Here’s Why Obama Should Use Presidential Executive Authority to Control Guns

Obama should exercise his presidential authority to effect sensible gun control nationally for two reasons:

1. It bring a badly needed Supreme Court challenge that will likely involve the “Militia” part of the second amendment.

2. It will turn up the volume for historians and constitutional experts in a broad national debate in which second-amendment-extremist will learn a more reasonable interpretation of the second amendment; one that is supported by fact and history instead of the version Justice Scalia smeared like skid marks into our national undies.

We are finally beginning to have an honest discussion about the true meaning of the Second Amendment. Until Sandy Hook, gun rights extremist managed to dominate the conversation. They were allowed to ignore the “A well regulated Militia, being necessary” part.

Here is a PERFECT EXAMPLE from an interview by Nashville’s WSMV-TV on Friday.

It is a fact that the average James Yeager and other Second Amendment Advocates cannot actually recite the whole sentence:

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.

Obama should use his executive power if it will mean Wayne LaPierre, the average 2nd amendment “advocate” and crooked snake oil salesmen like David Hardy will be FORCED to read and memorize THE WHOLE SENTENCE and address the HISTORICAL FACTS surrounding the writing of the Bill of Rights.

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

  1. #1 by McNeil Hughes on January 13, 2013 - 4:03 pm

    That’s pretty funny, and will never happen, and so what if there is an order, it does nothing

    We have already had an “assault weapons” ban, and it has been repealed as statistically it did nothing, now they are legal again, all pretty stupid for a drone murder terrorist president

    http://news.yahoo.com/gun-lobby-congress-doesnt-muscle-pass-gun-control-2024367

  2. #2 by cav on January 13, 2013 - 4:45 pm

    He’s a CEO! That’s all I know, and all I need to know.

  3. #3 by Anonymous on January 14, 2013 - 6:35 pm

    Power to control all guns = civil war.

  4. #4 by Nathan Erkkila on January 14, 2013 - 8:04 pm

    Anonymous :

    Power to control all guns = civil war.

    There is just one tiny problem. Obama got reelected BECAUSE YOU ARE THE FUCKING MINORITY! If you go to war with the states, then you are backed up by less than half of the US while the ones that do will be of advanced age. So with that, I say:

    1. Get the fuck over the election, you bitch
    2. You are all bark and no bite anyway.

  5. #5 by cav on January 14, 2013 - 8:20 pm

    What’s another war Nathan? With one after another, and sometimes more than one, for my entire lifetime (and yours), this ‘civil’ war may prove to have been ‘just another day’.

    That’s how I’m treating it.

  6. #6 by Nathan Erkkila on January 14, 2013 - 9:57 pm

    cav

    These people don’t have the balls to start a war. They are just people who are crushed at the election and are too delusional to accept that their policies are the unpopular one. It’s called a “Vocal minority” and for the past 2 months, it was amusing to watch them suffer like wounded animals, now they went from pitiful to arrogant and it’s annoying.

  7. #7 by cav on January 14, 2013 - 11:45 pm

    Whether they have balls or not, as they press forward, the number of ‘true believers’ will diminish, some of the thinking – who, what, when why, how, will show how unrealistic so much of their planning has been, various escape routes will become apparent, and some of the political uncertainty will be clarified. It’ll wind down.

    For the ‘die hard’ cases, even while they presently think they are being bullied, confronting bullies can easily be seen as a two way street. I don’t think it’ll be too great a task to identify the gun-freaks and psychopaths as the real bullies.

    One very sad part of all this is that as this 2nd Amendment ‘thing’ goes forward, each and every one of those prepared to sight in on the fictional hoard coming to take their guns, they’ll have to risk becoming just like the person who looks down on on a frightened six year and still repeatedly pulls the trigger. At that point, many more of them will begin to ‘Get It’, and thus the numbers diminish still further.

    I understand the stresses and don’t want this to be mistaken for submission, but I don’t think we can really afford the luxury of a ‘civil’ war – no matter how much profit the weapons dealers stand to rack up as their share of the GDP.

  8. #8 by Bob S. on January 15, 2013 - 6:26 am

    Well, Let’s take this in order shall we.

    Cliff,

    1. It bring a badly needed Supreme Court challenge that will likely involve the “Militia” part of the second amendment.

    I don’t know how you mention to avoid all mention of reality but we’ve already had that Supreme Court challenge and the militia argument lost !

    From the Heller Decision:

    Held:

    1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

    2 Justice Scalia was joined in his opinion by 4 other Supreme Court Justices. You can stomp your feet, stick your fingers in your ears and yell ” I’m not listening” all you want but it is the law of the land now.

    In fact, not one decision but 2 Supreme Court Decisions because the militia argument had another chance in McDonald v. Chicago and it failed also.
    And don’t forget the 7th Circuit Court decision removing Illinois’ restriction on the Right to Carry a firearm. Illinois has less than 180 days to implement a law allowing people to carry firearms.

    Time and time again, the ‘militia only’ argument has failed.

    #3 – Regardless of the 2nd Amendment protection; the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is also protected by the 9th Amendment. I’m sure you remember it but let me help you out

    The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

    Sorry but the individual right to keep and bear arms is Constitutionally protected.

    Nathan,

    Great language there bub, guess it is what people have to resort to when they have a limited vocabulary.

    They are just people who are crushed at the election and are too delusional to accept that their policies are the unpopular one.

    Wow, didn’t realize that the election was so lopsided.

    Obama — 65,899,583 51.03%
    Romney –60,928,966 47.18%
    Oh wait, It wasn’t a crushing defeat. And if our policies are so unpopular, why does the GOP still have a majority in the House? Why are gun sales soaring, permits to carry and/or purchase soaring? People getting into the shooting sports more and more?

  9. #9 by McNeil Hughes on January 15, 2013 - 6:42 am

    obama has touched the 3rd rail, and his believers are going to suffer the same shock of this delusional drone murder terrorist president, he has murdered American citizens with the drones, one only 16 years old, the dock awaits him at the Hague, like bush, if ever his policies drive this nation into ruin he could be attached for his heinous war crimes

    If you do not understand that having a standing drone murder terrorist as president is what is driving the sales of 10-15 thousand semi automatic weapons a day, then you never will

  10. #10 by Cliff Lyon on January 15, 2013 - 7:33 am

    Bob S, There are simple answers to you questions of Nathan none of which change the fact the the extreme right in this country are very small minority with disproportionate influence.

    But that is coming to an end soon, especially as it relates to gun control.

    First: To be clear, Heller was a bad decision which leaves lots of room for a broader challenge to your interpretation of 2A.

    But here’s the point. We are not hear to convince you that you are wrong. That will never happen. We are hear to tell you that we are coming after you and your guns BECAUSE you are wrong and intransigent.

    Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

  11. #11 by Bob S. on January 15, 2013 - 7:36 am

    Cliff,

    So, despite repeated assurances people aren’t after our guns; you are telling me you are coming after my firearms.

    Now, will you personally be showing up to collect them?

    (By the way, love your logical fallacy of vigorous assertion. Is it a requirement for writers at OneUtah to master that before they publish? )

  12. #12 by Cliff on January 15, 2013 - 8:37 am

    Bob,

    We are just coming after people like you. You refusal to understand how your insane gun-crazy propaganda makes you as guilty as the shooter at Sandy Hook elementary.

    Am I coming personally to take away your guns Bob? I hadn’t thought about it. Do you have a preference?

  13. #13 by cav on January 15, 2013 - 8:44 am

    When our beloved founding fathers walked this land, a lunatic with a gun had to dick around for five minutes to re-load his musket in order to shoot more than one six-year-old. Something like an AR-15 with a 30-round magazine would have been science fiction to them. So, there’s a proposal, even a new LAW make AR-15 assault rifles and extended ammo magazines illegal with something like an obligatory buy-back of the weapons..

    Believe me BobS, this is NOT the disarming of America that so many of those whose radical interpretation of the 2d Amendment fear. It’s just there’s the matter of collateral damage to consider. Suicide by SWAT team and civil war are not the real purpose of this discussion.

  14. #14 by Bob S. on January 15, 2013 - 8:57 am

    Cliff,

    Shared responsibility eh? So I guess because you use a computer; you are guilty of child pornography right? Or because you are a man, you are also guilty of every rape, right?

    When will you be turning yourself into the police ?

    And I ask Cliff because I want to know if you are going to be brave enough to walk unarmed to people and require them to turn in guns or if you are going to send people with guns to do the job.

    Cav,

    When the founding fathers walked this land, they also traveled by horse and carriage but the steam engine was known. They printed their documents on screw type presses and used quill pens. — Yet here you are using a computer, a car, etc. Does any of that change the nature of the rights we hold dearly — freedom to travel, freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, etc?
    NO.

    When our beloved founding fathers walked this land, a lunatic with a gun had to dick around for five minutes to re-load his musket in order to shoot more than one six-year-old.

    And the people coming to arrest someone — or take away firearms as our previous government (British) also had to take a few minutes to reload. Now the government, down to just about every police, sheriff or federal agency carries fully automatic rifles and more. So what has changed about our right to keep and bear arms?

    Not much.

    . So, there’s a proposal, even a new LAW make AR-15 assault rifles and extended ammo magazines illegal with something like an obligatory buy-back of the weapons..

    The Sig Sauer pistol I purchased comes standard with a 15 round magazine. It isn’t ‘extended’ or high capacity — it is the normal capacity magazine for that firearm. Just as most AR-15s come standard with 30 round magazines. Isn’t that what the military and police use?

    Believe me BobS, this is NOT the disarming of America that so many of those whose radical interpretation of the 2d Amendment fear.

    And just one sentence before you mentioned a proposed law requiring a ‘buy – back’ — isn’t that confiscation?

    After all the government has never owned any of my firearms how can they buy them back? And especially since I don’t want to sell

    New York State just passed a law banning magazines with 10 round capacity. The people have 1 year to get rid of them or those magazines will be confiscated.

    Please tell me again how people aren’t being disarmed?

  15. #15 by brewski on January 15, 2013 - 9:28 am

    When is Cliff and people like Cliff going to censor Hollywood and their gun-crazy culture? Ohhh, that’s right. That’s where their bundlers make their 0.0001% wealth, so we wouldn’t want to offend them.

    Hypocrites.

  16. #16 by cav on January 15, 2013 - 9:33 am

    Other rights retained by the people may also be manifest in the form of laws requiring the regulation or limitation of some of the insane behaviors other of the people somehow think they are entitled to.

    Further, and this may be germane to your broader arguments: The government,as it is currently configured – replete with toady media and instruction from the wealth ‘mind’-trust above, in whatever malicious positions it may cumulatively take, really does have the common man out-gunned. But, I would remind everyone, It is our government – not the rich .01%’s and that distinction should always be kept in our minds. It would therefore behoove the citizenry to approach the changes they – as a large body – seek to implement in ways that are not necessarily going to trigger wrong associations and even mayhem – unless it’s going to positively accentuate the citizen as the Forth Branch – the branch all the others are meant to serve.

    Overlords be Damned..

  17. #17 by Bob S. on January 15, 2013 - 9:53 am

    Cav,

    We have fraud occurring every day – we don’t register printers.
    We have child pornography being produced every day – we don’t register computers and cameras.
    We have people committing fraud, libel, making threats every day – we don’t require people to get a permit to speak every day.

    Time and time again I hear we have laws requiring restrictions or limitations but those fail to mention we already have a boat load of laws dealing with firearms and firearms related crime. It is already against the law to murder, to rob, to rape — whether you use a firearm or not — but there are extra penalties often if you use a firearm.

    The government,as it is currently configured – replete with toady media and instruction from the wealth ‘mind’-trust above, in whatever malicious positions it may cumulatively take, really does have the common man out-gunned.

    The government is made up of the ‘common’ person {there fixed it for you, you sexist !!! :) }

    Yes, the government does have tanks, and helicopters, and planes, and drones but average citizens fly those, drive them. These people all took an oath to protect the Constitution — against all enemies foreign or domestic.

    I agree with you about making changes and finding ways not to trigger the wrong associations — yet I see here time and time again your support or at least you condone words like Cliff’s.

    Regardless how he (or anyone else feels) the Supreme Court has confirmed that individuals have a right to keep and bear arms. Yet here he is telling me he is going to come for my firearms because I believe that to be true.

    Who is pushing the issue here if not Cliff and those like him?

    Who is pushing restrictions and requirements that burden the common person yet have historically and repeatedly failed to reduce crime?

    New York City, in spite of or some people say because of, their draconian gun control laws has a homicide rate of 6.27. Fort Worth (nearest major city to me) has incredibly lax gun control laws by comparison yet has a homicide rate of 6.34.

    If gun control laws work, why does New York City have a comparable homicide rate to Fort Worth?

  18. #18 by Richard Warnick on January 15, 2013 - 10:19 am

    brewski–

    You want to censor movies? Two problems:

    1) There’s an amendment in the Bill of Rights (the one just before the oh-so-sacred Second Amendment) that says you can’t do that.

    2) The rest of the world watches Hollywood movies too, but the gun homicide rate per capita in the U.S. is 30 times that of Britain and Australia.

  19. #19 by Bob S. on January 15, 2013 - 10:25 am

    Richard,

    The rest of the world also have firearms. And in some of those countries with very stringent laws, their homicide rates are much higher then the USA.

    From the World Health Organization:

    The latest Murder Statistics for the world:

    Murders per 100,000 citizens

    Honduras 91.6
    El Salvador 69.2
    Cote d’lvoire 56.9
    Jamaica 52.2
    Venezuela 45.1
    Belize 41.4
    US Virgin Islands 39.2
    Guatemala 38.5
    Saint Kits and Nevis 38.2
    Zambia 38.0
    Uganda 36.3
    Malawi 36.0
    Lesotho 35.2
    Trinidad and Tobago 35.2
    Colombia 33.4
    South Africa 31.8
    Congo 30.8
    Central African Republic 29.3
    Bahamas 27.4
    Puerto Rico 26.2
    Saint Lucia 25.2
    Dominican Republic 25.0
    Tanzania 24.5
    Sudan 24.2
    Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 22.9
    Ethiopia 22.5
    Guinea 22.5
    Dominica 22.1
    Burundi 21.7
    Democratic Republic of the Congo 21.7
    Panama 21.6
    Brazil 21.0
    Equatorial Guinea 20.7
    Guinea-Bissau 20.2
    Kenya 20.1
    Kyrgyzstan 20.1
    Cameroon 19.7
    Montserrat 19.7
    Greenland 19.2
    Angola 19.0
    Guyana 18.6
    Burkina Faso 18.0
    Eritrea 17.8
    Namibia 17.2
    Rwanda 17.1
    Mexico 16.9
    Chad 15.8
    Ghana 15.7
    Ecuador 15.2
    North Korea 15.2
    Benin 15.1
    Sierra Leone 14.9
    Mauritania 14.7
    Botswana 14.5
    Zimbabwe 14.3
    Gabon 13.8
    Nicaragua 13.6
    French Guiana 13.3
    Papua New Guinea 13.0
    Swaziland 12.9
    Bermuda 12.3
    Comoros 12.2
    Nigeria 12.2
    Cape Verde 11.6
    Grenada 11.5
    Paraguay 11.5
    Barbados 11.3
    Togo 10.9
    Gambia 10.8
    Peru 10.8
    Myanmar 10.2
    Russia 10.2
    Liberia 10.1
    Costa Rica 10.0
    Nauru 9.8
    Bolivia 8.9
    Mozambique 8.8
    Kazakhstan 8.8
    Senegal 8.7
    Turks and Caicos Islands 8.7
    Mongolia 8.7
    British Virgin Islands 8.6
    Cayman Islands 8.4
    Seychelles 8.3
    Madagascar 8.1
    Indonesia 8.1
    Mali 8.0
    Pakistan 7.8
    Moldova 7.5
    Kiribati 7.3
    Guadeloupe 7.0
    Haiti 6.9
    Timor-Leste 6.9
    Anguilla 6.8
    Antigua and Barbuda 6.8
    Lithuania 6.6
    Uruguay 5.9
    Philippines 5.4
    Ukraine 5.2
    Estonia 5.2
    Cuba 5.0
    Belarus 4.9
    Thailand 4.8
    Suriname 4.6
    Laos 4.6
    Georgia 4.3
    Martinique 4.2

    And

    The United States 4.2

    http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/data-and-analysis/homicide.html

  20. #20 by brewski on January 15, 2013 - 10:30 am

    We already know the President doesn’t give a crap about the constitution, so why would it be any different in this case. Besides, he won the election so he gets to do anything he wants, right? That’s what he keeps telling us.

  21. #21 by Richard Warnick on January 15, 2013 - 10:31 am

    65% of the homicides in the USA are committed with firearms, the fifth highest rate in the world. And that’s not counting the high rate of firearm suicides and accidents in this country. Fewer guns = fewer gun deaths. Duh.

  22. #22 by Richard Warnick on January 15, 2013 - 10:50 am

    Five Gun Safety Laws That Gun Owners Support. Most likely to appear in the form of executive orders. The extremists are in the minority, which makes sense because they are extremists.

  23. #23 by Bob S. on January 15, 2013 - 11:07 am

    Richard,

    So only ‘gun deaths’ matter? Is that what you are saying?

    And nice shading of the truth there. Yes, we have the 5th highest percentage of homicides committed with firearms but not the 5th highest rate.

    Country Total Firearm Related Firearm Related Homicide Rate
    El Salvador 50.36 50.36
    Jamaica 47.44 47.44
    Honduras 46.7 46.7
    Guatemala 38.52 38.52
    Swaziland 37.16 37.16
    Colombia 28.11 27.1
    Brazil 19.01 18.1
    Panama 12.92 12.92
    Mexico 11.14 10
    United States 10.2 3.7
    Philippines 9.46 9.46
    South Africa 9.41 NA
    Montenegro 8.55 2.06
    Paraguay 7.35 7.35
    Nicaragua 7.14 7.14
    Argentina 5.65 3
    Zimbabwe 4.75 4.75
    Serbia 3.9 0.62
    Switzerland 3.84 0.52
    Finland 3.64 0.26
    Costa Rica 3.32 3.32
    Uruguay 3.24 3.24
    Croatia 3.01 0.57
    Barbados 3 3
    France 3 0.22

    http://en.wikipedia.org
    /wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

    10th Highest rate of death with firearms, despite many other countries having stricter laws. 16th Highest homicide with firearm rate.

    Why should we implement restrictive laws that have not proven to work in this country or others? If you want to live in a country with such laws, what is stopping you from moving there? I’m sure you could get a great deal on some property in Mexico or Jamaica or El Salavador.

    ers. The extremists are in the minority, which makes sense because they are extremists.

    Hey, if we are ‘minorities does that mean the government has to protect our rights even more????

  24. #24 by cav on January 15, 2013 - 11:21 am

    I can’t explain Nathan and Cliff’s hyperbole. Or see how long lists of countries make a whole lot of sense.

    What I do believe is the PTB, the MOTU, would just as soon we be at each other than at them. They’re happy to have created this ‘breathing-space’ that afford them a couple of weeks more profit and to further harden their bunkers.

    The masses on the other hand need to figure out a way to cut them off, reshape our ‘market’, before we destroy the place en toto, if we haven’t already.

  25. #25 by Bob S. on January 15, 2013 - 11:45 am

    Cav,

    The reason why ‘long lists of countries make a whole lot of sense’ is it undermines the argument for gun control.

    People like Richard and Cliff want to claim “other countries do it’ but neglect to mention those other countries also have higher death rates, higher violent crime rates in many instances.

    Look at Jolly Ole England for example; their violent crime rate is 4 times as high as the United States. Yes, they have fewer homicides (they have always been less lethal) but rapes, robberies – including armed robberies, assaults etc are higher than the USA.

    I agree with you about focusing on the PTB; in fact that is what I’m doing – denying them the power to further restrict our rights. Let’s draw the line in the sand here; then move to repeal the PATRIOT Act, the NDAA, etc.

  26. #26 by Richard Warnick on January 15, 2013 - 1:13 pm

    Bob S.–

    So your position is, the USA isn’t the most violent country in the world and therefore we have to accept gun massacres on a regular basis?

    Don’t think most Americans would agree with you.

  27. #27 by Bob S. on January 15, 2013 - 2:04 pm

    Richard,

    Stop avoiding my questions — So only ‘gun deaths’ matter? Is that what you are saying?

    I am not saying that that we have to accept massacres on a regular basis. See, unlike you, I care how anyone dies.

    Bath Township Michigan — 38 kids, 6 adults — dynamite used. Oklahoma City bombing 19 children killed.
    How many people were killed using box cutters and planes as the weapons? Nearly 2700?

    Nice attempt at a Strawman argument but YOU FAIL.

    What I’m saying is “IF Gun Control is being touted as a way to reduce violence, why isn’t it working in cities in our country (chicago, NYC, etc) or other countries?”

    When people move to restrict our rights, the burden of proof is on those people. The evidence isn’t there to show that gun control reduces violence.

    The other aspect, one you consistently ignore in these debates, is that we can address violence even gun violence without enacting gun control laws. We can reduce poverty, increase education, strengthen the family, teach conflict resolution skills and many other things.

    Yet those things aren’t on the top of your list (or Biden’s or Obama’s) — controlling firearms is.

    Makes me wonder if you are really out to reduce violence or control people.

  28. #28 by Richard Warnick on January 15, 2013 - 2:19 pm

    Bob S.–

    Common sense gun safety does work. One of the executive orders I expect President Obama to issue would direct the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to do research on this.

    Once again, no one is losing any constitutional rights. That claim is being used to add noise to the national debate, but it’s not true. The only measures being proposed are those with widespread popular support, even among gun owners.

  29. #29 by Bob S. on January 15, 2013 - 2:35 pm

    Richard,

    Stop giving me your opinion (repeated ad naseum ) and start providing facts and evidence.

    Sure you can do that IF common sense gun safety works, right?

    The Center for Disease Control did research on this issue. I’ve cited their findings before.

    During 2000–2002, the Task Force on Community Preventive Services (the Task Force), an independent nonfederal task force, conducted a systematic review of scientific evidence regarding the effectiveness of firearms laws in preventing violence, including violent crimes, suicide, and unintentional injury. The following laws were evaluated: bans on specified firearms or ammunition, restrictions on firearm acquisition, waiting periods for firearm acquisition, firearm registration and licensing of firearm owners, “shall issue” concealed weapon carry laws, child access prevention laws, zero tolerance laws for firearms in schools, and combinations of firearms laws. The Task Force found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws or combinations of laws reviewed on violent outcomes. (Note that insufficient evidence to determine effectiveness should not be interpreted as evidence of ineffectiveness.) This report briefly describes how the reviews were conducted, summarizes the Task Force findings, and provides information regarding needs for future research.

    2 years and they couldn’t find enough evidence. Sounds like it doesn’t work to me.

    Once again, no one is losing any constitutional rights.

    What a CROCK of Bovine excrement !!!!

    Sorry but if you put my name in a database, I’ve lost my privacy. If you restrict from selling my property without governmental approval, I’ve lost my privacy and my right to purchase or sell product.

    Widespread popular support doesn’t justify any thing.

    Given the almost universal condemnation of the Japanese internment program today, it is hard to realize just how solid support was for it at the time. The vast operation, as one writer points out, was “initiated by the generals, advised, ordered and supervised by the civilian heads of the War Department, authorized by the President, implemented by Congress, approved by the Supreme Court, and supported by the people.” (Ten Broek, p. 325)

    http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v02/v02p-45_Weber.html

    So you just going to restate your opinion, maybe stomp your foot or hold your breath or are you going to show evidence that gun control works?

  30. #30 by Richard Warnick on January 15, 2013 - 3:24 pm

    Bob S.–

    An overwhelming majority of gun owners support universal background checks for buying guns and ammunition. Most gun owners also support a ban on large-capacity magazines and a national database of firearm purchases. A substantial number of gun owners (45 percent) want a ban on mass-murder weapons.

    That makes you and your fellow extremists a minority within a minority. You are the one doing the foot-stomping here.

    Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The CDC ought to look again. There are plenty of studies that correlate high rates of gun ownership with high levels of shooting deaths.

    The Violence Policy Center in Washington used data from 2005 — the most recent available — from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

    The five states with the highest per capita gun death rates — Louisiana, Alaska, Montana, Tennessee and Alabama — had a per capita gun death rate far exceeding the national per capita gun death rate of 10.32 per 100,000.

    …Conversely, states with the lowest levels of gun ownership had the lowest levels of gun death rates.

    The Gun Lobby has blocked public safety efforts for too long. There have been 65 mass shootings since Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords was shot in 2011. Over 30,000 people are killed by guns annually. Six of the 12 most deadly shootings in our history have occurred within the past five years.

  31. #31 by Larry Bergan on January 15, 2013 - 5:05 pm

    I hope nobody here missed this. I think this paragraph may have been added to the article Cliff linked to just above the video of James Yeager.

    Coincidentally, Yeager’s handgun carry permit was suspended by the Tennessee Department of Safety and Homeland Security on Friday. The department’s commissioner explained that the decision was based on “material likelihood of risk of harm to the public.”

    You gotta love it!

  32. #33 by Larry Bergan on January 15, 2013 - 7:41 pm

    cav:

    Interesting chart.

    Looks as if lead induced crime gave way to drug-war induced crime, somewhat. Not sure I’m reading it right.

    Life is complex.

  33. #34 by Larry Bergan on January 15, 2013 - 8:14 pm

    Plus; the chart comes right after the prohibition of alcohol, which, undoubtedly, caused an increase in gun violence.

    My point is that when prohibition causes a huge increase in the cost of any drug that people want, AND sends people who want that money to jail, violence happens.

  34. #35 by Richard Warnick on January 16, 2013 - 9:38 am

    Think Progress: 51 Upcoming Gun Shows Ban Loaded Weapons To Promote ‘A Safe Environment’

    We respectfully request that you do not bring any loaded firearm into the gun show. Safety is our Number One Priority, and a safe environment in the show can only be maintained if there are no loaded guns in the show.

  35. #36 by Richard Warnick on January 16, 2013 - 10:56 am

    Right-Wing Spin: School Massacre Gun Debate A “Distraction”

    This theory has been put forth here on One Utah. I prefer to think the Obama administration’s belated effort on firearm safety is:

    (1) A sign that President Obama is tired of going to memorial services for gun massacre victims (4 so far).
    (2) Evidence that this administration can do more than one thing at a time.

  36. #37 by cav on January 16, 2013 - 11:21 am

    We respectfully request that you do not bring any loaded firearm into the schools – Safety being our Number One Priority…

  37. #38 by Bob S. on January 16, 2013 - 3:13 pm

    How did that work out in Virginia Tech, Columbine and other places Cav?

    How does disarming the law abiding stop the killers?

    And that chart is interesting. I’ve read his thesis and if the CDC wants to investigate it, that would be a public health issue worthy of investigation.

    Larry,

    I think you are reading the chart right.

    My point is that when prohibition causes a huge increase in the cost of any drug that people want, AND sends people who want that money to jail, violence happens.

    And in that same vein, what will happen when states like New York enact their ‘assault weapon ban (aka prohibition)? What will happen IF Congress passes a prohibition on firearms.

    Richard,

    I don’t think it is a distraction. I think people grabbing for power will grab for power no matter what is going on.

    Most gun shows have hundreds of people handing firearms so having unloaded firearms makes sense. Just as having show room cars with no gasoline makes sense.

  38. #39 by cav on January 16, 2013 - 3:29 pm

    BobS. I guess I was just vamping on how easy it would be for some non-gun oriented psychopath to just drive a truck-bomb to the front of a Gun Show.

    And about that chart. there’s more wrong with it than we suspect. I’d have taken it down right away but there’s something causing me difficulty connecting with oneuTah.

  39. #40 by Richard Warnick on January 16, 2013 - 4:00 pm

    Bob S.–

    So, gun safety makes sense at a gun show but nowhere else? What about the GOP National Convention?

    “Safety is our primary concern,” [convention spokesman Kyle] Downey said. “We’re going to act accordingly.”

  40. #41 by cav on January 16, 2013 - 4:14 pm

    Oh. And, I left the smiley face off. Would liked to have included that.

  41. #42 by Larry Bergan on January 16, 2013 - 7:24 pm

    I’d have taken it down right away but there’s something causing me difficulty connecting with oneuTah.

    Boy, you’re no the only one!

  42. #43 by Tobias on January 16, 2013 - 9:32 pm

    You gun control twits don’t get it do you? it’s not about guns, it’s about rights, and we ain’t gonna have any soon. There’s been talk in the past of Utah, texas and some other states breaking from the union. I say please. For a decade and a half my dad helped run the state of utah, he’d cry if he saw what the country was coming too. I’m kinda glad he’s been dead for a couple of years, cause no one should see the country in this state. and you morons want to let obama run wild. You make me sick.

  43. #44 by cav on January 16, 2013 - 10:00 pm

    Someday you’ll get it Tobias. Stay strong.

  44. #45 by Tobias on January 16, 2013 - 10:34 pm

    Oh, I get it. but I’ll tell you what, you don’t want me to own guns, you come to my house and take them. I will not use them to stop you, I will however attempt to stop you. If you can take them from me, you can have them. If not, you pay your own hospital bill, sound fair?

  45. #46 by cav on January 16, 2013 - 11:05 pm

    As sick as it may sound, releasing crime scene photos of the sandy hook massacre would put an end to most if not all opposition to sane gun law legislation.

    Worked with Vietnam.

    I’m in favor of people seeing the consequences of their decisions.

    I’m also aware, not all gun owners are sane.

  46. #47 by cav on January 16, 2013 - 11:36 pm

    In the beginning, there were the militias. In the South, they were also called the “slave patrols,” and they were regulated by the states. Why did they need a well regulated militia? To keep slaves from escaping.

    http://truth-out.org/news/item/13890-the-second-amendment-was-ratified-to-preserve-slavery

  47. #48 by Bob S. on January 17, 2013 - 6:47 am

    Richard,

    At gun shows, people are actually handling firearms. I’m not sure if you actually understand what that means; surely you should given your vast military experience.

    The rules at the convention were set by the Secret Service. Not the Republican Party or state law.

    Most people when they carry concealed aren’t actively manipulating the weapon. You’ll notice that Florida state law allowed concealed carry around the convention area and in town.

    Surely even you can see how the 4 Rules of gun handling would be difficult to be maintained at gun show, right? Thus the requirement that firearms be unloaded in order to make sure at least one of the rules are followed at all times.

    Cav,

    Please let me know what you find out about the chart. I would be interested in following up on this. I’ll try to do a little research.

    BobS. I guess I was just vamping on how easy it would be for some non-gun oriented psychopath to just drive a truck-bomb to the front of a Gun Show.

    Or any other place; see Oklahoma city or the bombing of the Marine barracks in Lebannon. Again, I’ll point out that the largest school massacre did not happen with a firearm but with dynamite. Are we sure we want loser thugs like school killers to get creative?

    As sick as it may sound, releasing crime scene photos of the sandy hook massacre would put an end to most if not all opposition to sane gun law legislation.

    I support that if we do the same for all the victims of rape, people murdered without firearms, etc.

    Sane gun control laws (Concealed carry, no permit required, no magazine capacity limits) have stopped crime. Let the people see all the photographs and then decide.

    Wouldn’t you agree?

    The difference should be obvious to even you.

  48. #49 by cav on January 17, 2013 - 9:36 am

    BobS. It wasn’t til after I relayed that Mother Jones chart, I honed in on the relation of the blue and black dates connected to the blue and black lines. The off-set simply disqualifies – to my mind.

    I know about mass murders – I am an American after all. The pressurizing that accompanies big media stirs just seem to bring out the creativity in the violently oriented. It is for this reason I’m supportive of sane gun ownership. Surely you’ve gotten that.

    I still have questions about what it must mean to some tender whack-a-doodle, bored shitless, perhaps PTSD, saturated with the ‘wrong’ meds, and in every other possible way another product of our oh so Christian culture, to finally get his or her paws on either a pile of dynamite or a passel keen weaponry. It is my contention, and I’d be happy to be wrong about it, that this very encounter will still further alter his mentation. And, not always for the better.

    IOW, I’m of the Something Must Be Done crowd. But unlike those whose investment in the subject tool is much greater than my own, do not see ‘THEM’ coming to pries ALL of our gun from our cold dead fingers – but, rather, the society, as it is structured, in order to protect and provide, looking for answers, and yes even sacrifice from some, in order to make that provision.

    And, in the same way I suspect the mere handling of a particular tool conjures up in the mind of the person ideas they might never otherwise entertain – so too has the fearsome thought that ‘They’re taking away all of my freedom’ sort of lead to reactionary setups that drive even harder the resolves of both camps. Not Good.

  49. #50 by cav on January 17, 2013 - 9:49 am

    “None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.”—Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

  50. #51 by Bob S. on January 17, 2013 - 11:04 am

    Cav,

    I think you missed the significance of the offset dates; the contention is removing the lead created a group of children that grew up less violent and criminally inclined.

    Much of the violent crime is centered around the 17 to 25 year old bracket. Thus nearly two decades after the start of lead reduction; reduced crime.

    And I think we have very wildly differing opinions on what is a “sane law” . I don’t see how sane it is to limit magazines to a capacity of 10. Do the math 2 magazines of 15 rounds is equal to 3 magazines of 10 rounds. All that would do is force another magazine change. How many times will that stop a mass murder? Probably nothing.

    The other major problem is you accuse me of being focused on the object. I’m not the one talking about ‘gun control laws’ when we are trying to stop murderers. I want to focus on the person; find the ways to identify the problems, get counseling, medication or confinement before ‘some tender whack-a-doodle” gets his paws on instruments of murder. No matter what the instrument.

    Another aspect is that isolated incident (and yes, contrary to the belief of some, they are very isolated) shouldn’t be a justification for restrictions of everyone.

    Millions of people date every day but few date rape their companion.
    Millions of people drive cars every day but few drunkenly drive the wrong way on the freeway.
    Millions of people play violent video games but very few play demolition derby or go all “Grand Theft Auto” on the streets.
    Millions of moms care for their children every day, few murder them.

    We have to look at the rights of the people, not the tools.

    Newspapers publish facts about the mass murders and glorify them — yet I still support the right of the free press.

    People lie, threaten, coerce and more every day; but I support the right of free speech.

    Islam “the religion of peace” (and other religions just not as much) is involved in many acts of savagery every day, yet I support the right to worship (or not) as you choose.

    Firearms are used for recreational and self defense purposes for more often then they are used for crime. Why should they be singled out?

  51. #52 by cav on January 17, 2013 - 11:17 am

    There’s a difference between freedom & losing the plot line.

  52. #53 by Bob S. on January 17, 2013 - 11:22 am

    What plot line Cav?

    This one?

    We’re going to have to take this one step at a time, and the first step is necessarily – given the political realities – going to be very modest. Right now, though, we’d be satisfied not with half a loaf but with a slice. Our ultimate goal – total control of all guns- is going to take time … The final problem is to make the possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition – except for the military, policemen, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs and licensed gun collectors – totally illegal.”

    – Nelson T. Shields III, Founder of Handgun Control, Inc., New Yorker Magazine, July 26, 1976

    Tell me how that plot hasn’t been playing out recently?

    Given the fact that children are killed by their parents; do you want the government approving pregnancies like they do Carry Permits?

    Given the fact that people are assaulted on dates; do you want the government mandating background checks before each date?

    How about submitting your comments in advance to the government so they can make sure they won’t harm anyone ?

    Are you going to treat everyone as a potential criminal or not?
    Cause that is what you trying to do with gun owners.

  53. #54 by cav on January 17, 2013 - 11:29 am

    Plus, I only want this all behind us so we can address the pressing military budget short-fall.

    Benghazi bitches!

  54. #55 by cav on January 17, 2013 - 11:53 am

    RING>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>MORDOR! : )

  55. #56 by Cliff on January 17, 2013 - 11:57 am

    Bob S,

    While it is true that big dynamite has killed a lot of people, but with enough frequency to get the respect it deserves.

    One problem is, dynamite is not nearly as convenient. How many sticks after all can you stuff in your pants? Try it. Not too many huh?.

    And its been really hard to get ever since banks stopped giving it away with new savings accounts.

    Still, notwithstanding the convenience issue, dynamite is still more effective than a gun at close to mid-range.

    Don’t believe me? Try it.

    put a human-sized target at 50 feet. and see who can knock it down faster, the gun or the dynamite. You can set this up at most gun ranges or right outside the cave.

    You use the dynamite (cuz you will win) and grab the nearest cave dweller and give him/her say a common small-caliber hand gun.

    …And see who can hit the target first. I think you’ll find in AT LEAST 3 out of 5 tries, the dynamite will works better.

    But FAR MORE important is the fact that dynamite, properly applied in self-defense, makes a bigger BOOM and is as a result, more likely to scare off more criminals over a much larger area around the cave…controlling of course for criminal density (criminals per square mile).

    Sadly, the number of planned attacks using dynamite are in the range of 2 or 3 per decade, an incredible small number considering the advantages.

    And Bob S, don’t blame me if you develop a passion for dynamite and folks at the gun show give you a hard time about it;

    …just tell them, its not the dynamite that kills people, its tight pants.

  56. #57 by Bob S. on January 17, 2013 - 12:17 pm

    Cliff,

    Dynamite and other explosives can be more convenient for those set on mass murder. Many modern formulas can be made out of common – loosely regulated – materials.

    If you want a challenge like the one you proposed; how about we try this. We gear up in proper equipment and you can use a ‘paintball grenade’ to simulate your dynamite and I’ll use a paintball marker. You have to “light the fuse”, ensure it is lit, then through and it has a small delay.

    Meanwhile, I’ll use the marker to simulate concealed carry. Care to guess the outcome ?

    High Explosives can be fun; ever here of the “Boomershoot” event?

  57. #58 by brewski on January 17, 2013 - 12:49 pm

    Fertilizer can work too:
    http://www.local1259iaff.org/disaster.html
    468 dead
    5,000 injured

  58. #59 by Richard Warnick on January 17, 2013 - 1:13 pm

    Question for the pro-gun guys: you may be concerned about explosives, but can you explain why the NRA opposed adding taggants to trace explosives to their source?

    “The NRA was pretty vocal,” said Jim Pasco, a former BATF assistant director who is now executive director of the Fraternal Order of Police. “This would have been one tremendous leap forward, and it was just stopped cold.”

  59. #60 by Bob S. on January 17, 2013 - 1:37 pm

    Richard,

    I guess in addition to “OneUtah Reading Comprehension Syndrome” you have the “No Google Ability Virus”.

    In just a few seconds of work I found

    To conduct the study on black and smokeless powders, the National Research Council, the research body of the NAS, created the Committee on Smokeless and Black Powder which conducted the research and wrote the final report. In that final report, which was reviewed by an independent panel of experts with diverse perspectives and technical expertise, included the following findings:

    Bombs using black and smokeless powders account for a small number of deaths and injuries each year. (Annually, 10 deaths and approximately 100 injuries.)

    Information gathered by the BATF and the FBI regarding bombings is incomplete.

    An effective taggant system with the associated record keeping would incur significant costs.

    No taggant system has been found that is technically feasible for use in black and smokeless powders.

    The Committee specifically recommended:

    “Detection markers in black and smokeless powder should not be implemented at the present time.”

    “Identification taggants in black and smokeless powder should not be implemented at the present time.”

    http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/fact-sheets/1999/taggants-and-gun-powders.aspx

    Hmm, sounds like the NRA was watching out of people back then also

    Much to the chagrin of the Clinton-Gore Administration, which sought to turn gun owners who possessed untagged propellants into criminals, the issue of identification taggants has, after two decades, moved from the political arena into the domain of scientific research.

    Black powder and smokeless powder can be stored, safely, for many many years. People possessing the untagged version would suddenly be criminals. Much like people will be criminals for having a 10 round magazine in New York State.

    Richard, your desperation is showing; you’re having to reach back to 1995 to find something to kvetch about.

    Now, can you tell me how many crimes have been solved using ‘gun registries’, or ‘ballistic finger printing” ?

    How about how many criminals have been stopped by a ‘gun free zone’?

  60. #61 by cav on January 17, 2013 - 3:05 pm

    Also, on the tangent of chemical tags which would presumably enable tracing stuff back to its source. I always like the tracing of terrorist anthrax mailed to the congress people, back to U. S. labs, then died an ignoble death with the “suicide’ of the primary ‘suspect’. No real resolution.

  61. #62 by Richard Warnick on January 17, 2013 - 3:47 pm

    Bob S.–

    I knew the NRA’s position. Just wanted to see if you agreed with it. Time after time, the Gun Lobby opposes common-sense measures to promote public safety, reduce the level of violence and even combat terrorism, why? Because there might be some slight inconvenience to the purveyors of guns and ammo (aka merchants of death) who they represent!

  62. #63 by Richard Warnick on January 17, 2013 - 3:52 pm

    The Second Amendment Follies continue. Fortunately, these guys didn’t hit anybody.

    Mary Kuruc told WEWS that her daughter discovered a bullet hole in the siding of their Montville Township home and other holes inside the house. After calling 911, Montville Police Sgt. Matt Neil began investigating and the home was hit again.

    “We noticed a second bullet hole, followed the trajectory of it and noticed the bullet landed in the microwave,” Kuruc recalled.

    Neil found himself in the line of fire as he tried to track down where the bullets were coming from.

    “When I get about a half mile back in the field up on a hill, gunfire started again, and started hearing rounds go over my head,” the officer explained.

    Neil called for backup and police discovered two men who thought they were safely shooting at paper targets, but the bullets were skipping off the ground and riddling the suburban neighborhood.

    “They were drinking alcohol, they had some drugs on them and they were just outside, in their backyard shooting paper targets,” Neil said. “They felt because they were shooting at a downward angle, that it would have been OK.”

    Police suspect that “dozens” of shots were fired and have asked other residents to come forward if their homes were hit.

    Two men, 53-year-old Mark Bornino and 45-year-old R. Daniel Volpone, were arrested and are facing felony charges. Police seized an AK-47 with two high-capacity magazines, three handguns, over 700 rounds of ammunition and some marijuana.

  63. #64 by Bob S. on January 17, 2013 - 4:02 pm

    Richard,
    If you wanted to know if I agreed with it, you should have asked that. Sorry but I think your answer is slightly reeking of bovine excrement.

    You call it a common sense measure but if it doesn’t work, doesn’t prevent, doesn’t address the entire scope of an issue, how does that equal common sense?

    Let’s look at background checks for example. You want to outlaw private sales but don’t address how you will know if I or anyone else sell a firearm.

    And since criminals are not required to register their firearms, it is safe to assume the courts will find they don’t have to conduct a background check — that whole issue of ‘self incrimination’ thing.

    So, how is it common sense to push an action that doesn’t stop the problem?

  64. #65 by Larry Bergan on January 17, 2013 - 7:10 pm

    I guess some people just can’t read:

    Sorry, couldn’t resist.

    From brewski’s link at 58.

    Monsanto was around in 1946?

  65. #66 by Richard Warnick on January 17, 2013 - 7:47 pm

    Bob S.–

    I check everything (brewski can tell you that). In fact, I’m old enough to remember the original controversy. So you can believe I knew the NRA position on taggants, ridiculous as it is.

    My ex-boss had a saying, “the perfect is the enemy of the good.” I think it was Voltaire who said it originally, but General George S. Patton said something similar. It pays to do what’s effective and not wait around for some perfect plan that might not be much better.

    The mass-murder weapon ban was in effect for 10 years, it worked, so why not reinstate it?

    Why not ban large-capacity magazines? A big majority of gun owners are in favor of that.

    Same for universal background checks. Not perfect, but better than the system that exists now and hugely popular.

    Drivers don’t always abide by highway speed limits. Would the NRA brain trust argue that we don’t need speed limits for public safety?

  66. #67 by Cliff on January 18, 2013 - 3:30 am

    Bob,

    No one said back ground checks will end gun violence by itself.

    But common sense says (as you pointed out) it will make buying a gun more difficult than buying a loaf of bread.

    At least thats something.

  67. #68 by McNeil Hughes on January 18, 2013 - 6:17 am

    It won’t matter, guns are ubiquitous in the US, I mean if background checks or any regulations, small clips, blah, blah, worked then Chicago would be the safest city in the nation, instead it is one of the gun murder capitals of the US anyway

    You are trying to pissing up a rope there Cliff and Richard

  68. #69 by Bob S. on January 18, 2013 - 6:30 am

    Richard,

    You say the assault weapon ban worked, but the evidence is inconclusive. Look up the studies if you don’t believe me.

    Why not ban large capacity magazines?
    1.) One it is a made up term and does not reflect the current or previous nature of magazines.
    2.) Standard capacity magazines arewhat the military, police, most of the rest of the world think as normal i.e. greater than 10 rounds.
    3.) If the military and police are able to have them — and if they are good enough to protect the politicians and their families, why can’t the average Joe like me have them?
    4.) Because we have a couple of things called the 2nd and 9th Amendment.

    Richard, you do realize that America isn’t a democracy, don’t you? We are a Constitutional Republic designed to protect the rights of the minority from the tyranny of the majority. Don’t you complain about that all the time ?
    I don’t care if a majority of America wants to infringe on my natural right to self defense.

    Outlawing private sales — I asked earlier for you to explain how…spell it out in clear concise terms please – just how requiring a background check will stop/reduce criminals from getting firearms.

    Will you do that now?

    Cliff,

    Do you support the TSA? The warrant-less searches, indefinite detainment of citizens, police getting access to phone and emails without warrants?

    Those are things that were sold as ‘doing something’ to protect us from terrorists, crime, etc. Just because some people want to infringe on our privacy, our freedoms doesn’t mean we should.

    We could reduce date rapes by letting the government approve every date, monitor them by CCTV — that would make date rape ‘more difficult’ — you want to do that?

    How about domestic violence, surely you are for reducing that, right?

    So why not let the government require a mental health screen before marriage, before a couple gets pregnant?
    How about a license that has to be renewed every 4 years and can be vetoed by local law enforcement, eh?
    (Just hope some of those cops aren’t against gay marriage, interracial marriage, elitist snobs, etc)

    We could protect thousands of our elderly against fraud by making them get approval for every financial transaction (like buying or selling an item –firearm perhaps) through the NICS system, licensing everyone for everything — should we?

    Oh and Richard,

    Drivers don’t always abide by highway speed limits. Would the NRA brain trust argue that we don’t need speed limits for public safety?

    Want to compare driving safety records between America and Germany — where the Autobahn has no posted speed limits?

  69. #70 by brewski on January 18, 2013 - 8:01 am

    “I check everything (brewski can tell you that).”

    Actually Richard has an enormous double standard with regard to “checking things.” He accepts the unsupported opinions of bloggers who live in their mothers’ basements as being the Gospel Truth as long as they are looney left wingers. But if you cite the CBO, the BLS, or any incriminating quotes and videos which don’t support his preconceived conclusions, then he just ignores them or dismisses them out of hand.

  70. #71 by Richard Warnick on January 18, 2013 - 9:02 am

    And brewski has a habit of posting stuff from far-right sources without providing links, because he’s embarrassed to admit where it comes from. But we’re all friends here on One Utah.

  71. #72 by Richard Warnick on January 18, 2013 - 9:08 am

    Bob S.–

    Both the mass-murder weapons ban and the ban on large-capacity magazines expired after ten years, because Bush broke a campaign promise to get them renewed (part of the Worst Presidency Ever). Because existing weapons and magazines were grandfathered in, 10 years was not long enough to see the full effects. But the outcomes were positive.

    A 2004 University of Pennsylvania study (PDF) analyzed the mass-murder weapons (aka assault weapons or AWs) ban:

    Following implementation of the ban, the share of gun crimes involving AWs declined by 17% to 72% across the localities examined for this study (Baltimore, Miami, Milwaukee, Boston, St. Louis, and Anchorage), based on data covering all or portions of the 1995-2003 post-ban period. This is consistent with patterns found in national data on guns recovered by police and reported to ATF.

    The magazine ban was effective too, according to The Washington Post:

    During the 10-year federal ban on assault weapons, the percentage of firearms equipped with high-capacity magazines seized by police agencies in Virginia dropped, only to rise sharply once the restrictions were lifted in 2004, according to an analysis by The Washington Post.

    Look, Bob, bottom line is nobody outside of the government/military has a legitimate need for military-type weaponry or large-capacity magazines, except maybe Hollywood where they shoot blanks (I loved “Gangster Squad,” they were firing .45 caliber submachine guns one-handed).

  72. #73 by cav on January 18, 2013 - 9:32 am

    Still, hi-test weaponry doesn’t kill people. Nuts with hi-test weaponry Kill people.

    And it must also be pointed out…not all people with situational, or even more chronic mental illnesses are going to find blowing others away with ANYTHING, the solution to their problems. This violence is a rarity. Nor are all killers mentally ill, as mental illness is commonly understood. For example: Drone ‘pilots’ are simply following the orders of a more psychopathic ‘authority’. However, the consequence of such ‘innocent’ killing can often result IN mental illness – even suicide. There’s been a lot of that as a result of our illegal wars in distant places.

  73. #74 by Bob S. on January 18, 2013 - 9:53 am

    Richard,

    I’m not sure if you are familiar with how the federal government works. Let me try to explain – the president does not pass a law. He can only approve it or veto it.

    Congress failed to pass legislation — Bush promised to sign anything that came across his desk but the bill never made it there.

    Bush Derangement Syndrome personified!

    And note what you are using as a metric of success – national data on guns recovered by police and reported to ATF.

    That does not state that firearms were used less, just that the police recovered less. If the murderers took the firearm with them, then no gun was recovered. Sorry Charlie, doesn’t show that it reduced crime.

    And in the same vein the ‘number of firearms seized with high capacity magazines dropped.’ Well there could be a couple of reasons for that also — people hiding/sharing firearms. People not leaving magazines at the scene. Try again.

    But let’s look what is said a little later in that same report:

    There has not been a clear decline in the use of ARs, though assessments
    are complicated by the rarity of crimes with these weapons and by substitution of
    post-ban rifles that are very similar to the banned AR models

    No clear decline in the use of “assault rifles” — so the ban was effective HOW?

    and

    Because the ban has not yet reduced the use of LCMs in crime, we cannot clearly
    credit the ban with any of the nation’s recent drop in gun violence

    So your solution is to do it again only harder and different people in charge, right?

    And that report continues

    Should it be renewed, the ban’s effects on gun violence are likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement . AWs were rarely used in gun crimes even before the ban. LCMs are involved in a more substantial share of gun crimes, but it is not clear how often the outcomes of gun attacks depend on the ability of offenders to fire more than ten shots (the current magazine capacity limit) without reloading.

    Amazing what you left out of your quote, eh.
    So the very report you cite for the effectiveness of the patrol rifle ban clearly states renewing the ban would likely not make much difference.

    Look, Bob, bottom line is nobody outside of the government/military has a legitimate need for military-type weaponry or large-capacity magazines,

    Oh look Richard is passing off opinion again as a voice of AUTHORITY — Hey, do you do Cartman “RESPECT MA AUTHORAH” in the carton?

    It isn’t a Bill of Needs Richard — it is a Bill of Rights.

    But since you feel people can dictate property based on opinions, I’m sure you’ll go along when I tell you turn in your
    Car — no one needs a car
    You TV, Radio, MP3 player and other media devices — no one needs them.
    Your modern clothing — those fabrics weren’t around when the Constitution was written so you don’t need them.
    Your modern prescriptions — no one needs them. You can make do with herbal remedies.
    Your COMPUTER that you wrote that opinion on. No one needs that — you can publish your words with Quill pens and Parchment.

  74. #75 by Richard Warnick on January 18, 2013 - 10:00 am

    Sorry, my right not to get shot at random by a crazy person trumps your supposed “right” to own mass-murder weaponry that you have no legitimate use for. Both President Obama and Justice Scalia (the most right-wing member of the most right-wing Supreme Court in 100 years) agree with me.

    Gun FAILS: Second Amendment Rights Gone Wrong In Honor Of ‘Gun Appreciation Day’ (VIDEO)

  75. #76 by Bob S. on January 18, 2013 - 10:10 am

    Richard,

    And I have the right to defend myself with ‘mass-murder weaponry’ from a crazy person — so stale mate.

    See as the evidence shows (crime rates going down per FBI UCR) that as more guns are being bought, more guns are being carried in public; crime isn’t going up. So the current laws are already accomplishing much.

    By the way, since you oppose ‘mass-murder weaponry’ so much; why aren’t you calling for the police to turn theirs in?

    When are you going to call for President Obama to step out from behind the protection of dozens of people with ‘mass-murder weaponry’?

  76. #77 by brewski on January 18, 2013 - 10:19 am

    If a far right source has an incriminating, but accurate quote from Obama, then it is still accurate.

  77. #78 by Ronald D. Hunt on January 18, 2013 - 10:23 am

    “If a far right source has an incriminating, but out of context quote from Obama, then it is still accurate.”

    Their fixed that for you!

  78. #79 by Richard Warnick on January 18, 2013 - 10:57 am

    Bob S.–

    Let’s suppose for the sake of argument that you were in the wrong place at the right time, and got a mass-murderer in your sights before the police arrived. How many bullets would you need to kill him/her?

    The evidence shows that since the ban on mass-murder weapons expired, there has been an increase in gun massacres. According to Mother Jones, 25 of the past 62 mass shootings have occurred since 2006. Last year alone there were seven mass shootings—and a record number of casualties, with more than 140 people injured and killed.

  79. #80 by Bob S. on January 18, 2013 - 11:27 am

    Richard,

    Are you going to call for the police to turn in their ‘mass murder weapons”? For the government to stop protecting themselves with them and take their chances like the average person?

    How many bullets would you need to kill him/her?

    I don’t know how many it would take for me to stop him/her. I don’t plan on trying to kill people just stop them from harming me or others.

    I do know how many I would use…all that I have.
    Now turn it around. Would you want to be caught in a mass shooting with people willing to defend you but are limited in their capacity to do so?

  80. #81 by brewski on January 18, 2013 - 12:28 pm

    Nope. Never have. Never did. Never once.

  81. #82 by Richard Warnick on January 18, 2013 - 1:38 pm

    Bob S.–

    It’s a chicken/egg problem. In Britain, the regular police don’t carry guns. They have “armed police” for situations that require it. There are 6.2 firearms per 100 people.

    In the USA, we have an estimated 300 million guns, 88.8 per 100 people. Unless and until the population gives up most of those, our police will have to be armed at all times. Even so, in some instances the police are outgunned by criminals.

    Gun homicides and gun ownership listed by country

    In case of a mass shooting, I think a would-be civilian hero shooting back could double my chances of getting shot in the crossfire, to be honest.

    Gun FAILS: Second Amendment Rights Gone Wrong In Honor Of ‘Gun Appreciation Day’ (VIDEO)

  82. #83 by Bob S. on January 18, 2013 - 2:07 pm

    Richard,

    Research doesn’t bear out your contention that you would more likely be shot.

    The average number of people killed in mass shootings when stopped by police is 14.29

    The average number of people killed in a mass shooting when stopped by a civilian is 2.33

    And that is with no evidence that the civilian carrying increase the risk to bystanders.

    So what else are you going to through on the wall hoping it sticks? Pardon the pun, but I’ve shot down, with evidence, research and statistics, all your arguments.

    You can keep posting that link about ‘gun homicides and gun ownership; but it isn’t doing your argument much good

    • But the US does not have the worst firearm murder rate – that prize belongs to Honduras, El Salvador and Jamaica. In fact, the US is number 28, with a rate of 2.97 per 100,000 people

    Oh, and your argument for Britain?

    Gun crime has almost doubled since Labour came to power as a culture of extreme gang violence has taken hold.

    The latest Government figures show that the total number of firearm offences in England and Wales has increased from 5,209 in 1998/99 to 9,865 last year – a rise of 89 per cent.

    In some parts of the country, the number of offences has increased more than five-fold.

    In eighteen police areas, gun crime at least doubled

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1223193/Culture-violence-Gun-crime-goes-89-decade.html

    And the use of firearms by the police in England is also increasing — sounds like they find them useful tools

    I don’t doubt they sometimes have to be armed to deal with dangerous criminals or potential terrorists, though the gradual annual rise in the number of operations in which firearms were authorised in England and Wales (from 14,827 in 2002/3 to 17,209 in 2010/11) is disquieting. So, too, is the rapid growth in the deployment of Taser stun-guns, which were responsible for three unintended deaths last year alone.

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2205851/Yes-tempting-arm-police-But-robocops-I-predict-lose-trust-support.html

  83. #84 by Richard Warnick on January 18, 2013 - 3:01 pm

    Bob S.–

    Your question was: why not disarm the police? My answer was: if you can disarm the people first, then you can disarm the police. But nobody in power has suggested disarming Americans.

    Cliff has previously posted a video from ABC News that effectively demonstrates why the myth of the civilian hero is just that, a myth.

    2009 ABC News Experiment Demonstrates More Guns Unlikely to Stop Mass Shootings

  84. #85 by Bob S. on January 18, 2013 - 3:30 pm

    Richard,

    Stop making like an ostrich and denying people are calling for confiscation of firearms. That level of denial is unbecoming.

    As far as ABC News rigged experiment; Let me run through some of the major problems with it.

    1. They provided training to the students but the holsters were worn OUTSIDE the shirts in training but INSIDE during the ‘experiment’. Combine that with the extra long length of the shirts and it is almost as if ABC wanted to make it difficult for them to get the pistols.

    2. The “assailant’ was a trained tactical officer — not the same level of experience as most mass murderers.

    3. The stage was set up the same way every time. The Teacher was always in the same spot, the ‘defending student’ was always in the same spot — locations which (if he didn’t know before) the ‘assailant’ knew after the first run through.

    4. The holsters were position in a manner that most people do not carry, especially when they are expected to be seated for long periods.

    5. The ‘assailant’ did not aim at any other student then the ‘defending student’. NOT ONCE.

    6. The ‘actors’ on several occasions ran in front of the defending student — none were shot by the defender if I remember correctly — yet none were also shot by the assailant. You can see this clearly in the first student up — the ‘assailant’ clearly and deliberate stops firing when the ‘actor’ crosses in front of him only to resume targeting Joey.
    Now since Joey never got his firearm out from under his shirt — just what made him a target?

    Didn’t you ‘feel’ that the defender make you twice as likely to be hit? Yet this rigged scenario shows how unlikely that is

    7. The instructors are teaching ‘head shots’ in training instead of center of mass. Not what most people are taught. Again, it is almost as if they rigged the scenario.

    And most importantly, even if they don’t succeed and die in the attempt; why shouldn’t they have that freedom to try?

  85. #86 by Richard Warnick on January 19, 2013 - 11:36 am

    Bob S.–

    Who is calling for confiscation? Specifically? Or it it just typical right-wing paranoia?

    It makes sense for a mass shooter to target someone else who’s shooting back. Even a crazy person would do that.

    Center of mass is what I was taught in the Army, but if the bad guy is wearing body armor (like the Aurora, CO shooter) you need to aim for the head.

    I still say TWO untrained people opening fire in a crowd is worse than one.

  86. #87 by Richard Warnick on January 19, 2013 - 11:56 am

    Maher: ‘It’s not your Second Amendment rights that are under attack — it’s all the other ones’

    This is something that I’ve wondered about. The Second Amendment is protected by the Supreme Court. But what about the Fourth Amendment, and habeas corpus?

  87. #88 by Larry Bergan on January 19, 2013 - 1:32 pm

    I can’t afford Bill Maher on video, but I can get his show for free on Itunes.

    Not the same as seeing the people on the show, but worth it anyway.

    Where else can you get a glimpse of truly balanced truth?

  88. #89 by Bob S. on January 19, 2013 - 8:26 pm

    Richard,

    I’m not going to point out individuals calling for the confiscation of firearms. I could list dozens of examples but you’ll find something to wiggle out of it.

    Look for yourself, Read the newspapers, the online media, look at the comments. Look at Andrew Cuomo talking about confiscation being an option.

    You wouldn’t believe any citations I give; so go find them for yourself. But you are one of the very few people who have not heard the calls for confiscation.

    Next, I didn’t say the ‘assailant’ in the video targeted those shooting back – he targeted the one student designated as the defender. Look at the video. Actually watch it and see what he does. Time and time again, he turns directly to the center of the room and starts shooting the ‘defender’.

    In the case of the first guy, he never even presented a weapon — it was hung up in his shirt. The ‘assailant’ could not identify it as a weapon.

    Yet time and time again, he targeted the ‘defender’. In the second scenario, he actually stopped shooting to let another student run in front of him.

    You say, but that is just your opinion. Remember what they say about opinions– They are like armpits, everyone usually has two and they stink.

    For your information, the Aurora shooter was not wearing body armor. He was wearing load bearing equipment. The receipt from the web site he bought it at clearly identifies it as load bearing equipment — meaning there was no additional protection for it.

  89. #90 by Richard Warnick on January 20, 2013 - 11:39 am

    William Saletan on the Aurora shooter:

    He wore a ballistic helmet, a ballistic vest, ballistic leggings, a throat protector, a groin protector, and tactical gloves. He was so well equipped that if anyone in that theater had tried what the National Rifle Association recommends—drawing a firearm to stop the carnage—that person would have been dead meat. Holmes didn’t just kill a dozen people. He killed the NRA’s answer to gun violence.

    Aurora rampage: James Holmes’ preliminary hearing enters Day 3

    Another well-known example: the L.A. bank robbers in the North Hollywood Shootout in 1997.

    A belated Happy Gun Appreciation Day to one and all, especially the people who froze for two hours yesterday at the Utah State Capitol. Happiness is a warm gun, but they looked pretty cold out there.

  90. #91 by Bob S. on January 20, 2013 - 12:50 pm

    And other people are reporting differently Richard

    The officers spotted Holmes—dressed like a SWAT officer and clad in a ballistic helmet, body armor, a load-bearing vest, gas mask, and other tactical gear—behind the theater after the shooting and questioned him, Aurora Police Chief Dan Oates told CBS’ Face the Nation.

    http://www.policemag.com/channel/swat/news/2012/07/23/observant-swat-cops-jammed-gun-saved-lives-in-colo-shooting.aspx

    this is what he was wearing http://tacticalgear.com/blackhawk-urban-assault-vest

    You can point to reporters or writers for magazines as a source but that doesn’t mean they get it right.

    Or this source http://www.ksdk.com/news/article/329172/3/Colorado-gunman-purchased-tactical-gear-from-Chesterfield-based-business

    Now how about using some common sense and tell me where people can get a ‘bullet proof vest’ for $106, eh?

    Anything else you want to throw out?
    Or are you going to answer my questions about turning in your computer because others use computers for child porn, turning in your car because others drive drunk, being subject a background check prior to every date because other commit date rape?

    Oh, I know, you aren’t looking to confiscate weapons — so how about going back to parchment and quill pen (those were writing implements when the Bill of rights was issued and surely computers aren’t protected) or being limited to a passenger vehicle that seats only 2 because no one needs ‘high capacity’ cars.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: