Canadian gun crimes drop after 1952(they started the registry, 18 years after the handgun licencing)? Or 1977 (they required a "prohibited" license for those grandfathered under now banned)? Were machine guns used in crimes there more than here between 1934-1977?

[DissedByBush]

24. Well, the ATF allows guns to be smuggled to Mexico

But that's a different story.

Either way, you can get instant life in prison by a secret court for possessing one of those guns that got smuggled into Jamaica. That's practically your wet dream of gun laws.

How is that working out for their murder rate?

"Jamaica is desperately poor"

Are you coming close to admitting that something other than the legal availability of guns determines the homicide rate?

[burf]

13. Ohio sheriff: Accident led to Amish girl's death

FREDERICKSBURG, Ohio — A man cleaning his muzzle-loading rifle shot the gun into the air, accidentally killing a 15-year-old Amish girl driving a horse-drawn buggy more than a mile away, a sheriff said Tuesday.

snip

The man had fired the gun in the air about 1.5 miles from where Yoder was shot, Zimmerly said. State investigators were checking the rifle for a ballistics match, he said.

"In all probability, it looks like an accidental shooting," Zimmerly said.

No charges have been filed.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45738811/ns/us_news-life/


So much for the homicide theory.

[ellisonz]

14. Tragic accident...

I can't imagine it's legal to fire into the air like that.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

18. Yes it is a tragic accident.

Very tragic. The man who fired into the air while cleaning his gun made a mistake. Was it illegal? Possibly. Tragic? Absolutely.

[DissedByBush]

39. First step in cleaning a firearm: Clear it

Not doing that is gross negligence, IMHO.

Yes, tragic accident, but we can't let people think they can get away with gross negligence such as this.

Also, since you can't really unload a muzzleloader, it's also common safe practice to shoot it into the ground if you happen to be loaded and are done shooting (such as in hunting, and you didn't see anything). You'd think the round would have been discharged long before he got home to clean it.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

41. I agree 100%

The guy fucked up - big time.

[Straw Man]

20. Yes, tragic.

And no, it isn't legal. I suggest prosecution of this individual. What do you suggest?

[ellisonz]

23. Less guns, more education.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

26. More education certainly.

The only way you'll get less guns is to take away the property of millions of people. Is the death of one person worth the fallout which would absolutely come were that to be attempted?

[Straw Man]

27. So you wouldn't prosecute...

...but would take guns away from people who had committed no offenses? Is that an accurate assessment of your position?

Agree on the education, BTW.

[ellisonz]

45. I'd prosecute for negligent homicide.

How about you can buy a license to pay for all the extra policing the spread of guns in this country requires. How about that - a gun tax.

[burf]

46. Ever heard of the Pittman Robertson Act?

It's a tax paid on firearms and ammo. It just doesn't pay for what you'd like.

[ellisonz]

47. So we'll increase it...

Why should all of society pay the burden for careless gun owners?

[burf]

48. Go for it!

On second thought, perhaps we should increase the Civilian Marksmanship Program. Didn't you say in one of your posts that education is key to gun safety? A proven program that is especially geared to teaching young people about firearms safety and marksmanship.

Maybe you could persuade some of the "gun safety" groups to get on board to help with the funding. Hunters, sport shooting people and clubs are already footing the bill for Pittman Robertson, so why not have the gun safety community do their part to help ensure gun safety?

[ellisonz]

52. Why don't you ask them how they'd feel about that?

I bet you'll get an earful. Who should support the widows? The orphans?

[burf]

53. I figured you have an inside line with them.

Afterall, you do support organizations such as the Brady Campaign don't you? Please don't tell me your level of support is confined to the keyboard. You do want gun safety, don't you?

As far as the orphans and widows go, perhaps marksmanship skill would be advantageous to them. The safety their loved ones learn in say a CMP setting may prevent them from becoming widows and orphans. Think of doing it "for the children".

[ellisonz]

54. "As far as the orphans and widows go, perhaps marksmanship skill would be advantageous to them."

How callous.

I'm really going to have to start making a list of the crazy shit being said in here for general DU consumption.

[burf]

57. So you would like the women and children to

remain ignorant of gun safety and possible hurt or kill their loved ones by not knowing safe gun handling?
And I am the one being called callous. Isn't the reason the Amish girl is dead is that someone failed to use proper safety procedures?

Why do you hate women and children? Would you prefer them to be treated as second class citizens? I recall an article, from a source I do not recall that women and first time buyers are the largest group now buying guns. Maybe they are on to your scheme. I would have never guessed.

[ellisonz]

58. Yes. But why should non-gun owners be paying the same for all this...

We never bought a gun I didn't need, had it stolen, used in a crime, and then denied all responsibility for ensuring that such things couldn't have possibly been prevented in a logical and legal manner.

[burf]

59. You didn't answer my questions.

As far as you depiction of the LAUSD, how can that be? Isn't California one of the most restrictive places in the US in regards to gun ownership? By your way of thinking, it and Chicago should be one of the safest places in the country.

[AtheistCrusader]

81. I have life insurance. Don't you?

Pretty stupid to only insulate against one potentially lethal risk, given that it's not even in the top ten ways to die in this country.

[ellisonz]

84. You do realize...

By Sandra Block, USA TODAY
The percentage of U.S. households with life insurance coverage is at its lowest in 50 years, leaving millions of families without a safety net, industry experts say.

Only 44% of households have an individual life insurance policy, and 30% have no individual or employer-provided life insurance, according to a recent survey by LIMRA, an industry-sponsored group. Some 11 million households with children younger than 18 — viewed as families with the greatest need for coverage — have no life insurance.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/insurance/2010-12-03-1Alifeinsurance03_ST_N.htm

I've never had an employer offer me life insurance and these student loans are killing me - I couldn't afford a gun if I wanted one - so clearly, those stocking up, have money to burn. You seem pretty out of touch...

[AtheistCrusader]

127. Do you drive a car?

Do you walk on sidewalks near cars?
Do you eat fast food?
Do you go outside?
Do you stay inside?

There are plenty of reasons to have life insurance outside potentially getting shot. (Statistically, this is a gnats ass of an issue)
If you are truly concerned about this point, you should re-evaluate your apprehension of risk and re-prioritize your finances to account for life insurance.

Otherwise, it's actually a non-issue and crocodile tears on your part, isn't it?

[ellisonz]

129. True.

However, I still think you're ignoring the fact that more Americans than ever are living in poverty. I'm barely making student loan payments - my income sucks. A lot of people are gambling...

Also, don't question my integrity or level of pain and anger I feel over the irresponsible gun lobby in this country. Have I questioned your personal integrity?

[AtheistCrusader]

133. Integrity? No. Intelligence? Yes.

Downthread. Also, false equivalence and several other logical fallacies.

You seem to have come here to argue, not productively contribute. You could prove me wrong. Suggestion: Start a thread urging the removal of the carrot or no carrot reporting requirements by the federal government, to the states, and replace it with a carrot and REALLY BIG FUCKING STICK policy, where the DoJ goes after states financially for failing to report mental health issues to NICS so we can actually keep the Cho's and the Loughner's of the world from lawfully acquiring guns.

You might find the response surprising.

[ellisonz]

143. I think the issues are a lot more complex than you want to admit.

I'm not here to lick boot if that's what you're wondering. I've already made several productive contributions...gejohnson now knows that .50 caliber sniper rifles have been used in crimes and that majority of shootings are not gang related. Seems like I'm improving the discourse.

So you agree that we have major problems with the current system? Your solution is to punish the entire populace by going after broke states "financially for failing to report mental health issues to NICS," how are they supposed to pay for this if you're taking their funds? Why should all tax payers be punished with bearing the burden for such a program rather than just those who buy guns - the germane term is a user-fee. Also, don't use all caps, it makes it seem like you're yelling and that's not a good debate tactic.

Now I'm questioning your knowledge of how government creates programs

[AtheistCrusader]

148. Hahah pitifully few crimes.

They have been PRESENT at several crimes, but deaths resulting are in the single digits.

I was yelling. It is stupid that the federal government is ignored by certain states on this issue. And yes, they should be fined, and held in contempt if they refuse to meet reporting requirements. It is not my fault nor my problem as a taxpayer and gun owner that some other state is run by shitheads. MY state does the right thing and meets reporting requirements. They are endangering me by not doing so in other states. And no, i'm not interested in paying for it.

Why do you defend people who aren't doing their jobs, and instead try to punish people who aren't doing anythign wrong or illegal?

[ellisonz]

151. I'm not really defending them.

I agree with your basic notion of a carrot and a stick strategy. I'm just not sure if that alone will produce the desired result.

"They are endangering me by not doing so in other states"

I couldn't agree more.

[gejohnston]

50. why should I pay

for the "business disputes" funded and fueled by bong owners too stupid and lazy to grow their own?

[ellisonz]

51. why should I pay for the destruction of your choice?

[gejohnston]

55. what choice is that?

I do not do drugs
do not sell drugs
do not sell guns to drug dealers
any gun I have sold was consigned through an FFL

I contribute nothing, zip, nada, to gun or gang violence. I contribute to nothing to Mexico's problem.
And You?

[ellisonz]

56. Hundreds of thousands of guns are stolen every year...

How long should this shit go on?

Your support of weak gun laws feed weapons to the cartels. There's no denying that - what do you think Fast and Furious was about? Why should you pay any taxes at all for anything you don't use?

[gejohnston]

60. and other issue you are woefully misinformed about

was the ATF sending them there, without a detailed plan how to trace them or telling the Mexican authorities. Am I saying the ATF is ran by a bunch of idiots? Yes I am.
Few guns from gun shops are going to the cartels. They are increasingly from abroad, their southern border, and their own military. The 90 (or 75, depending on the week) you hear is simply the number the ATF traced to US sources (never defined, but speculation and propaganda took it from there.) But that is not the number of all guns.
The reality is that in 2008, Mexican forces captured 30,000 guns. 7,200 were given to the ATF to trace. 4,000 were successfully traced. 3,480 were traced to the US (being made or imported into the US)

http://www.laht.com/article.asp?ArticleId=390473&CategoryId=14091
http://insightcrime.org/insight-latest-news/item/1871-black-market-weapons-find-new-routes-to-mexico
http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20110209-mexicos-gun-supply-and-90-percent-myth

Don't look at Jack's gun shop. Look at our own state department:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-500202_162-57337289/legal-u.s-gun-sales-to-mexico-arming-cartels

Think about it, why pay some straw purchaser a fee on top of the sale of the gun for a semi auto, when you can get full autos for less.



Stupid cartoons wrecks your arguement, showing you are more into regional bigotry than solutions.

[ellisonz]

62. You're missing the point.

That's still a lot of guns - and with increasing violence, primarily using weapons bought in the US, they're gaining more guns, most of which are supplied by US weapon manufacturers. That's why they call it a cycle of violence.



I'm not going to run out political cartoons, just like you're not going to run out of narrowly constructed arguments.

Don't like the cartoons, get me banned. Krispos - he's using cartoons! The pen - it hurts - it hurts. omfg.

[gejohnston]

64. umm read the articles

and you have been woefully misinformed. Most are not from US manufactures, other than the ones provided by your state department or stolen from their military. Maybe one in ten are, which is why only that amount could be traced to the US. Chinese manufacturers like Norinco, the'll sell to anyone.
They may be narrow, but they are honest.

[ellisonz]

66. ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_Army#Equipment

It's a mix. Also, I see no indication that the Mexican Army has bought any Chinese weapons other than a single type of artillery piece.

You get another cartoon:

[gejohnston]

70. smuggled through the southern border

just like the Korean hand grenades.

[ellisonz]

72. Ok.

[gejohnston]

82. How about directly to the gangs

which is what they would do.

[Straw Man]

76. No, keep up the cartoons.

They are entirely in keeping with the nature and quality of your arguments.

[burf]

61. Do you support the government allowing guns to be sent to Mexican

drug cartels as was being done in Operation Fast and Furious? Or how about the $416.5 million in military aid to Mexico done through the State Department, in which weapons wound up going to the cartels?

Could you also provide a link to the "hundreds of thousands" of guns stolen every year? TIA

[PavePusher]

63. Pray tell, where are the cartels getting machine guns, grenades, RPG's and mines?

Are they coming from a gunshop in Arizona?

[Straw Man]

73. Fine. Go ahead and levy a tax.

[div class = excerpt]Why should all of society pay the burden for careless gun owners?
As long as it only applies to those found guilty of negligence. I'm part of "all of society" too, my friend, and I don't fire guns into the air.

[ellisonz]

75. So now you're admitting there's culpability?

Should people who don't have gone safes/trigger locks be culpable when their guns either have "tragic accidents" or are stolen and used in a crime? What level of culpability do the manufacturers have in not encouraging responsible gun ownership? What if the tax was levied on them and then simply passed on to you?

[Straw Man]

77. Only if criminal negligence has been established by a court.

Then you can levy fines and apply them to your fund for the aid of the victims.

Read the manuals that come with new firearms sometime, and then tell me that manufacturers are "not encouraging responsible gun ownership." More than half the text in those things is about safe handling and storage. Once again, you know not whereof you speak.

[DissedByBush]

34. We must stop those assault muzzleloaders!

And speaking of education, that would be "fewer guns," not "less guns."

[Atypical Liberal]

33. Negligent Homicide.

[SteveW]

111. All that visual carbuncle lancing ...over an accident? Jeeez. nt

[Starboard Tack]

19. Still a homicide. Accidental maybe, but still homicide.

Could've been charged with negligent homicide, firing a live round in the air. Has to land somewhere. Definitely a good case of civil liability. Hope, for his sake, he's insured.

[gejohnston]

28. I don't see a civil suit

unless my understanding of Amish culture is incomplete (which I probably is)

[DissedByBush]

40. They can forgive all they want

The shooter needs to worry about Uncle Sam's forgiveness.

[Starboard Tack]

43. You're probably right, but it doesn't negate the personal liability.

We can all be held liable for our actions, regardless of intent.

[Atypical Liberal]

30. This was an accident, not homicide.

http://www.wcpo.com/dpp/news/ohio-sheriff-accident-led-to-amish-girls-death

[PavePusher]

65. I have a clearing barrel at my front door.

5-gallon plastic bucket, filled with sand, hole cut in center of lid with a rubber baffle riveted in, drainage holes drilled in bottom before filling. Total cost: <$10 and 20 minutes of time (had to drive down the road to the good sand pit).

I can't get deployed without tripping over the damn things for 6 months at a time, but almost no-one here at home has them.

[gejohnston]

71. did you

paint it red?

[PavePusher]

123. No, left it plain white plastic, but labeled the lid "CLEARING BARREL" with a Sharpie.

It's right beside the front door, you can't miss it. Anyone who brings a gun, if it's going to be displayed and handled, hits the clearing barrel FIRST. Otherwise, it stays in the holster or case.

[ellisonz]

74. So the solution to irresponsible owners is more guns?

I mean face; it seems many of your fellow gun owners can't handle and need government to step in to keep them from hurting themselves and others

[Straw Man]

79. What on earth are you talking about?

Do you know what a clearing barrel is? It's a safety device. Are you responding to the wrong post?

[ellisonz]

85. No. I'm saying ood for you.

I wish the rest of the gun owners in this country would be more responsible. Tragedies like this wouldn't happen as often as they do.

[PavePusher]

104. Speaking of straying off-topic... n/t

[rl6214]

86. Amish country, possibly a hunting accident?

Remains to be seen as to where the bullet came from.

[ellisonz]

92. See Post #13 above.

[rl6214]

95. Yes I see now it was ruled an accident

I would refer to it more as negligent.

[SteveW]

113. The Amish often have firearms for hunting. nt

[Remmah2]

101. Why can't we have homicide rates as low as other Western countries?

Homicide rates of other countries:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

yup.

[hack89]

105. We can - just rationalize our drug laws

decriminalize recreational drugs and undercut the criminal gangs that distribute illegal drugs.

Our murder rates are skewed by the "war" on drugs - most murders are gang related as they fight over turf and profits. Murder in America is not evenly distributed - it is concentrated in neighborhoods where the gang culture has taken root.

Additionally, we should adequately fund mental health to help the crazies before they go on a killing spree.

[SteveW]

112. Most excellent source. Thanks. nt