This Oakland situation is really sad. Is it any wonder our police have been screaming for much greater restrictions on gun ownership?
Four fathers dead. Four cops dead. Why?
The silence from our gun-loving friends is deafening.
Its only a matter of time before one of them will defend this all too frequent occurence by in the most predictable way.
“It wasn’t the gun’s fault.” Can anyone really say that with a straight face? Is there no shame is such a rediculous and irresponsible concept?
Its time to stop listening to these people and admit that our civil police force face overwhelming odds each and everyday for no other reason than the unadulterated idiocy of the gun-lobby and spineless politicians.
#1 by Moribund Republic on March 22, 2009 - 7:46 pm
Ah, shut up Cliff. How could he be kept from it? The gun that is.
#2 by Bob S. on March 22, 2009 - 8:04 pm
Cliff,
You lie, you lie so often I don’t even think you can tell when you stop lying.
You disgust me, you can look around the pro-freedom blogs and see them denouncing these horrendous crimes but what you want see is what you and other anti-freedom folks are doing: Dancing in the blood of the dead.
It’s almost as if you wish for people to be murdered so you can use it to advance your agenda.
#3 by Becky on March 22, 2009 - 8:36 pm
Ok, Bob, I checked out one of your links from the other thread. While some of the posters expressed their sympathies to the families, most took the opportunity to blame gun laws and the justice system. Like this:
One can only wonder how your ability to own a fully automatic assault weapon would have helped save the four lives that were lost.
And you can call me a coward, but keep in mind I’m a woman and I’m 61 years old. I need to look out for my own safety in whatever way I see fit. That sometimes means “avoiding bad situations” (your words, Bob).
#4 by jdberger on March 23, 2009 - 12:28 am
We can’t top post, Cliff. That’s why we didn’t say anything.
The guy was a convicted felon. What law would have kept him from illegally owning a gun, illegally discharging it in city limits, and murdering people?
There is NO gun control law that would have kept this very bad man from acquiring a gun. Any assertion to the contrary is completely delusional.
Newsflash, Cliffy – criminals don’t abide by laws. Your college didn’t cover that?
#5 by Bob S. on March 23, 2009 - 3:31 am
Becky,
Sorry but your continued attempts to portray gun owners in a bad light hasn’t stopped.
Show me a poster that equated the strict gun control laws in California with a desire to purchase fully automatic assault weapons.
The problem is that in many parts of California it is difficult for the law abiding citizen to purchase and carry a firearm but the murderers have no problem doing that.
I find it ironic that no one on your side mentions that California is one of the Top Ranked Brady Campaign states. That it has most of the gun control laws recommended by that pro-ignorance anti-freedom group and still this murder took place.
I am proud of you for reading one of the link….maybe if you continue to monitor it and other sites you’ll see the condemnation of the murders. How about joining in the discussion on the site….going into the lion’s den as it was and tell them how you feel. Tell them how the gun control laws in California are making people safer.
Surely you do that much…..it won’t put you in a “bad situation” to do that, eh?
(After all, some of us pro-gunnies hang out on this decidedly unfriendly site)
I called you a coward not for “avoiding a bad situation” but for avoiding your neighbors, for avoiding doing your civic duty and reporting crime if you think you saw it. I stand by that.
Your neighbors aren’t like you and from your own words, that scares you so much you haven’t even talked to them. You don’t know them, you avoid them….because no matter how much diversity is celebrated by people like you it boils down to people having to think and act like you do.
Skin Color, gender, sexual orientation doesn’t matter as long as everyone toes the line on the proper thoughts….but let someone think and act in ways the left doesn’t approve and your celebration of diversity goes out the window.
Now the people become “scary” because they drive bikes, they have loud cars, most of all they have “firearms” …..which may have been toys.
Heck, wondering if you ever introduced yourself when they moved in….how much of a neighbor have you been? Maybe the “bad situation” could have been avoided with a simple introduction.
#6 by Becky on March 23, 2009 - 5:30 am
Ok, Bob, that’s enough of the ad hominem. Back off! I did the neighborly thing when the guy moved in. It was only after many months of boorish behavior that I gave up and determined to just endure. He is a problem to all of us in the neighborhood, but he’s young and ignorant and has yet to learn about consideration. As I said, if I see dangerous activity again, I’ll do something about it. Sometimes it’s wiser to tolerate than than to deal with what you have when you escalate. You can’t choose your neighbors; like it or not, you have to live with them.
So Bob, here’s a question for you. If you encounter a couple of guys exhibiting careless behavior, waving guns around, jumping about, and laughing in a wild manner, and the gun looks real but might be a toy. Do you, yourself, assume toy or real?
And don’t lecture me about the right thing to do. My impulse was to get myself out of there. Later that same day my property was placed in danger and I had to water down my yard to protect it from the illegal aerial fireworks they were shooting off. It was simply stupid behavior as we live in the foothills with tinder dry weedy lots all around us and my own bark xeriscaping is quite vulnerable to fire. Again, I had to decide whether to involve law enforcement or not. But once you call the cops on your neighbors, there’s no mending fences after that. It will be a permanent adversarial situation.
No more stories about my neighbor, Bob, and believe me, there are more. I don’t avoid him because he owns a motorcycle, my own kids do. I don’t object to the pickup truck except for the excessive noise. But all taken together, you begin to see a personality type that is not only inconsiderate, but perhaps irresponsible, not because of the toys, but because of his behavior with them If you can’t understand that, then you’re not as bright as I have given you credit for.
I question whether we are doing enough to ensure legal gun owners are responsible enough to own guns. I still stay the gun owners themselves ought to be the ones coming forward with solutions. But the only thing they suggest is to add offenders to the already over-crowded prison system. How about some preventative measures, Bob?
Now seriously, Bob, back off on the ad hominem. It gains you nothing.
#7 by Bob S. on March 23, 2009 - 5:48 am
Becky,
I find it hilarious you are telling me to back off the ad hominem attacks but never seem to admonish Cliff, or Richard, or Larry, or Shane, or any of the other lefties that specialize in it.
As far as backing off, let me see if I understand your pattern. You did the neighborly thing, you observed months of “boorish behavior”? Did you ever talk to the guy about his ‘behavior’? Did you ever complain to the police about illegal activity?
Or did you simply condone it by ‘not wanting to get involved’? Then after months of condoning the behavior, you accuse, without knowledge, the neighbor of being unsafe?
Hmm, yeah…I should back off you and not mention your cowardice.
As far as the preventive measures Becky, what do you want? Psychological testing, precognitive powers to determine which gun owners are responsible or perhaps you favor the approach advocated by Cliff – banning all firearms?
People have a right to make mistakes, people have the ability to do bad things with inanimate objects.
I don’t see you coming up with ways to stop people from committing assault, rape, murder, or robbery.
Why not throw out some suggestions on how to reduce the number of robberies? Ma
It’s on the same scale of problems, people have rights and you want to trample them. Not only do you want to trample them, but then you blame us for not assisting you in trampling them. Doesn’t work that way.
By the way, I’ve repeatedly on this board talked about ways to reduce violence and crime in America.
1. Fix the educational system. Actually require kids to learn instead of getting points for showing up or knowing the latest politically correct message of the day “Save the Earth, Go Green, Global Warming”. Teach the kids and expect them to know it before passing them to the next grade. If they don’t know it, don’t promote them.
2. Fix the family. Way too many kids are growing up with absentee fathers, mothers unwilling to interrupt their social life to interact with the kids. Two parent families are some of the best crime prevention methods out there. Stop allowing women to substitute a welfare check for a father in kids lives.
3. Enforce the laws on the books. A great example of this is the number of firearm charges filed on criminals but dropped in plea bargain agreements and what happens? People like this murderer spends 6 years in prison for armed robbery only to get out and kill others. Keep the violent criminals in jail.
How is that for a few suggestions?
#8 by Uncle Rico on March 23, 2009 - 5:58 am
Its time to stop listening to these people and admit that our civil police force face overwhelming odds each and everyday for no other reason than the unadulterated idiocy of …the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
#9 by Bob S. on March 23, 2009 - 6:36 am
Uncle Rico,
Bunk…and I would prefer to use other strong words.
Criminals aren’t respecting the Constitution or any other legal document in the United States. It isn’t the firearms, it is the actions of those using them for illegal purposes.
You might as well say that the right of free movement is problem with drunk driving. People have a right to move about the country, most choose to do so in cars, right?
To equate that right with the criminal and irresponsible actions of those who drink and drive is asinine, just like to associate the criminal actions of those who break the law with the right to keep and bear arms.
Grow up and realize that we shouldn’t trample on the rights of the majority for the actions of a very small minority.
#10 by Uncle Rico on March 23, 2009 - 7:01 am
Don’t work yourself into a lather there Bob. You obviously missed the point of my post. If you’ve read my other comments on this particular subject, I think you’d understand.
Know your enemies.
#11 by Richard Warnick on March 23, 2009 - 7:55 am
The issue is not this gun law or that gun law. The legislation is all written by or heavily influenced by the Gun Lobby anyway. The issue is the ready availability of all kinds of firearms.
Police know there’s really no such thing as a “routine traffic stop” because so many people carry weapons. So they have to treat all citizens as a potential deadly threat.
Have an extensive criminal record? Want to take out a SWAT team? Somebody will sell you an AK-47, no questions asked.
#12 by Kevin Owens on March 23, 2009 - 10:10 am
Desperation sometimes makes people violent. We shun criminals instead of helping to rehabilitate them. We don’t let them get on with their lives after they have paid their debt to society. If we, as a society, were better at supporting repentant sinners, this situation might have been avoided.
#13 by jdberger on March 23, 2009 - 10:11 am
It’s interesting that some are blaming the gun.
Mixon was a felon. Armed robbery and assault with a deadly weapon. He was a suspect in a murder “and other serious crimes”. He’d violated his parole previously and was returned to prison – and he was violating it again.
Meanwhile – there aren’t any gun stores in Oakland. Not one.
California has an assault weapons ban that was enacted in 1989. California has a 10 waiting period. California has a ban on “high capacity” magazines. California banned “private” transactions. Every transfer of a firearm must go through a dealer and be accompanied by a background check. California has the strongest gun control laws in the nation according to the Brady Campaign.
All the “reasonable” legislation was there. Everything on the Brady wish list was covered. 6 months prior there was a “gun buyback” where people who turned in a gun received a Target Gift Card.
So, where did things break-down, eh? Surely not with the legislation – it was solid. Surely not with community efforts to control guns.
Maybe, just maybe – and I’m just spitballin’ here – there weren’t ANY laws that were gonna stop this animal. No?
Becky, this statement is pretty amazing:
Clearly there were plenty of preventative laws in place, Becky. Compound them with the fact that as a felon, Mixon couldn’t even live in a house with a firearm.
But what other than jail would you recommend for people who break the law with firearms? A stern talking to? Counselling? Music therapy?
Perhaps it was poor phrasing – but it appears as if you want to give these violent criminals a pass because America has a crowded prison system, no?
Finally, Richard – the gun laws in California definately were NOT written or influenced by the gun lobby. Your assertion is ridiculous on its face.
#14 by Bob S. on March 23, 2009 - 10:15 am
Richard,
What changes in the existing laws would have stopped this criminal from breaking multiple laws in order to commit murder?
#15 by Becky on March 23, 2009 - 10:27 am
JD and Bob S,
Let me put it another way: How would legalization of assault weapons have changed this incident in any way?
#16 by Bob S. on March 23, 2009 - 10:37 am
Becky,
It wouldn’t have.
First, please define your terms. You’ve never have accomplished that; when you refer to an ‘assault weapon’…what does that mean.
But the onus is on the gun grabbing groups and advocates like your self. The cry is “just another law” or in Richard’s case the “mean gun lobby wouldn’t let us get rid of their rights”.
So, answer the question. H0w would changes to the existing laws have stopped this crime?
Remember, he was a convicted felon, on parole ….what law would have stopped him?
#17 by Richard Warnick on March 23, 2009 - 10:43 am
Bob S.–
As jd pointed out, state law already made it highly illegal for this guy to have any guns, let alone two: an AK-47 and a handgun. I grew up in New York, which also strictly regulates firearms. But anyone can go to a gun show in another state and bring back whatever. On the national level, the Gun Lobby has a stranglehold on legislation in order to protect the industry.
The problem is the ready availability of firearms, particularly assault rifles. I’m not going to indulge in another iteration of the debate over when is an assault rifle not really an assault rifle. We just did that not too long ago.
#18 by jdberger on March 23, 2009 - 10:50 am
Becky, in our society, we like to lean toward “freedom” when rights are concerned.
We like to assume that people are trustworthy.
Other societies work differently – but they aren’t very nice places to live (unless you are in the ruling class).
We force the police get a warrant to enter your home – though it would be safer for them to be able to enter when they please.
We allow political oppostition to the ruling parties – though it would be easier to rule without public criticism.
We allow citizens to own guns because that’s the difference between citizens and subjects.
#19 by jdberger on March 23, 2009 - 10:58 am
Richard – only NYC strictly regulates firearms. NY state is decidedly more liberal.
Yes, Richard. Sure you can. According the Sarah Brady you can also buy grenades and Stinger missles at these “gun shows”.
Assuming that you’ll find someone willing to sell you a gun, if you did buy a gun in another state and transport it across state lines you’d be committing a Federal crime.
#20 by Becky on March 23, 2009 - 11:00 am
JD and Bob, you both leap to the conclusion that I want to take away your guns. Why do you think that? I’m talking about responsible gun ownership. Why do you object to even discussing how that can be improved? You are so wrapped up in your righteous indignation, you can’t listen to reason.
(And thanks for the ongoing civics lessons. I’m sure we already knew all that, but it’s nice to have you recite it again and again anyway.)
#21 by Bob S. on March 23, 2009 - 11:10 am
Richard,
You CLIFFED* the question. What changes to the existing laws would have stopped it?
You claimed the ‘gun lobby’ has a strangle hold on the law making process and the existing laws were written with loop holes.
So answer the question and tell us what changes to the existing laws would have stopped this crime or admit that no law would have stopped this crime
Then you talk about the ready availability of firearms. So, are you telling us that with all of the gun laws in place….in the state with some of the strictest gun laws…that firearms continue to be “readily available”…to whom, criminals?
*(verb meaning completely avoiding)
#22 by jdberger on March 23, 2009 - 11:12 am
Responsible gun ownership, Becky?
Gun owners are responsible people, Becky.
There are around 240,000,000 guns in the US. This number increases every year.
There are about 9,000 people murdered with firearms, annually. This number remains stagnant.
Accidents with firearms are falling year by year.
We are responsible, Becky.
And you know what, despite your protests, your posts indicate that you’d be more ‘comfortable’ if people didn’t have guns. And that is a stepping stone to confiscation.
#23 by Bob S. on March 23, 2009 - 11:18 am
Becky,
Please learn a little bit about the subject before you start in…you might learn that the “responsible gun owners have discussing how to improve the laws for decades.
And the end result is greater restrictions on our right to keep and bear arms. In 1934, the National Firearms Act was passed, making it difficult to own fully automatic weapons….and the restrictions on our rights have continued almost non-stop since then.
So forgive me if I’m a little tired of hearing the same refrain from people over and over again. “Just give us another law, just give up another piece of your rights and America will be safe”. For decades we’ve suffered through that and it is time to stop giving up our rights.
We can’t listen to reason???? When on this board has an anti-freedom proposed reason?
What have you proposed that is reasonable that I should listen to? Weren’t you the one saying you don’t know enough about it to propose new restrictions….but we should listen to you and accept more restrictions?
The reason we talk about ‘banning guns’ is that is the goal of people like Cliff and groups like the VPC & the Brady Campaign and the Joyce Foundation.
Ever step taken to reduce our rights is another step along the road to the eventual banning of firearms.
I’ll ask again, would you support any restriction on the right to keep and bear arms if that same restriction was applied to the other rights protected by the Bill of Rights?
Want to have 1 hand gun a month law….how about 1 blog post a month law?
Want to have back ground checks on private sales of firearms….how about a background check on any group of people “assembling?
Want to have approved firearm lists, like California does…..how about a list of approved topics of conversation?
#24 by Richard Warnick on March 23, 2009 - 11:32 am
I would gladly accept a quota of only one gun-rights debate a month on One Utah
These arguments run around frantically, knocking down straw men, until they finally collapse out of breath.
Bob S., listen to yourself:
You enthusiastically supported the Bush administration and the Republican-controlled Congress when they passed laws to take away our constitutional rights– or in some cases simply ignored the Constitution. Now the Democrats are in charge and you’re worried about losing rights.
Accusing the people who want to reduce gun violence of wanting to ban gun ownership is a simplistic straw man argument. What if I said that all gun rights advocates wanted to kill police officers? Same logic.
#25 by Bob S. on March 23, 2009 - 11:38 am
Richard,
As far as the limits…sorry but we don’t get to choose which firearms are going to be subject to the rules, you have to live by the same limitations.
Wrong, I never supported the Bush administration and Congress in their efforts and actions to take away our rights. Either support that with proof or retract it.
I consider those words to be libelous and just another case of the liberals here lying. I expected better out of you.
#26 by Richard Warnick on March 23, 2009 - 11:46 am
jd reminds us that there are three guns for every four people in the USA. It reminds me of the great line from Nicholas Cage in “Lord of War” (2005):
Assuming the numbers are approximately correct, almost half the guns in the world are in this country.
#27 by Richard Warnick on March 23, 2009 - 11:59 am
Bob S.–
You didn’t seem to have a problem ignoring the Fourth Amendment or the constitutional guarantee of habeas corpus in order to catch alleged terrorists.
I’m sorry you took offense, but it’s true. You offered excuses for Bush administration breaches of the Constitution, while claiming that these illegal acts could not be applied to citizens. But it has been well documented that the rights of U.S. citizens were violated by the Bush administration.
The statement you made above reminded me of this:
Maybe it’s something we can agree on.
#28 by Bob S. on March 23, 2009 - 12:14 pm
Richard,
Your reading comprehension skills are fast sinking to the level of Cliff’s….non-existent.
This is the same thing that is applied here for the 2nd amendment rights.
Wow, that is really ignoring the 4th amendment Richard….are you sure you linked to the right comment?
Habeas usually doesn’t apply to prisoners captured during war…asking the question is not denying or ignoring the 4th Richard.. it is a legal question and a moral question that has to be determined.
Again, does that sound like I’m ignoring the 4th???? I don’t think so.
Is that the best that you can do?
Come on Richard, you also avoided the question…what changes to the existing laws would have prevented the criminal from murdering ? Either answer or admit none.
Isn’t this an argument against yourself? We have half the firearms in the world….but we certainly don’t have the highest firearm homicide rate…nor the highest homicide rate.
If firearm availability was the issue, shouldn’t we be the highest in those categories?
#29 by Richard Warnick on March 23, 2009 - 12:37 pm
Bob S.–
As I’m sure you know, because you read this blog, the Bush administration did engage in blanket violations of the Fourth Amendment rights of Americans in the most extreme ways imaginable. But you defended the policy.
Congress unconstitutionally suspended habeas corpus with the Military Commissions Act, and you supported it because the suspension only applied to enemy combatants. But that same law– still in effect, by the way –also gives the President the power to declare anyone at all an “enemy combatant,” and deprive them of all rights– even their Geneva Convention rights.
I’ll stop bugging you about this after you clearly denounce Bush for violating the Constitution.
As for international comparisons of gun violence, to be highest the USA would have to surpass really unstable and lawless countries like Iraq, Colombia and South Africa. But we compare unfavorably to industrialized democracies that restrict the availability of firearms.
I’m going to be away from the computer the rest of the day. Carry on!
#30 by jdberger on March 23, 2009 - 12:51 pm
We also compare unfavorably to industrialized, democratic countries that don’t restrict the availability of firearms.
See NZ, Switzerland, Israel, Finland
Note that homicide rates for England (for example) don’t include political violence. Of course, that would skew the chart and might not reinforce the researcher’s bias.
We’re a violent culture. If American gun avilability were the cause of international crime differences, the difference in crime would only be as to crimes with guns. Yet, American rates for robbery, rape and other violent crimes committed without guns are enormously higher than the rates for such crimes (with and without guns, combined) which are uniformly low among Western European countries, regardless of whether they allow or ban gun ownership.
How do people who blame “lax American gun laws” for the far higher US rate of “gun crime” explain its also having more knife crime? Do they think that Englishmen have to get a permit to own a butcher knife?
How do they explain the far higher US rate of stranglings and beatings? Do Americans have more hands and feet than Britons?
#31 by jdberger on March 23, 2009 - 1:05 pm
Hey Richard – the author of your link is a little disengenuous.
She states that US homicide rates are 13.47 per 100,000. That works out to about 32,000 a year. But the 32,000 per year estimate includes 20,000 suicides.
Then, when referring to Norway (which has a high suicide rate of 13-15 per 100,000 – numbers vary), she only omits the suicide numbers.
That’s more than a little dishonest, eh?
#32 by Bob S. on March 23, 2009 - 1:12 pm
JD,
Notice how Richard ducked, over and over, again the question of what changes to the existing laws would have prevented this crime?
Wonder if he has something to hide…like the fact that no change would have stopped the criminal.
Great post on the violence rates.
#33 by Cliff on March 23, 2009 - 6:40 pm
JD,
Let me see if I understand.
You are saying that since non-gun crime in the US is higher than other countries with more lax guns laws and therefore our high gun related murder rate should not be associated with lax gun laws?
OK, but is it not still true that fewer guns might mean fewer deaths by guns?
Is it not possible that other countries with more lax gun laws might also have other factors contributing to lower crime rates?
I commend you for trying so hard, but you really must try to use reasonably acceptable standards for control factors before inventing novel conclusions from with completely disparate data sets.
#34 by Bob S. on March 23, 2009 - 7:46 pm
Kinda ruins your more guns more crime theory…perhaps as you say there are other factors contributing to the issue
#35 by Richard Warnick on March 23, 2009 - 7:46 pm
I believe I said that for the Oakland shooter to possess any gun, let along a handgun and an AK-47, was already illegal under existing federal law. However, as a practical matter anything we can do to reduce the easy availability of firearms might have made it harder for him to get his hands on these weapons.
#36 by Cliff on March 23, 2009 - 8:14 pm
Bob S.,
The ease with which someone can steal guns is the RESULT of lax gun laws.
#37 by Dow on March 23, 2009 - 10:14 pm
It was more than a little bit ironic that when these crimes were committed I was on the shooting range at the Oakland City owned gun range near Lake Chabot, helping a friend sight in his new 30.06 for a wild pig hunt. My friend bought his rifle in Vacaville, because as noted, we no longer have any gun shops in Oakland.
What I found remarkable as we drove back down from the range was that the rifle we were shooting was so rare on the line. Everyone around us was shooting assault rifles and military weaponry.
This perp certainly got his weapons illegally, and you can get one pretty easily in Oakland. Bad people will always have guns in the USA, and when they are desperate, they will use them. The debate here is the same debate run over and over again: any regulation = confiscation ; conversely, guns = bad.
it seems to me that the USA desperately needs to do something about the supply of illegal weapons and weapons purchased legally falling into the wrong hands. Firearms from USA suppliers are fueling the drug wars throughout Mexico. If we are to progress, we need to fundamentally change the the terms of the debate.
#38 by jdberger on March 23, 2009 - 11:28 pm
Not true.
There’s a commonly used stat (most recently from Carolyn Lochhead at the SF Choronicle) but no one knows where it came from. It’s an urban myth. On the other hand – there’s an LA Times Story that states that the cartels are getting their weapons from Central and South America.
And Chabot is owned and run by East Bay Regional Parks, not the City of Oakland. It’s one of the prettier ranges in the US – though I prefer Black Canyon in Phoenix. Say “hi” to Curtis for me.
#39 by jdberger on March 23, 2009 - 11:43 pm
My goodness, Cliffy – you really must be working hard on your remedial reading comprehension classes. You got it, exactly.
Should I assume, that by your measured response and lack of spelling and grammatical errors, that you haven’t been drinking this evening? Congratulations. That’s quite a step for you.
#40 by Bob S. on March 24, 2009 - 3:26 am
Cliff,
So, because a criminal has to trespass (Crime#1) onto another person’s property, break into that home (Crime#2),
enter that home (Crime #3),
find a firearm, steal said firearms (Crime #4),
transport said firearm (Crime #5 unless safe storage laws are followed),
plan a robbery, assault, murder (Crime #6),
commit said robbery, assault, murder (Crime #7)…….it is the fault of “lax gun laws”?
Come on Cliff, even for you for that is a stretch…how about the guns that aren’t stolen?
How about the guns where people LIE on the form when asked about it being for them – a straw purchase?
What law will stop a criminal from committing a crime?
Will you admit that your goal isn’t control of crime at all, but the banning of civilian ownership of firearms?
#41 by Cliff on March 24, 2009 - 8:28 am
DOW! How the hell are ya?
I see the same thing at the gun ranges around Salt Lake every time I go.
One day, an middle-aged, middle-manager-looking Asian guy pulls up and plops down a cardboard box at his station and proceeds to pull out one semi-automatic machine gun after the next. The were all fairly small odd looking things. He had like eight guns loose AND loaded in this brown topless cardboard box.
We just sat there and watched him. He fired five or six rounds out of each one and left. He wasn’t there but 10 minutes. He never even looked around at the audience watching this spectacle.
Creepy. I could go on and on. I particularly like the watching the guys who bring their own human silhouette targets.
#42 by Richard Warnick on March 24, 2009 - 8:34 am
The education of jdberger continues…
ATF: Phoenix Gun Dealer Supplied Mexican Drug Cartels
Hundreds of Powerful Weapons Seized
U.S. Guns Arming Mexican Drug Gangs; Second Amendment to Blame?
Officials: More Than 90 Percent of Weapons Used by Mexico’s Drug Gangs Come From the U.S.
U.S. police nab guns bound for Mexico
Feds Seize Stockpiles of Guns & Ammunition Destined for Mexico
American Gun Flow into Mexico Must be Stopped, Lawmakers and Officials Say
US to boost Mexico border defense
#43 by Bob S. on March 24, 2009 - 8:45 am
Cliff,
What is the point of your little anecdote here?
Wow….guns stored loose in a box. Is there a fear they may escape his custody, run away to the wilds of Utah and start a colony of free range firearms?
Guess the concept of functional checks and quality control never occurred to you, eh?
I found this part the most interesting
Do you have your own firearms? Do you not live what you peach on this blog, citizen disarmament?
I am one of those people. I’m currently practicing on those “human silhouette targets” because that is my primary reason for owning a firearm. Being able to protect my family and my self from people who would seek to do us harm.
Do you object to people being able to defend themselves?
Do you object to the police using the same style of target to qualify and practice on? Is that “creepy” also?
And you do. You go on and on and on and on….but that’s okay, it’s your blog and you can drone if you want to.
#44 by Bob S. on March 24, 2009 - 8:53 am
Richard,
While you are trying to educate JD (a subject you may not be capable of doing) you might want to do your own research.
Regarding X-Caliber Arms
And what was the “technical legal issue — a lack of evidence.
and on this link –U.S. police nab guns bound for Mexico — we read about the thousands and thousands of firearms siezed….right?
Ten (10) guns make up 3 shipments….3.3 guns per shipment. Wow, they must have an awesome network. Maybe we should concentrate on breaking up that network instead of taking guns from law abiding people.
#45 by Richard Warnick on March 24, 2009 - 8:55 am
Bob S.–
Thanks for backing me up. Not only are American gun dealers illegally shipping weapons and ammo to Mexico, they are getting away with it due to lax enforcement.
One more:
You are probably aware that the circumstances under which you can legally shoot someone, or even threaten to, are very narrowly defined. If you make a mistake and go to jail for using that gun, how does that protect your family? Think about it.
#46 by Cliff on March 24, 2009 - 8:58 am
Yeah Bob,
I thought you knew of my fondness for guns. I grew up in rural Pennsylvania. The first day of hunting season was a school holiday. We just skipped the rest of the week.
When I lived in Israel, I spent a day getting certified on Uzies and M-16s. I can probably kick you ass on a target range.
So what. Doesn’t change the facts but it certainly re-enforces my authority on the matter. I know darn well the difference between the people who shoot for fun and the people who pack loaded weapons around all day and night.
I know enough to be scared. The line between legal gun packing freaks and illegal is a thin one.
#47 by Bob S. on March 24, 2009 - 9:16 am
Richard,
Back to reading comprehension class for you.
The X-Caliber case was thrown out because of a lack of evidence. The gun dealers aren’t necessarily shipping firearms but legally selling them to NON-PROHIBITED PEOPLE.
Those people then break the law and either ship them to Mexico…let’s see you stop smuggling –or break the law and sell them to people who then ship them to Mexico.
How do you plan on stopping ‘straw purchases’ from taking place?
Yes Richard, I am aware of the circumstances. Texas has kindly consolidated all those circumstances into a convenient system call the LAW. People like the murderer in California knew the law and broke it anyways. Most people follow the law; but all the proposals for getting the criminals to stop breaking the law seem to impact the law abiding more. Is that JUSTICE?
Then I’ll just have to be careful not to make a mistake. I am continuing my training so that I am prepared in the case the situation ever occurs. Part of that training is using those human silhouette targets that Cliff complains about.
#48 by Anonymous on March 24, 2009 - 9:19 am
Bob S. says:
Anti-freedom?? Fuck you!
#49 by Bob S. on March 24, 2009 - 9:21 am
Cliff,
And what pray tell is the difference? Besides living in states that allow people to exercise their rights?
Millions of people are carrying firearms daily. Millions more have firearms in their homes, but yet with all those firearms it is mostly the gang bangers, the drug dealers, the violent criminals that are doing the killing.
Perhaps it isn’t about the firearms being available and carried, but the personality, the traits of the people carrying the firearms.
I agree with that…too bad you don’t know more. Then you wouldn’t be scared and you wouldn’t be dangerous.
And you continue with your insults and ad hominem attacks…goody for you.
#50 by Bob S. on March 24, 2009 - 9:22 am
Hey Anon at 9:19 a.m.
I also forgot to add — pro-ignorance.
Thanks for reminding me, you classy person you.
#51 by Becky on March 24, 2009 - 9:34 am
Bobs,
So you finally admit the purpose of guns. To kill. No more can you use Olympics and other sporting events, or even target shooting for fun as a reason to own guns. You admit those guns have one purpose, and your target practice is also for one purpose. Thanks for finally admitting it, Bobs.
You can’t argue your position on guns without bringing up cars and gasoline and matches, etc. But, Bobs, while those things may be dangerous in the wrong hands, their primary purpose is a practical and productive one. Guns, as you have so helpfully pointed out, are intended to kill. Period.
A friend of mine who’s a CCP holder says you shouldn’t carry a gun unless you are willing to shoot to kill. And unless you are skilled enough to be able to do so. Otherwise, you have no business carrying as you are nothing but a danger to yourself and others. That actually makes sense to me.
I am not advocating confiscation of your guns, Bobs. I just want greater assurance that people like you aren’t shooting up the toilets in restaurants and other inappropriate places and circumstances.
#52 by jdberger on March 24, 2009 - 9:46 am
Bob – nice link on the X-Caliber case. You must be acquainted with Mr. Hardy.
Richard, you posted the claim:
Any evidence for that statement? It’s often repeated but NEVER verified. I’d be interested in a little source material.
Cliffy? You spent a whole DAY learning to fire a rifle and a sub-gun. And you call that “certified’? Ask Richard how many days (classroom and range) to be earn a basic marksmanship qualification in the US Army. Really, the IDF is good – but are they so good that in a day they can teach you all about the M-16 and the Uzi so you’d be able to “kick Bob’s ass on a target range”?
You really are quite an arrogant fool, Cliff (sorry you fell off the wagon again).
#53 by Richard Warnick on March 24, 2009 - 9:51 am
jd–
Mexican President Felipe Calderon:
#54 by Cliff on March 24, 2009 - 9:51 am
Take the average Joe. Add 1 CCP, 1 hand gun, 1 scoop of bullets. Combine to produce a one man Judge, Jury and Executioner.
Civilized Society to the back of the bus!
#55 by Bob S. on March 24, 2009 - 10:12 am
Becky,
I think Richard, Cliff and you can get a group rate for reading comprehension classes if you go at the same time. Please tell me you didn’t graduate from a Texas High School, I would be so disappointed to learn you did.
Wrong, Wrong, Wrong.
The purpose of a firearm is to expel a projectile down a barrel. The primary use for my firearms is protection…not killing.
If a person decides to commit a crime against my family, I don’t have to and don’t want to kill to stop that person. If they flee at the site of a firearm, I’m glad to let them go. If they continue to try to commit a crime against my family or I, I will do what it takes to protect my family and I….just like you would.
I want a person stopped. That is all. If stopping that person ends in their deaths, that is the natural consequences of a series of decisions they made to act against me or mine.
It isn’t about killing, it is about protecting my family and myself.
That isn’t so hard to understand is it?
Merriam Webster Online — a great resource, I recommend it to you for help with the big words like PRIMARY — defines the word this way
Note that nothing in that definition indicates it is the only reason. And nothing I said indicates it is the only reason.
I am a new shooter, I have an order of training that I am following. The First IMPORTANCE is to be able to defend my family. The second is target shooting…but I have to be able to prioritize (do I need to explain that term also?) how I spend my time and money.
So, once again, you are wrong.
It is to point out how blatantly ridiculous the gun control thought process is. Guns are dangerous and we need to control them….but something with more explosive and destructive capability isn’t dangerous and doesn’t need to be control.
Do you know what you get when someone combines a certain type of fertilizer and fuel oil?
So, I guess hunting isn’t a practical or productive purpose? Self defense and enforcement of the law — a reason law enforcement personnel carry firearms — isn’t a practical and productive reason?
Try again.
And because you say it is must be true…never mind the Olympics, never mind the cops, never mind the enjoyment of target shooting. Becky said guns only are intended to kill. Sorry but you don’t get to reject reality and substitute your own because you don’t like the current one.
Who says I’m not? I never did. Some people are capable but always seek to improve. I am in that category. Ever hear the phrase “practice makes perfect”?
Becky, you aren’t advocating that, I agree and appreciate it. But Cliff and others are, way too many people are actively seeking to remove our rights.
You can want that assurance all day long….but you aren’t going to get it. Liberty means that people are free to do what they want…and that means occasionally we have people shooting toilets. No where, not one line of the Constitution or any other legal document promises that you can walk through the day in perfect safety.
Not from firearms, not from rape, not from assault, NOTHING guarantees your safety and being in society means you accept that condition of life.
You stand greater odds of dying from someone’s inability and lack of control in a car then you do from someone’s inability or lack of control with a firearm.
By the way, it isn’t Bobs the name is Bob S.
#56 by Bob S. on March 24, 2009 - 10:14 am
Richard,
And just exactly which gun store are people buying this things from?
Come on, you know better then that. That is absolutely lame.
#57 by Richard Warnick on March 24, 2009 - 10:35 am
Bob S.–
Take your pick. There are almost 7,000 gun shops along the U.S. Mexico border. Who knows how many illegal dealers in addition?
If you believe what jd said, that it’s an “urban myth” that Mexican drug cartels are getting weapons from the USA, then I invite you to offer some information at this point in the discussion.
#58 by jdberger on March 24, 2009 - 10:38 am
Missile launchers? Grenades? Machine guns?
Coming from the US?
I dunno, Richard? Are you aware of common civilian ownership of such items?
I’m pretty sure that the police don’t have much use for missile launchers and grenades – so they couldn’t have come from them.
That would leave the US military, eh? Any reports of Armories being burgled in the last few years? Do US Armories carry AKs and RPGs? Did we make an unannounced switch to Eastern Bloc weapons?
It saddens me to see that you buy that bullshit, Richard.
Really.
It’s ludicrous on its face.
#59 by Richard Warnick on March 24, 2009 - 10:42 am
jd–
I also invite you to present any factual information you have that contradicts the statement from the President of Mexico.
#60 by jdberger on March 24, 2009 - 10:49 am
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-mexico-arms-race15-2009mar15,0,229992.story
#61 by jdberger on March 24, 2009 - 10:55 am
But really, Richard – considering you’ve spent the last 8 years or so critiquing the statements of Government officials – it’s amazing that you took this one hook, line and sinker.
Show a little skepticism.
Mexico’s predicament regarding this drug war isn’t because Mexicans have guns. It’s because the lucrative trade in drugs. Mexico’s official corruption is endemic. It’s part of a “plata 0 plombo” society. Blaming it on the US is a bunch of crap.
I suspect you know this but are simply too stubborn to publicly admit it.
#62 by Bob S. on March 24, 2009 - 10:59 am
Richard,
I am not denying that firearms from the USA are moving into Mexico.
I am doubting that there a serious issue with dealers being a part of the problem. There may be an occasional law breaker in the group but that would be the rarity.
Wait, did I say LAW BREAKER, as in CRIMINAL. Yes, I did, people who break the law should be caught and thrown in jail as appropriate.
People drink and drive, on a basis that is more often then firearms are used in crimes. Are you willing to put up with massive restrictions of your civil liberties to stop these crimes from happening?
What I’m continually amazed at is the “this is about guns, not cars, not bombs, not anything else but guns _because to admit otherwise would destroy our argument” mentality on the left. (My apologies to those rational people on the left accidentally tarred by the broad brush).
This isn’t about guns. This is about our RIGHTS. Our right to exercise freely the inherent right of self defense A right protected in the Constitution with the explicit phrase “shall not be infringed”. That is pretty strong protection of a right. More so then the right against illegal search and seizure. Up there with the right to free speech and the right to assemble.
People can talk about the design of guns, the lethality of guns, the ease of concealing guns all day long but in the end it boils down to this:
Is the government trying to restrict our rights or not? And in this case they are trying to restrict our rights.
By the way…here a clear and easily understood example of the difference between design and purpose.
A guillotine is DESIGNED TO KILL PEOPLE. A firearm is designed to expel a projectile down a barrel. Both can be used for the PURPOSE of killing people, but the firearm has other purposes besides, the guillotine does not.
Want to outlaw concealed carrying of guillotines, I’ll support that.
#63 by Richard Warnick on March 24, 2009 - 11:27 am
Bob S.–
I have pointed out that we all lose some of our freedom when police officers must approach every routine traffic stop as a potential armed confrontation. It’s just insane to have three guns out there for every four Americans.
The right of habeas corpus “shall not be suspended,” according to the Constitution. That’s an explicit protection– that Congress ignored when they enacted the Military Commissions Act. Which you refuse to condemn.
I am sorry to hear you say again and again that you and your family face such a dire threat that you believe you must arm yourself. I could not live that way, in constant fear.
#64 by jdberger on March 24, 2009 - 11:35 am
I live in a dire threat of fire. I have smoke alarms and fire extinguishers.
I live in dire threat of auto accidents. I wear a seat belt.
I live in dire threat of mountain bike accidents. I wear a helmet.
I live in dire threat of frostbite. I wear warm clothing.
I live in dire threat of darkness. I have flashlights.
Preparation isn’t fear, Richard. It’s simply intelligent.
What about that LA Times story? Are you prepared to concede that Calderon’s statement was…uh… a bit self serving….?
#65 by jdberger on March 24, 2009 - 11:38 am
Richard,
We know that you like to truncate things to make them fit your arguments, but when quoting the Constitution, please have the intellectual integrity to quote the entire clause.
Anything short of this is dishonest.
#66 by Becky on March 24, 2009 - 11:51 am
BobS,
Oh you stickler for semantics:
But if you put it that way, Bob, your gun cannot protect your family, it can only expel a projectile. The result can be, a) you hit the desired target or b) you miss the desired target, c) you hit an unintended target. The direct outcome is, a) you kill, b) you wound, c) nothing. One possible side effect is that your family might be protected. Some other possible side effects are that the perp beats you to the draw and shots you first, you shoot yourself accidentally, the perp grabs your gun and the loot and gets away, the possibilities are endless.
You see how silly your statement is? No matter how you want to slice and dice it, the purpose of a gun is to kill. Even a hunting gun.
It’s interesting to me that you characterize yourself as a “shooter” rather than a gun owner. You seem to have already prepared yourself psychologically and taken the first step down that path of pointing a gun and pulling the trigger in a situation you deem requires it. Now you just go around anticipating the situation.
#67 by Moribund Republic on March 24, 2009 - 11:53 am
Who cares about the bad light jd? The is guaranteed under the Constitution, anyone against it doesn’t matter.
Besides, bad light is what a starlight scope is for.
Becky cannot be taught Bob and jd, she is too old.
#68 by Becky on March 24, 2009 - 11:55 am
Aww, Mori, where’d the love go?
#69 by jdberger on March 24, 2009 - 11:58 am
Becky,
The difference between gun owner and shooter is the same as the difference between librarian and reader.
And I have an Anschutz rifle who’s entire purpose is to punch holes in paper.
#70 by Moribund Republic on March 24, 2009 - 11:59 am
The purpose of a gun is to kill, just like the purpose of a pesticide is to kill when the pests show up. Sometimes, just the smell of the right pesticide will keep the pest away, like a pheremone and such. The goal is to protect you and your treasure with a gun, in the case of pesticides, crops.
If the simple presence of a pest control device doesn’t stop the pest, then the pest controller can be utilized in ernest.
Nothing wrong with a thing designed specifically to kill, we don’t make our way in the world without killing things, especially things that harm us. Nothing wrong with killing what needs it. No apologies required jd and Bob.
#71 by Moribund Republic on March 24, 2009 - 12:01 pm
Where’s the love? Just speaks to your distorted perception Becky.
#72 by Bob S. on March 24, 2009 - 12:06 pm
Richard,
Please explain how that we loose freedoms this way:
Sorry but I’m not buying that argument at all. We loose nothing when police have to exercise caution in their job….especially since it is something they would do regardless.
Law Enforcement treat every domestic dispute as a potential armed confrontation and consider it to be more deadly then traffic stops. Should we lose our rights to our homes in order to make their jobs easier? Our Right to marriage? The right to own property such as frying pans and ashtrays…inanimate objects (a firearm in an inanimate object also) because police have been assaulted with those?
Then you hear wrong or your reading comprehension stinks…I believe the latter.
While there are threats out there, if I was in fear of such dire threats, I would arm myself, daily, with more then a handgun.
I am in full recognition of the odds (long) that I will be in a confrontation with a criminal….but I also recognize that the CONSEQUENCES of not being prepared are not what I’m willing to accept.
Thus, in spite of the small odds of needing it and hoping that I never have to need it, I choose to go through the hassle of obtaining legal permit to carry a firearm.
No one is asking you to live the way I live. I just ask you stop trying to interfere with the way I live. It is absolutely amazing the crowd that wants everybody to accept “alternate lifestyles” as normal can’t accept the fact that some people want to be armed. That some people enjoy the shooting sports.
Where is the acceptance of our lifestyle or is it as I suspect: That acceptance only extends to those that think and act as you do?
#73 by Becky on March 24, 2009 - 12:13 pm
Bob,
Too late, you already told us why you own guns and why you engage in target practice.
Now come on, no more bashing liberals. Let’s all go out an hug a tree!
#74 by Becky on March 24, 2009 - 12:21 pm
Mori,
xoxoxoxoxo
; )
#75 by Bob S. on March 24, 2009 - 12:22 pm
Becky,
Please try to stay consistent in your arguments, at least during the same thread.
At 9:34 you said:
At 11:51 a.m. you say:
So I shouldn’t carry a gun unless I’m prepared to use it because it makes me “nothing but a danger to yourself and others” but if I’m prepared to use it, you act as if that is a bad thing.
I characterize myself as a shooter because that is what I want to do with firearms. SHOOT THEM.
Some people collect them, find great interest in the history or lineage of a firearm. Some people find interest in the mechanical aspects of firearms and the design aspects of them. The also collect or acquire firearms.
Some people trade them. I know of a person that has probably owned, according to his estimate, approximately 2,000 firearms over the decades. Yet he only has less then a dozen in his safe. He likes the pleasure of finding firearms, trading or buying them, shooting them once or twice and then moving on. Personally, I suspect a specialized form of ADD but that is his hobby.
I am into the shooting aspect. I want to master the skill of putting a little projectile through a sheet of paper.
In 2 of the 3 outcomes, possibly even the 3rd, I’ve accomplished my goal of protecting my family. Often, the firearm protects my family without even a shot being fired. That is why defensive gun uses are hard to pin down….how often is the mere act of readying a firearm discouraging to a criminal.
How many criminals flee at the sight of a firearm and the owner never reports it?
As MR said, it doesn’t have to kill to work.
And if people like Cliff have their way, I’ll never have the OPTION of trying to beat the perp to the draw. So you are advocating the restriction of people’s choices when you support the gun control position, are you proud of your actions to help deny people the right to choice how they live their life?
#76 by Richard Warnick on March 24, 2009 - 12:31 pm
Bob S. wrote :
I would answer, ask Jared Massey. The Utah Highway Patrol officer who stopped him couldn’t be sure he wasn’t armed.
#77 by Becky on March 24, 2009 - 12:38 pm
Nope, BobS, I’m not trying to ‘deny people the right to choice [sic] how they live their life [sic]“. I’m just pointing out that the purpose of your guns and your target practice with human-shaped silhouettes is to kill.
(I’ll be away now until later tonight, so have at me all you like until then.)
#78 by Bob S. on March 24, 2009 - 12:51 pm
Becky,
I’ll go along with your ridiculous notion and stipulate for the sake of argument…that the purpose of my firearm and training is to kill.
Now the question is “Will I use that training in an aggressive illegal manner or in a defensive legal manner”?
Only in a legal defensive manner will I use my firearms and my skill. Just like the people who train in unarmed combat techniques, many designed to kill, those skills are used for self defense.
Is there anything wrong with being prepared to defend yourself?
#79 by jdberger on March 24, 2009 - 12:54 pm
Well, Richard. Your Jared Massey incident deserves a top post –
But – he didn’t lose any freedoms. He abdicated them.
The cop was a bit of a jerk. A better diplomat would have been able to diffuse the situation. But that cuts both ways.
There’s nothing wrong with being polite.
#80 by Richard Warnick on March 24, 2009 - 12:56 pm
jd–
Jared Massey was national news. He was on YouTube. You missed it?
#81 by Bob S. on March 24, 2009 - 1:00 pm
Richard,
I ask for a legal, moral or philosophical explanation and you provide a story about an uncooperative citizen and an abusive cop as way of explanation…what gives with that?
Come on. Tell me in simple terms, how we all, every single human being in America, looses rights because cops have to treat the people they pull over as dangerous.
#82 by Cliff on March 24, 2009 - 1:01 pm
Finally Bobs truth is revealed;
If I didn’t know better, I’d say this is the essence of Bob’s need to pack.
It is statistically improbable (in 10 lifetimes) that Bob S would ever find himself in a situation in which his ability to “beat the perp to the draw”.
And vengeance and anger are not good reasons to give people the “option.”
The truth, it would appear, is that the primary motivation of the average CCP holder is the hope and desire to shoot a bad guy.
Hey. We all want to be hero’s. Lets not destroy society for the for the satisfaction of a bunch of greasy, white, self-styled vigilantes.
#83 by Bob S. on March 24, 2009 - 1:09 pm
Cliff,
What truth is revealed…that you are a gun grabbing banning SOB and a hypocrite to boot?
Didn’t we already know this?
You are right it is statistically improbable that I will ever need to try to beat anyone to the draw. Is that sufficient reason to prevent me from carrying a firearm…because it is long odds I’ll ever face a criminal with a drawn gun?
The only people talking about vengeance and anger are you, have you ever heard the psychological term – projection?
You might want to check into the availability of counseling.
Wrong again. You just can’t stop being wrong.
It is my fervent hope and prayer that I will have wasted my time, money and efforts and never need to use a firearm in self defense. But self defense is my primary motivation in seeking to carry.
What is your primary motivation to prevent people from exercising their right to self defense?
I’ve noticed that the common thread running through most gun control arguments isn’t the gun, it is the control.
People like you don’t seem happy running your own lives, you want to be able to run everyone’s else. Sorry but I can do that just fine.
#84 by jdberger on March 24, 2009 - 1:09 pm
White?
Why white, Cliff?
Got some self-loathing going on there?
If so, you should have included illiterate and puffy.
#85 by Richard Warnick on March 24, 2009 - 1:19 pm
Bob S.–
If it weren’t for the overwhelming numbers of firearms in the hands of Americans, we could have a system like the one in the United Kingdom –where the term “armed police” isn’t redundant because most of them don’t carry guns.
#86 by Bob S. on March 24, 2009 - 1:20 pm
Cliff,
Let’s address this little nugget of intelligence
48 states, including Utah, have laws allowing some form of carrying of concealed weapons.
Now, think carefully…what has happened to the level of violence since states started loosening the laws about concealed carry?
Has violence gone up or down?
Year
1973 3,589,800
1974 3,799,300
1975 3,593,800
1976 3,612,500
1977 3,661,700
1978 3,625,300
1979 3,834,000
1980 3,793,600
1981 4,100,900
1982 3,925,300
1983 3,454,700
1984 3,682,500
1985 3,357,700
1986 3,283,800
1987 3,424,100
1988 3,562,100
1989 3,532,800
1990 3,499,700
1991 3,711,100
1992 3,985,800
1993 4,190,000
1994 4,115,000
1995 3,493,500
1996 3,260,100
1997 3,038,200
1998 2,776,000
1999 2,529,100
2000 2,186,300
2001 2,014,300
2002 1,685,900
2003 1,829,900
2004 1,648,100
2005 1,823,300
Note: The serious violent crimes included are rape, robbery, aggravated assault, and homicide
Looks like crime has trended down…a few bumps up but overall a downward trend.
Pretty hard to argue the END OF THE WORLD AS WE KNOW IT BECAUSE OF FIREARMS, when the crime rates are doing down.
Well Bob S. that covers all crimes — Cliff or Richard will HUFF and PUFF.
Year Homicide rate
1900 1.2
1901 1.2
1902 1.2
1903 1.1
1904 1.3
1905 2.1
1906 3.9
1907 4.9
1908 4.8
1909 4.2
1910 4.6
1911 5.5
1912 5.4
1913 6.1
1914 6.2
1915 5.9 >
1916 6.3
1917 6.9
1918 6.5
1919 7.2
1920 6.8
1921 8.1
1922 8.0
1923 7.8
1924 8.1
1925 8.3
1926 8.4
1927 8.4
1928 8.6
1929 8.4
1930 8.8
1931 9.2
1932 9.0
1933 9.7
1934 9.5
1935 8.3
1936 8.0
1937 7.6
1938 6.8
1939 6.4
1940 6.3
1941 6.0
1942 5.9
1943 5.1
1944 5.0
1945 5.7
1946 6.4
1947 6.1
1948 5.9
1949 5.4
1950 5.3
1951 4.9
1952 5.2
1953 4.8
1954 4.8
1955 4.5
1956 4.6
1957 4.5
1958 4.5
1959 4.6
1960 4.7
1961 4.7
1962 4.8
1963 4.9
1964 5.1
1965 5.5
1966 5.9
1967 6.8
1968 7.3
1969 7.7
1970 8.3
1971 9.1
1972 9.4
1973 9.7
1974 10.1
1975 9.9
1976 9.0
1977 9.1
1978 9.2
1979 10.0
1980 10.7
1981 10.3
1982 9.6
1983 8.6
1984 8.4
1985 8.4
1986 9.0
1987 8.7
1988 9.0
1989 9.3
1990 10.0
1991 10.5
1992 10.0
1993 10.1
1994 9.6
1995 8.7
1996 7.9
1997 7.4
1998 6.8
1999 6.2
2000 6.1
2001 7.1 *
2002 6.1
2003 6.1
2004 5.9
Looks like we have to go back to 1966 to find homicide rates as low as 2004. Again, hardly the end of society, is it ?
So just what are you basing your fears about society on Cliff? your own imagination?
#87 by Bob S. on March 24, 2009 - 1:23 pm
Richard,
Stop ducking the question and answer please.
You stated we all loose rights. Please explain how that happens and stop trying to derail the discussion with off topic subjects like the U.K.
#88 by Richard Warnick on March 24, 2009 - 1:42 pm
Bob S.–
What you call “off topic,” I say is the point. I’d rather live in an America where police don’t need to carry guns. Do I have to post stories of unarmed citizens shot by the police? I’d say their rights were violated.
OK, for example Houston, TX: 1 in 3 police shootings involve unarmed people.
I’m not necessarily blaming the officers. They have to assume suspects are armed.
#89 by Bob S. on March 24, 2009 - 2:04 pm
Richard.
First, this is worthy of discussion but it doesn’t answer the basic question of how fellow citizens lose rights because the police have to be careful.
I think that is patently a patently ridiculous statement but I’m willing to learn. So, explain the legal, moral or philosophical reasoning behind it please.
Next
I would too but we don’t live in that America. We live in an America where violence is perpetuate by a criminal minority and the people have choices in how to deal with that.
People can deny it out of existence, that works until they run into reality and crime happens to them. How many stories have we read in the paper that express that sentiment; “It not supposed to happen here”. Well, criminals don’t respect our laws and they certainly don’t respect our desire for a violence free society. Which leads us to option two.
People can decide to be the “right kind of dangerous”. I like that quote, because it helps explains the difference between the two types of violence.
There is predatory violence and there is protectionary violence ( I know it isn’t a real word, deal with it grammar police). Both kinds of violence aren’t equal; not in the eyes of the law or in ethics.
If someone was beating you about the head and shoulders in hopes of getting your wallet, the chances of words stopping them are small. Unless the words are “Stop or I will shoot”. Being prepared to return violence with protectionary violence is the option I choose.
Hopefully, the precautions I take to avoid situations where violence is likely will be sufficient. If not, then I hope the precautions I take to be aware of my environment and the people in it will be sufficient. This is a habit I advise everyone to get into.
It is not living in fear, but living in awareness. Much like being aware of cars when crossing a street or the actions of other drivers on the road.
If those precautions aren’t enough,then I am prepared to do violence on those seeking to cause my family or I harm.
Training and being prepared to do so isn’t seeking to to be a cowboy or a vigilante, it is simply being ready in case the worst happens.
I know first aid techniques: CPR, choking, stop bleeding, etc. That doesn’t mean I go out looking for people in distress but if something happens, I’m confident in my ability to handle such situations.
Now as far as the link goes: give it up. The police face situations where the person may not exactly be a choir boy or honor student. The shooting are reviewed, often by a panel of civilians, to make sure it was a justifiable shooting.
In fact, considering that there are people out there not willing to obey cops, people willing to take on trained personnel buttresses the argument for concealed carry.
Those people certainly aren’t going to respect a middle aged person with bad knees and arthritis like myself if they don’t respect the police.
Having a firearm evens the chances of me surviving an encounter.
Notice also in the article, you said “unarmed people” but the fact is being unarmed isn’t the same thing as not being dangerous.
#90 by I view Cliff's Dog and Pony Show on March 24, 2009 - 2:12 pm
Let’s start putting a dent in Cliff’s endless dog and pony show about the 2nd and the basic human right, and Constitutionally lawful right, to lethal defense in the face of same.
Cliff is a Jew of zionist variety. I know him personally, and have heard him speak of Palestinians as animals and would not shed much of a tear if they were all killed. Takes a little wine, but it’s there.
He would no more disarm his relatives there, or even suggest such stupidity, his family would not be humored. Neither are we law abiding Americans humored. Bob and jd you have GREAT patience, indicative of how important the right to lethal self defense is.
Cliff pretends to be progressive, but it is only here that he assumes American’s need not be armed. This running joke has roped in all kinds of progressives on the band wagon, perhaps we should use a Jewish reference and call it a train cattle car.
Ask yourself if you would trust the like of Cliff Lyon to be charged with your security, or the safety of your own treasure given the kinds of people that all too often walk the street.
The hypocrisy extends to Israel, where his own uncle in employed in the aircraft industry, developing warplanes, that we basically are paying for. Hell, what is a pistol? The Isreali’s claim their right to self defense with 2000 pounders and bunker buster bombs. Many would like it to stop, but hey, it is Israel’s right to security.
Right?
We would like Cliff to leave our rights intact, as much as he would like to keep his own rights so. If this isn’t respected, and tyrannical change befalls a nation do we imagine talking a tyrant to death? We need not worry about Cliff, he does not have the sand, nor even the belief to apply what he is blathering about.
#91 by jdberger on March 24, 2009 - 3:28 pm
Richard –
English cops have never been habitually armed. Even when England didn’t have restrictive gun laws.
#92 by I view Cliff's Dog and Pony Show on March 24, 2009 - 4:43 pm
Uh these days, English bobbies are damn well armed with pistols, and ALWAYS had a club or a blackjack. Armed is armed.
The abuse of power of armed police and armed authority has always been a public concern. If they are Peace Officers why do they have weapons at all? What I enjoy about progressives jd is their curious lack of knowledge about much anything historical. If they do know the details, they often imagine it applied to the own ideology, and invariably get it wrong.
Yes indeed the man involved in killing the police officers had a gun, we will await the trial before convicting him of murder I assume? So 4 professional cops get waxed by an illegally armed violent felon. Sounds like some retraining is in order. Nobody knows what happened yet without a conviction, do we? Typical.
If 4 cops violate a mans rights in the process of their job and get killed by that person should we care about the corrupt cops deaths? Not as far as I care. We have seen this abuse constantly by law enforcement. As I have informed King Shit cops before, you can draw a lot more flies with honey than vinegar. Helps not to terrify a person by screaming at them in your unprofessional way, once you go there, all bets are off. Better to be calm, and courteous. Like a poorly armed English Bobby. It’s how they got the reputation. It is as much a weapon of safety as a gun or billy. They have to be good at their job, not like here 6 weeks of training and COPS on FOX via TV to set the example of how to “police”.
As a comparison, I always antagonize leashed crazed dogs in order to better make my way down the sidewalk. Our police forces are largely corrupted, and unprofessional, leads to death you see.
In Europe dangerous psychos are generally identified, followed, and picked up in a place where the prospect of their acting in violence to escape, is negligible. No cowboy cops there.
#93 by Anonymous on March 24, 2009 - 4:55 pm
English bobbys always had a billy, and armed is armed. See the court dockets to see what applies. Armed robbery for example, does not require a gun.
These days all bobbys have guns.
#94 by Anonymous on March 24, 2009 - 5:11 pm
Let’s see, known felon whacks 4 cops in traffic stop. Looks like there is a need for re-training there.
Maybe it is the pathetic 6-8 weeks of training and then nightly episodes of COPS on Fox that is the problem. Hmmm…
In Germany, it takes a cop almost 4 years to carry. In training he is told that a dangerous situation will be created in which he will have to respond. The candidate does not know when or where it will occur, nor will he know that it is training. The candidates response and successful resolution of the problem will be carefully assessed. Now that is training that takes into account a person’s aptitude for the job.
If you fail this, no matter your other skills, it’s to the desk, or some other profession.
No one talks about the fact that the man has yet to be tried, we don’t know necessarily happened in the stop entirely. Last time I checked he is innocent until proven guilty. Nor have we dealt with that he was on parole. Seems like the families have a civil case, and in my world one for criminal negligence against the State for releasing him.
How would any law have kept a gun out of this mans hand? Meanwhile as Cliff blows smoke, gun sales are through the roof.
Now there is an accurate poll for you Richard.
#95 by jdberger on March 24, 2009 - 10:22 pm
Well, anon…you haven’t been paying attention. No trial. He’s dead.
See, when he started shooting through the wall at the officers, they shot back and killed him.
He was alone, in the closet with the rifle.
Though, he MIGHT have been innocent.
And almost all the cops killed were sergeants. 2 were SWAT cops. Training wasn’t an issue, here.
#96 by jdberger on March 24, 2009 - 10:51 pm
Well, the “assault weapon” part of this is moot.
Turns out the bad guy used an SKS, not an AK 47.
The SKS doesn’t fall under the purview of either the defunct Federal Assault Weapons Ban nor the California AWB since it does not have a detachable magazine nor does it hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition.
#97 by Richard Warnick on March 25, 2009 - 7:57 am
jd–
All accounts I’ve seen say it was an AK-47, citing the police. Other than speculation, what have you got?
#98 by Weer'd Beard on March 25, 2009 - 9:06 am
To be fair there has been much talk of this piece being fully-automatic as well which is extreamly doubtful, so I think the rifle used is 100% speculation on all accounts.
Still no matter what we’re talking about a gun heavily regulated by Cali’s “Assault Weapons” ban, or a gun that isn’t even remotely an “Assault Weapon”, but is being identified as such.
Either way it does show the futility of laws of this kind, as well as the ignorance of the press.
#99 by Moribund Republic on March 25, 2009 - 11:56 am
Where is the FrontSight.com piece Cliff? Think better of posting it?
I’m already a member. This is why your discussion on the 2nd is pretty pointless. Free Americans don’t care what you think, and don’t have to.
Go to the site, and this man will train you and give you a pistol for nothing.
#100 by jdberger on March 25, 2009 - 12:21 pm
I’ve got an in at Oakland PD. Friends of family, former colleagues, etc.
Accounts lean toward SKS.
They’ll eventually display the weapons – if they don’t, you’ll know for sure that it wasn’t an AK. An AK on the table is too “press worthy” to ignore. An SKS is just a deer rifle.
#101 by jdberger on March 25, 2009 - 12:28 pm
Oh- to be fair, Richard, all the published accounts I’ve seen (with the exception of my link) have said “AK”, too.