Gun Permits: What The Latest Mass Killings Have In Common

Jiverly Wong's gun permitH/t Mikeb302000 who tackles the gun issue everyday.

In summary, if you want to do a mass killing, you can easily obtain the fire power to do some serious damage.

From: Gun Permits: What The Latest Mass Killings Have In Common

They had more in common than unleashing carnage _ nearly every gunman in this monthlong series of mass killings was legally entitled to fire his weapons.

So what does that say about the state of gun control laws in this country? One thing appears certain: the regulations aren’t getting stricter. Many recent efforts to change weapons laws have been about easing them.

Despite eight rampages that have claimed 57 lives since March 10, “it hasn’t sparked any national goal to deal with this epidemic. In fact, it’s going the other way,” said Scott Vogel of the Freedom States Alliance, a gun control activist group.

The mere fact that this is being written in America about America in the year 2009, speaks to the filthy, ugly, bare white-butt rear end of this Country. The Love Canal of our national culture.

, , , , , , , ,

  1. #1 by Weer'd Beard on April 8, 2009 - 10:01 am

    You’d be 100% right Cliff if you weren’t 100% wrong.

    Yep the NY shooter did have a permit. The others…nope.

    Oops, I guess your argument is a lie!

    you loose again!

  2. #2 by Richard Warnick on April 8, 2009 - 10:07 am

    We have 222 million adults in this country in possession of 280 million firearms. It’s hard to see how anyone –no matter how crazy or criminal– who wants a gun doesn’t have one already.

  3. #3 by jdberger on April 8, 2009 - 10:35 am

    What’s your point, Richard?

    Hey – have you ever asked Cliffy how many guns he owns?

    He claims that he target shoots monthly.

    I wonder if he ever submitted to a background check….

  4. #4 by johnnyreb on April 8, 2009 - 11:00 am

    Using the Huff-post as a source isn’t gonna do your credibility much good, but then neither is using the white-guilt anti Americanism at the end of the post …

  5. #5 by CindyLoo Hoo on April 8, 2009 - 11:23 am

    The last comments in the article are true, no matter what side of the debate you are on.

    Guns are meant to be shot, and many guns, especially military style, are meant to be shot AT PEOPLE. NOT TO STOP THEM, HURT THEM, OR THREATEN. MILITARY GUNS ARE MEANT FOR KILLING PEOPLE.

    It is complete lunacy to believe that anyone has a personal ‘right’ to own such a thing in a civil society. It is really too bad that restrictions would not help, it is a cultural problem. You cannot reason with these people, because they live, breath, and believe in the lies they perpetuate.

    Ask them what Jesus would do about their assault rifles and I am sure whatever they would answer would only prove my point.

  6. #6 by Anonymous on April 8, 2009 - 11:55 am

    Keep yammering Cliff, it is so working.

  7. #7 by Weer'd Beard on April 8, 2009 - 12:25 pm

    “It is complete lunacy to believe that anyone has a personal ‘right’ to own such a thing in a civil society. It is really too bad that restrictions would not help, it is a cultural problem. You cannot reason with these people, because they live, breath, and believe in the lies they perpetuate.”

    Even better Cindy, Not only do I have the right to own such a thing, but if confronted with threat of imminant loss of life or limb we ALL have the right to use lethal force to protect our lives or the lives of others around us.

    Worse for your thin little argument yet, people save their lives with firearms every day, in numbers that vastly outnumber the lives taken with them (which are over 50% suicides, and likely not dependant on a gun in the first place).
    http://www.claytoncramer.com/gundefenseblog/blogger.html

    Also bad for your argument is that Military weapons for the most part have been the most heavily restricted arms for civilian use since the 1930s, and the guns you’re likely talking about (the kind Obama and his cabinet want banned) are not issued or used by any military.

    Also many of them ARE in fact made for hunting and target shooting, rather than personal defense (which, again is a legal right)
    http://www.shootingtimes.com/longgun_reviews/st_remingtonsruger_200804/

    As far as Jesus goes I’ll defer to a follower of Christ, as I have no right to comment on a spiritual system I’m not party too.

    Tho I have read the bible
    “When I sent you without purse, bag or sandals, did you lack anything?” “Nothing,” they answered. He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. It is written: `And he was numbered with the transgressors’ ; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment.” The disciples said, “See, Lord, here are two swords.” “That is enough,” he replied. (Luke 22:35-38, NIV)

  8. #8 by jdberger on April 8, 2009 - 12:57 pm

    Weerd – by “you can’t reason with them”, Cindy meant that she can’t force you to adopt her position.

    And by answering, you proved her point…. ; )

    Ask them what Jesus would do about their assault rifles and I am sure whatever they would answer would only prove my point.

    Hey Cindy, if you respond – you only prove my point that you are a fascist hooplaphobe.

    If you don’t – you prove my point that you are a coward that can’t be reasoned with – and remain a fascist hooplaphobe.

  9. #9 by Cliff on April 8, 2009 - 5:20 pm

    Reports say the Binghamton shooter fired 98 shoots in nuder one minute. How is that possible with the guns he had?

  10. #10 by Weer'd Beard on April 8, 2009 - 5:55 pm

    It isn’t. Likely the eyewitnesses in their panic got confused with time. It’s very easy. Or maybe they were hearing echos of the shots.

    Tho I can’t imagine how somebody could both time a large number like AND worry about saving their ass.

  11. #11 by jdberger on April 8, 2009 - 7:41 pm

    You think they were counting?

    Try it one day. Then try it with a couple of CCs of adrenaline coursing through your body.

  12. #12 by Weer'd Beard on April 9, 2009 - 1:38 am

    My exact point. I don’t fault anybody on this, the papers are likely just repeating the statement from a person who has been though something more awful than any of us could imagine.

    BTW anybody notice that NOBODY seems to care that the basis of the cited story is untrue?

    They changed the subject pretty quick!

  13. #13 by Larry Bergan on April 9, 2009 - 2:38 am

    But, then again, there’s the Pharmasuicidal angle.

    Many of these incidents have been connected to people going off their expensive medication, NO?

  14. #14 by Bob S. on April 9, 2009 - 3:19 am

    Larry,

    Yes, anti-depression medications usually play a large role in many of these mass murders.

    Yet, that doesn’t seem to fit the agenda of people like Cliff so it doesn’t get the attention it deserves.

  15. #15 by Larry Bergan on April 9, 2009 - 5:25 am

    Bob somebody says:

    Yet, that doesn’t seem to fit the agenda of people like Cliff so it doesn’t get the attention it deserves.

    Prove it, you fuck!

    I thought so!

    GO AWAY!

  16. #16 by Cliff on April 9, 2009 - 6:39 am

    Uh oh. Bob S,

    I think you pissed off Larry. I wouldn’t do that. He has bigger balls than both of us put together.

  17. #17 by Weer'd Beard on April 9, 2009 - 7:30 am

    I cetainly think that if Cliff MINDED us laughing at him, he wouldn’t present himself as such a clown.

  18. #18 by Cliff on April 9, 2009 - 7:39 am

    How right you are Weer’d beard. As a whole, the strict 2a crowd has proven itself to be so intellectually corrupt, stupid and dangerous, it hard to give a shit what you think.

    Even with your guns, you are fringe insignificant freak show morning the loss of a by gone era in America.

    This is not your America anymore and it has you panicked.

    Like a one trick pony, you guys will beat your obsolete argument to death long after SCOTUS takes everything but your Saturday Night Special and .22.

  19. #19 by Weer'd Beard on April 9, 2009 - 9:47 am

    More Irony from the Cliff-ster!

    Keep me laughing bud!

    I’m sure by calling names and ranting on it certainly makes your other (quickly abandoned) arguments more rational….somehow!

    It really must be tough arguing the wrong side of an argument every day like you do.

    I took the easy way out, and stopped supporting gun control when I found out it was a load of shit!

  20. #20 by jdberger on April 9, 2009 - 10:45 am

    Well, you know Cliff – the gun freaks here aren’t single minded. We’re also defensive about YOUR right to speech.

    It’s unfortunate that can’t be said for you.

    What’s wrong, Larry? Run out of jenkem? Still mad about Nugent taking your girlfriend backstage?

  21. #21 by Larry Bergan on April 9, 2009 - 2:27 pm

    Sorry Bob:

    That was a big overreacti0n to the word “agenda” which is always used to give the impression that liberals want to take peoples freedom away. I can never figure out why you gun guys don’t care about stolen elections and subversion of the constitution, but accuse our side of having an “agenda.”

    Governor Don Siegelman is probably going back to prison for the crime of running for reelection as a Democrat and Karl Rove is probably rap dancing again. Siegelman is being sent back to face the same judge that put him in prison the first time. Don’t you guys care about that “agenda!”

  22. #22 by Bob S. on April 9, 2009 - 2:35 pm

    Larry,

    Don’t confuse not caring with not actively advocating here.

    I care about stolen elections and the subversion of our Constitution. You and I have talked often on the topics.

    But like you, there are some things I focus on here, on other boards and some things that I don’t discuss online.

    You aren’t extremely active in the 2nd amendment argument, but I wouldn’t consider saying that you don’t care about it. Please extend the same courtesy to me.

    As for as Governor Siegelman, he’s not my governor. I have enough to do to keep my state reps and governor inline, I’ll let other people worry about Siegelman.

    On the agenda issue, several people – Richard, Nomen, Leo, yourself and others – have shown me that not all liberals are on the same side of every issue.

    I tried to be very clear when I stated that Cliff and people like him have an agenda of gun control.

    I agree that the pharmaceutical angle needs greater investigation and probably would have greater impact then “common sense” gun control or “reasonable restrictions”.

    Do you agree that there are people out there who are pushing for the removal of the right to keep and bear arms that? And that most of those people who are focused on the firearms aren’t focused on the WHYs of the shootings but the WITH WHAT?

    Please be assured when I disagree with you, I will tell you straight up.

  23. #23 by Larry Bergan on April 9, 2009 - 2:48 pm

    I just wish that some of the other people who worry about Siegelman’s travesty were Governors. They don’t seem like a very tight knit group to let him flap in the wind like this. I mean, if it can happen to him, it can happen to them. This type of election fraud should be a concern to all of us, including you. It’s right out there in the open and extremely vicious.

    Don’t you think Rove should be in prison instead, for HIS “agenda?”

  24. #24 by Cliff on April 9, 2009 - 4:45 pm

    Larry, I hear ya. the Siegleman thing really bugs me. Alabama is one fucked up state.

    Aren’t they leading the nation with 3 mass killings so far this month?

  25. #25 by Larry Bergan on April 10, 2009 - 12:05 am

    Not to mention Rove’s never having to answer for the Valerie Plame saga or any of the other savage crimes he has committed. Rove is still allowed to run rampant. I don’t think Obama has changed many of these judges or attorneys that were stacked in the Republicans favor. This is serious!

    Somebody has to do something to stop Siegelman from being silenced again. He is a decent guy and didn’t even come close to committing any crime.

    Bob S. said:

    On the agenda issue, several people – Richard, Nomen, Leo, yourself and others – have shown me that not all liberals are on the same side of every issue.

    Thanks for that, and I apologize again for going ape-shit earlier.

  26. #26 by The Truth on April 10, 2009 - 12:32 am

  27. #27 by jdberger on April 10, 2009 - 12:41 am

    You’re a liar, Cliff.

    Pants on fire.

    As far as bigoted posts go, Cliff, you are the top poster.

    Vile.

  28. #28 by mikeb302000 on April 10, 2009 - 3:51 am

    Cliff, Thanks so much for the link at the top of the post.

    I certainly have been writing about guns a lot lately, not by design really. It’s just that the gun stories are too good to resist. Then of course I have the entertainment provided by some of my regular commenters, a couple of whom you know too.

    Overall it’s been great fun. Too bad it’s so damn serious at the same time. Bob S. especially likes to talk about being responsible for one’s actions and facing the consequences. Yet he writhes at the mere suggestion that he and the rest of them bear some responsibility for the mess that their beloved gun rights have wrought in the country. I say if you want a society in which guns are as available to people as they are in the States, then you have to accept responsibility for the problems that result from that.

  29. #29 by Weer'd Beard on April 10, 2009 - 6:29 am

    Just the same as you bear responcibility for child pornography because you own a camera and a computer, there Jersey-Boy!

  30. #30 by Cliff on April 10, 2009 - 7:07 am

    JD,

    Rather boastful you are about defending my right to free speech.

    Just for yuck, what is the opposite of your defending my right to free speech?

    Are you the speech police now? Are you a judge? Are you a lawmaker, a prosecutor?

    I’m not sure you are in a position as a pedestrian, to defend my right to free speech unless of course you are talking about taking up arms against a government who would deny my right to free speech.

    If they didn’t shut me up when I was calling Bush a LIAR long before anyone in the media, when I was calling Bush a scum-sucking coke head and screaming for impeachment 3 years ago (and I am easy to find)…

    But thank you for watching my back on that free speech thing.

  31. #31 by Cliff on April 10, 2009 - 7:16 am

    Weerd, As for your equivocation between child pornography and easily available personal, concealable murder weapons, I ask you;

    Were dead folks in Binghamton, NY given a choice about whether or not to expose themselves to the coward with the legally obtained gun?

    I can easily avoid child pornography. I can’t say the same for nut bags who carry loaded weapons everywhere they go.

    But I think you can place blame on the people who consume child pornography. They are indirectly responsible for child abuse just as you are indirectly responsible for the innocent lives lost (over 50 so far in April) at the hands of someone who, because of a gun, was able to exercise inordinate amount of power over them.

    Person + gun = power

    Person w/o gun = no power

  32. #32 by Weer'd Beard on April 10, 2009 - 9:04 am

    “I can easily avoid child pornography. ” Yeah but the kids who become the subjects of it have a bit of trouble.
    ” I can’t say the same for nut bags who carry loaded weapons everywhere they go.” Certainly, there are lots of us. Lots more in Utah than Mass. So you have a LOT of mass shootings there.

    Oh, just the Trolly Square Mall…where guns were banned…didn’t stop some Muslim Extreamist from shooting the place up. Of course an off-duty cop with a gun ended the scenario and saved countless lives.

    “But I think you can place blame on the people who consume child pornography.” Certainly, personal responcibilty.

    Oh, but a person like me (and you) who own guns, but commit no crimes are also responcible?

    So you do agree that owning a computer and a camera is also partially to blame for kiddy porn? I mean no crime was committed, but if the creeps couldn’t get cameras and computers, the kiddy porn industry would be crippled!

    “Person + gun = power” Yep. Power for evil, but also power for good. It’s up to the owner to decide. Thankfully guns save far more lives than they take. Hence why I’m on the correct side of this argument.

    “Person w/o gun = no power” Tell that to the little girl in Milton MA with her head chopped off.

    Tell that to the huge number of stabbing victims.

    More logical disconnects, Cliff.

    More easy work for me making you look like not only a fool, but a damned fool!

  33. #33 by jdberger on April 10, 2009 - 10:00 am

    Back to speech, Cliffy.

    Do you still want to ban advocacy groups that you disagree with?

    Just how progressive are you?

    And I’m still waiting for those transcripts.

    I’m wondering if I should call the University of Vermont to see if you ever attended…

  34. #34 by Cliff on April 10, 2009 - 5:29 pm

    Weer’d, You mispelt ‘extreme’ real bad.

    The ‘A’ key is nowhere near the ‘E’ key, I checked). It is true it sounds like stream. DAMNED English!

    So that rules out typo.

    Hint: Phonics is for learing to read, not write.

    Would YOU want YOU you debating anything of importance with our decision makers?

    I though we made education mandatory for a reason.

  35. #35 by Bob S. on April 10, 2009 - 5:49 pm

    and right on schedule Cliff deploys standard attack #17 – Ad hominem

    Ad hominem argument is most commonly used to refer specifically to the ad hominem abusive, or argumentum ad personam, which consists of criticizing or attacking the person who proposed the argument (personal attack) in an attempt to discredit the argument. It is also used when an opponent is unable to find fault with an argument, yet for various reasons, the opponent disagrees with it.

  36. #36 by Becky on April 10, 2009 - 8:29 pm

    Watching 20/20 “If I Only Had a Gun”. It’s halfway over, but you can watch full 20/20 episodes online. I recommend it. I’m interested to hear opinions. UPDATE: The full episode isn’t up yet. Did anyone watch? I thought it was extremely informative, especially on the issue of whether arming more people will make all of us safer.

    And yet another shooting today.

  37. #37 by jdberger on April 11, 2009 - 12:33 am

    I though we made education mandatory for a reason.

    Where are your transcripts, liar-boy?

    Not one person here buys that you have a philosophy degree.

  38. #38 by Cliff on April 11, 2009 - 8:01 am

    Hi Becky,

    I missed it. I have to think they wimped out a bit. I hope at the very least, they grew a spine and defended the FACT that more armed people and guns is in fact the reason we kill so many innocent Americans with legal guns.

  39. #39 by Becky on April 11, 2009 - 8:43 am

    They made a pretty compelling case for closing the gun show loophole. The NRA refused to give them a statement on that. They also demonstrated how despite education and training, children, including teens, cannot be trusted around guns. They included heartbreaking examples of kids who shot their friends –try and watch that without crying.

    But most important, they demonstrated how even experienced gun users are unlikely to be able to use their gun effectively in a real-world crisis–it’s far different shooting at a live target instead of a stationary piece of paper. They explained the physiological reasons for an individual’s reduced ability to evaluate the situation around him/her and react. They also say that unless training is recent and consistent, shooting skills are quickly lost.

    They have segments of the program up on the website now for those who want to watch. It is well worth the time.

  40. #40 by Bob S. on April 11, 2009 - 8:59 am

    Becky,

    What activity is legal at a gun show that is illegal any other place?

    That would be the true definition of a “gun show loophole”.

    Otherwise you are simply telling people that they can’t sell their private property to another individual without government approval.

    Are you going to try to close the “parking lot loophole”, where people sell their cars to another individual without checking to see if that person is prohibited?

  41. #41 by Cliff on April 11, 2009 - 9:15 am

    Big surprise the NRA wouldn’t comment. They are the definition of spineless.

    I’ve actually begun researching this issue more seriously, thanks mostly to Bob S, & JD, but also the others.

    Under the assumption they’ve hit us with pretty much every little factoid they can distort, I began to realize the gun lobby really has no case as it relates to public health and that idiots like John Lott and Alan Korwin are pretty much the cream of the cream as per any ‘credentialed authority’ on the pro-gun side.

    As far as I can tell, there is no debate about the availability = more death issue. All the science and evidence point to the obvious conclusion.

    That explains why the only remaining defenders of unlimited gun ownership in this country are the types of yahoos we’ve met on OneUtah.

    I think I’ve gathered enough data to write a pretty authoritative portrait of the average gun-freak.

    And I think I can predict with 100% accuracy, how they will respond to any given incident…

    “Well, the guy was crazy. You can’t legislate against crazy.”

    “Well, if only more teachers and bystanders carried guns it could have been prevented.”

    “So what, Cars kill too. Are you gonna ban cars.”

    “But isn’t one life saved worth it?” (One of Bob’s favorites)

    And it gets more vapid and absurd from there.

    Tom Diaz is right
    (h/t JD I didn’t know of him before). The only real problem are politicians, the tag-along media and really loud gun-freaks.

    The science has long been sufficient (see The Violence Prevention Center) to make a case for very strict gun laws. Its all about politics now and the opposition are pretty unimpressive minds.

    And there is some very interesting information there. Warnick will appreciate this one….

    In 2001 the VPC released Voting from the Rooftops: How the Gun Industry Armed Osama bin Laden, Other Foreign and Domestic Terrorists, and Common Criminals With 50 Caliber Sniper Rifles. The study documents for the first time the burgeoning sales of 50 caliber sniper rifles—military bred weapons that can down helicopters and penetrate armor plating, yet are easier to purchase than a standard handgun. In a New York Times exclusive, the VPC study revealed that the Al Qaeda network had purchased at least 25 of the weapons in the United States

    Bob S, how is arming Al Quaida to shoot down BlackHawks “worth one saved life.?”

  42. #42 by Cliff on April 11, 2009 - 9:34 am

    Sometimes I feel like I’m in a Dali painting. As I was writing the above, Bob S, actually wrote this..

    Are you going to try to close the “parking lot loophole”, where people sell their cars to another individual without checking to see if that person is prohibited?

  43. #43 by Bob S. on April 11, 2009 - 1:00 pm

    Cliff,

    Drunk driving is no accident.

    There were 16,885 alcohol-related fatalities in 2005 – 39 percent of the total traffic fatalities for the year.


    2005, United States Homicide Firearm Deaths=12,352

    So, drunk driving causes more fatalities then firearm related homicide, but you aren’t willing to implement reasonable regulations.

    Guess your real motivation is saving lives, it is controlling people.

  44. #44 by Cliff on April 11, 2009 - 1:15 pm

    Since 1962, more than one million Americans have died in firearm homicides, suicides, and unintentional shootings. Handguns were used in more than 650,000 of these fatal shootings.7

    In 1997—the most recent year available—there were 89 firearm deaths per day, or a firearm death every 16 minutes.8

    In homes with guns, a member of the household is almost three times as likely to be the victim of a homicide compared to gun-free homes.9

  45. #45 by Larry Bergan on April 11, 2009 - 2:09 pm

    Becky:

    Wow, that segment of the ABC program about the children finding the guns is really heart-wrenching. Hearing those 911 calls with the young men saying they had shot their best friend had me in tears.

    There really are too many guns laying around in this country. I think those programs where people turn in their guns to be destroyed are a good idea. Young people see all of the gun violence on television and they all know what you do with them so it’s almost a natural reaction to pick the damn things up and pull the trigger, sometimes changing their lives forever. It is a quintessential tragedy.

    As for Bob S. telling me he has debated me extensively about election fraud, it just hasn’t happened. Like most republicans, he cares little about how our elections go, as long as he gets the “agenda” he wants.

  46. #46 by Becky on April 11, 2009 - 2:47 pm

    Larry,

    It really was a difficult segment to watch. It is very sobering to see how easily kids get hold of guns and how lives are forever changed from accidents that ensue. If nothing else, I would hope people viewing this program would consider that maybe their guns aren’t as secure from children (including or maybe especially teens) as they think they are.

  47. #47 by jdberger on April 12, 2009 - 12:22 am

    It’s not the Violence Prevention Center. It’s the Violence Policy Center.

    You’d think that you would know that as much as you qoute them. Tom Diaz is one of the head guys. Pay attention. Their policy papers are ridiculous.

    Fortunately policy issues aren’t based upon emotive appeals. Otherwise we’d ban things like speech that hurts people’s feelings.

    Oh, wait. That was tried already……

  48. #48 by jdberger on April 12, 2009 - 12:28 am

    I forgot to ask, what’s a “gun show loophole”?

  49. #49 by Cliff on April 12, 2009 - 7:51 am

    JD,

    I forget. What exactly is the purpose of a .50 caliber bullet?

  50. #50 by Guy on April 12, 2009 - 8:30 am

    As for the argument that a well armed citizenry will be able to protect itself from armed criminals, that argument has been shot down (no pun intended) by well documented, extensive, filmed tests that show that even those trained in gun handling will freeze, fumble, lose coordination and generally be just as vulnerable as unarmed citizens when actually faced with an armed assault.

  51. #51 by jdberger on April 12, 2009 - 12:15 pm

    What’s the purpose of a sonnet?

    I can find lots of uses for .50 caliber bullets. Even .60 and .75 caliber. It is a tool, Cliffy.

  52. #52 by jdberger on April 12, 2009 - 12:25 pm

    As for the argument that a well armed citizenry will be able to protect itself from armed criminals, that argument has been shot down (no pun intended) by well documented, extensive, filmed tests that show that even those trained in gun handling will freeze, fumble, lose coordination and generally be just as vulnerable as unarmed citizens when actually faced with an armed assault.

    Hysterical!

    So then, police and the military don’t have much use for arms because “even those trained in gun handling will freeze, fumble, lose coordination and generally be just as vulnerable as unarmed citizens when actually faced with an armed assault.”

    Thanks, Guy – I’d rather have the option than be subject to the gentleness and whim of the wolves.

    I’d also love to see some of those “tests”.

    Feel free to advertise that you’re unarmed.

    Fortunately, you’ll benefit from the fact that the wolves won’t know if you’re serious.

  53. #53 by Becky on April 12, 2009 - 12:45 pm

    JD,

    Did you take a look at those 20/20 clips I linked to up-thread? You would learn that your body’s physiological reaction to the crisis causes bloodflow to decrease in the surface of the skin, flowing to large muscles to allow flight. This reduces fine motor skills causing fumbling and inability to hit a target, even for an experienced shooter. In addition, your scope of vision narrows, becoming more tunnel-like and preventing you from fully taking in the periphery, making it impossible for you to discern between friend or foe to your sides. Those are just a couple of things I learned from watching.

    Police and soldiers must train constantly to be able to perform optimally in a crisis situation. Unless you’re training as often as police, you may be very surprised at your own inability to hit a moving target in a crisis.

  54. #54 by jdberger on April 12, 2009 - 2:48 pm

    I’m familiar with the physiological aspects to a live shoot.

    You didn’t mention the auditory response. :)

    (please see Massad Ayoob’s “Stressfire” for more information)

    That said, I’d rather have the opportunity to defend myself and not abdicate it just because someone says it might be really hard.

  55. #55 by Becky on April 12, 2009 - 3:21 pm

    The point is not to take away your opportunity to defend yourself, jd. But to realize that simply arming more people does not necessarily make society safer, and can, in fact, have the opposite effect.

    I’ve been thinking about this a lot since watching 20/20. There were some pretty profound situations presented. I wonder if maybe we shouldn’t change the term “gun control” to “better gun practices” with the goal of ensuring that legal ownership of guns is accompanied by greater recognition of responsibility, training, and safety.

  56. #56 by jdberger on April 12, 2009 - 4:30 pm

    I wonder if maybe we shouldn’t change the term “gun control” to “better gun practices” with the goal of ensuring that legal ownership of guns is accompanied by greater recognition of responsibility, training, and safety.

    I dunno, Becky.

    Are you suggesting something like exposure and training in public schools, much like we have sex ed, drivers’ ed and drug ed?

    • #57 by Cliff Lyon on April 12, 2009 - 4:49 pm

      If I’m not mistaken, I believe JD you have budged. CELEBRATE!

  57. #58 by Cliff on April 12, 2009 - 5:01 pm

    60 Minutes doing GUNS right NOW!!! … MDT

  58. #59 by Becky on April 12, 2009 - 5:16 pm

    JD,

    I don’t have any specific ideas, just thinking we need to change how we’re approaching this issue, stop being so adversarial and get serious about problem-solving.

    Cliff,

    I love the audio!

  59. #60 by jdberger on April 12, 2009 - 9:57 pm

    I’m all in favor of mandatory firearms training in public schools.

    I’m thrilled to see that you agree with me, Cliffy.

    Utah would be a perfect place to begin (since they already aknowledge that guns have a place in Universities). What a great “hands across the aisle” project for you, Cliff. I think that you can really make your mark with this.

    You could start with Eddie Eagle in the lower grades. At about 5th grade you could begin with basic marksmanship as a part of Physical Education.

    From there, the sky’s the limit.

  60. #61 by mikeb302000 on April 13, 2009 - 1:00 am

    Becky, Thanks for linking to that 20/20 episode. I have to say I found it poorly done, but I agree wholeheartedly with their and your point. I didn’t like the acting, the over-acting in the short film, yet I’m in total agreement with the point.

    The guys who so strenuously demand their right to bear arms in public places are often lacking in the kind of training which would make them what they claim to be. They say society is safer because of their presence; I say that’s nonsense. The defensive gun incidents, which number far fewer than they claim, include many that are not defensive at all. These gun owners themselves become the threat. And after any incident at all, what are they going to do but describe it as “defensive,” supposedly proving how valuable they are. One indication is that they respond disproportionately strongly to these ideas.

  61. #62 by Bob S. on April 13, 2009 - 3:37 am

    MikeB,

    Once again you are running your mouth with absolutely NO PROOF, except for the fact that it was poorly done.

    A couple of problems with the “active shooter” school problem.

    1. The student was given a new retention style holster and no chance to train with drawing the weapon from it. Heck, anybody with a CHL would have more experience with their holster just from getting ready and undressed day after day. But the 20/20 crew gave them NO chance to train, all we saw was some range training on the GLOCK.

    2. The student was given covering garments that hampered the ability to draw. Most people who carry take time to develop their wardrobe to insure they can draw while remaining concealed. Again, no signs of training in drawing the weapon was seen.

    3. The “attacker” was a trained Law Enforcement Officer, the firearms training instructor. This person is often the best shooter in the department, the most experienced. Most school shooters do not have anywhere near that level of experience.

    4. The “attacker” instantly targeted the classroom instructor then turned to the armed student. Did you notice how they all seemed to sit in the same spot? And how the “attacker” engaged the armed student first, even if there was no sign of the student drawing?

    5. The “attacker” continued on with the attack in spite of the armed defense and that isn’t what normally happens. Read the research.

    Now you say

    The guys who so strenuously demand their right to bear arms in public places are often lacking in the kind of training which would make them what they claim to be.

    For someone who knows so little about the subject, you seem to be making a quite certain statement. While the state laws may not require a high level of training, you have no idea what people do on their own time.

    It is almost as if you are lying about how much training people have…or even need to effectively respond. 20/20 may have set up a single experiment, but read Clayton Cramer Civilian Self Defense Blog and see how effective the average gun owner can be.

    The defensive gun incidents, which number far fewer than they claim, include many that are not defensive at all.

    Again any evidence of a conspiracy?

    You’ve made this claim before without presenting any evidence at all. You’ve said that you don’t call people liars, but here you are calling people who have used their firearm defensively a liar, you are calling the cops that investigate the issue liars.
    Nice, that you believe so many people are lying in our society.

    Any evidence that shows there aren’t as many defensive gun uses?

    We’ve been over this a time or two and all the evidence presented backs up our claims, while there aren’t many, if any pieces of evidence otherwise.

    And after any incident at all, what are they going to do but describe it as “defensive,” supposedly proving how valuable they are.

    Again, this is a lie. Gun owners are as quick to point out when one of their numbers break the law, if not quicker, then the anti-freedom pro-ignorance crowd. It gives us a bad name, it is wrong to use firearm in criminal activities and you’ll see gun owners reacting faster then anyone else. ONCE IT IS SHOWN TO HAVE BEEN A CRIME. Until then we have that little idea in our country “Innocent till proven guilty”. Guess that is another right you and others don’t want to apply to gun owners, eh?

    These gun owners themselves become the threat.

    Now you are making very general sweeping statements, it isn’t just the “defensive gun use” people but now all gun owners have become the threat.

    280,000,000 firearms in America and less then 500,000 firearm related crimes a year. Meanwhile, violent crimes without firearms are 9 -NINE- times higher.

    Do we see people like you wanting to address a crime problem 9 times that of firearm related crime? Nope.

    Do we see people like you wanting to address the social, cultural issues that underlie the crime problem, Nope.

    You just want to blame the problem of crime on an inanimate object.

    One indication is that they respond disproportionately strongly to these ideas.

    I always like this one. You claim you are just discussing ideas, trying to discuss ways to end the problem….but every idea, every ways ends up with gun owners giving up more of their rights.

    Always love the complaint that we gun owners refuse to “compromise” but not a single change proposed by you increases our rights, not a single idea gives us greater freedom.

    Since 1934 our rights have been eroded and trampled on, when we complain and say NO MORE, we are accused of responding disproportionately. If that is the claim, I’ll take it.

    But I also notice that you respond disproportionately to the idea that you bear responsibility for child porn since you won’t give up the equipment that those people use to commit their crimes. Aren’t you a part of the “FLOW” of equipment to the people who make child porn?
    (By the way, how much of that child porn is produced oversears?)

    How disproportionate was your response? You’ve implemented comment moderation and disallow any comment that calls you on your moral responsibility.

  62. #63 by Becky on April 13, 2009 - 6:00 am

    Just FYI for those who watched the 20/20 segment, that same scenario was played out with a number of different students with varying degrees of prior experience with guns. A separate segment shows the more experienced students who were also unable to perform as they had expected when taken by surprise. Yes the acting wasn’t the greatest, but the students tried to respond as it the situation was real. Most of them were able to draw the gun, unlike the first student, but all had performance problems.

    Bob S, automobile deaths and child pornography are all things that need attention too. But this thread is about guns. You can’t seem to argue about guns without bringing up other issues to try to defend your position on guns. If you want, I’ll start some separate threads on those topics and we can discuss there how to address those particular societal problems. But when we’re on the gun thread, let’s stick to this topic. Bringing in those other things is just a diversion.

  63. #64 by Bob S. on April 13, 2009 - 8:09 am

    Becky,

    But this thread is about guns. You can’t seem to argue about guns without bringing up other issues to try to defend your position on guns.

    And all this time I thought we were talking about our rights. Silly me.

    How does that Second Amendment go again?

    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

  64. #65 by Cliff on April 13, 2009 - 8:39 am

    Bob S,

    You can’t seem to argue about guns without bringing up other issues to try to defend your position on guns.

    Thats because the guns in America issue is about more than just guns. Guns are inanimate objects.

    It take a society to create a culture of guns. It involves stubborn selfish people like you fan the flames of fear and hysteria, and it takes compliant politicians bending to the influence of the NRA to perpetuate bad policy.

    Becky is right and I know you agree. Its not really about guns.

  65. #66 by Bob S. on April 13, 2009 - 9:15 am

    Cliff,

    We finally agree on somethings.

    Guns are inanimate objects.

    Absolutely, guns are inanimate objects. Just like cars, knives, bath tubs and many other objects.

    Its not really about guns.

    I agree with this, but something you can’t seem to understand it is about our rights.

    Just like the right to free speech isn’t about computers, or a typewriter or a quill pen. It is about the right to have those objects to further the right to free speech.

    As far as not being able to argue for our rights without bring in other items. I would rather be in the company of Chief Justice Roberts then yours:

    Chief Justice Roberts, straight out of the Heller team’s playbook, made the First Amendment analogy, asking Dellinger: Would it be constitutionally acceptable for a municipality to ban books as long as newspapers—a viable substitute source of expression—were still legal?

    It is about rights, not the inanimate object. You, Becky and thousands of others continue to call the repeal of our rights. Sorry if I’m not going to let that go unanswered. If you don’t like my argument, prove it is invalid.

    So far, you haven’t been able to do that. All you do is whine “we are talking about GUNS – big scary bad GUNS”.

    It take a society to create a culture of guns.

    Partially agree, it takes a society that creates a culture of violence or not. Sorry but the elephant in the room that you will not talk about is exactly which “sub-culture” in America is having a problem with firearm related crime and violence.

    Why is that Cliff?
    Why not talk about exactly who is killing who and why?

    Why not talk about the crime rates of young urban males, predominately black?
    Why not talk about the crimes and crime rates of those convicted of firearm related violence? Why not talk about the connection to the drug culture and drug use?

    You can argue all day long but in the end, you are right. It isn’t about guns, it is about our rights. You will not infringe on our rights. Enough is Enough.

  66. #67 by jdberger on April 13, 2009 - 9:40 am

    Ha!

    Finally saw the 20/20 episode. That’s great.

    A long cotton t-shirt? Mechanix gloves? Confining and restricting headgear? Retention holster?

    Surely these are all things that I’d be sure to wear as I went about my daily activities.

    What a great way to set up someone to fail.

    And then , to top it off, they show the doofus DEA guy who doesn’t even know how to unload his own pistol, then violates EVERY commandment of gun handling and shoots himself.

    Rich.

    And Bob’s correct, Becky. It’s not about GUNS. It’s about RIGHTS. Always has been.

  67. #68 by Becky on April 13, 2009 - 10:07 am

    You watched only the first incident. There were quite a few. Watch this segment. It has two experienced shooters about 4 minutes in. At the end, Diane Sawyer makes a statement about studies on the effectiveness of gun owners in a crisis situation that I’m sure you’ll disagree with.

    http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=7312687

    I also suggest watching the segment on When Older Kids Find Guns.

    By the way, jd and Bob S, why do you insist we want to take away your guns? Did you not read what I actually said?

  68. #69 by Bob S. on April 13, 2009 - 10:46 am

    Becky,

    I watched all of the “incidents”. They all played out the same way, completely against the known facts of “active school shooters”.

    The police firearm trainer had extensive experience and training in firearms, most school shooters don’t. Most school shooters don’t achieve a hit rate over 50%, the trainer did.

    The police firearm trainer targeted the teacher first, then the armed student. Notice that in the video YOU LINKED TO, the police firearm trainer immediately turns toward the defending student and targets him. Check out video at the 4:15 mark. You can clearly see this. This occurred IN EVERY SINGLE training scenario. The shooter KNEW where the defending student would be. Is that the case in the real world? No.

    The defend student was also sat in the same spot, in the middle of the room, in the first row. Most people with CHL’s would not choose that spot, preferring to be on an aisle, at the back of the room, or both to give themselves more time to react.

    Notice at the 4:02 mark, the ‘shooter’ admits it was only range training. Instruction in how to use the firearm, nothing else. Let’s see them provide some realistic training and then run the scenario.

    Also consider that most people with a CHL are older then 21. I was a student until I was 39, allowing me to develop more experience, have more training. Heck, in Texas even combat trained veterans are not allowed to carry on campus. Let’s see how a typical school shooter would stack up against a veteran.

    As far as the tunnel vision section…that was an obvious set up. The second armed student turned toward the defending student instead of the attacking shooter. I know of no case were a second person sat in a class room until his cohort in crime entered and began the attack.

    In the Second scenario in that clip, the attacker actually pauses to let another student get out of the way. That isn’t the typical pattern either. It was like the attacker had a particular target instead of engaging everyone as fast as he could, not typical of the active school shooter situations.

    As far as the wounded shooter, statistics show that once wounded the shooter normally turns the firearm on themselves. Witness the case of Jean Assam and the New Life Church shooter.

    Also notice that in every case while the shooter was engaging the defender, the rest of the students were able to ESCAPE. Thus saving lives.

    The clip also points out that innocent people could be hit, but NOT ONE OF THE DEFENDING STUDENTS DID HIT another student. Nice emotional touch with the hotel clerk shooting past, BUT NOT HITTING THE BABY. Note that the baby wasn’t HARMED.

    Another aspect is that in a typical college, there will be more then one person with a CHL. Especially if professors are allowed, or encouraged, to carry. Thus, when the criminal starts shooting the armed students will have time to prepare and remove many of the problems noted. At Virginia Tech, professors and students had time to escape out of windows.

    Surely, with that much time to prepare an armed student can draw, take cover and be in a well prepared position to engage the criminal(s) as they walk into the room.

    Becky, you may not want to take away our guns, but you definitely seem to want to limit where we can carry them. What good is a firearm locked up at home if I’m confronting a criminal in the mall parking lot or college campus.

    Also, Cliff and many other have stated their objective is to “ban all handguns”.

    Other pro-ignorance anti-freedom groups have stated they want to confiscate all firearms.

  69. #70 by jdberger on April 13, 2009 - 10:57 am

    Thanks for the link, Becky.

    Here’s an interesting one, too, about armed resistance to “active” shooters.

    The focus in the peices is a little narrow, too. It assumes that the shooter was only going to shoot up that classroom.

    So, our “gun totin’ citizen” has done two things.

    One, she distracted the shooter, ostensibly saving the lives of tens of her fellow students.

    Two, she delayed the shooter long enough so that people in other classrooms could take defensive measures. Clearly, another “gun totin’ student” in another class could draw and train his weapon on the door in case the shooter decided to attack another classroom.

    Diane Sawyer’s statement at the end re the “studies” is a little self serving, don’t you think?

    First there aren’t any studies, and then the ones they found were contradictory.

    Riiiiight….

    Finally, Becky, if you don’t want to “take away our guns” (I’ve never suggested that you did), what is it you want?

    More “reasonable” regulation?

    We have plenty.

    More enforcement?

    I’m in.

    More education (maybe making it as mandatory as learing to put a condom on a banana)?

    I’ll help.

    So – what do you want from us?

    These are my terms.

    I’ll comply with laws and you don’t get my gun. Any of them.

    I’ll agree to background checks at gunshows and between any private party transfers. You agree to National “shall issue” CCW and allow firearms purchases across State lines.

    I’ll agree to child locks. You agree to mandatory firearms training for youth as part of PE.

    Fair?

  70. #71 by Weer'd Beard on April 13, 2009 - 11:43 am

    I like the bit where they hide the gun in the toybox and somehow imply that the end result is indicative of ANYTHING at all.

    God knows if I put lemon pledge in a kid’s sippy-cup I’d have “Results” enugh to ban household cleaners!

  71. #72 by Becky on April 13, 2009 - 11:46 am

    Weerd,

    What did you think of the one where the little girl went directly to the nightstand bottom drawer underneath things where her dad kept a loaded gun that he was sure was not known to her?

  72. #73 by Becky on April 13, 2009 - 11:51 am

    JD and Box S,

    You make valid points about the specific scenario ABC used. However, you have no idea what the scenario might be in real life. My question to you is, do you think by arming more Americans, we are all safer? What percentile do you fall into as far as training? Perhaps the top 10 percent? Do you want someone with little or no training and little target practice shooting up the Burger King when you and your family are there witnessing a robbery?

    As to what I think we should do, I think you guys need to be more forthcoming on that question. You are doing a great job defending your rights, but are doing nothing about solving some of the problems that result from those rights.

    Here’s one idea. However about instead of concealed carry, we have only OPEN carry. In other words, you wear your guns right out in plain view of everyone. Now that would be a deterrent, would it not?

  73. #74 by jdberger on April 13, 2009 - 11:51 am

    What did you think of the one where the little girl went directly to the nightstand bottom drawer underneath things where her dad kept a loaded gun that he was sure was not known to her?

    Daddy should buy a P7M8.

  74. #75 by Anonymous on April 13, 2009 - 11:55 am

    It wasn’t locked up, bad policy. Then on a TV show with a film crew present the little darling goes and finds Daddy’s gun. C’mon, are you really that stupid to believe the thing wasn’t set up?

    Funny thing, when my son was a baby, and we suspected him of nothing, my wife’s credit cards and bank cards went missing. Didn’t know what had happened, had to cancel them, etc, etc. What a mystery.

    When we moved out of the apartment, I moved the kitchen stove for cleaning. Guess what, there they all were, he had taken them at 13 months out of Mama’s handbag AND wallet, and knowing they were very important stashed them under the stove by sliding them through the crack where floor meets stove.

    Your kids know everything. Gun safe, gun lock, no brainer with kids around. We can’t fix stupid, nor can we legislate it away unfortunately.

  75. #76 by jdberger on April 13, 2009 - 12:09 pm

    You are correct, Becky. I have no idea what the scenario might be like in real life. It may even be completly beyond my imagination. I can only prepare for the most likely scenario. I do the same when I engage in any dangerous activity (driving, swimming, etc.).

    Training? I’m better trained than most LEOs (though not most LEOs that I know). I’m better with a firearm than most people I know (though not necessarily most shooters that I know). I’m better with a firearm than most military folks I know.

    I’ve told you what I’m willing to do. Are you willing to meet me halfway?

    I’ve lived in a few places with open carry. I used to carry openly, too. Though I don’t have much of a problem with it, I’d rather have the option to conceal. In open carry states, you can’t wear a jacket that conceals the pistol. That makes winter evenings uncomfortable. Open carry is also socially provocative. I was challenged a few times by folks who were angry that I was carrying a gun. Some people wanted me to draw it so they could see it. I was often asked if I was a police officer.

    The larger deterrent is NOT KNOWING if people around you are carrying guns.

    there is some evidence of a societal benefit from carrying concealed. That benefit is called the “halo effect” or, for the economically inclined, a positive externality of deterrence. This benefit accrues from the fact that some number of people will be carrying at any given moment but no one, included a would-be assailant, knows who is carrying and who is not. Criminals, though socially deviant, are not stupid and can be expected to come up with an assessment of their risk of encountering an armed citizen. The greater the perceived risk, the greater the inhibition to act and, therefore, the more the would-be criminal is deterred. This means that people who don’t carry a gun or would never carry a gun, nonetheless are protected somewhat by the deterrent effect of those who do. If everyone who had a gun only carried openly and no one carried concealed, it would make those not carrying openly prime targets.

    A halo effect associated with gun ownership has been demonstrated. This involves deterring criminal break-ins of occupied homes in the U.S. Research by sociologists David Wright and Peter Rossi into the behavior and attitudes of violent felons revealed that most felons were well-acquainted with the fact that close to half of American households have a gun. Accordingly, they have a strong aversion to breaking in to homes they know to be occupied. The reason most often given: “You’ll get shot.”

  76. #77 by Fools errand on April 13, 2009 - 12:44 pm

    When comparing the rates of property crime and housebreaking/home invasion in the US to Canada for example, the lower mainland of Vancouver BC, has the 2nd highest property crime rate, and subsequent criminal beatings of any city in North America. Don’t believe it? Look it up.

    The #1 city for property crime, Miami, but be reminded we are talking about North America. It gets worse the further south you go.

    The reason the northerly city of Vancouver has more property crime? In a word with the junkies and thieves encountered, their main response is that they generally know homeowners are unarmed. Canadians are pretty polite, even when someone comes kicking their doors in with baseball bats.

    The rash of criminals breaking into homes, beating the hell out of occupants(usually the elderly) and stealing all of value, up to and including bankcards, etc, etc. is most often carried out with a baseball bat. Aluminium, so it doesn’t break while you are beating your victim. The door? They just kick it in.

    As progress goes though the Mexican mob has taken over the drug trade in Van, and this has resulted in 37 murders by gun this year already in the once “safe” city. The cops? Afraid. They don’t have the training, or the weapons, to deal with who they are dealing with now. Look south at our border, it’s the same story. The public has no choice anymore but to train and arm to ensure its own safety.

  77. #78 by Bob S. on April 13, 2009 - 1:59 pm

    Becky,

    My question to you is, do you think by arming more Americans, we are all safer?

    Yes, I think on two parts. The more Americans that are armed and exercise their right to carry arms, the less likely we are to loose those rights.

    Second, criminals fear armed citizens more so then they fear the police

    Fifty-six percent of the felons surveyed agreed that “A criminal is not going to mess around with a victim he knows is armed with a gun;” 74% agreed that “One reason burglars avoid houses when people are at home is that they fear being shot.”

    A 57% majority agreed that “Most criminals are more worried about meeting an armed victim than they are about running into the police.” In asking felons what they personally thought about while committing crimes, 34% indicated that they thought about getting “shot at by police” or “shot by victim.

    What percentile do you fall into as far as training?

    That percentile is changing monthly, as I ever increase my training and range time. I will point out that even in the ABC video, over half the students were able to return fire at the attacker, in spite of the odds; not one hit an innocent victim.

    Do you want someone with little or no training and little target practice shooting up the Burger King when you and your family are there witnessing a robbery?

    The criminals do that all the time. The legally armed citizens aren’t hitting innocent people as often as the police or the crooks.

    A better question to ask is “Do I want only the criminals who are present and the cops who are minutes away to be the only ones with firearms?”

    The cops will try to contain the situation, not immediately rescue victims or subdue the criminal. In the Binghampton shooting, the cops responded on scene in 3 minutes but did not enter the building for over 43 minutes.

    By the way, conduct an experiment or two. Stand 21 feet away from someone and start to call the police. The “criminal” gets to advance and start “attacking you by hitting you gently with a pillow for 3 minutes – 180 seconds — imagine that is the response time for the police.

    Then try another one…have someone try to find your hiding spot in your house, place of employment. The game stops when they find you or 3 minutes is up.

    See how many times you are hit waiting on the police, see how many times you are found by the “criminal”.

    Now, perform another experiment. With a toy gun or stick, perform the same experiments, bu instead of waiting on the police, you engage the “criminal” with your weapon.

    Frankly, I know which set of experiments I’m willing to try in real life and it isn’t waiting on the cops.

    As to what I think we should do, I think you guys need to be more forthcoming on that question.

    Over and over again, we tell you what we need to do. Over and over again we are told it isn’t the criminal it is the ‘availability of guns’.

    1. Address the drug culture and the violence associated with the War on Some Drugs. A sizable percentage of the violence in America is related to drugs.

    2. Address the breakdown in families. Two parent families show significantly less issues with violence, drug use, higher educational achievements, etc.

    3. Enforce the existing laws against violence. Keep violent criminals in JAIL, not on the streets. There is a clear pattern of escalation of violence in career criminals, we need to stop the cycle. Keep the violent criminals in jail, don’t plea bargain down to lesser offenses just to get convictions.

    4. Fix the educational system, there are too many people getting out of high school that can’t perform the most basic tasks required to live in society.

    That is just a quick list.

  78. #79 by Bob S. on April 13, 2009 - 2:05 pm

    Becky,

    Here’s one idea. However about instead of concealed carry, we have only OPEN carry. In other words, you wear your guns right out in plain view of everyone. Now that would be a deterrent, would it not?

    I personally think that Open Carry is a deterrent, it is also a hassle as JD said. It can also be an invitation for the criminals to target that person first.

    I think a better option is letting the person decide; open carry or concealed. Then the criminals have to wonder “If I see X number of firearms openly carried, are there Y more firearms carried concealed, who has them”.

    Are you going to require everyone to carry their weapons openly? Pocket knives, tasers, rat-tailed combs, Pepper spray?

    If you require something of the gun owners, isn’t it fair to require that of the owners of all weapons?

  79. #80 by Anonymous on April 13, 2009 - 2:17 pm

    You have to wonder what Julia Childs would have said, she has cut herself with those damn knives more times than I can count.

  80. #81 by jdberger on April 13, 2009 - 3:11 pm

    OR, we could require people who don’t want others to carry guns to wear a nametag that declares that they are unarmed….

  81. #82 by Becky on April 13, 2009 - 6:33 pm

    JD,

    Upthread a ways you asked if we could meet halfway. I’d be interested in pursuing that thought. That assumes we each might be able to compromise on our positions/opinions in some way. I know that will be hard for both of us, but I’m willing to try. One ground rule – no personal attacks or name calling. Also, I don’t have the endurance or the stomach for lengthy exchanges, so at some point I may just drop out. But if all that is okay with you, let’s give it a try. Do you want to start?

  82. #83 by Cliff on April 13, 2009 - 6:46 pm

    Bob S, We can talk about urban violence, class and race issues but I think guns are an incidental factor.

    Even if you reduce the high number of deaths by gun by the difference between Black and Caucasion or other, we still have a huge problem.

  83. #84 by Cliff on April 13, 2009 - 6:48 pm

    Bob, If you think open carry puts you at risk, perhaps you should consider becoming a faster draw.

    Like quick draw.

  84. #85 by Bob S. on April 13, 2009 - 7:09 pm

    Cliff,

    I”m impressed I am agreeing with you again. I’m not sure if you are choosing your words correctly, but I agree with what you are saying.

    We can talk about urban violence, class and race issues but I think guns are an incidental factor

    Firearms are incidental

    1 a: being likely to ensue as a chance or minor consequence b: minor 12: occurring merely by chance or without intention or calculation

    Remove the reasons for the violence and you remove the firearm related crime. Amazing how we can focus on that and not infringe on people’s rights.

  85. #86 by jdberger on April 13, 2009 - 8:24 pm

    Great, Becky.

    These are my terms.

    I’ll comply with laws and you don’t get my gun. Any of them.

    I’ll agree to background checks at gunshows and between any private party transfers. You agree to National “shall issue” CCW and allow firearms purchases across State lines.

    I’ll agree to madatory child locks. You agree to mandatory firearms training for youth as part of PE.

    We can talk about noise pollution and legalization of sound suppressors a little later.

    • #87 by Becky on April 14, 2009 - 8:08 am

      JD,

      So we are in agreement on background checks at gun shows and private party transfer. In other words, background checks onall gun sales. The state should provide a means for doing the background checks for private sales.

      I don’t agree that all guns should be legal. I think there is a limit to the gun power people need to defend themselves. Let’s discuss this.

      I realize there is the argument that if certain guns are banned, then only criminals will have certain guns. But as Cliff explained earlier, the more of those guns we confiscate and get out of circulation, the fewer will be available to criminals, too. I don’t agree there is a need to have weapons of war in our homes and neighborhoods.

      I don’t know what National ‘shall issue” CCW is, so please explain. I would agree to gun sales across state lines only if the gun registration and other relevant laws of the state where a person resides were still applicable to that person for any weapons purchased. I don’t think residents should be able to circumvent the laws in their own state by purchasing guns in a state not having those requirements. (If you are saying that gun laws should be uniform across all states, I would tend to agree with that.)

      I disagree with states like Utah issuing CCP permits for certification classes conducted in other states. I think each state should be responsible for issuance of permits only for training conducted within their own borders as I don’t see how they could truly ensure proper certification otherwise.

      Frankly, I think it should be very tough to qualify for CCP, that there should be a meaningful proficiency test that includes demonstration of skill, certain number of hours at the gun range, and a theory and safety written test which clearly demonstrates not only a knowledge of the law, but also of penalties in the case of misuse. There must be greater effort to identify individuals who suffer from mental illness and depression, and those individuals most be forbidden from owning guns. CCP should be revoked and guns confiscated from anyone who threatens domestic violence.

      I think that a CCP should be renewed annually, and that renewal requirements should include proof of a certain number of hours of practice at the gun range. Remember. these are people who think they can act in the place of law enforcement in the event of a crime – let’s ensure as much as possible that they will not put the general public at risk because of their lack of practice/skill. This is what I consider to be part of the responsibility of owning a gun.

      I agree with mandatory child locks. And if a gun is used by a minor in an accidental or intentional shooting, the gun owner will be held as responsible as if he/she had committed that act, with corresponding criminal penalties including jail time. I think gun safety theory classes could be taught in public schools but I don’t agree with use of real guns in school for any reason; there is far too much danger of misuse.

      I believe there should be legal penalties for a gun owner whose gun is stolen and used in commission of a crime.

      I think laws should forbid any individual to use a weapon in a public place except strictly in self-defense (your life is literally at risk) and not simply to prevent loss of property. A CCP holder who makes a choice to shoot a gun in a public place, will be held liable for any deaths or injuries he/she causes except to an individual who directly threatened the life of the shooter.

      Bob S, I don’t think it’s practical to simply throw out all existing laws and start from scratch. And I definitely don’t agree that fully automatic and short barrel guns should be legalized.

      Weerd, I’m not including you in my responses as you already broke the name-calling rule (gun grabbers). Sorry.

  86. #88 by Weer'd Beard on April 14, 2009 - 2:00 am

    Becky, have you ever notice how gun-grabbers who talk “Compromise”
    #1. Never talk about repealing ineffective gun law. Nor
    #2. Are actually willing to argue and defend (preferably with data) why the laws they propose will actually be effective, and therefore worth the price gun owners would pay (of course for non-gun owners, you won’t notice a difference).

    I think you’ll notice that most of us will talk about repealing ineffective laws, and WHY they’re ineffective all day, and we come with data by the fistful.

    This is why the gun control issue isn’t just a difference of opinion, but a right and wrong issue.

  87. #89 by Larry Bergan on April 14, 2009 - 2:29 am

    Forget the soap box, ballot box, and the jury box! We’re going strait for the last resort BY GOD!

    We’ll vote through the barrel of a gun!

    Screw the immigrants!

  88. #90 by Bob S. on April 14, 2009 - 3:08 am

    Becky,

    I’ll also jump in on this, you say

    Upthread a ways you asked if we could meet halfway.

    Please remember that halfway doesn’t start with all the current laws in place as far as I’m concerned if we are negotiating. We’ve had decades of laws restricting our rights. We have to start over or at least as Weer’d said repealing ineffective laws.

    Personally, if you want to negotiate, I think that starting with a fresh slate is the best option. That means th 1934 National Firearms Act is removed and fully automatic weapons are easily available, short barreled rifles/shotguns are available easily. etc.

    Repeal that and I’ll agree to a training requirement prior to owning any firearms. But the training requirement will have to be like the driver’s license; it doesn’t matter where you get the training as long as you can demonstrate proficiency and knowledge.

    What do you want to see out of the negotiations?

  89. #91 by Weer'd Beard on April 14, 2009 - 6:16 am

    “Screw the immigrants!”

    The “Progressive” voice has spoken!

    Again note the compleat lack of relevance of his post, while Bob and I actually offer somthing to discuss

  90. #92 by Cliff on April 14, 2009 - 8:26 am

    …but no deal on gun training in PE. Its not physical and seems to lead to large bellies

    …and kids spines are still growing.

    Becky, You should also insist on annual gun registration and renewal plus the same procedure we use for car titles. Every legal gun should have a title that gets transferred with its sale.

    • #93 by Becky on April 14, 2009 - 8:39 am

      Yes, Cliff, I do agree with having a title for a gun, requiring renewal every year.

  91. #94 by Bob S. on April 14, 2009 - 8:40 am

    Becky,

    So you want to start off the “compromise” process but leave the existing laws in place.

    How again is that “compromise”? Isn’t it along the nature of “give up this portion of your rights now or we will take them all”?

    I think there is a limit to the gun power people need to defend themselves.

    Gun ownership isn’t just about the need to defend myself. No more then collecting cars is about the need to transport yourself from one spot to another.

    Some firearms are worthwhile to own for the history. Some are worthwhile to own for the skill in shooting them accurately. A rifle set up for accurate shooting at hundreds of yards is impractical for self defense, but is good for target practice and hunting. Both involved considerable knowledge, skills and development of ability.

    So, it isn’t about need, sometimes we just want different things.

    I realize there is the argument that if certain guns are banned, then only criminals will have certain guns. But as Cliff explained earlier, the more of those guns we confiscate and get out of circulation, the fewer will be available to criminals, too.

    So criminal who have no trouble buying illegal drugs smuggled into the country won’t smuggle in banned firearms?

    The situation in U.K. (an island nation making it easier to enforce its laws) shows that smuggling will occur. Alcohol Prohibition in our own country shows the futility of banning items. In the mean time, since those firearms are illegal they are only less available to the law abiding.

    Much like the current situation with fully automatic weapons covered under the 1934 NFA. Criminals have few problems getting fully automatic weapons – IF THEY WANT THEM — but the average person can’t afford the Multi thousand dollar cost for most of them.

    I don’t know what National ’shall issue” CCW is, so please explain.

    This is much like the driver’s licenses. A state, or federal government, MUST issue a driver’s license to an individual unless they are prohibited. The local government can not decide this or that person doesn’t have a “need” to drive a car.

    A MUST ISSUE CCW is the same, if the person isn’t prohibited and fulfills the requirements (background check, training, photos, finger prints, fee) a license has to be issued to that individual. It is not left to the arbitrary and capricious decision of a local official.

    I would agree to gun sales across state lines only if the gun registration and other relevant laws of the state where a person resides were still applicable to that person for any weapons purchased.

    So the states that have the highest restrictions on firearms get to make the rules?
    Where is the compromise on that? If I wanted to live in a highly restricted state, I would.

    (If you are saying that gun laws should be uniform across all states, I would tend to agree with that.)

    I agree also, let’s find the states with the lowest levels of firearm related crimes and the least restrictive laws and adopt those nation wide.

    Remember, we are trying to compromise on the laws…shouldn’t we go with the laws that allow the most freedom?

    Frankly, I think it should be very tough to qualify for CCP, that there should be a meaningful proficiency test that includes demonstration of skill, certain number of hours at the gun range, and a theory and safety written test which clearly demonstrates not only a knowledge of the law, but also of penalties in the case of misuse.

    This is where I completely disagree. It shouldn’t be difficult to get a CCP/CCW. It should be like a driver’s license. Pass written test showing knowledge of the law, how it applies to various situations, etc and pass a proficiency test with your firearm.

    No required training, no required number of hours because that is very prohibitive to some people with low income or high expenses and moderate income. Unless the state is going to provide that training and range time free of charge to everyone.

    Show you are proficient and knowledgeable, what more do you really need to do?
    That is what the cops do, right?

    CCP should be revoked and guns confiscated from anyone who threatens domestic violence.

    So forget due process of the law, forget guilty until proven innocent, forget the fact that people accuse the spouses of domestic violence on a routine basis just to get an edge in divorce and custody proceedings.

    Nope. That is a deal breaker.

    I think that a CCP should be renewed annually, and that renewal requirements should include proof of a certain number of hours of practice at the gun range. Remember. these are people who think they can act in the place of law enforcement in the event of a crime -

    Becky, read the laws. People who are acting to defend themselves, their property and their families NOT ACTING IN THE PLACE OF THE LAW ENFORCEMENT. They are acting in full compliance of the LAW. People are allowed to defend themselves, that is the law. Should a woman have to convene a grand jury to decide whether or not the man attacking her is trying to rape her or should she be allowed to defend herself then and there?

    I think laws should forbid any individual to use a weapon in a public place except strictly in self-defense (your life is literally at risk)

    So, if someone is trying to steal my money, my car; I can’t use a firearm, a pocket knife, a can of pepper spray to stop them?

    Again, what about rape? The majority of rapes are not life threatening events, are you saying a woman shouldn’t be allowed to use a weapon to defend herself?

    I agree with mandatory child locks.

    Another deal breaker. What about the people that have no children in their homes? Or their children are all over 17? Or How about the fact that most “child locks” are easily defeated, even by the kids?

    Nope, even the Supreme Court said that requiring people to store their firearms in a condition that prevented ready use is unconstitutional.

    And if a gun is used by a minor in an accidental or intentional shooting, the gun owner will be held as responsible as if he/she had committed that act, with corresponding criminal penalties including jail time.

    We have that in the form of criminal negligence already.

    I believe there should be legal penalties for a gun owner whose gun is stolen and used in commission of a crime.

    So a person is going to be charged with a crime because of 2 CRIMINAL ACTIONS OF ANOTHER PERSON?

    That doesn’t make sense at all. The gun owner is a VICTIM. No gun safe is proof against a determined thief, no safe is. All safes are rated in the amount of time it would take to open.

    So a CRIMINAL breaks into my house (Crime #1), steals my firearm (Crime#2), carries it off (crime #3), uses it in the commission of a crime (Crimes #4 &5)….and you want to charge me with a crime. DEAL BREAKER.

    And I definitely don’t agree that fully automatic and short barrel guns should be legalized.

    Why not?

  92. #95 by Bob S. on April 14, 2009 - 9:10 am

    Cliff, Becky,

    Becky, You should also insist on annual gun registration and renewal plus the same procedure we use for car titles. Every legal gun should have a title that gets transferred with its sale.

    Yes, Cliff, I do agree with having a title for a gun, requiring renewal every year.

    What do we get in return? Again compromise is both sides giving up something. This is just a proposal to add more costs (administrative, legal and financial) to the cost of ownership without getting anything in return.

    Not a lot of compromise on your side yet.

  93. #96 by Cliff on April 14, 2009 - 9:20 am

    Bob S,

    Gun ownership isn’t just about the need to defend myself.

    Oh really? I thought that was the governing “Right” in the Second Amendment?

    Show me where 2A says,

    “Some firearms are worthwhile to own for the history. Some are worthwhile to own for the skill in shooting them accurately.

    Don’t bother. It doesn’t.

    You’ve just made an argument for gun ownership as a privilege.

    I wouldn’t do that if I were you. That will hurt your 2A argument more than you probably understand given your incompetent grasp of the Constitution.

  94. #97 by Cliff on April 14, 2009 - 9:33 am

    I finally watched the 20/20 program.

    It was pretty devastating. It didn’t come off as biased either. The evidence clearly stands on its own.

    I was particularly impressed by what seemed to be disgust at the very site of a gun.

    Like it or not, guns, especially hand guns in almost every culture are associated with death and violence.

    The idea that anyone ‘SHOULD’ get gun training is sickening. Good people want to be peaceful. Owning a gun for the average person is simply unacceptable.

    Norton is on C-Span right now talking reality and fact about guns in DC.

  95. #98 by Bob S. on April 14, 2009 - 9:53 am

    Cliff,

    You really are either unable to comprehend the written sentence or trolling for blog traffic. I haven’t been able to decide yet, though I’m leaning toward an inability to comprehend.

    Gun ownership isn’t just about the need to defend myself.

    Note the key words in there, IS NOT JUST.

    Let’s put it in another context of RIGHTS, remember that is what we are talking about.

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

    So, is the right of the people to peaceably assemble only about protesting government actions? Or does it include clubs, organizations, friends getting together.

    The right of the people to assemble ISN’T JUST about protesting.

    So, is the right of the people to have a free press only about newspapers? Or is it about the right to print books, magazines, BLOGS?

    The freedom of the press ISN’T JUST about newspapers.

    Getting the picture? While the right protects the primary reason(s) it also allows many other reasons.

  96. #99 by Weer'd Beard on April 14, 2009 - 9:57 am

    “Like it or not, guns, especially hand guns in almost every culture are associated with death and violence.”

    hence why there’s a huge push in just about all cultures to have uniformed Police and Military carry their sidearms concealed…..oh wait….

    ” Good people want to be peaceful. Owning a gun for the average person is simply unacceptable.”

    Agree with point one (of course Peace takes two willing sides, war only takes one to attack) But if you think the average person doesn’t want to own a gun you haven’t stepped into a gun shop recently, or tried to order somthing like an AR-15.

    “It didn’t come off as biased either.”
    Yeah Cliff, neither does the Glenn Beck show. hehehehe Good one!

  97. #100 by jdberger on April 14, 2009 - 10:33 am

    Bob and I are in agreement for the most part here, but I’ll give a little to get a little.

    Mandatory background checks for all firearm sales (excepting antique and C&R – they are already exempted even in California). Background check shall be of the “instant” variety used in 48(?) of the States. A nominal fee would be acceptible ($10). Interfamilial transfers are exempt.

    Background checks would be valid across State lines. Federal Law would govern firearms. A resident of California could buy a pistol in Kansas, and vice versa. Since firearms law is Federal, there wouldn’t be any “circumvention” of State laws.

    National “shall issue” CCW. I would accept a classroom and proficiency requirement of no more than a weekend. Reasonable fees of $100. National CCW would moot Utah’s issuance of CCP permits. There wouldn’t be any need for State permits anymore.

    Currently, there are provisions for removing guns from people who’ve been served with a restraining order. Accusations of domestic violence are not convictions. They shouldn’t be treated as such.

    I’ll compromise with a 4 year CCW renewal with a ONE day refresher course. Again, fees must be reasonable ($50). Proof of formal training would moot the refresher course requirement.

    I’ll do mandatory child locks to be PROVIDED with the firearm. What people do in their own home is different, and as Bob said, there are already laws on the books to punish people who negligently store firearms.

    No penalties for victims of crimes who’ve had guns stolen. Why victimize them twice?

    Mandatory firearms training in schools. I won’t budge on that. Theory is a bunch of crap without physical training. There is a reason that they have labs when teaching science. (BTW- you’d be suprised at the number of public schools that have rifle ranges in the basement).

    There are already strict laws governing the use of a weapon in public. Let’s retain them.

    I’ll agree to a partial dismantling of the NFA. Machineguns can still be restricted as they are under current law. Short barreled rifles, Short barreled shotguns and suppressors would be removed from the NFA. They never should have been there in the first place and make for a confusing web of laws that oftentimes not even ATF can get right.

    Repeal the machinegun portions of the 1986 FOPA.

    I don’t understand this “power of the gun” argument. I think that discussions of “firepower” and caliber restrictions are trivial and a red-herring – though I’m happy to listen to why you might think differently.

    Registration would be accomplished through the collection of sales/background check records. There wouldn’t be a need to re-register since any transfer would be accompanied by another background check.

    That’s all I can think of for now….

    Becky – I realize that a lot of the terms I’m using are “inside baseball” – so if you need clarification, feel free to ask.

    • #101 by Becky on April 14, 2009 - 11:36 am

      Jd,

      Sorry to be so in and out today, but work has first priority.

      I’ll accept the instant background checks and the nominal fee, but not interfamilial transfers with no background checks. I don’t think we can safely assume that any family member of a legal gun owner should be eligible just by being related. There are any number of reasons a family member might be disqualified.

      If all firearms registration laws and CCP laws were to be Federal, I can agree that one should be able to purchase a gun in any state regardless of their residence. I see this as a big issue with states’ rights people, but for me, I’d be happy with Federal laws.

      Do you really feel one weekend is sufficient training for a person to be qualified for concealed carry? I honestly feel more training is necessary and demonstration not only that they can handle the gun safely and properly, but also that they know when it is and is not appropriate to use that gun.

      I realize there can be false claims of domestic abuse, but I still think guns should be removed from the situation for at least a cooling off period. Perhaps not permanent confiscation. But a good many murders and murder suicides might be prevented.

      I agree that what people do in their own home is up to them, but I still say the gun owner should bear full responsibility for anything a minor child does with that owner’s gun, just as if the owner had committed the act him or herself. We seem far to nonchalant about the gun owner when tragedies occur with children and guns. Gun owners must suffer consequences too.

      Instead of a law penalizing gun owners whose guns are stolen, what about laws mandating steps they must take to ensure the guns are not readily available to anyone simply by breaking and entering. Of course, this gets into the area of “what you do in your own home”, but shouldn’t we expect gun owners to take more than ordinary measures to protect such deadly property?

      I don’t agree to mandatory firearms training in schools–I’m afraid we are at an impasse on that one. Even though owning a gun may be a right, it is not a requirement. I personally would not want to be forced to shoot a gun under any circumstances. Also, it would place an extraordinary burden on schools to hire individuals who are qualified to teach subject ‘x’ (perhaps Health class?) and also be a fully qualified gun instructor. I think training in the use of guns belongs in the private domain.

      You are getting over my level of knowledge with the more technical aspects of specific guns. So perhaps you could explain to me why it was wrong for short barreled weapons, suppressors, and machine guns to be banned. To me these are sensible restrictions. I’ll leave it to others to argue regarding “power of the gun” and “firepower” and calibre issues, as I’m not really qualified to do so.

      I still like the idea of an annual re-registration to ensure the gun is still in the same hands.

      We’ve only made a little progress, jd, but it’s something. Again, I will be gone so much of the day today, I’m going to lag in my responses. I’ll do my best.

  98. #102 by jdberger on April 14, 2009 - 10:36 am

    And it looks like Cliff decided that he didn’t like his new meds…..

  99. #103 by Cliff on April 14, 2009 - 10:47 am

    Bob S,

    I simply can’t respond when you attempt to compare Free speech and “For the purpose of a well-regulated militia.

    You would be laughed right out of any high school classroom.

    2a does not say for the purpose of collecting, entertainment, sport or general diversion let alone self-defense.

    Your interpretation of 2a is already a major stretch with self-defense (since it doesn’t say ‘self-defense’).

    Really Bobby. I never thought I would say this but…you’re better off sticking to the NRA doctrine for you own good before you venture too far off the farm.

    Weer’d what part of the 20/20 program did you find Glenn Beckish? And by Glen Beckish, I mean deliberate lies.

  100. #104 by Cliff on April 14, 2009 - 10:55 am

    I can live with somewhat lowered restrictions for operable ‘arms’ built no more than 50 years after the adoption of the Constitution.

  101. #105 by Bob S. on April 14, 2009 - 10:56 am

    Cliff,

    I understand completely

    I simply can’t respond when you attempt to compare Free speech and “For the purpose of a well-regulated militia.

    Some thoughts are too complex for you, no matter how simple they are in reality.

    Remember the part where showed that even Chief Justice Roberts compared one right with another right?

    I’m sorry the concept is too complex for you to understand. I tried to use as small of words as possible.

    How about this then….I want to collect many different types of firearms because I never know what or who is going to attack me?

    I may “need” a Gatling Machine Gun in case of a Calvary Charge.

    I may “need” a rifle capable of long distance accuracy in case I’m attacked by people hundreds of yards away.

    I may “need” firearms of various eras in case I’m attacked by re-enactors of those periods….would want to make sure I can use their ammunition and supplies against them.

    I may “need” firearms that fire exotic calibers in case everyone uses up the rest of the ammunition.

    In the end, it isn’t about “need”. It is about rights.

    Do you “need” to have a blog when there is quill and parchment available?
    Do you “need” to have high speed presses when hand cranked presses are available?

    Nope and nothing in the Bill of Rights speaks about needs.

  102. #106 by jdberger on April 14, 2009 - 11:04 am

    What’s this, Cliff?

    Cliff Says:

    April 13th, 2009 at 11:04 pm
    So much for the “liberal media.” If I were a jug head, I would be beating the crap out of anyone who watches Fox News ever again. Bullet to the head for being a traitor.

    Clearly, Bob’s analogies don’t register with you because you don’t comprehend “rights”. Obviously, it’s pointless to discuss them with you. Surely, you are fibbing when you assert that you have a College education.

    Lets see those transcripts.

  103. #107 by Cliff on April 14, 2009 - 11:29 am

    JD,

    You are seriously obsessed with my education. I do believe you can simply call UVM and ask them if I graduated.

    But my formal education makes up only part of my authority on the Constitution.

    It just so happens that Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black is my great uncle.

    You may also have noticed that famous Constitutional Scholar Edwin Firmage was our inaugural author on OneUtah and is a very good friend. I had lunch with him just a week ago. Of course, I have spent hours listening to and discussing Constitutional law with him as it is more than just a passing fancy for me.

    It seems gun-freaks like you and Bob seem to have tunnel vision about that document as your only real association with it is a very tenuous understanding of only 1 amendment in the Bill of Rights and zero appreciation of American History, States Rights, the early union and the tremendous challenges assocaited with that history.

    2A was a compromise that was required to get many of the States to sign it, not unlike the pro-gun statute some in Congress are insisting upon before they will vote for the DC voting rights which of course has nothing to do with guns.

    Some things never change huh.

  104. #108 by Anonymous on April 14, 2009 - 11:39 am

    Geeze Cliff, your knowledge of history is very lacking.

    You know very little Colonial history, and what you claim to know is rather skewed.

    Edwin Firmage is a not very well known, except in Utah, where he is excoriated, or on this blog.

    Any Mormons on the blog want to verify his relation to Mr. Black? The geneology thing I mean.

    Compromise or not ,in your fantastic opinion, it is the Law of the Land.

  105. #109 by jdberger on April 14, 2009 - 11:40 am

    You seriously owe me a new monitor.

    Your creds as a Constitutional scholar rest on

    my formal education makes up only part of my authority on the Constitution.

    It just so happens that Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black is my great uncle.

    Bwaaahaaaa! ROLFLMAO!

    And you have a friend who’s a Constitutional Scholar, too! Well then, you’ve surely demonstrated a knowledge to rival luminaries like Lawrence Tribe, Don Kates and Stephen Halbrook.

    I don’t think that they are related to anyone important.

    So, Mr. Constutional scholar – can you please explain to the class how, umm, Cruikshank impacts the Heller decision?

    In case you need a boost, there are 2 Constitutional amendments there.

  106. #110 by Cliff on April 14, 2009 - 11:59 am

    My grandparent were Clifford and Virginia Durr. Black married Virginia’s sister.

    Google it.

  107. #111 by Weer'd Beard on April 14, 2009 - 12:17 pm

    “Weer’d what part of the 20/20 program did you find Glenn Beckish? And by Glen Beckish, I mean deliberate lies.”
    Damn near all of it. Well covered here:
    http://blog.knotclan.com/2009/04/11/if-i-only-had-a-gun/

    “I can live with somewhat lowered restrictions for operable ‘arms’ built no more than 50 years after the adoption of the Constitution.”
    Already done, Cliffy! They’re exempt from any ATF laws reguarding firearms. No background check needed, no permits, hell not serial numbers. You can even build a replica without any paperwork. Jeeze It’s almost like you don’t know what you’re talking about!

    Becky you AMAZE ME!: “Do you really feel one weekend is sufficient training for a person to be qualified for concealed carry? I honestly feel more training is necessary and demonstration not only that they can handle the gun safely and properly, but also that they know when it is and is not appropriate to use that gun……I don’t agree to mandatory firearms training in schools–I’m afraid we are at an impasse on that one. Even though owning a gun may be a right, it is not a requirement. I personally would not want to be forced to shoot a gun under any circumstances.”

    These two thoughts run together are a deadly combination. Firearms exist, and those who are ignorant of them are at the GREATEST danger from accidents. By being against education you’re pro accidents. The same would go for withdrawing sex ed, or drug information from public schools. If kids don’t know what they’re doing they get into HUGE trouble when encountering boogieman X.

    Also I find is breathtaking that you have zero experience or knowlege about firearms, yet you speak like you know what’s reasonable or unreasonable as far as training goes.

    “but shouldn’t we expect gun owners to take more than ordinary measures to protect such deadly property?” Would you propose the same laws for perscription drugs, sharp objects, cars, and poisonous chemicals?

    I think criminal negligence laws work VERY well. If you’re found to be unreasonably unsafe with somthing dangerous (item independant) you can and SHOULD be charged.

    “So perhaps you could explain to me why it was wrong for short barreled weapons, suppressors, and machine guns to be banned. To me these are sensible restrictions.”

    The sound supressor and the auto muffler were invented on the same day by Hiram Maxim. Why? Because they are the same thing. Supressors, just like auto mufflers don’t make a gun silent in any way. They DO make them a LOT less obnoxious, loud, and dangerous to hearing. Many people complain about public gun ranges because of the noise. This can fix some of that. Also in Europe, while their ownership laws are a LOT stricter, most nations supressors can be baught with as much trouble as it’s big brother the auto muffler.

    As far as Short-barreld weapons, it’s all a dumb numbers game and a mix-and-match. You can buy an AR-15 rifle that was made from the factory as a pistol. It will accept an AR-15 buttstock, but suddenly that would become a felony dispite not changing the gun at all. You can buy handguns as powerful as many rifles, and rifles less powerful than most handguns. There’s also the “numbers game” 18″ shotguns are cricket….17.90″ Felony. For rifles it’s 16″ (Why? Long story, but there is no logical reason) 15.5″ felony. Put a rifled barrel on your shotgun….I dunno what’s legal, and nobody could explain to me why.

    I can legally convert an handgun into a rifle, and if the handgun was once a handgun before I can convert it back again…..but I can’t convert a rifle into a handgun EVER without federal permission.

    Hope that somewhat clarifies the stupidity of the NFA for you. I can further clarify if you wish.

    “I still like the idea of an annual re-registration to ensure the gun is still in the same hands.”

    Who’s going to pay for that? As well as all the classes you want?

    Remember we can talk all we want from our high horses, but the people who REALLY NEED guns live in our inner cities, and most often they live there because they are poor. I think they have as much right to protect their lives as somebody who is rich, don’t you?

    Thanks for actually venturing to discuss the issue, Becky. It’s a breath of freash air.

  108. #112 by jdberger on April 14, 2009 - 2:44 pm

    I’ll accept the instant background checks and the nominal fee, but not interfamilial transfers with no background checks. I don’t think we can safely assume that any family member of a legal gun owner should be eligible just by being related. There are any number of reasons a family member might be disqualified.

    Right. There might be some reasons that a relative would be disqualified. However, we have a tradition in this country of inheritance that I’m loath to step on. Perhaps a compromise would be to require an Intra-Familial Transfer form like the one here. The processing fee is a little steep in this case. I’d reduce it to $5.

    If all firearms registration laws and CCP laws were to be Federal, I can agree that one should be able to purchase a gun in any state regardless of their residence. I see this as a big issue with states’ rights people, but for me, I’d be happy with Federal laws.

    Look at the progress we’re making!

    Do you really feel one weekend is sufficient training for a person to be qualified for concealed carry? I honestly feel more training is necessary and demonstration not only that they can handle the gun safely and properly, but also that they know when it is and is not appropriate to use that gun.

    I do. We aren’t training soldiers. We aren’t training police officers. We aren’t training people to actively police their neighborhoods. We aren’t training lawyers. Successful completion of the “shoot test” and the written test demonstrates knowledge and proficiency.

    Gun owners that want to seek out further training can do so. They can also read. Cliff’s favorite author, Alan Korwin, writes a series of Gun Owners Guide books that can be used to flesh out the concepts presented in the classes.

    I realize there can be false claims of domestic abuse, but I still think guns should be removed from the situation for at least a cooling off period. Perhaps not permanent confiscation. But a good many murders and murder suicides might be prevented.

    Take the guns from everyone? Aren’t you dooming a battered wife by doing so? She’s not as strong as the husband. She’s probably not as skilled a fighter as the husband. Why remove her chance to defend herself and her children?

    I agree that what people do in their own home is up to them, but I still say the gun owner should bear full responsibility for anything a minor child does with that owner’s gun, just as if the owner had committed the act him or herself. We seem far to nonchalant about the gun owner when tragedies occur with children and guns. Gun owners must suffer consequences too.

    As Weer’d mentioned previously, there are already laws that deal with this. If you feel that it isn’t prosecuted aggressively enough, advocate for that. We don’t need an additional law that makes it “extra-extra bad”. It would be redundant.

    Instead of a law penalizing gun owners whose guns are stolen, what about laws mandating steps they must take to ensure the guns are not readily available to anyone simply by breaking and entering. Of course, this gets into the area of “what you do in your own home”, but shouldn’t we expect gun owners to take more than ordinary measures to protect such deadly property?

    No. Again, you are punishing the victim twice.

    I don’t agree to mandatory firearms training in schools–I’m afraid we are at an impasse on that one. Even though owning a gun may be a right, it is not a requirement. I personally would not want to be forced to shoot a gun under any circumstances. Also, it would place an extraordinary burden on schools to hire individuals who are qualified to teach subject ‘x’ (perhaps Health class?) and also be a fully qualified gun instructor. I think training in the use of guns belongs in the private domain.

    Exemptions for religious or conscientious objectors would be allowed. NRA qualified instructors are everywhere. It wouldn’t be a big deal to require that the PE coach get in a little extra training. Junior ROTC has senior officers and enlisted men who could run the courses. My 7th grade algebra teacher taught me how to shoot a rifle. He’d lost his family in Austria and vowed to pass on the tradition of arms so it could never happen again.

    Sex, drugs and guns are all things that people will eventually encounter. Why not train kids to deal with them safely?

    You are getting over my level of knowledge with the more technical aspects of specific guns. So perhaps you could explain to me why it was wrong for short barreled weapons, suppressors, and machine guns to be banned. To me these are sensible restrictions. I’ll leave it to others to argue regarding “power of the gun” and “firepower” and calibre issues, as I’m not really qualified to do so.

    I mentioned before that I’m ok with the current NFA regulations regarding machineguns, with the provision that the 1986 FOPA be removed.

    Weer’d makes the case against the short barreled rifles and shotguns being on the list. Regulations are capricious, confusing and unevenly enforced. Suppressors are handy and a polite way to shoot.

    I still like the idea of an annual re-registration to ensure the gun is still in the same hands.

    I don’t. I think it’s a bureaucratic nightmare. Here’s a great example.

    • #113 by Becky on April 14, 2009 - 4:14 pm

      jd,

      We’ve had a good discussion today. If nothing else, we’ve at least shown there can be civility in a discussion between two people of nearly opposite views on guns. And we have found some common ground. I’m going to drop off the thread for now as I’m going to be out this evening, and will let you have the last word.

      Though I remain personally opposed to guns, I’m pragmatic and realize there will be guns all around us, and the best we can hope for is to ensure the public is not made less safe thereby. I have three main areas of concern: children who get hold of guns, guns in the hands of the mentally ill and depressed, and guns in the mix with domestic violence. These are all serious issues that it behooves all of us to address.

      You far outmatch me in technical knowledge, but I represent a practical and common sense viewpoint (and yes, a more peaceful one)–one shared by many women I know. I think both are important in this debate.

      Thanks, jd, for your courtesy and restraint during our discussion. I have learned something, and I feel encouraged that we can at least talk without shouting.

  109. #114 by jdberger on April 14, 2009 - 2:46 pm

    The Use of Deadly Force (General)

    DEADLY FORCE– That degree of force that results in the high probability of death.

    JUSTIFICATION FOR THE USE OF DEADLY FORCE– That behavior by another
    which has caused or imminently threatens to cause death or great bodily harm to you or another person or persons.

    PRECONDITIONS FOR THE USE OF DEADLY FORCE or
    The factors of “Imminent Threat”:

    (1.) The subject must display or indicate the INTENT to cause great
    bodily harm or death to you or another person.
    (2.) The subject must posses a WEAPON capable of inflicting great bodily harm or death. In this context, “weapon” could include empty hand techniques if the subject is much stronger or more skilled than you are, as well as more conventional weapons such as a knife, club, or firearm.
    (3.) The subject must have the capacity/opportunity or DELIVERY SYSTEM
    to use that weapon against you.

    ******************************************************

    DEADLY FORCE — That degree of force that a reasonable and prudent person would consider to be capable of causing death (or great bodily harm).

    GREAT BODILY HARM — A crippling injury, either temporary or permanent in effect.

    HOMICIDE — The killing of a human being by a human being.

    MURDER — The intentional killing of a human being by another human being.

    JUSTIFICATION FOR THE USE OF DEADLY FORCE — to protect against an
    immediate and otherwise unavoidable danger of death or great bodily harm to the innocent.

    ********************************************************

    ABILITY — to possess the power to deliver deadly force.

    OPPORTUNITY — to be capable of immediately employing that power.

    JEOPARDY — acting in such a manner as to demonstrate the intent
    to use deadly force. Would a reasonable and prudent person believe that
    the actor had deadly intent?

    PRECLUSION — did you have the ability to avoid the threat without placing
    yourself in greater danger?

    DISPARTITY OF FORCE — was the aggressor significantly larger, stronger,
    or more skilled than you were, so that empty hand combat would place you in
    danger of death or great bodily harm?

    *******************************************************
    Terminology will change from state to state, but the basic principles are pretty universal. Become accustomed to the verbiage used in your state.

  110. #115 by Cliff on April 14, 2009 - 4:01 pm

    Hey Anonymous,

    I’ve changed your name to Anon Punk for everyones convenience. Not that you have contributed anything of value which is why I suppose, you are anonymous.

    If you can show me where I’ve made death threat, I will send you a $25,000 reward.

    Hypotheticals don’t count.

  111. #116 by jdberger on April 14, 2009 - 4:12 pm

    Don’t do it. Cliff won’t pay. Don’t you already owe me a million dollars?

  112. #117 by Cliff on April 14, 2009 - 4:15 pm

    Weer’d, If you consider this Well covered here:
    http://blog.knotclan.com/2009/04/11/if-i-only-had-a-gun/ to ‘well cover’ the Glenn Beck like distortions in the 20/20 program titled “If I Only Had A Gun” its no wonder you are a Glenn Beck fan.

    I attempted to read it, but has to stop out of self-respect when he says,

    “In the space of four months, up to nine Americans died as a result of bacteria-laden peanut butter crackers, and the government quickly took action.””

    Such stupidity seems to be par for the course of the gun-freak crowd.

    This seems to be the best argument against the 80 deaths/day by gun. Is it really the best argument you guys can muster.

    Weer’d the emperor hath no clothes.

    I’m trying to help here as I did for Bob who is now trying to claim 2A protects the right to own a gun for collecting.

    Do your side a favor. Tell everyone to stop using the ‘other thing kill people too.

    Unless that ‘other thing’s primary purpose is to kill another human, really, you should STFU for your own benefit.

    I have yet to meet an intelligent gun-freak attempt such a lame argument.

  113. #118 by Weer'd Beard on April 14, 2009 - 4:48 pm

    Wow, Cliff. I see what Bob means about your illiteracy.

    #1. I’m not a Beck fan in any way shape or form. Never claimed to be, and likely I have spoken against him here.

    #2. That lovely peanutbutter quote is not from the kind of republican you’re implying. Instead it’s from Republican Paul Helmke, head of the Brady Campaign.

    Sorry that quote is what YOUR side is saying.

    The rest of your drivel just further shows why the above discussion with Becky is a rarity, and what side is at fault for the breakdown of talks.

    BTW Becky, why did you get so upset at me for using the term “gun-grabber” (which was more generally directed. And while Cliff has openly admitted to that being a fitted moniker, it certainly doesn’t apply to you, and I apologies for any such implications) Why do you turn a blind eye to your own compatriot’s crude behavior?

    • #119 by Becky on April 14, 2009 - 10:03 pm

      Weerd,

      Just by way of explanation, I was intrigued when jd asked if we could meet halfway. I thought it would be an interesting experiment for us to try while keeping the discussion civil. We managed to do that, and found some agreement, even though we didn’t really make it halfway. Yes, it was the gun-grabber comment that made me decide not to respond to you. Mainly because I wanted to follow through with the experiment. But also, I don’t handle the barrage from all directions as well as Cliff does. And you may know by now, I don’t take Cliff to task any more than I do you or Bob or jd, because you can all take care of your own defenses, and I, too, can be sarcastic, acerbic, insulting, in turn myself (although I’d like all of you to think I’m really really nice all the time).

  114. #120 by jdberger on April 14, 2009 - 5:55 pm

    I can only speak for myself – but Becky and I were trying to skip the pejoratives.

    This can be done with Becky, occasionally with Richard, sometimes with Larry but never with Cliffy.

    Cliffy’s just angry. Angry that people are more intelligent, better educated, better spoken, more successful and in better shape.

    Cliffy can’t help being rude. It’s the only way anyone will pay attention to him. So he sticks his finger in his nose, ratchets up the flatulence and drunkenly screams at traffic in his bathrobe.

  115. #121 by Eseell on April 14, 2009 - 6:17 pm

    I’ve edited my post on the 20/20 special to make it even more clear that the “peanut butter quote” is not mine. Thanks for setting him straight, Weer’d.

  116. #122 by Cliff on April 14, 2009 - 6:29 pm

    Fine Eseell. It wasn’t your quote.

    Nevertheless, you did choose to put it up. You could have selected many things to write about.

    Why did you choose the peanut butter argument?

  117. #123 by Eseell on April 14, 2009 - 6:34 pm

    Because it was quoted in the show by a man identified as a spokesperson for the Brady Campaign within the first minute. Did you watch the show?
    Edited to add: I’ve edited my blog post to clarify that the quote is part of the show, because I can see how it might be read otherwise. I apologize for the lack of clarity, I’m an engineer by education and profession, not a writer. Part of my stated purpose for blogging is to improve my writing skill.

  118. #124 by Cliff on April 15, 2009 - 12:29 am

    Becky,

    Its like they are expecting you to be the acceptable behavior cop like how a kid demands justice from his mom.

    ..As if somehow you should condemn my behavior like you are their Mom.

    Spineless doesn’t cover it anymore. They’re Moma’s boys too. Spineless Moma’s boys.

    Does it make you feel icky to have gun freaks trying to bond with you?

  119. #125 by jdberger on April 15, 2009 - 12:41 am

    No, Cliffy.

    Again you have it all wrong.

    We can talk to Becky because she’s not wacked out of her mind on booze and pills. She’s rational.

    You, on the other hand….

    Where are those transcripts, liar-boy?

  120. #126 by Weer'd Beard on April 15, 2009 - 2:00 am

    Glad to see the dialogue starting here, Becky. Since you don’t think we’ve quite met halfway yet, maybe you can present a rebuttal?

    I’m sorry there was some confusion on our feelings on the matter, but I think you can understand our confusion. You have people like Cliff who refuse to discuss the issues, instead chooses to sling insults and change the subject. He’s bounced everywhere from taking all guns, to more “moderate” ones.

    In general on this issue when the word “Compromise” comes up it’s always brandished by the anti-gun side, and almost always the anti electing to drop a SMALLER infringement of freedom (always with no discussion nor proof that such infringement would at all accomplish the goal at hand) rather than a MASSIVE infringement.

    It also doesn’t help your image much siding with the likes of Cliff, as it only adds to the interference we pick up.

  121. #127 by mikeb302000 on April 15, 2009 - 4:05 am

    You know, I haven’t really heard the anti-gun folks using the word “compromise” as often as I’ve heard the pro-gun folks saying they did. I think this is a typical strategy, attribute something to someone, repeat it till it starts taking a credibility of its own. It’s a shabby tactic for someone to use if they have a good argument.

    I personally never talked about compromise. That’s because I don’t think it applies. We need gun laws that are universal and enforceable; we need them as a matter of public safety. Since when do we compromise on something like that?

    To say there should be no restrictions on machine guns and automatic weapons, like Bob did, is laughable. The extreme Libertarians, the so-called 3 percenters and the rest of the radical gun factions need to give up some of their “rights.” It’s not a question of bargaining or bartering. They keep saying they’ve been unfairly put upon in recent years, but it’s just the opposite.

    The only problem now is our newly elected president doesn’t seem to want to do the business.

  122. #128 by Becky on April 15, 2009 - 4:37 am

    Mike says it very well. Talk of compromise is all very well, but lawmakers have a duty to do the right thing for public safety. Our little discussion only illustrates how far apart the sides are.

    And please everyone, I’m not ready for sainthood. Everyone here (including our regular commenters) can dish it out in good form, and no-one has any room to whine about harsh treatment. Cliff and I agree more than we disagree, but we neither consult nor even discuss our views apart from in this forum. And I happen to like Cliff’s style–you guys don’t know when he’s serious and when you’re being played.

  123. #129 by jdberger on April 15, 2009 - 8:01 am

    OK, Mike. Let’s compromise.

    What do you think of the proposals I made? There’s a bit of give and take there.

    What are your thoughts?

    National CCW
    Mandatory education.
    Child locks.
    Federal gun law instead of State.
    Elimination of State residency restrictions.
    Legalization of SBRs and SBS.
    All transactions thru FFL.

    What else would you want, and what are you willing to give to get it.

    That’s compromise, isn’t it?

    Otherwise, all the “compromise” talk I hear involves me compromising my Rights so you don’t have to worry about wetting the bed.

    Your serve.

  124. #130 by PeaceMom on April 15, 2009 - 8:20 am

    JD,

    How do your compromises, ‘compromise’ your right to carry a gun? I see nothing in your compromise that would make it any more difficult for a law-abiding citizen to carry a weapon for self-defense than it is now.

    I’m asking because I dont know current law so well.

  125. #131 by Bob S. on April 15, 2009 - 8:33 am

    Peace Mom,

    How about the weekend requirement for classes (which I disagree with)?
    Most people can not afford an entire weekend dedicated to getting the basic license, just in time alone. The cost for classes are also prohibitive for many people. Increasing the MANDATORY training requirements increases the barriers to exercising a fundamental right.

    Should all bloggers be required to take a mandatory 2 day class on the laws about fraud, slander, copy right infringement before they are allowed to post?

    Also, the “back ground check” requirement on all private transactions is ridiculous. I was gifted with a couple of firearms from my father when his health started failing. Now, people want that “transaction” to have approval from the government and we have to pay for the privilege. No thanks.

    So, if I wanted to buy a firearm for my child as a gift I would have to pay for the firearm, undergo a background check. Then before I could “transfer” it to that child, I would have to pay for another background check.

    Also, the cost of child locks are not going to be written off by the firearm manufacturer. Those costs are going to be passed on to each individual buyer. Increasing the costs and making carrying a firearm less affordable.

    Compare these requirements to the requirements in the state of Alaska and Vermont. Both states allow a citizen to carry a firearm without training, without a license I believe.

    And the crime rate in those states are low; lower then most states that have strict gun control laws and licensing requirements.

  126. #132 by jdberger on April 15, 2009 - 9:42 am

    I got you, Bob.

    I’m making some trades here.

    I’ll do mandatory background checks in exchange for ditching the State residency rule. The “intra-familial check” is just a form to be mailed in. I’m not sure how a transfer to a minor child would work – and as I said before – I’m loathe to interfere with current laws regarding inheritance.

    I’m pretty sure that the child-lock thing is Federal, now. Most cost a couple bucks at most. I’m willing to trade it for mandatory public school firearms training.

    Like I said before – I’m willing to give a little to get a little.

  127. #133 by PeaceMom on April 15, 2009 - 9:45 am

    That is very helpful Bob. I honor your reverence for your Father and the intimacy of his gift to you. Coincidentally, my Father left several old guns to us kids too, but he never specified which of us should have them.

    My brothers insisted I take the pistol which really touched me because we all grew up shooting it and my Dad tried to give it to me when I went away to college.

    I admit I was relieved when I found out my college did not allow guns because I didn’t want the hassle or the ridicule. Guns were very not cool in the seventies anyway, especially after the Kent State shooting.

    I thought about about that gun from time to time during my Freshman year and how crazy dorm life was. With all the drugs and drinking, the idea that anyone might have a gun was frightening.

    Of course, I could never have told my Dad the truth about the partying. I was just glad the rules prohibited it because Dad was so insistent.

    I too cherish my family heirlooms but I refused to take the pistol even though I had fond memories of Dad teaching us to shoot and hunt. He was very very strict about gun etiquette.

    I’ve never taken that gun. We left it with my Mom who probably doesn’t even know where it is.

    I don’t need the hassle. But the truth is its too dangerous to have around kids, any kids. I know what kids do with guns when Dad (or Mom) is not watching.

    It still bothers me that its there. I worry that my kids may (or already have) found it. I wish my Mom would just throw it away, but my brothers would go crazy.

    So I am conflicted because there is no need for that gun and it only represents a threat to everyone. If there was a law that required my Mom to register it, she wouldn’t do it and I could force my brothers to take it or dump it.

  128. #134 by jdberger on April 15, 2009 - 9:47 am

    PeaceMom – your colors are showing.

    I thought that the object of this exercise was to keep guns out of the hands of those who would misuse them.

    PeaceMom Says:

    April 15th, 2009 at 8:20 am
    JD,

    How do your compromises, ‘compromise’ your right to carry a gun? I see nothing in your compromise that would make it any more difficult for a law-abiding citizen to carry a weapon for self-defense than it is now.

    Why would you want to restrict the rights of the law-abiding?

    Further, carrying of arms is a RIGHT enumerated in the Constitution. You’re asking that I assent to restrictions of that right. Shouldn’t YOU be compromising?

    It is as if I took all the money in your wallet, and then said that I’d compromise and give you half back.

  129. #135 by Cliff on April 15, 2009 - 10:03 am

    Somehow, I missed this one.

    An AP brief on Apr. 8th reported:

    CASSELBERRY, FL: Authorities in Casselberry, Florida say 44-year-old Marie Moore walked up behind her 20 year old son Mitchell Moore and shot him in the head at point blank range– then shot herself.

    Mitchell Moore died at the scene. His mother died at a hospital.

    In notes and audio recordings found by family members, Marie apologized, but said she had to quote “send my son to heaven and myself to hell”.

    Family members told police that Marie Moore had a history of mental illness.

    I think this scenario is a good reminder that even when surrounded by armed and trained gun shooters, no one was able to protect this boy.

    Truth is, for every 1000 gun deaths, there are exactly ZERO instances of a Defensive Gun Use (DGU) statistically speaking.

  130. #136 by Bob S. on April 15, 2009 - 10:13 am

    Cliff,

    Want to define what you mean by Defensive Gun Use?

    Are you like Kellermann who insisted on defining it as a firearm usage that ended up with criminal dying?

  131. #137 by Cliff on April 15, 2009 - 10:38 am

    Bob S,

    I’m willing to go with a simple discharge of a weapon in self-defense that averted a confirmed attempted personal assault. (i.e flashing your gun at an unarmed thief who is trying to steal your car is not self-defense, it car loss defense.)

    Any such event would have to be investigated by police and therefore something you could actually confirmed, as opposed to some erroneous claim made in response to a phone poll.

    I mean Bob, can you produce more than like ONE verified DGU in the past year? One would think that the NRA would highlight such events?

  132. #138 by Cliff on April 15, 2009 - 10:54 am

    JD,

    Why would you want to restrict the rights of the law-abiding?

    you ask?

    I believe we are talking about a clear path for gun ownership for law-abiding citizens. To say that a simple background check constitutes a restriction of rights is hyperbolic.

    You can’t just decide that a painless process designed to protect the public, the applicant, and the applicants loved ones is somehow a restriction of rights.

  133. #139 by Bob S. on April 15, 2009 - 10:58 am

    Cliff,

    Yet people like you scream loudly that a simple photo identification requirement to vote is a restriction of rights.

  134. #140 by jdberger on April 15, 2009 - 11:01 am

    What? Are you really retarded, Cliffy? Terminally stupid?

    Will you admit you are wrong if I can post ONE DGU since January 1, 2009?

    How about if I can post 12?

    There are about 12,000 homicides committed with a gun each year. You claim that

    there are exactly ZERO instances of a Defensive Gun Use (DGU) statistically speaking.

    I suggest that you are not only bad at math but a habitual liar and an admitted inebriate.

    So, Fatty? Are you gonna take the challenge?

  135. #141 by Cliff on April 15, 2009 - 11:18 am

    JD,

    I’m not sure how asking Bob to post evidence of a DGU make me a habitual liar so moving on.

    I believe I’m the the one that challenged Bob to post more than one. I didn’t claim that it was impossible. I simply challenged him to do so.

    One can’t help but wonder why you are so defensive about DGU. But it is also hard not to notice that you guys never do show us examples. I have to assume that you would be throwing it in our faces if you could.

    So here I am again, being called all kinds of names and still no examples.

    Just show me so we can discuss the reality about DGU’s.

    btw: Don’t forget to check my next DEVASTATING (for the gun-lobby) top post.

  136. #142 by jdberger on April 15, 2009 - 11:24 am

    How about $100 for each one I can find in April?

  137. #143 by jdberger on April 15, 2009 - 11:30 am

    We do demonstrate examples, Cliffy.

    C’mon.

    You said that there aren’t 12 DGUs per year.

    I say that I can find them.

    How about $100 for each one I find in April of this year. The month is only half over. Clearly you must think that you’ve a decent chance, no?

    Chicken?

    Don’t have the courage of your convictions?

    All hat, no cattle?

  138. #144 by Cliff on April 15, 2009 - 11:51 am

    Where JD?

    You said that there aren’t 12 DGUs per year.

    Show me. Show me where I said that.

    Maybe you should spend less energy insulting me and generally running your mouth and more energy defending your absurd claims.

    I still don’t see a recent example of a DGU to contrast the 80 or so people who will be shot and killed TODAY with a perfectly legal weapon.

    You also have not explained how background checks restrict your right to carry a gun.

    I’ll wait some more…I suppose.

  139. #145 by jdberger on April 15, 2009 - 12:02 pm

    This is what you said, Cliffy.

    Truth is, for every 1000 gun deaths, there are exactly ZERO instances of a Defensive Gun Use (DGU) statistically speaking.

    Since there are about 12,000 people murdered per year with guns, 1 per 1,000 translates to 12 per year.

    So. How about it?

    Gonna back off. Admit you are wrong? Or, if not, are you willing to put your money where your mouth is?

  140. #146 by Cliff on April 15, 2009 - 12:17 pm

    I said gun deaths. Yes, that includes suicides and accidents. Only ass wipes try to exclude those.

    So lets go with a the projected numbers…about 30,000.

    What would you consider a statistically relevant number of DGU’s? 1%? 2%?

    If so, you would be alone among statisticians.

  141. #147 by Cliff on April 15, 2009 - 12:26 pm

    Still waiting JD.

    I’m gonna guess you can’t come up with any recent DGU per my very loose criteria (looser than Kellerman).

    I don’t mean to anger you JD. I’m sorry about the ass wipe comment. I hope you will continue to negotiate with Becky. Its probably more productive use of our time than embarrassing you relentlessly.

    You should be commended for your bravery. You could just hang out on the idiot blogs where everybody ignores the facts and fantasizes about killing people.

    But they are classic cowards, too intellectually deficient to attempt an argument in between beyond calling me a pill-popping drunk.

    At least you intersperse a pitiful comment on the subject between every three or for personal insults.

  142. #149 by jdberger on April 15, 2009 - 12:32 pm

    trapped in moderation – and turn off the music. It was amusing at first, and I like Reggae as much as the next guy – but it’s getting annoying and chews up bandwidth.

  143. #150 by jdberger on April 15, 2009 - 12:44 pm

    So, do you need another 17 for the other 3 months that have passed, or can you put your High School algebra to work, Cliffy?

  144. #151 by Cliff on April 15, 2009 - 12:50 pm

    Try again JD,

    Killing someone who is robbing a pharmacy or stealing a boat is not self-defense.

    Let me help you. The idea that everybody should carry a gun to prevent someone from stealing a boat is NOT something you want to hold as justification for all the mass shootings this month. Is it?

    I asked for examples of self-defense, not defense of property.

    If you need to steal my boat, I don’t need to KILL YOU. But I will find you and get my boat back and I might call the police and have you arrested and you might even go to jail.

    Again I ask; how is killing a boat thief evidence of the need for unrestricted gun ownership?

  145. #152 by jdberger on April 15, 2009 - 1:01 pm

    You are retarded, aren’t you, Cliff? Or shit-faced again (in your defense – it is after noon).

    The guys trying to steal the boat were doing that as the boat was headed down the highway. They were shooting at the tow vehicle.

    I’ll leave it up to you to get James to read the rest to you. You’re probably too wasted to make much sense of them now.

  146. #153 by Bob S. on April 15, 2009 - 1:26 pm

    Cliff

    You said:

    I mean Bob, can you produce more than like ONE verified DGU in the past year? One would think that the NRA would highlight such events?

    I’m willing to go with a simple discharge of a weapon in self-defense that averted a confirmed attempted personal assault.

    Here’s one,

    From the April 11, 2009 Denver Post:

    A man armed with a box cutter pushed his way into an Aurora home early Friday morning and attacked a male guest who was sleeping on the couch before the intruder was shot to death by the man who lived there, police said.

    The alleged attacker, who has not been identified, knocked on the back door of a single-family house at 1672 Jamaica St. around 3 a.m. The man who lived in the house went to the door but was pushed aside by the intruder, police said.

    After a brief scuffle, the intruder went into the living room where Frank J. Sanchez, 18, was sleeping. The intruder began attacking Sanchez, who woke up and started fighting back, Detective Shannon Lucy said.

    Meanwhile, the resident went into his bedroom, pulled out a pistol and shot the intruder dead, according to police.

    “We don’t consider this a random burglary or robbery,” Lucy said Friday afternoon. She didn’t identify the resident of the house, who is not considered a suspect in a crime and was not taken into custody, she said.

    Sanchez, wanted on an outstanding burglary warrant in Kansas City, Kan., was arrested.

    How about this second one: A robbery attempt but the male victim was shot. Guess that meets your qualification of attempted assault, eh?

    From Today’s THV of March 24, 2009

    LR Man Defends Wife, Wounds Would-Be Robber

    A trip to Wal-Mart on Cantrell Road ended in a violent struggle for a Little Rock couple.

    It happened around 11:20 p.m. Monday night in a Wal-Mart parking lot off Cantrell Rd and Chenal Parkway.

    Police say the couple tried to get away from the man, but when it didn’t work, they took action.

    Monday night, Jamie Bitely left the store and walked into what police say was a couple turning the tables on a would-be robber.

    “The first thing I heard was the first gun shot and that’s when I turned to see what was going on,” says Bitely.

    “That’s when I saw the man who was apparently the victim and I seen him fire the his fire arm [SIC] a couple more times at that time that’s when I laid down on the ground until the shots stop,” says Bitely.

    According to the police report, a husband and wife were unloading groceries into their Jeep when a man wearing a wig and cap allegedly confronted them, pointing a gun. At that point, the report says the suspect said “‘This is a robbery'” and went after the woman’s purse.

    Police say the suspect allegedly hit the woman and ripped the bag from the woman’s arm. Police say that’s when her husband took action.

    Sgt. Cassandra Davis says the husband fired at Jonathan Terry, hitting him in the rear end.

    “The husband than retrieved his own personal weapon. He did ask the suspect to release his wife and the purse. The suspect refused,” says Sgt. Davis.

    Police say Terry jumped into a waiting car and his friends, Sherry Battle and Tequila Rice drove him to UAMS. “They were at the hospital and our officers took those individuals into custody also,” explains Sgt. Davis.

    All three are facing Aggravated Robbery Charges. This news put some witnesses like David Rollins only slightly at ease. “I’m a little bit more scared going to Wal-Mart late at night,” says Rollins.

    Police say Battles and Rice fought with officers and are also facing battery charges.

    Today’s THV has the couple’s names, but since they haven’t been charged with a crime, we’ve decided not to mention them to protect their privacy.

    Now on to your ridiculous definition,

    I’m willing to go with a simple discharge of a weapon in self-defense that averted a confirmed attempted personal assault.

    Here is one from the same site, it appears the district attorney doesn’t agree with you about property…he labels this action : justifiable homicide.

    Police: Man Shoots Intruder

    Police say a Botetourt County man shot and killed another man who broke into his home Friday night. It happened on Houston Mines Road in the Nace area of the county. Police say the intruder was able to get into the home and that’s when the resident shot him. But first police say he secured family members in a locked bedroom. The Sheriff’s Department is not releasing the resident’s identity. But deputies say someone showed up at the home at around 10:40 Friday night yelling and threatening to break in. The resident called 911 and loaded his 12-gauge shotgun. We’re told he only fired after the intruder used a patio chair to break-in through a glass sliding door. Joel Branscomb, Commonwealth’s Attorney – “Those are circumstances that would make it a justifiable homicide. Now, we will review it and make sure that’s what happened.” Carrie May, Neighbor – “If you are breaking into my house, you are breaking the law. And on top of that, I don’t know if you are going to threaten my life or not. So I should be able to defend myself.” We spoke with a woman at the home off-camera. She was visibly shaken and told us she could not talk about what happened. Officials have some ideas about who the intruder was but are not releasing any information until they know for sure. At this point, they don’t believe the men had any connection.

    You say that a person has to actually discharge a firearm for it to be an acceptable DGU. It is illegal to discharge a firearm in most locations unless you are shooting at someone. So either you want people to break the law or you want to encourage people to shoot at criminals more often. The second one I don’t have a problem with, it is the chances a criminal takes when they break the law.

    Then you try to limit it to “confirmed attempted physical assault”. What defines that, do I have to wait for a criminal to announce he /she is going to assault me, do I wait for the grand jury to determine it, do I wait for the person to actually try to strike me?

    What happens if the person announces (s)he is going to attack me, is that sufficient “confirmation”?

    Then according to your definition once so confirmed, if the attack is stopped by the presence or presentation of a firearm, it doesn’t count. Ridiculous.

    Then there is the exemption of property from your definition.

    How about a person attempting to steal a contractor’s vehicle containing all of his/her work equipment. That is more then stealing a person’s property, it is removing the means of earning a living. Shouldn’t a person be allowed to protect their means of earning a livelihood?

    How about someone stealing a person’s prescription drugs?
    As in this case: (also from Clayton Cramer’s blog)

    Gunfight breaks out during attempted robbery

    A gunfight broke out in a Palm Coast neighborhood early today during an attempted robbery.

    Gunfire erupted when a man armed with a silver handgun attempted to rob a man who had just returned home on Folcroft Lane after purchasing a prescription at a local pharmacy, Flagler County Sheriff’s Office investigators said. They are still looking for the gunman.

    The resident had just returned from a Walgreens store on Palm Coast Parkway at 1:11 a.m. with his medications. As he was getting out of his car, deputies said the gunman rushed into the garage and demanded the drugs.

    In an attempt to scare off the intruder, the man said he yelled as loud as he could. Instead of fleeing, the intruder took a shot at him., deputies said.

    The resident wasn’t hit but quickly retrieved his own handgun and began shooting back at his assailant.

    Nobody was hurt, although a car parked in the neighbor’s driveway was hit with one of the rounds, according to a news release.

    “We need to identify this individual and get him off the streets,” said Sheriff Donald Fleming.

    The intruder is described as a black male, 5-foot-7, wearing a white shirt and dark pants. He fled the area in a green Dodge Caravan, deputies said.

    Anyone with information is being asked to call the Flagler County Sheriff’s Office at 386-313-4911 or CrimeStoppers at 1-888-277-TIPS (8477).

    Some drugs are literally life saving medications, but those drugs are defined as property. Shouldn’t a person have a right to defend the property in this case?

  147. #154 by Cliff on April 15, 2009 - 1:39 pm

    Thank you Bob,

    It appears you have indeed identified 2 incidents that clearly qualify as DGUs.

    Your questions about the right to defend your property raise some legal issues I am not qualified to address.

    Is it OK to shoot someone who is not threatening personal harm? I don’t really know the answer. I know I wouldn’t kill someone who is trying to steal from me.

    Property theft takes many forms. Fraud for example. Is there a material difference between the criminal who grabs your wallet and the criminal who deliberately over charges you for a product or service?

  148. #155 by Bob S. on April 15, 2009 - 1:42 pm

    Cliff,

    By the Texas also doesn’t agree with you on your definition. I knew I liked living in this state for a reason.

    TITLE 2. GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY
    CHAPTER 9. JUSTIFICATION EXCLUDING CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY
    SUBCHAPTER A. GENERAL PROVISIONS

    …Sec. 9.04. THREATS AS JUSTIFIABLE FORCE. The threat of force is justified when the use of force is justified by this chapter. For purposes of this section, a threat to cause death or serious bodily injury by the production of a weapon or otherwise, as long as the actor’s purpose is limited to creating an apprehension that he will use deadly force if necessary, does not constitute the use of deadly force.

    …Sec. 9.41. PROTECTION OF ONE’S OWN PROPERTY. (a) A person in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other’s trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property.

    Sec. 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:

    (1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and

    (2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

    (A) to prevent the other’s imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or

    (B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and

    (3) he reasonably believes that:

    (A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or

    (B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

    Heck, it doesn’t even have to be a person’s own property that is being protected.

    Sec. 9.43. PROTECTION OF THIRD PERSON’S PROPERTY. A person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property of a third person if, under the circumstances as he reasonably believes them to be, the actor would be justified under Section 9.41 or 9.42 in using force or deadly force to protect his own land or property and:

    (1) the actor reasonably believes the unlawful interference constitutes attempted or consummated theft of or criminal mischief to the tangible, movable property; or

    (2) the actor reasonably believes that:

    (A) the third person has requested his protection of the land or property;

    (B) he has a legal duty to protect the third person’s land or property; or

    (C) the third person whose land or property he uses force or deadly force to protect is the actor’s spouse, parent, or child, resides with the actor, or is under the actor’s care.

    That sure sounds like you don’t have a legal leg to stand on in your definition.

  149. #156 by Cliff on April 15, 2009 - 2:34 pm

    That sure sounds like you don’t have a legal leg to stand on in your definition.

    My definition of what Bob? Are you referring to my statement:

    Your questions about the right to defend your property raise some legal issues I am not qualified to address.

    Is it OK to shoot someone who is not threatening personal harm? I don’t really know the answer.

    Am I missing something, or did you just decide, “I don’t really know the answer” is some sort of definition.

  150. #157 by jdberger on April 15, 2009 - 2:38 pm

    Bob identified 2.
    I identified 13.

    Cliff desperately tries to change the subject.

    So, Bob?

    What’s your opinion of the 6.8 SPC? Love it? Hate it? Prefer the Grendel?

  151. #158 by Bob S. on April 15, 2009 - 2:50 pm

    Cliff,

    YOUR DEFINITION OF A DEFENSIVE GUN USE.

    Honestly Cliff it is becoming apparent you have no reading comprehension skills or you are trolling for traffic.

    Notice that the legal definition allows the use of deadly force or the threat of deadly force — without having to fire a shot.

    Also, the use of deadly force or the threat of deadly force is allowed to defend property.

    So your definition of a Defensive gun use

    I’m willing to go with a simple discharge of a weapon in self-defense that averted a confirmed attempted personal assault. (i.e flashing your gun at an unarmed thief who is trying to steal your car is not self-defense, it car loss defense.)

    Appears to be more restrictive then what the law allows and isn’t how defensive gun use happens in the majority of the case. Most of the time, not a shot is fired and the crime is prevented.

    Please try to pay a little more attention to the conversation.

  152. #159 by Cliff on April 15, 2009 - 6:31 pm

    Bob S,

    I think I see the problem here. I wasn’t trying to define a DGU in terms of statute.

    I was telling you what I consider an acceptable DGU as it relates to the traditional justification for the right of self-defense which follows in our Constitution, the right to bear.

    America’s founders, like their English forebears, regarded personal security as first of the three primary rights of mankind. That was the main reason for including a right for individuals to be armed in the U.S. Constitution.

    So personal security is not the same as property rights when arguing the right of self-defense.

    Does that make sense?

    In other words, you are not arguing for unrestricted gun rights to defend your lawn mower so you cannot include those events when comparing death by gun numbers.

  153. #160 by Weer'd Beard on April 15, 2009 - 7:15 pm

    Thankfully for the sake of your paper-thin argument Cliff, the vast majority of the United States does NOT allow lethal force to protect private property from theft. In most states you are only justified in using lethal force when you or somebody in your immediate area is being threatened with death or severe injury.

    Even WORSE for your argument is that even once that happens and the smoke clears, there will STILL be a criminal investigation, and the justified shooter will be charged with murder/attempted murder and will need to be vindicated by law enforcement and/or a court of law.

    So those above stories really tear your little argument to shreds, don’t they, Cliff?

    No worries, you’ll just abandon that argument and change the subject, won’t you?

    Must suck being so wrong all the time. I wonder why you do it?

  154. #161 by Bob S. on April 16, 2009 - 6:11 am

    Cliff,

    I think I see the problem here. We can’t tell which criminal thugs are out to just steal our property and which are out to assault us then steal our property.

    I have an idea. Let’s pass a law requiring every criminal to register with the government and be issued an approved placard.

    The placard will identify what type of crimes the thug is going to commit. This will help us armed citizens in identifying who we should shoot or not.

    Isn’t that your theory? If someone is just going to rob us of the money we’ve worked hard, we should allow that to happen?

    But if the thug is wearing a placard indicating (s)he will use physical violence, then we are allowed to shoot them.

    Of course, we will have to make at a crime for the criminals not to wear their government approved placard.

    I consider this to be fair since as a CHL I had to get approval from the government to carry. I also think it is fair that we ask the criminals to pay for the placard process. Of course, they will have to show they EARNED that money and didn’t steal it. We can’t have any unauthorized stealing can we?

  155. #162 by Weer'd Beard on April 16, 2009 - 6:09 pm

    See? He just walked away, rather than face the reality that he is totally wrong!

  156. #163 by Bob S. on April 16, 2009 - 6:16 pm

    He’ll pop back in if the thread continues for another 5-6 comments.

    He’ll act as if there wasn’t a prior conversation that he abandoned and make a new comment.

    Really starting to wonder how deeply his convictions are held or how much traffic on this site affects his passion. Ever notice how he’ll throw out a wild comment just to keep the thread going?

  157. #164 by Cliff on April 16, 2009 - 7:05 pm

    Hi Guys,

    Sorry for my absense. I have been defending my honor against a vicious attack from our resident religious extremist

    Bob S, As for your your argument that we can’t know a burglars intentions, that is true. However, if you run the whole equation, we discover that statistically it is still safer to be submissive or run.

    You like to remind us that if someone really wants to kill you, (the rarest case) they probably will, even if you have a gun.

  158. #165 by Cliff on April 16, 2009 - 7:12 pm

    Weer’d,

    If you would get with Bob S on this. He posted some pretty thorough stuff about how most states allow for shooting people to protect property as per the legal definition of a DGU.

    You said:

    the vast majority of the United States does NOT allow lethal force to protect private property from theft

    If that is true, it contradicts what Bob is saying.

    btw: You guys might also help me out by explaining to Okelberries what constitutes a death threat…since you guys are the ones with the instant capacity to carry out such a threat.

    Thank
    Cliff

  159. #166 by Bob S. on April 16, 2009 - 8:27 pm

    Cliff

    Based on your reading comprehension skills, I would suggest you rename this Blog.

    How about OneFailUtah or OneCliffFailsAgain?

    By the Texas also doesn’t agree with you on your definition. I knew I liked living in this state for a reason.

    I never said that most states or many states authorize it.

    Once again -FAIL; Reading comprehension- you don’t have it

  160. #167 by Cliff on April 16, 2009 - 9:17 pm

    I’m sorry Bob. I got confused when you summarized with:

    That sure sounds like you don’t have a legal leg to stand on in your definition.

    I guess I believed you.

    So now you’re saying the Texas is THE ONLY STATE that considers protection of property a legit DGU?

  161. #168 by jdberger on April 16, 2009 - 10:13 pm

    No.

    ALL States will allow the use of deadly force in defense of property if that property is being taken by FORCE.

    Point a gun at a pharmacist and ask for oxycontin, he can shoot you.
    Shoot at a guy and try to steal his boat, he can shoot back.
    Point a gun at a guy and tell him to hand over his wallet, he can shoot you. A bystander can shoot you, too. Same goes if he uses a knife. A bat. A length of pipe.

    This is codified in every State.

    You know this, Cliffy. We’ve told you before. We’ve even provided links. What-o-what substances could you be exposing yourself to that would so impair your short term memory?

    Hmmm…

  162. #169 by Weer'd Beard on April 17, 2009 - 2:57 am

    Yeah Cliffy, I wasn’t contradicting anything Bob said, actually Bob was nice enough to post Texas statutes on lethal force.

    Better yet, what JD and myself are saying directly contradicts the BS you’re spouting.

    Better yet, you won’t bother to admit it.

  163. #170 by Bob S. on April 17, 2009 - 3:03 am

    Cliff

    As for your your argument that we can’t know a burglars intentions, that is true. However, if you run the whole equation, we discover that statistically it is still safer to be submissive or run.

    Safer for the individual perhaps, but at what cost to society?

    Most criminals have a record showing every increasing scope and violence in their misdeeds, wouldn’t you agree?

    By submitting to their illegal demands, by running you condone their behavior and they are going to continue their criminal ways.

    Don’t we, as individuals, have a duty to society to resist the criminal at every opportunity? By NOT condoning their behavior we sent a clear signal this is not the way people should act within the social compact. We send the message that ILLEGAL behavior will not be tolerated.

    Resisting the criminal now may save someone’s life, could be someone else or it could be my own when they come back for more of my money or property.

  164. #171 by Weer'd Beard on April 17, 2009 - 10:04 am

    While we’re waiting for Cliff to recycle another bunk argument.
    Discussion Question:

    Snub-nose revolvers: Do they have enugh barrel lenth to make .357 magnum really worth it, or are you just better off shooting .38 Special +P?

    Personally I carry a S&W 642 because it was MUCH cheaper than the .357 Cousins, and I’m not sure how much I’m loosing out on carrying just +P .38s in it rather than full-house .357 Mag loads.

  165. #172 by Cliff on April 17, 2009 - 10:29 am

    Bob S,

    Don’t we, as individuals, have a duty to society to resist the criminal at every opportunity?

    Who’s we? Our children, wives, mothers? Of course not.

    We as a society should and do strive to reduce crime but I would not make the argument that any individual has the “duty to society to resist the criminal at every opportunity?”

    It would be utterly irresponsible for ANYONE in a position of authority…teacher, parent, friend or police to advise ANYONE to resist a burglar in the act (except in Paint Ball)

    Such advise contradicts long-standing policy, practice and procedure.

    Do you just make shit up?

    By submitting to their illegal demands, by running you condone their behavior and they are going to continue their criminal ways.

    During the perpetration of a crime like burglary, one’s first priority is safety. Recommended procedure in ALL cases is to comply with the burglar and or RUN.

    Do you disagree Bob? Which of you loved ones would you ask to fight back?

  166. #173 by jdberger on April 17, 2009 - 10:32 am

    However, if you run the whole equation, we discover that statistically it is still safer to be submissive or run.

    Simply not true.

    Weer’d? Does it count if I like the 2 1/2 inch M19? I like the extra heft of a K frame and the hand fillingness of it, too.

  167. #174 by Cliff on April 17, 2009 - 10:43 am

    Thanks JD for the clarity.

    So the use of a gun is acceptable by statute when the perp is using force against the victim? That seems reasonable.

    The test then is exclusive of issue of protection of property.

    I want to be clear then. Texas is the only state that allows the use of deadly force to protect property even in the event that the ‘actor’ is NOT using force?

    In all the other states, the test is force. If the perp is using force, you may use force. The perps intention becomes irrelevant right?

    Again, I’m just trying to be clear.

    Scenario A: I run out my front door and find someone leaving my driveway with my boat hooked to his truck.

    In Texas, I can shoot to kill. In the other 49 states, I can only shoot IF IF IF the perp is threatening me with force?

    AM I CORRECT?

  168. #175 by Weer'd Beard on April 17, 2009 - 12:27 pm

    Yes you are correct, Cliff, with just one correction. If the perp is threatening ANYBODY (not just the person who ultimately does the defensive shooting) the shooting is justified by the law.

    No threat of iminant violence, that’s called Murder.

    “It would be utterly irresponsible for ANYONE in a position of authority…teacher, parent, friend or police to advise ANYONE to resist a burglar in the act”

    in the act of stealing your shit…yes. In the act of assaulting your family HELL NO!

    “Which of you loved ones would you ask to fight back?”

    My wife is trained in defensive shooting, and knows what to do if the home is invaded when I’m not home (If I am home she’s on the horn with 911, and I’m running the gun just becuase I’m the better shot)
    My wife also carries, but not as often as I’d like. I’m trying to convince her to get into a more regular habit of it.

    I advise ALL my loved ones to resist attack, and resist with the best tools available.

    What about you Cliff? What do you advise your loved ones to do if they are attacked?

    JD, yeah I’d say that counts. Frame-size and construction is irrelevant for ballistics (Though you do have a whole 0.75″ of muzzle-lenth on my little pocket .38)

    What do you think? Think much of the .357 Powder is just making a pretty muzzle flash, or is it giving the bullet an extra oompf?

    Of course it also greatly depends on the burn rate for the powder. You want to load up a hunting load for a long-barreld revolver for some Elmer Keith-style deer hunting, you’d want as slow a powder as you could manage to make best use of that long spout.

    Meanwhile in my snubbie I use Federal’s 147 Gr. +P+ .38 Specials using Hydra Shok bullets. No idea what the powder burn rate is, but for that pressure level it’s gotta be fairly quick.

  169. #176 by jdberger on April 17, 2009 - 12:36 pm

    Scenario A: I run out my front door and find someone leaving my driveway with my boat hooked to his truck.

    In Texas, I can shoot to kill. In the other 49 states, I can only shoot IF IF IF the perp is threatening me with force?

    AM I CORRECT?

    Kind of…

    To be clear, burglary implies force (unathorized entry of an occupied building). I think that theft of a boat *could* be construed as burglary.

    There are some other States that allow deadly force for property theft. That’d make a nice little research project for ya.

    Weer’d – I think that the .357 powder makes for the extra muzzle flash and the earsplitting whoomph. For some reason, .357 seems to have a higher frequency bang than other magnums.

  170. #177 by Cliff on April 17, 2009 - 2:04 pm

    Thanks JD,

    Its good to know most states per statute basically frown upon shooting you basic burglar. I think thats probably a good idea.

    I’m just trying to get a handle on the events that make up the number of DGU’s people claim in surveys.

    I’d guess that in some if not many of the DGU’s people claim, no one’s life was in danger.
    i.e shooting at the guys how is escaping with the goods.

    Which of course means that when someone contrasts DGU numbers with deaths you’re dealing with apples and oranges because the DGU numbers are inflated with non-life-threatening events.

    Weer’d I was talking about robbery without assault. You know, “Stick’em up”

    I understand you prefer to talk about assault. I wonder what percentage of robberies involve assault.

    In any case. Even when attacked, girls (and your wife) should try to run first. If they can’t get way, then they should fight like hell.

    As you know, man against woman, if she misses on the first shot in a struggle, she will probably lose the gun and dramaticall increase the chances of getting shot.

    It might be best if you have someone else advise you family how do deal with these situations.

    Have you or your family ever been attacked?

  171. #178 by Weer'd Beard on April 17, 2009 - 5:01 pm

    “Weer’d I was talking about robbery without assault. You know, “Stick’em up”

    Ummm you understand that presentation of a weapon in a threatening manor IS assault?

    “In any case. Even when attacked, girls (and your wife) should try to run first. If they can’t get way, then they should fight like hell.”

    That works nice if they’re a faster runner than their attacker (Just look at Olympic Men vs. Woman’s sprint times, and I think you’ll see how well your advice works out).

    If you attempt to run, and the attacker pursues and is faster you’d essentially just turned your back to a known threat. VERY bad idea.

  172. #179 by Cliff on April 17, 2009 - 6:52 pm

    One track mind Weer’d. I never said robbery WITH GUN.

    Little gun obsessed are you?

    NOW! Put down the gun in your brain and go back and read what I wrote.

  173. #180 by jdberger on April 17, 2009 - 8:04 pm

    Its good to know most states per statute basically frown upon shooting you basic burglar. I think thats probably a good idea.

    No. You read it wrong. States DO NOT frown on shooting burglars. All armed responses to a burglary are justified in every State. Please see “your home is your castle” for further reading.

    All robberies are assaults. Assault is a threat as well as an action. An assault with a bat, knife, pipe etc is “assault with a deadly weapon”. Deadly force is a rational and legal response.

    I recommend that you go to the University bookstore and pick up a volume dealing with Criminal Law. A used version should run you about $50. I like Dressler.

  174. #181 by jdberger on April 17, 2009 - 8:12 pm

    And it’s about time that you took the time to read this, Cliff.

    The gun-armed resister was actually much less likely to be injured than the non- resister, who was, in turn, much less likely to be injured than those who resisted without a gun. Only 12-17% of the gun armed resisters were injured. Those who submitted to the felons’ demands were twice as likely to be injured (gratuitously); those resisting without guns were three times as likely to be injured as those with guns.{128}

  175. #183 by Weer'd Beard on April 18, 2009 - 3:37 am

    “One track mind Weer’d. I never said robbery WITH GUN.”

    More weapons-grade Irony, Cliff! I was never talking guns either!

    Piece of pipe or a nice rock can be just as deadly as a bullet. Outside in the open a threat presenting a knife needs to be considered for distance. Inside a home, unless you live in a mansion you just won’t have any open space wide enough to consider an assailant with an edged weapon as anything but an immediate threat to your life, and everybody in the home.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tueller_Drill

    Who’s the one with the one-track Mind?

  176. #184 by cav on April 18, 2009 - 6:00 am

    jd, I wonder if the Russian judge will lock those two up in the same cell.

  177. #185 by Weer'd Beard on April 19, 2009 - 9:20 am

    See Cliff, see Cliff run from his shredded arguments. Run Cliff Run!

    Just to bump this thread to the top again, I have an honest-to-goodness question.

    What would be an all-round versatile rifle to buy. I’m looking for a Mauser Style Bolt-Action, and I’d like it for 200-500 yard target shooting, and maybe hunting white-tailed deer.

    What would you recommend?

  178. #186 by Cliff on April 19, 2009 - 10:25 am

    Weerd,

    If and when you are willing to chose a knife against a gun in a robbery, we can talk about how they are the same.

    Until then, you are asking me to accept by your fiat a ridiculous premise.

  179. #187 by jdberger on April 19, 2009 - 11:52 am

    Yep – Cliff’s arguments are falling apart like phyllo dough…

    Weer’d? Have you ever considered the Steyr Scout or something similar?

  180. #188 by Cliff on April 19, 2009 - 2:15 pm

    Yes, JD. I guess my arguments are falling apart since you just announced it.

    I guess that means you guys wanna stick with the premise that:

    Piece of pipe or a nice rock can be just as deadly as a bullet.

    Sure guys. Its true, if I pound on you head with rock long enough, I’m sure I could kill you. But it would be a lot of work and very messy.

    The problem is, you would likely start begging for mercy and crying a lot. I think a bullet is more merciful don’t you?

    So whats your verdict. Are you still advising folks to bring a knife to a gun fight?

    If you MUST insist that a knife and rock are as dangerous as a gun, I suppose we can give you a few rocks in exchange for your gun huh.

  181. #189 by jdberger on April 19, 2009 - 4:05 pm

    you know, Cliffy – I think that you might be right.

    Someone killed with a gun is waaaayyyy deader than someone killed with a knife.

    You sure are smart….

    S..M..R..T…that spells Cliff…

  182. #190 by Cliff on April 19, 2009 - 5:01 pm

    JD, in order to accept your argument, I would in effect have to also agree that if we removed all the guns from the earth, there would be just as much death.

    I would submit that the opposite would happen because the average gun-freak is far too wimpy to bash someone’s head in with a rock.

    Heck, you guys don’t even have the balls to walk out your front door without a loaded piece within reach, it highly unlikely you’d work so damn hard to defense yourselves if you had to break a sweat to do it.

    You remind me of the big louts that used to pick on me in high school. They would threaten me, and I would tell them to fuck off because I knew I could out run them.

    Boy that would piss’em off too. I’d run slowly enough that they thought they were going to catch me.

    I’d continue to taunt them while pacing several feet ahead and slowing down for them as they tired.

    I never did get caught and the rest of the school crowd always got a good laugh cause I would choose routes that made for good visibility.

    Kinda like the cyber chuckles people must be having at your expense.

    Of course I wouldn’t do that today with someone like you for fear of getting shot.

    With all the psycho spineless losers out there carrying guns today, the I suppose the days of harmless school yard fun and games are over.

  183. #191 by jdberger on April 19, 2009 - 9:43 pm

    JD, in order to accept your argument, I would in effect have to also agree that if we removed all the guns from the earth, there would be just as much death.

    Actually, Cliff. If you removed all the guns from the earth, you’d take a nice step back into the Middle Ages. I recall those being exceptionally peaceful. Maybe that’s why they called them the Dark Ages.

    Of course, as an IR/PoliSci major, you’d know this. You’d know that the ability of the of the Burghers to take responsibility for their own safety.

    From there came Enlightenment thinking and the Democracy you now enjoy.

    But being a student of politics, you’d know all that, right?

  184. #192 by Weer'd Beard on April 20, 2009 - 7:02 am

    Wow I was going to hop in, but Cliff is getting his ass-kicked just fine by JD.

    And Cliff offers some more incoherent name-calling while his argument falls in ruin.

    And again note that Cliff instead tried to deluge the thread with thin arguments, rather than attempting to defend a single argument.

    Cliff Lyons is a blessing for the 2nd Amendment, for he displays so well the basis for gun control laws and support in America.

  185. #193 by Cliff on April 20, 2009 - 8:21 am

    I’m not sure how the Enlightenment is relevant to the diff between a gun and a rock but I will remind you that the wholly Unenlightened American Indians had no problem learning to use our guns once they figured out their unmatched superiority over rocks.

    I’m guessing the Incas felt the same way.

    May I assume neither you nor Weer’d can defend the stupidest attempt at an argument maybe in the entire world.

    Piece of pipe or a nice rock can be just as deadly as a bullet.

    10 (ten) comments ago Weerd said that and your only response is that I’ve lost ‘the argument’?

    I suppose I shouldn’t take you to task JD. You didn’t make that argument. I can’t say I blame for refusing to defend it. You can’t be responsible for ALL the stupid arguments your fellow gun-freaks make for the unrestrained proliferation of human killers. No human could.

  186. #194 by Bob S. on April 20, 2009 - 8:44 am

    Hey Cliff,

    I am impressed. I didn’t know you were the Ultimate authority on what is an acceptable argument or not. Not that I’m surprised you aren’t egotistical enough to think that.

    Now, is it not a true statement that a rock can be as deadly as a bullet?
    Can a bow and arrow not be as deadly as a rifle?

    What you are confusing, not surprising again considering your reading comprehension skills, is the efficiency of the various means.

    A firearm is more efficient in lethality…of course that is what makes it so effective at being a deterrent to crime also. The criminals know their physical advantages are greatly reduced when the average citizen is armed.

  187. #195 by Weer'd Beard on April 20, 2009 - 9:28 am

    Thrashing around aren’t you Cliff?

    So are you saying people can’t be killed with non-gun items?

    Are you implying there are different states of being dead? ie Almost Dead, Mostly Dead, All Dead? If so are you also a fan of “The Princess Bride” Love that flic!

    No comment on your desire to bring us back to the dark ages. Seems that if we go back to pipes, sticks, and knives, and just ban guns (despite the ease of just simply making them with basic metalworking tools), you don’t want to look at where that leaves us.

    As the old saying goes “God created Man, Sam Colt Make the Equal”

    A young fellow like me with a pipe could make short work of an Old timer like you or Bob S. Let’s not even get into the physical disadvantage a female like Becky would have.

    What you propose is that physically weak people have LESS rights than those who are strong?

    Not if I can help it, Cliffy.

    “10 (ten) comments ago Weerd said that and your only response is that I’ve lost ‘the argument’”

    And I was right! : ]

  188. #196 by Cliff on April 20, 2009 - 9:36 am

    In the grown up world of debate, one must defend one’s premises before one’s conclusion.

    If you refuse to defend your premise. The rest is just noise….in the grown up world.

  189. #197 by jdberger on April 20, 2009 - 9:36 am

    Cliffy’s right, folks.

    Getting shot with a gun makes you WAAAAAAYYYYY deader….

    (If you were paying attention, Cliffy, you’d see that I made the same statement earlier in this thread).

    Need help filling out the form to get that refund from your alma mater?

  190. #198 by Cliff Lyon on April 20, 2009 - 10:06 am

    JD, let me put this in terms you can relate to.

    It is an order of magnitude easier to kill someone with a gun than a rock or pipe. Hence, it is my contention that equating other weapons with guns in the context of the absolute number of resulting murders is very flawed logic.

    But hey. Why should we expect to be able to hold you to a higher standard than the leaders of your party who would put forth arguements that would have us blame global warming on Cow Farts?

  191. #199 by jdberger on April 20, 2009 - 10:23 am

    Bob, Weer’d…

    Congratulations!

    Another nail in the coffin.

  192. #200 by jdberger on April 20, 2009 - 10:51 am

    [12] We therefore conclude that the right to keep and bear
    arms is “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition.”
    Colonial revolutionaries, the Founders, and a host of commentators
    and lawmakers living during the first one hundred
    years of the Republic all insisted on the fundamental nature
    of the right. It has long been regarded as the “true palladium
    of liberty.” Colonists relied on it to assert and to win their
    independence, and the victorious Union sought to prevent a
    recalcitrant South from abridging it less than a century later.
    The crucial role this deeply rooted right has played in our
    birth and history compels us to recognize that it is indeed fundamental,
    that it is necessary to the Anglo-American conception
    of ordered liberty that we have inherited.17 We are
    therefore persuaded that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth
    Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment and
    applies it against the states and local governments.18

    Nordyke v. King (2009)

    Woo0Hoo!

  193. #201 by Cliff on April 20, 2009 - 11:14 am

    oops. thats not good.

  194. #202 by Weer'd Beard on April 20, 2009 - 11:56 am

    “In the grown up world of debate, one must defend one’s premises before one’s conclusion.”

    True enough, Cliff, but I’ve done that, you haven’t.

    Looks like a head of gray hair in your Author Portrait, isn’t it time for Cliff Lyon to grow up?

  195. #203 by Bob S. on April 20, 2009 - 12:28 pm

    JD,

    Was working my way through the decision, hadn’t made it to that point yet.

    Great News Indeed….definitely sounds like the Heller Decision is having an impact.
    Wasn’t there a post about that supposed “lack of impact on court cases” not long ago?

    I was struck by the comparison of different rights, in the case of this decision the right to keep and bear arms and the right to a jury trial. It could have easily been the 1st amendment…but it looks like other people consider it valid to compare the 2nd amendment with other rights.

    We begin with the Founding era. Heller reveals evidence similar to that on which Duncan relied to conclude that the Due Process Clause incorporated the right to a jury in criminal cases. Heller began with the 1689 English Declaration of Right (which became the English Bill of Rights), just as Duncan did. Compare Heller, 128 S. Ct. at 2798 (noting that the Declaration of Right included the right to bear arms), with Duncan, 391 U.S. at 151 (noting that the Declaration of Right included the right to a jury trial).11 Thus the right to keep and bear arms shares ancestry with a right already deemed fundamental. Cf. Resweber, 329 U.S. at 463 (plurality opinion) (relying solely on the presence of a prohibition against cruel and unusual punishments in the English Bill of Rights for the conclusion that it is incorporated into the Due Process Clause).

    The parallel continues. Heller noted the emphasis Blackstone placed on the right, just as Duncan had looked to Blackstone. Compare Heller, 128 S. Ct. at 2798 (“Blackstone . . . cited the arms provision of the [English] Bill of Rights as
    one of the fundamental rights of Englishmen.” (citation omitted)), with Duncan, 391 U.S. at 151-52 (citing Blackstone). This is significant because Blackstone “constituted the preeminent authority on English law for the founding generation.”
    Alden v. Maine, 527 U.S. 706, 715 (1999). His theoretical treatment of the right to bear arms provides insight into how American colonists would have understood it.

    and this

    As Heller pointed out, the American colonists of the 1760s and 1770s strongly objected to royal infringements on the right to keep and bear arms, just as they objected to the Crown’s interference with jury trials, a fact which Duncan highlighted. Compare Heller, 128 S. Ct. at 2799 (“[T]he Crown began to disarm the inhabitants of the most rebellious areas[, which] provoked polemical reactions by Americans invoking their rights as Englishmen to keep arms.”), with Duncan, 391 U.S. at 152 (“Royal interference with the jury trial was deeply resented.”)

    Other applicable quotes that I’ve found so far.

    This necessary “right of the people” existed before the Second Amendment as “one of the fundamental rights of Englishmen….Thus the right contains both a political component—it is a means to protect the public from tyranny—and a personal component—it is a means to protect the individual from threats to life or limb. Cf. Amar, supra, at 46-59, 257-66.

    Hey Cliff, if a right contains a personal component to protect the individual from THREATS to life or LIMB. Does it sound like a person shouldn’t use a firearm unless the attacker is armed also? Or does that sound like it includes any threat to life or limb?

    For readers of Blackstone, therefore, the right to bear arms closely followed from the absolute rights to personal security, personal liberty, and personal property.12 It was a right crucial to safeguarding all other rights.

    Supreme Court Justice James Wilson, one of the framers of the Pennsylvania Constitution and the Federal Constitution, referred, in one of his lectures on the common law (delivered serially from 1790 to 1791), to the right of self defense as “the great natural law of self preservation, which . . . cannot be repealed, or superseded, or suspended by any human institution. . . . [It is] expressly recognized in the constitution of Pennsylvania.”

    MikeB, did you read that? Repealing the 2nd amendment wouldn’t change anything about the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

    We also note that the target of the right to keep and bear arms shifted in the period leading up to the Civil War. While the generation of 1789 envisioned the right as a component of local resistance to centralized tyranny, whether British or federal,
    the generation of 1868 envisioned the right as safeguard to protect individuals from oppressive or indifferent local governments. See Amar, supra, at 257-66. But though the source of the threat may have migrated, the antidote remained the same: the individual right to keep and bear arms, a recourse for “when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression.” 1 Blackstone, supra, at *144.

    Let’s read that again: “when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression”. While referring to the local and state governments, it can be easily viewed as the violence of oppression from CRIMINALS as well, especially since the sanctions of society and law are obviously insufficient….otherwise they wouldn’t be criminals.

    Great day for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

  196. #204 by Bob S. on April 20, 2009 - 12:31 pm

    Almost missed this one in the footnotes, sounds like a favorite argument of Cliff was just taken down a peg.

    15 Another argument to which the County devotes considerable time is a rather idiosyncratic peroration on political philosophy. The County argues that the ideas of eighteenth-century social contractarianism—the general political philosophy of men like Blackstone and Locke—presumed that individuals sacrificed their perfect liberty in nature to fight to preserve themselves in order to secure the benefits of the social contract. Though perhaps true as a summary statement, this argument says nothing about the extent to which society limits the absolute or natural right of self-defense.

  197. #205 by jdberger on April 20, 2009 - 12:38 pm

    Cliff Says:

    April 20th, 2009 at 11:14 am
    oops. thats not good.

    I actually had on interrupt my happy dance to giggle at that one…..

    Don’t worry, Cliffy. The 9th doesn’t cover Utah….

  198. #206 by Bob S. on April 20, 2009 - 12:44 pm

    Another little gem on the comparison of rights…something fiercely denied here at 1Utah.

    The County instead argues that the states, in the exercise of their police power, are the instrumentalities of the right of self-defense at the heart of the Second Amendment. This argument merely rephrases the col- lective rights argument the Supreme Court rejected in Heller. Indeed, one need only consider other constitutional rights to see the poverty of this contention. State police power also covers, for instance, some of the conduct the First Amendment protects, but that does not deny individuals the right to assert First Amendment rights against the states.

  199. #207 by Bob S. on April 21, 2009 - 6:47 am

    WOW, way to kill a thread…post a victory for the Pro-rights side of the house.

    Where are all the anti-freedom folks telling us how this is really a victory for them?

    Where are all the anti-freedom folks saying how comparisons between the rights are invalid because “guns are designed for only one purpose”?

    Where are all the anti-freedom folks saying how the “right to keep and bear arms” is a collective right and the SCOTUS majority got it wrong in Heller?

    Here is another case, another Court that decided the Right to Keep and Bear Arm is an individual right, useful to defend against tyranny, useful for self defense and as a kicker– it applies to the states……..so where are all the people who were telling us we had it wrong?

  200. #208 by Weer'd Beard on April 21, 2009 - 8:50 am

    I’m guessing Cliff is choosing to drowned his sorrows to get the strength to further deny reality.

  201. #209 by cav, one gargantuan bullet on April 21, 2009 - 9:18 am

    I was thinking ‘Congradulations’ very loudly! Even a toast!

    Still, the ‘crimers’ must be curbed, but that’s something you already know and something your comments have often spoken to.

  202. #210 by Bob S. on April 21, 2009 - 9:47 am

    Cav,

    I agree and would be interested in hearing proposals to curb crime, not just firearms.

    According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, approximately 90% or more of all violent crime occurs without the use of a firearm.

    So, doesn’t it make sense to focus effort on fighting crime, not the tools used for the crime?

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: