GUNS IN THE NEWS--December 15, 2003

[MrBenchley]

As CO Liberal sez:
Please try to adhere to the following voluntary guidelines, in order that we can have an orderly discussion of gun-related news topics:
1 - Feel free to add any CURRENT stories to this thread by replying to this message. In order to be considered current, stories should have been originally posted on the Internet within the previous 24 hours, or provide follow-up to a story that was previously posted on the J/PS board. On Mondays (since many people do not log in to DU over the weekend), stories can be posted from Saturday, Sunday, or Monday.
2 - Both pro-gun and anti-gun stories, editorials, and press releases are welcome in this thread, as long as they're current. Please do not post links to items from a few years back that support your position.
3 - Bear in mind that any links to extremely right-wing sites (such as Newsmax, CNS, or the Washington Times) or intentionally pro-gun or pro-control sites (such as the NRA or the Brady Campaign) are not considered reliable sources by many DU-ers. If at all possible, try to find a link for your story from a more mainstream source, such as a general-circulation newspaper or magazine site. If you choose to use a slanted site, be prepared for any negative feedback you may receive.
4 - Do not change story titles. In other words, if the Oskosh Gazette's web site runs a story titled "Two Killed in Holdup", the title of your message should read "Two Killed in Holdup". Don't change it to "Gun Owner Kills Two People", or anything else that changes the meaning of the story.
5 - If it's not clear from the title where the story occurred, add the city, state, or country in parentheses after the title.
6 - Comment on a story by replying to that story.
7 - Please direct your comments to the story, rather than attacking the person posting the story or any person responding to the story. In accordance with DU rules, any messages that appear to be personal attacks against another DU-er or violations of any other DU rule will be reported to the moderators.
8 - If you object to these guidelines, do everyone else a favor and go to another thread.

[MrBenchley]

1. Ky. Police Fatally Shoot Murder Suspect

"DANVILLE, Ky. - State police shot and killed a man suspected of shooting to death his father and two relatives, all in their 70s.
A trooper approached Timothy L. Franklin, 39, early Saturday after Franklin's vehicle got into an accident in LaRue County. Franklin, who earlier had told police he was in the area after they called him on his cell phone, got out of his truck with a handgun, Trooper Steve Pavey told WAVE-TV of Louisville.
"He kept walking toward the trooper and failed to disarm after being told several times to drop his gun," Pavey said. "At some point, he started to aim in the direction of the state trooper and was shot twice."
Police late Friday had found three of Franklin's relatives shot to death at a residence in Danville, in central Kentucky: his father, Robert L. Franklin, 72, uncle Roy C. Franklin, 74, and aunt Carrie J. Franklin, 71. "

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20031214/ap_on_re_us/family_shot_1

Maybe Franklin felt the spirit of the wilderness descending on him...

[MrBenchley]

2. 10th gun of year found at CMS (NC)

"For the third time in less than a week, a gun has been found at a Charlotte-Mecklenburg school, officials said.
The discovery brings to 10 the number of guns found at schools in the district since August. Also in Union County Thursday, officials sent letters to parents about a student accused of bringing a gun to Monroe High School the day before.
Charlotte-Mecklenburg police and school officials said a student called Crime Stoppers with a tip Thursday. A 9th-grader had a gun at East Mecklenburg High School, the tipster said."

http://www.charlotte.com/mld/charlotte/living/education/7473353.htm

[MrBenchley]

3. Mishawaka mourning 2 officers (IN)

"Two Mishawaka policemen were fatally shot Saturday in the first on-duty police slayings in the city's 170-year history.
Residents of the northern Indiana city streamed by the police station for hours Saturday, dropping off flowers and condolence cards to honor the officers.
"We just aren't used to something like this," said Mayor Robert Beutter. "It's something like 17 degrees out, and people have been coming by all day."
Police Cpl. Thomas Roberts, 43, and Patrolman Bryan Verkler, 27, were shot at 2 a.m. Saturday as they tried to arrest a man with a gun, said Police Chief Matt Weber.
Roberts died at the scene just north of downtown, and Verkler died in surgery around 4 a.m. at St. Joseph Regional Medical Center in South Bend."

http://www.indystar.com/articles/7/102138-5687-009.html

[MrBenchley]

4. After Cheney's Private Hunt, Others Take Their Shots

Bwana Dick's Great White Hunter Act continues to amuse and disgust the sane.....

"Vice President Dick Cheney's Christmas card arrived in the capital's mailboxes last week with this suddenly apt quotation from Benjamin Franklin: "And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid?"
All of which brings us to Mr. Cheney's bird-hunting trip at the exclusive Rolling Rock Club in the hills of southwestern Pennsylvania last Monday, when he and nine others in his party shot some 400 out of 500 pen-raised pheasants released for the morning hunt. No one might have noticed the episode if The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette had not reported it, including the detail that the vice president had shot more than 70 of the ring-necked pheasants himself.
"Something here doesn't add up," said David Wade, Mr. Kerry's spokesman. "The Bush administration says the economy is improving, but their millionaire vice president has to hunt for his own food." "

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/15/politics/15LETT.html

[MrBenchley]

5. Suspect, motive unknown in Near-Northside slaying (IN)

"A man was shot to death Saturday in front of an apartment building in the 3700 block of North Meridian Street.
The victim, whose name was not released pending notification of relatives, was pronounced dead on arrival at Wishard Memorial Hospital, said Sgt. Steve Staletovich, Indianapolis Police Department spokesman."

http://www.indystar.com/articles/9/102148-7539-009.html

[MrBenchley]

6. Road Rage Turns Violent In Clay County (FL)

"Dawn Eggelton was driving down Blanding Boulevard when she said a man pulled a .357 handgun on her and her children. Police arrested the suspect, 47-year-old Jesse Ransom, on felony charges of assault. Ransom told investigators he was angry that Eggleton pulled out in front of his truck.
The suspect started flashing his lights and honking.
"Obviously, I wasn't going fast enough for him," said Eggelton. She said Ransom was right on the bumper of her truck.
That's when police said Ransom pulled out the gun and started pointing it at Eggelton and her children while driving. "

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=422&ncid=422&e=4&u=/ibsys/20031212/lo_wjxt/1914579

[XanaDUer]

7. I saw the above story

on my local news...scary, luckily the woman got away with her children without injury.

[MrBenchley]

8. Frightening, isn't it?

Florida is one of those states in which the gun lobby was able to push through pistol permits for everyone at a whim...instead of somebody having to demonstrate why they need a gun in their pocket...the cops are required to find a reason why someone should not..

Of course you also have to under go several hours of arduous training. It's the sort of disgrace that occurs when you let a corrupt industry set public policy.

[demsrule4life]

10. Maybe I missed it

where in this story does it say the asshole had a pistol permit? If anything hopefully the woman learned a lesson and will be getting one herself.

[MrBenchley]

11. Gee, dems, that would have beenn the cherry on the sundae

a shootout on the highway....

[CO Liberal]

12. The Real Lesson Here....

...is that making it easier to get CCW permits is a recipe for tragedy.

[slackmaster]

13. Conclusion does not follow logically from the story

CO, you are assuming that someone who has a permit and has gone through the required training will behave the same way as someone who is carrying without a permit, i.e. illegally.

The 8-hour CCW qualification course in California includes extensive discussions of the pertinent laws and the penalties for violating them. It puts The Fear in permit holders.

I think society is better off if we have some documentation of who is authorized to carry.

[MrSandman]

119. If it was in a holster

under the seat, FL does not require CCW. Or training.

[MrBenchley]

14. Very true...

Suggesting that a woman with small children ought to tote around a gun herself and ADD to the danger is the hieight of foolishness...

[Withergyld]

16. more baseless conclusions

try some facts next time.
:freak:

[MrBenchley]

20. I have some facts, with

As the sniveling and crying by the RKBA crowd attests...

[slackmaster]

21. Illogical, Appeal to Ridicule

Nobody is sniveling or crying here. Some of us are trying to keep the discussion focused on verifiable data, facts, logic, and reason. Others are content to allow fear to govern their opinions.

[Withergyld]

26. well where are your facts??

I don't see any sniveling or whining, just baseless conclusions driven by emotion.

[MrBenchley]

28. Been there, done that...

"I don't see any sniveling or whining, just baseless conclusions driven by emotion."
Geeze, that's all the RKBA crowd's posts ever amount to...baseless conclusions driven by emotion...and low emotion at that.

[Withergyld]

36. I'm from Missouri

:freak:

[RoeBear]

22. Great progressive position there...

...MR B! Let's keep women defenseless. They should have been born men if they wanted to protect themselves and their children.

[MrBenchley]

25. Too TOO funny, roe...

Why do you think women overwhelmingly support gun control?

[MrSandman]

121. I have 3 small children and "tote"

a gun around...and haven't added danger.

[Withergyld]

15. Show in the article

Concealed Carry Laws played any role in this incident.

:dunce:

[CO Liberal]

17. It's Not In The Article

But if it turns out this asshole DID have a permit, I would expect all you pro-gunners to admit to the fact that a permit does not guarantee safe gun use.

[slackmaster]

18. Yes, and if it turns out that the asshole did NOT have a permit

Will you admit that the incident does not reflect on either the pitfalls OR the benefits of licensed concealed carry?

[CO Liberal]

29. Yes, I WIll

[slackmaster]

32. Thank you CO

I appreciate your sense of fairness and willingness to reconsider opinions, which I strive to maintain in myself.

BTW I'm glad to learn you haven't put me on Ignore. And Happy Holidays to you and your family.

[MrBenchley]

19. You will notice

that the latest struggle by the gun nut crowd is to get the names of permit holders kept secret....wonder why?

And remember, the actual practice is that unless this asswipe has committed some serious infraction in the past, the citizens of Florida have no way to prevent him from lugging his gun around wherever he wants.....although the reason ought to be blindingly obvious to anyone without suet in his skull..

[RoeBear]

23. At least in Michigan...

...and I would assume Florida also, the 'secrecy' that you are moaning about doesn't have anything to do with the story.
Cops here know you have a permit as soon as they run your DL.
And it would be mentioned in the police report that the newspaper would have used to write this story. So I'm willing to go out on a limb and say that Jesse Ransom had no permit and will be behind bars for a long time.


But thanks for this: "although the reason ought to be blindingly obvious to anyone without suet in his skull.."

I always wondered why birds keep pecking at my ears.

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[slackmaster]

31. Anyone who really needs to know can find out

Just as anyone who needs to see your federal tax returns can get them. That doesn't mean it would be OK for a newspaper to publish everyone's tax filing data just because they can.

And you will also notice there are no gun charges mentioned against this asswipe at all....which sounds more like evidence that he had one than anything else.

Bullshit. Whether or not he had a permit, brandishing a gun in response to a traffic altercation would be illegal. The fact that no charges have been mentioned simply means that none have been filed YET.

Are you trying to make us believe that permit holders are allowed to brandish guns with impunity, MrBenchley?

[RoeBear]

80. Where the fuck...

...did I defend the guy?

[slackmaster]

81. I was wondering about that too

Certainly not in this thread.

[Withergyld]

24. I know why

the list should be kept secret.

Why give criminals a shopping list of known gun owners to steal from???

How would you prevent a published list from being used in this manner???

[MrBenchley]

30. Yeah, surrrrrrrrrrre....

[slackmaster]

34. Empty appeal to ridicule

Not even a cursory attempt to address the issues.

[CO Liberal]

35. Wait a Minute......

In the past, pro-gunners have suggested that those of us who choose not to own guns post signs on our houses stating that fact - the "logic" being that the bad guys would see that there was no gun to worry about.

Using that "logic", why do you think a bad guy would purposely seek out a house where they KNOW someone inside owns a gun?

More fuzzy thinking from the pro-gun side.

[MrBenchley]

37. For that matter...

...the whole rationale for letting neurotics tote guns on their persons was that, instead of endangering the rest of us, it was supposed to cut down on crime for the rest of us (that turned out to be horseshit from a crackpot named Mary Rosh, but still.....)

Now it turns out that not only do these loonies and their guns present more of a target for crime, but that they want to hide among the rest of us unarmed folks for fear of getting robbed....

Amazing, isn't it?

[Withergyld]

43. spin spin spin

Criminals fear armed victims.
Concealed carry deters crime because criminals do not know which of their potential victims may be armed.

Any valuable comodity is a target for criminals.

keep spinning maybe you will get one of these for Christmas

[MrBenchley]

46. I'm not the one spinning here...

You're the one who wants to claim that a popgun keeps its wearer safer than the rest of us....but then also wants to claim that the names of popgun owners has to be kept secret because otherwise they'd be less safe than the rest of us.

All of those gyrations in an attempt to spin away the obvious...which is that the gun industry doesn't want anybody to know what a really lousy idea it is.

[Withergyld]

48. keep spinning

[MrBenchley]

49. With I'm not the one spinning

anymore than I'm the one claiming that he has a crime deterrant that is also a crime attractant...

[Withergyld]

71. are you dizzy yet???

[MrBenchley]

75. No, nor am I likely to be

since you're the one desperately spinning...

[RoeBear]

86. Based on special effects...

I have to give this round to Withergyld.

[MrBenchley]

90. Yeah, but I have to

consider the source....

[Withergyld]

88. Why are you trying to make it easier for criminals to get guns??

:shrug:

[MrBenchley]

91. Too TOO funny....

No argument too desperate or absurd for the RKBA crowd.

We have to let neurotics have popguns to fight crime...which then makes it easier for criminals to take the popguns away...unless the neurotics can pretend not to have popguns, thus putting them at the same risk as the rest of us...

Clear as mud...and of course the cherry on the top is that the rationale for the popguns in the first place is based on a crackpot's pseudoscientific fraud..

[Withergyld]

100. anyone reading this thread

can clearly see for themselves who is neurotic.

[slackmaster]

103. Anyone, that is

Who doesn't have haggis for brains.

:evilgrin:

[MrBenchley]

107. Tee hee hee.....

[slackmaster]

108. QED

n/t

[slackmaster]

59. Another Straw Man

...the whole rationale for letting neurotics tote guns on their persons was that, instead of endangering the rest of us, it was supposed to cut down on crime...

Remind us again who on the DU forums has used that argument?

Oh yeah, nobody.

[Withergyld]

39. If I were a criminal

and the Police published a list of CCW license holders, I could use it in the following way:
1 get copy of list
2 use phone book or internet to get address to go with name.
3 stake out house until owner leaves.
4 ransack house looking for weapons.

Criminals avoid houses with armed occupants, but if the house is empty, gun ownership provides little deterrance.

If there is no firearm in the home, criminals have no fear of being shot by the occupants. In America criminals spend a great deal of time making sure that the house they break into is unoccupied, in England however, criminals don't have to worry much about being shot, and break into occupied houses more often.

[MrBenchley]

42. Too TOO funny...

"If there is no firearm in the home, criminals have no fear of being shot by the occupants."
Yet according to you, people with a gun in the home are MORE at risk.

"in England however, criminals don't have to worry much about being shot, and break into occupied houses more often. "
Ah, the Phony English Bloodbath...should have guessed that horseshit was due to make a periodic reappearance...

[Withergyld]

52. The UN Individual Crime Victim Survey

reported that England had a higher overall crime rate then the U.S.

[MrBenchley]

54. Yeah, surrrrrrrrrrre.....

And Wayne LaPierre is the Queen of the May.

[Withergyld]

67. This survey was posted

a month or two ago, use the search function and look it up.

[MrBenchley]

74. Yeah, surrrrrrrrrre....

You mean this one, showing that the entire UK has less gun violence than Fort Worth, Texas?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=9808

That's the one that showed there were 23 gun deaths last year in a nation of 60 million people...

[Withergyld]

99. that's not it

I will see if I can dig up the link for you.

[iverglas]

102. well ya'd just better

"I will see if I can dig up the link for you."

... before slackmaster starts calling it bullshit, and demanding that you cite or retract.

.

[slackmaster]

104. You misunderstand me, iverglas

I'm biased. I only call out bullshit anti-gun nonsense. Unless some fool brings up that bogus Hitler quote again.

[iverglas]

105. ya think? (edited)

Somebody else failing to get that dry Canadian humour ...



Oh, all right. I admit ... that was obviously you practising at it. "I'm biased. I only call out bullshit anti-gun nonsense." -- Dry self-deprecating humour, right?

.

[slackmaster]

106. I think you were just impugning my character (edited)

But that's par for the course around here.

:evilgrin:

Dry self-deprecating humour, right?

Yes, I make fun of myself and others on "my" side of this debate often. If you can't recognize and acknowledge your own shortcomings you don't have much business trying to point out others' IMO.

[Withergyld]

133. This is the home page for the survey

but the link to the data on this page is bad.
I am still working on finding a good link to the data
http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/research_icvs.html

[ruralpro]

40. Fuzzy thinking?

1st I got the idea someplace that I had a right to privacy.
2cnd bad guys always want to rob gun owners when no one is home. (very liquid asset)

3rd in case you failed to notice, its my right

[MrSandman]

122. I never understood that logic either

IMO it doesn't matter to me. Everyone around here is assumed to have at least a high powered rifle, a shotgun, and a .22. I trust a gunsage more than I would trust keeping the fact I have a CHL private.

[iverglas]

41. you mean ...

Kinda like they all admitted that the asshole who shot a teenager in the back in Boca Raton in October was not acting in defence of anything ... and that the fact that he was not charged on the spot did not mean that the cops had concluded that he had done nothing illegal? I mean, given how assiduously I provided follow-up on that case -- in which the man who killed the kid has now been charged with homicide -- I would've expected something like that.

And if it turns out that the asshole in this case did have a permit, perhaps they'll be able to identify the exact point in time when he ceased to be a "law-abiding gun owner" ... and whether they have yet perfected an alarm system that will convey that message to law enforcement authorities so that his firearm can be neutralized by remote control, say, before he uses it to kill someone ...

(typo edited)

.

[MrBenchley]

44. You will recall the Doorbell Psycho DID have a permit

I suppose some people think we have to wait until we find out definitively that this loony too did have a permit before we can say gee, incidents like this show why it's a horrible idea to hand pistol permits out like candy.

By the way, how do you like the sidetrack about concealed weapons making their neurotic adherents MORE vulneralbe to crime? Jinkies, that's why people need pistol permits....so they can be less safe than the unarmed rest of us.

[Withergyld]

45. what a stretch

Do drivers license make the streets safer??

[MrBenchley]

47. Gun registration and gun owner licensing

glad you came on board....it's a good idea..

[Withergyld]

53. major straw man

:freak:

Edited to add, the right to drive is not guaranteed by the Constitution, the right to keep and bear arms is.

Edited to correct dyslexic spelling

[MrBenchley]

56. So now you're saying

you oppose it? You brought up the subject in the first place.

"the right to drive is not guaranteed by the Constitution, the right to keep and bear arsm is"
No, the right to keep and bear arms in a well-regulated militia for the defense of a ffree state[/b is in the Constitution.

[Withergyld]

65. Title 10 section 311of the USC defines militia

Sec. 311. - Militia: composition and classes


(a)

The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b)

The classes of the militia are -

(1)

the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2)

the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/htm_hl?DB=uscode10&STEMMER=en&WORDS=militia+&COLOUR=Red&STYLE=s&URL=/uscode/10/311.html#muscat_highlighter_first_match

[MrBenchley]

68. Jinkies, with....

You're not going to try to pretend that well regulated and unorganized are synonymous AGAIN, are you?

You and dozer spent the summer trying to do that and all you did was look ridiculous trying.

[slackmaster]

69. And YOU are not going to pretend that

The purpose of the Second Amendment is anything other than to ensure that the states have a pool of armed citizens upon which they can draw to form organized militias as they (the states) see fit, are you?

[Withergyld]

73. No I am pionting out what the definition of "Militia" is according to

Federal Law.
The 2nd is an individual right. Those that feel it is a collective right still have the definition of "Militia" in Title 10 Section 311 of the USC to deal with. I am able bodied, male and between the ages of 17 and 45. Therefore I am a member of the militia and have the right to keep and bear arms.

[MrBenchley]

77. Then your post is pointless...

"Those that feel it is a collective right still have the definition of "Militia" in Title 10 Section 311 of the USC to deal with."
Which clearly spells out which part is well regulated (the National Guard and the Naval Militia, both of which are there for the defense of the free states).

"Therefore I am a member of the militia"
Yeah, but so poorly regulated that you want to claim your popgun keeps you safe from crime AND makes you more of a target for crime simultaneously...and last time we went round this maypole, this is where you began insisting "well regulated" and "unorganized" were synonymous...

[Withergyld]

92. let me get the straw out of my mouth

I have NEVER said "well regulated" = "unoganized"
Find a post where I have said this.

I am only a target of crime if you choose to make me one by publishing a list of CCW permit holders.

Why are you so trying so hard to help criminals get guns??

[MrBenchley]

97. Too too funny....

You need a popgun because you're a target of crime...because criminals will fear that you may have a popgun...unless they know you have a popgun...in which case you're more at risk than we who don't run around with a popgun?

Is there something about publishing a list of CCW permit holders that makes it illegal for them to get a burglar alarm? Or a dog? Or a safe?

For that matter, isn't the whole idea of the CCW permit that you're going to be lugging your popgun where ever you go?

This gets sillier and sillier the more you explain it...sounds like the best way to keep guns out of criminal hands is to keep them out of the hands of anybody pretending he needs to carrry one around all the time.

And it's especially funny because the RKBA crowd howls like banshees whenever the notion of closing the gun show loophole is brought up. Evidently it's hunky-dory for criminals to just stroll up and buy guns without a background check...

The more I hear, the more I'm convinced that the reason some people want to keep this list secret is to keep reporters frrom finding out whether idiots like this guy who threatened the young mother and her children has one....and nothing more..

[Withergyld]

98. Most gun owners own more then one firearm

I currently own over a dozen firearms.

It would be impractical to carry them all at once. Many are long guns and therefore not concealable. If you think it would be ok for me to walk around carrying an "assault rifle" slung over my shoulder let me know.

When a thread was started about people exercising thier right to carry firearms openly, you were quick to criticize their actions.

Since you are against both concealed carry and open carry I can only surmise that you will only be happy when only the police and active military have access to firearms and then only while on duty.

Since I have more then one and I also have small children any firearm I am using is kept locked in a gun safe. the gun safe also deters the casual thief. A determined thief would steal the whole thing. Even a gun safe can be stolen and opened later at the thief's leisure.

When I worked as a Commercial Plumber, A thief broke into one of the sites I was working on and stole a whole job box full of tools and copper fittings. The container was five feet long, four feet high and three feet wide. It weighed over 1000 lbs with everything in it. The building was locked and it was chained to a steel column with three seperate chains and locks. If a thief could steal this they could also steal an entire gunsafe and it's contents.

Stopping private sales only at Gunshows will do little to stop criminals from obtaining firearms, because less then 1% of criminals buy firearms at Gunshows.

The more you try to spin my words the sillier the gun control advocates look.

[MrBenchley]

109. Too TOO funny....

So what prevents gun owners from buying a burglar alarm or a dog or a safe?

"Stopping private sales only at Gunshows will do little to stop criminals from obtaining firearms, because less then 1% of criminals buy firearms at Gunshows."
Yeah, surrrrrrrrrrre....and Wayne LaPierre is Queen of the Faeries....

"Since you are against both concealed carry and open carry I can only surmise that you will only be happy when only the police and active military have access to firearms and then only while on duty."
Tell you what....I've never seen an on-line post by a gun nut that's made me think, "By golly, THERE's someone I'd trust with a gun.....or pointy scissors."

"The more you try to spin my words the sillier the gun control advocates look. "
I don't think so...but then I'm not claiming I need a gun to keep people from stealing my guns....

[Withergyld]

110. You must have worked on a cattle ranch you're good with straw men

Where did I say this?
"I don't think so...but then I'm not claiming I need a gun to keep people from stealing my guns...."

"Stopping private sales only at Gunshows will do little to stop criminals from obtaining firearms, because less then 1% of criminals buy firearms at Gunshows."
Yeah, surrrrrrrrrrre....and Wayne LaPierre is Queen of the Faeries...."

Bureau of Justice Statistics:
"According to the 1997 Survey of State Prison Inmates, among those possessing a gun, the source of the gun was from -

a flea market or gun show for fewer than 2%
a retail store or pawnshop for about 12%
family, friends, a street buy, or an illegal source for 80%"
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm

"So what prevents gun owners from buying a burglar alarm or a dog or a safe?"
Nothing.
What prevents a thief from circumventing these measures??

'Tell you what....I've never seen an on-line post by a gun nut that's made me think, "By golly, THERE's someone I'd trust with a gun.....or pointy scissors."'

This is the most telling thing of all.
You have a deep seated distrust of others.

[slackmaster]

111. Cut MrB some slack there

You have a deep seated distrust of others.

Hey, he lives in New Jersey!

[MrBenchley]

112. Only a cattle ranch could have more of what

RKBA posts are loaded with...

"According to the 1997 Survey of State Prison Inmates"
Well THERE's a source to hang your hat on....after all, if you can't trust prison inmates, who CAN you trust?

By the way, wonder where family, friends, a street buy, or an illegal source got their guns? Maybe the gun fairy left them under a cabbage leaf?

"What prevents a thief from circumventing these measures?"
Hell, that must be some damn master criminal....

"This is the most telling thing of all.
You have a deep seated distrust of others."
Gee, and yet I'm not the one screaming that I have to have a small arsenal that includes an assault rifle AND carry a popgun everywhere I go...and that no safe or burglar alarm can protect me.. Funny, huh?

[slackmaster]

114. Question about the 1997 survey of prison inmates

What reason would they have to lie ABOUT THAT PARTICULAR QUESTION?

Wouldn't it make more sense for them to have, just guessing here, tried to cover for their friends and relatives by OVERstating the rate at which they got guns from anonymous strangers at gun shows or flea markets? Wouldn't "I got it from some redneck at the swap meet" be a more likely lie than "My little sister bought it at a gun store for me"?

I know they aren't known for their honesty, but even the nastiest people in the world usually give good information when you as a stranger politely ask them for simple information that has no bearing on their legal status. Very few people, generally only very immature ones, give RANDOM wrong answers. People usually lie to protect themselves personally.

Gee, and yet I'm not the one screaming that I have to have a small arsenal that includes an assault rifle AND carry a popgun everywhere I go...and that no safe or burglar alarm can protect me.. Funny, huh?

What's even funnier is that literally nobody is saying what MrBenchley attributes to - who exactly???

[Withergyld]

126. The BJS

must think the survey is valid, why else would they publish the results??
In fact they repeat this survey every few years.

While you may not like the source of the data, do you have a different source that shows where/how criminals obtain firearms.

[slackmaster]

101. The whole concept of CONCEALED carry revolves around confidentiality

Many permit holders got their permits because they have been stalked or harrassed or threatened or assaulted or robbed or raped, or because they regularly carry cash or valuables on the job. There would be no obvious societal benefit to publishing their names, and doing so might even endanger them by compromising their anonymity. Some of them MIGHT be trying to avoid people with whom they've had a bad interaction in the past. Why would you want to harm their ability to keep private?

Would you publish just their names, MrBenchley, or their addresses and phone numbers as well? How about posting 8x10 glossy photos of them in their neighborhood post offices?

:freak:

For that matter, isn't the whole idea of the CCW permit that you're going to be lugging your popgun where ever you go?

No. It gives you the OPTION to carry a gun most places.

And it's especially funny because the RKBA crowd howls like banshees whenever the notion of closing the gun show loophole is brought up. Evidently it's hunky-dory for criminals to just stroll up and buy guns without a background check...

Another post, another Straw Man.

[BullDozer]

124. Spin away gyro boy

Hahahahahhaha

it's so damn funny when you try to deny the truth even when it's quoted to you straight out of US Code.

[MrBenchley]

125. I'm not the one spinning, dozer

If you're going to try to pretend that well regulated and unorganized are synonymous AGAIN, you can do it without me.

[BullDozer]

127. Tin foil

You just go ahead and keep denying that something well defined in US Code isn't real.

[MrBenchley]

128. Jeeze, dozer...

If you want to pretend unorganized means well regulated do it without me...you certainly want to pretend racists aren't racist...

The act you keep pointing to as big medicine clearly spells out which part of the militia is well regulated (the National Guard and the Naval Militia, both of which are there for the defense of the free states). You, on the other hand, are so badly regulated you actually posted the idiotic Houston Review, which was chceerleading for the way Jeb Bush is keeping blacks out of Florida's college, to try and prove something else wasn't racist.....

[BullDozer]

129. Right sure thing bube

The act you keep pointing to as big medicine clearly spells out which part of the militia is well regulated ...

Hoooookay now you are going to cherry pick the parts of the act that are OK with you and deny the others?

That's pretty damn funny.


posted the idiotic Houston Review, which was chceerleading for the way Jeb Bush is keeping blacks out of Florida's college, to try and prove something else wasn't racist.....

No bunkly the houston review was cited as a source of information for the what you called harsh treatment of Randy Wevaer which was one of your many diversion from the fact that you can't back up your claim.

Now just back slowly away from your constant diversion attempts.

[MrBenchley]

130. Dozer, who are you trying to kid?

The act you keep pointing to as big medicine clearly spells out which part of the militia is well regulated. It mentions the National Guard and the Naval Militia by name. The second amendment clearly limits arms to a well regulated militia such as the National Guard and the Naval Militia, not every pinhead who can hold a popgun. Who the hell are you trying to kid?

"No bunkly the houston review was cited as a source of information for the what you called harsh treatment of Randy Wevaer"
<sarcasm>Yeah.....great source there, dozer....sure convinced ME there wasn't any racism involved, the way they were pissing and moaning over how awful it was to have tolerance and diversity in society in TWO different articles...not to mention all their hand-wringing and sniveling over that racist ass Weaver. </sarcasm>

[slackmaster]

134. Amazing level of misperception

MrBenchley opined:

The second amendment clearly limits arms to a well regulated militia ...

I sometimes wonder if English is not MrBenchley's first language. Just like all the other nine amendments of the Bill of Rights, the Second Amendment obviously limits the power of the government, not the rights of the people. The whole purpose of the Bill of Rights is clearly to limit the power and scope of government. Anyone whose skull is not filled with vacuum cleaner dust can see that.

[CO Liberal]

63. I Demand My Right to Bear Arsm!!!!

:-)

[MrBenchley]

78. You'll have to speak to Major Strawman

He's got the keys to the arsmory....

[Withergyld]

93. Why

are you talking about yourself on third person?

[MrSandman]

123. Didn't CO recently pass CCW?

[slackmaster]

60. Bullshit

"You will recall the Doorbell Psycho DID have a permit"

Cite or retract.

[iverglas]

72. excuse me?

If you haven't been paying attention, that's really no one else's problem.

I have given these citations so many times there's a track worn in my keyboard. And I am of the view that people who choose to participate in a conversation have the onus of knowing what the fuck it's about.

Nonetheless, 'specially for you, I offer: ...

Hmm. The various earlier stories that I linked to and reproduced passages from now seem to be dead links at the Orlando Sentinel site. Here are the current ones:

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/palmbeach/search/sfl-pdrewes05dec05,1,4764910.story
(December 5)

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/palmbeach/search/sfl-ptapes06dec06,1,7476019.story
(December 6)

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/palmbeach/search/sfl-pdrewes10dec10,1,3060966.story
(December 10)

In a separate statement to deputies, Levin admitted he has walked to his front door "a thousand times," most of them with his gun in hand, after being roused by unfamiliar sounds at night.

... His Sig-Sauer .40-caliber semi-automatic gun and weapons permit sit on the dining room table along with some clothes. On his bed is the gun case, which he said he took from a bedroom closet after hearing "like a rattle or a piece of metal hitting the front door."

... "So basically you were naked with a gun?" the deputy asked. "Yes," Levin replied. "Is there any reason why you went for your gun?" the deputy asked. "Just because I heard a strange noise," Levin said.

... Investigators throughout the interrogations appeared mystified that Levin reached for his gun upon hearing a noise that he admitted could have been a tree branch falling.

... Though he said he has never been the target of threats, Levin kept three guns: one in his car, one in the closet and one in a frame hanging on a wall.

If anybody can think of a better description for this guy than "armed neurotic", I'd love to hear it.

If you wish to read the passages from earlier reports of this incident that I have posted, which I'm sure contain references to the permit held by the individual in question, you might do a search of this forum for "drewes", the name of the victim.


Here is the post containing the initial report, posted by Benchley:
Family, friends mourn West Boca teen shot to death by neighbor; it contains this quotation from the initial news report:

Levin, permitted for 12 years to own a concealed handgun, told police he shot Drewes thinking he was a burglar.

Here is the first update I posted: (Update) Witness says Boca man shot teen as he was running away ...

The shooting did indeed take place on the property of the person who did the shooting; whether or not he had a permit to carry a concealed weapon was not relevant to whether he was in lawful possession of the firearm in his home, obviously.

It is nonetheless a fact that he had a permit to carry a concealed weapon, and many who read of his attitude in respect of it -- routinely brandishing the weapon when he answered the door -- might indeed think that he is hardly a fit candidate for such a permit.

Nonetheless, that is not our issue. You chose to make the issue, rather, the veracity of Benchley's statement that the individual in question had a permit to carry a concealed weapon.

You demanded that he cite a source for that statement or retract it. You had no evidentiary foundation whatsoever for that demand -- no reason whatsoever to doubt the veracity of Benchley's statement or impugn his integrity by challenging it as you did. Your request has been satisfied. I suggest that you retract the demand you made. You might want to ask something along the lines of "Could you direct me to a report of that fact, please?" next time you find yourself, uh, wanting information.


ON EDIT: I was mistakenly giving you a little benefit of the doubt -- reading your "cite or retract" as something less than an allegation of lying.

On second glance, I see that your post is headed "bullshit". That's a pretty straightforward allegation of lying, it seems to me.

So ... I see no alternative for you.

Retract.

.

[slackmaster]

76. Oh, THAT doorbell lunatic

Thanks for the clarification. I thought the poster was referring to a different case entirely.

And I am of the view that people who choose to participate in a conversation have the onus of knowing what the fuck it's about.

I am of the view that people who refer to incidents in the news have an obligation to provide enough information to distinguish them from similar incidents.

You demanded that he cite a source for that statement or retract it.

And MrBenchley didn't do either, did he? You had to butt in and come to his rescue.

You had no evidentiary foundation whatsoever for that demand -- no reason whatsoever to doubt the veracity of Benchley's statement or impugn his integrity by challenging it as you did.

Sure I did - He didn't provide enough information for someone unfamiliar with the Florida incident to know what the fuck he was talking about. He's been spouting so much nonsense on the board today my default behavior is to challenge every unsupported statement he makes. So far my batting average is close to 1000.

[iverglas]

82. then here's what you do

"And MrBenchley didn't do either, did he? You had to butt in and come to his rescue."

You may have noticed that Benchley was speaking to MOI. I had no difficulty at all understanding what he was talking about. It strikes me that the butting in was coming from quite another direction here.

Benchley had posted the initial report of the story in question, several weeks ago. In response to my own suspicion hackles about the whole tale having been raised, and to a bunch of nattering about the right to defend property yada yada, *I* did the on-going follow-up of the story, as I had vowed to do ... and garnered precious little reaction from the nattering classes. It was therefore entirely logical for *me* to provide the relevant citations, since *I* had maintained a record of them.

... And of course, *I* was the one being spoken to by Benchley ...


"He didn't provide enough information for someone unfamiliar with the Florida incident to know what the fuck he was talking about.

Uh ... so what?

Do you behave this way in real life? If someone says (to a third party, no less), "hamburger is on sale for half price at Loblaws this week", do you say CITE OR RETRACT?

In real life, I suspect that most people would say something along the lines of: "How interesting; can you tell me where you saw that advertised?" And really, that would only be *if* they had reason to doubt the veracity of the statement ... which you did not have.


"He's been spouting so much nonsense on the board today my default behavior is to challenge every unsupported statement he makes."

Congratulations. Problem is, you didn't just "challenge" it. You called it "bullshit". So it appears that your actual policy is to accuse someone of lying without any foundation for the accusation.

And it appears also to be not to retract the accusation even after it is proved false. Oops, I mean: I can't find a retraction in there; could you direct me to it please?

.

[slackmaster]

84. The format is one-to-many, not one-to-one

Butting in is not only allowed, it's encouraged because it makes for better entertainment.

Congratulations. Problem is, you didn't just "challenge" it. You called it "bullshit".

And that is different from calling it "rubbish", "steaming pantload", etc. HOW? Attacking statements is perfectly within the range of accepted behavior here.

So it appears that your actual policy is to accuse someone of lying without any foundation for the accusation.

Do you understand the not-so-subtle difference between passing on misinformation that you have failed to confirm despite the easy availability of resources to do so and deliberately, knowingly making a false statement? MrBenchley's track record on certain subjects, e.g. what the federal assault weapons ban covers and what it does not cover, the ease or lack thereof of converting a semiautomatic firearm to fully automatic, what procedures are used for issuing concealed weapons permits where issuance has been liberalized, etc. make him an easy target for veracity challenges on those subjects.

I can't find a retraction in there; could you direct me to it please?

There's nothing that needs to be retracted. I asked for clarification and got it.

:evilgrin:

[iverglas]

95. once again

"... make him an easy target for veracity challenges on those subjects."

That wasn't a "veracity challenge". Sorry.

"There's nothing that needs to be retracted. I asked for clarification and got it."

I hate to suggest that you are making anything other than a wholly truthful statement here ... but no, you didn't ask for a clarification. Asking for clarification is exactly what I suggested you might have done, but you didn't.

"Butting in is not only allowed, it's encouraged because it makes for better entertainment."

Then perhaps you shouldn't have been heard to complain so loudly of it when it was (in your view) practised by someone else. At least in my case it was done for the purpose of providing information and furthering the discussion, and not of falsely accusing someone of something for no reason other than not knowing what I was talking about and feeling entitled to impugn someone's character on that basis.

"Do you understand the not-so-subtle difference between passing on misinformation that you have failed to confirm despite the easy availability of resources to do so and deliberately, knowingly making a false statement?"

If I'm reading that correctly, then I suppose I'd say that I do understand that difference. What I fail to see is how it might be relevant here.

Benchley did not pass on misinformation that he had failed to confirm despite the easy availability of resources to do so. He passed on information that he had in fact confirmed quite satisfactorily -- whether you knew it or not.

You did not pass on misinformation that you had failed to confirm despite the easy availability of resources to do so. You didn't "pass" anything "on". You made it up yourself. What you did was make an allegation regarding the information that Benchley had passed on: that it was false.

When you refer to "deliberately, knowingly making a false statement", you are creating a false dichotomy. The fact that you didn't know for certain that your accusation was false isn't really an out, here. If you'd made a false statement about the weather, which you made because you didn't bother to look out the window before making it, that would be one thing. This was another. You negligently -- grossly negligently, I'd say -- made a false accusation that impugned someone else's character, and you just have a bit heavier onus in that instance than when you're talking about the weather. You made an accusation that you could have determined to be false (and thus avoided making) simply by requesting information. You didn't request information. You made an accusation of falsehood with no foundation.

Really, it's right there in so very few words that there's little room for interpretation. "Bullshit. Cite or retract." I see an accusation.

And I see some hellishly uncivil discourse.

.

[slackmaster]

96. Allow me to apply one of your own favorite responses

"WHO THE FUCK CARES?"

:D

IIRC that is precisely what YOU wrote in response to my high-level explanation of my plan for addressing the misnamed gun-show loophole without creating a gun registry. I have put a great deal of thought into that plan, and your response came as a real turn-off.

I mean this only as a demonstration that people reap what they sow on these forums.

On edit - Iverglas wrote:

You negligently -- grossly negligently, I'd say -- made a false accusation that impugned someone else's character...

If you think I have impugned someone's character please take it up with the moderators. I believe that would fall under the definition of "personal attack".

[Wickerman]

113. Its a tad over the top on all accounts

I'd give alerts but I wouldn't know where to start and when to stop. Lets try to get civil in here again. I plan to leave this Guns in The News thread open for tad longer, but if its going to be nothig but bickering it'll get locked to try to maintain a semblence of order down here.

Thanks, and we now return you to regularly scheduled Monday evening flamefest...

Lunabush
DU Moderator

[slackmaster]

115. This sub-thread is just a little good-natured needling

I feel no real hostility from or toward iverglas, and I hope she feels none from me.

Point taken. Thanks for your patience lunabush.

[Wickerman]

116. Oh, I know you guys (and gal) have a slightly different

definition of fun than I do, just keep those blows clean and above the waist.

O8)O8)O8)O8)O8)O8)

[MrSandman]

120. CO, I have a permit and I happily admit

a permit does not guarantee safe gun use.

[MrBenchley]

9. Athlete hurt at party (CO)

"A University of Colorado basketball player was injured early Sunday after two gunmen opened fire at an off-campus party attended by about 100 school athletes, football recruits and other students.
At least one other partygoer suffered cuts and scrapes from shattered glass or bullets but did not require medical care, police spokeswoman Jodie Carroll said. "

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=389&ncid=389&e=2&u=/kr/20031215/lo_krdenver/athletehurtatparty

[MrBenchley]

33. Man wounded in NW Side shootout (IL)

"Authorities today are seeking to determine if a man wounded during back-to-back shootouts involving police and other individuals late Sunday night on Chicago's Northwest Side was struck by an officer's bullet or by one fired by someone else.
The man, whose identity was not disclosed, was involved in a gunfight with others moments before police arrived at the scene, at Division Street near Pulaski Road in the Humboldt Park neighborhood, said police spokeswoman Amina Greer.
About 11 p.m., two Grand Central District police officers were driving a woman involved in an unrelated domestic case to a bus stop on Division when they saw a gunfight under way near Pulaski, Greer said.
When two gunmen ran west on Division near the officers' car, the officers ordered them to drop their guns, Greer said. The gunmen did not do so, and the men and police exchanged gunshots."

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-031216shootout,1,5590128.story?coll=chi-news-hed

[MrBenchley]

38. Pump 'em full of lead (FL)

The corrupt gun industry in action...

"Picture a field with up to 13,000 tons of lead in the ground. It's near a lake where children fish and a park where students hike. Now, picture the kind of lawmakers who, after hearing how lead poisoning causes birth defects and central nervous system damage, want to ban governments from forcing the polluters to clean up the lead. ...At the behest of House Speaker Johnnie Byrd, R-Plant City, and National Rifle Association lobbyists, they approved a ban on lawsuits forcing gun ranges -- such as the one cited above -- to clean up lead. Supporters of the bill, which goes to the full House next year, called lawsuits "back-door gun control" and said they must protect gun ranges from "the bully boys of government." "

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/opinion/content/auto/epaper/editions/sunday/opinion_f3ad06ac201390f40024.html

[ruralpro]

51. numbers can be dangerous

because what you have stated is the fact that there is lead present at the rate of 40 lbs per square foot. That is just an average, meaning that a lot of areas would have to be 5 to 10X of that and the fringe areas much less. I am making huge assumptions leaning toward making the argument plausible. I did not take into account that the ranges I have been to almost all of the ammo would land in the berm behind the targets and with in 20 yards or so on either side of the targets. It would have t be a huge range to take in more than an acre. I have spread this 13000 tons across 15 acres

[MrBenchley]

57. Guess what?

I suspect the Palm Beach Post knows what it is talking about....

[ruralpro]

61. does the concept of

40 lbs per sq foot resonate with you? IF you took your average bag of lawn fertilizer stood it on end, the footprint would be larger than 1 sq foot. I trust you quoted the source correctly; my point is that the reporters are knowingly or unknowlingly quoted 'facts' that, if not impossible, highly unlikley

[MrBenchley]

64. It's pretty damn amazing

You invent a figure that appears nowhere in the published piece, and now want us to believe that the reporter is "in error" for quoting your nonexistent number.

Guess which source has the credibility? You or the Palm Beach Post?

[ruralpro]

66. I only tried to form

this discussion in context. Again I don't questions your veracity. This is more about the media and less about guns. My problem is the media tossing out numbers that, either are so far off to be ludicras, or not able to support the basis of the story. My issue is that 13,000 tons is an amuont that is hard to accept. Again this is not to besmerch you but to point out that most people have no concept of the numbers they see or hear in the media

[MrBenchley]

70. Too TOO funny...

"My issue is that 13,000 tons is an amuont that is hard to accept."
So you made a number up? Ho-kay.....

[ruralpro]

79. Ho-Kay

you do the math and come up with a reasonable area the this 13,000 tons represents. I realize that the vast majority of America is drasticly math challanged but if you are a serious person you would be contacting the source you quoted and make them explain the numbers.
I said up front that I was assuming some things, but even doing that this number is not defendable.

[MrBenchley]

83. I think I'll just stick to facts

http://www.sptimes.com/2003/12/05/Southpinellas/Soil__water_at_heart_.shtml

Notice the NRA here trying to pretend lead isn't toxic...

[iverglas]

89. they surely can

http://www.sptimes.com/2003/12/10/State/Panel_backs_gun_range.shtml

Panel backs gun range lawsuits ban

A House panel votes out a bill to block governments from suing ranges over pollution.

TALLAHASSEE - A Republican-dominated House committee on Tuesday passed a bill pushed by the National Rifle Association that would prevent the state from suing 400 gun ranges to require cleanups of lead and arsenic contamination.

The bill would make gun ranges immune from state or local government lawsuits, even if contamination was deliberate, and would apply retroactively to cases already in the courts.

... The bill was sparked in part by a state lawsuit against Skyway Trap and Skeet Club of Pinellas Park, where the state says lead pellets from 60 years of target practice have contaminated soil and water. The water management agency, commonly known as Swiftmud, owns some adjoining property.

Swiftmud's general counsel, William Bilenky, told lawmakers that between 7,000 and 13,000 tons of lead are buried on range grounds. He said lead projectiles have threatened nearby Sawgrass Lake, where children fish, and a park where students go on environmental education tours. The cost of a cleanup is $10-million to $15-million, he said.

The figure in question in the editorial Benchley quoted -- "up to 13,000 tons" -- was the one given by the Southwest Florida Water Management District, the agency suing the shooting club.

I just did a quick google for "palm beach" "gun range" lead, the first things that came into my head. You too can do this. Do let us know if you discover that the gun club in question has challenged that figure.

I didn't see any such challenge. I just saw some people saying that they oughta be able to pollute public lands -- with a substance that is horrifically toxic to children, especially -- with impunity.

And there's one number in there that you overlook in your calculations: the fact that the lead in question has accumulated over 60 years. That's a little over 200 tons a year, on average. Me, I haven't a clue how much lead a bunch of target & skeet shooters go through in a year. Perhaps you could guess for us.

Once again, s/he who "challenges" others' allegations of fact needs to do the work first.

.

[MrBenchley]

94. Bear in mind

that the lead leaches out through ground water...as do the other nasties...so that the soil itself may be used in that calculation...

Once again we see the gun industry trying to engineer a disgraceful dodge around ordinary liability...

[ruralpro]

117. I will stay with the original MrBenchly

post that states 'imagine A field near A lake' and I repeat my previous thought. The facts may or may not be as stated as I now have two different sets of facts for supposedly the same article. I don't know which is correct. But I again try to get to the point that the media (regardless of political slant) tosses out numbers without any regard to the possibility that those numbers mean anything. The original post that I responded to states 1 field.
Do the math. Who is spinning what?

[MrBenchley]

118. Doesn't much matter...

No matter how you slice it, you've still got the corrupt gun industry trying to engineer itself a disgraceful immunity for liability from its actions AGAIN.

"Who is spinning what?"
I suspect it isn't the newspapers....

[iverglas]

131. who is spinning what?

Well that's an easy one.

The Florida Water Management whatsit gave an estimated figure in the context of a legal action. The media reported that figure ("up to 13,000 tons", I believe, which is an accurate paraphrase of what counsel for the Florida Water thing said). I have seen no reports of the defendant in the legal action, the gun range, disputing that figure (and I actually looked).

And here you are, galloping off on a completely irrelevant tangent about the media -- irrelevant because in this case the media accurately reported what was said.

IF the defendant, the gun range, has disputed the plaintiff's figures regarding the amount of noxious/toxic substances it has deposited on its land, and IF the media failed to report what the defendant said, THEN you might have a point. You might also have a point if you had assembled all the necessary data yourself, even if the defendant had not offered it, and used it to challenge the data offered by the plaintiff.

As long as you have no such data out of which to make a point, and are merely hypothesizing fact situations, for which you can offer no basis in reality, in which the data that the media reported might be incorrect, you have no point.

The original post that you responded to was not the story; it was one brief editorial comment on the story. If you want to comment on the story, which is what you were doing, then it's your responsibility to know what it is. So far, it seems you haven't made the least effort to do so.

.

[MrBenchley]

132. B-b-b-b-b-but it's guns!

Don't you realize if somebody held anybody having anything to do with guns even remotely liable for any of their actions such as, say, 60 years worth of toxic pollution in a watershed recreation area, it might be the first step on the slippery slope....and then we might all become ignorant slaves like the peons of Communist Canada, unable to shoot whenever the spirit of the wilderness moved us to pull the trigger without looking. (snicker)

[ruralpro]

135. Data, I got your stinking data

and I am more than happy to expand on the data

The gun Club in question is open 3 days a week 6 hours per day
60 years x 3 days x 6 hours = 56160 hrs
13,000 tons / 56160 hours= 463 lbs per hour
463 lbs per hour x 16 oz per lb = 7408 oz. per hour
A 12 ga. shell contains about 1 oz lead shot
7408 shells used per hour = 7408 oz lead shot per hour
7408/ 60 min per hour =123 onces per minute every single minute
thats two shots per second every single second of every single hour
of every single day of every single year that this club is open.
Oh well I stand corrected and properly admonished. On to the next subject

[iverglas]

136. uh, well, no

What you have is more hypothesizing based on your assumptions about the data.

What the Florida water management body (as reported by the media) has is estimates based on measurements taken at and near the site.

I'm afraid I fail to see any reason for preferring your hypothetical figures and assumptions to their estimates and measurements.

And I'm still curious whether you've bothered to read any of the information that is actually available, or have contented yourself with attacking the straw person you set up in the first place.

The Florida water authority's estimate was 7,000 to 13,000 tons, reported in the editorial initially cited as "up to 13,000 tons". One has to wonder why you continue to represent the estimate as "13,000 tons", in addition to ignoring the information that is available about what that estimate is based on.

.

[MrBenchley]

137. I have my suspicions

"One has to wonder why you continue to represent the estimate as "13,000 tons", in addition to ignoring the information that is available about what that estimate is based on."
I have my suspicions...just as I have my suspicions about why the RKBA crowd is all solemnly professing to be puzzled about what could POSSIBLY be racist about Mary Rosh, I mean, John Lott, "proving" that the Civil Rights Commission lied about voter discrimination in Florida during the 2000 election (discrimination, by the way, that Florida officials have already admitted to in court).

[ruralpro]

139. neat

I get accussed of doing some math and going of on a tangent, and now this some how turns into a racist rant?

[ruralpro]

138. Thanks for the question

I only used information that I read on the links you provided and on a couple of google searches. What I found was a gov't agency seeking to clean up a geographic area. The source you provided stated that in fact they hypothesized a figure of 7,000 tons to 13,000 tons of lead in question,I found no soil test data or other pertinet information. I used the figures of the state of Florida to see what action was needed to arrive at the numbers the state of Florida is using to start a lawsuit. I am trying to point out that in fact what the state is claiming is impossible. The articles I found about this case do not state the obvious. What is the lead concentration in the lake in question? Water samples are easy to take and a lead assay is not complicated. Is there a potential problem at this site? Might be. Then lets quit the hyperbole and address the problem. The other issue is that the gun club broke no laws, rules,or zoning. The gun club was operating with the approval of all governing bodies and now you seem to think that operating a business in good faith exposes you to huge amounts of potetial risk. If the state prevails in this case I can see the gun club dissolving, no sinlge enity resposible, and now the state has a toxic site to clean up. So who pays that bill?

[demsrule4life]

50. Gun Safety Group Applauds Dean for Rejecting Gore's 2000 Gun Positions

"Dean demonstrates that Democratic political candidates are finally catching-up with the general public's very sensible views on guns," said Cowan. "Most Americans believe that their elected officials should take steps to protect their Second Amendment rights while promoting responsible gun safety laws."

http://www.jointogether.org/gv/news/alerts/reader/0,2061,568111,00.html

I know it is a couple of days late, I will take the hit.

[demsrule4life]

55. Democrats aim for new support on gun issues

"If Democrats want to win a national majority, they have to take back the Second Amendment and support vigorous enforcement of existing gun laws," said Barron, who estimates 47 percent of US voting households own one or more guns

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2003/12/14/democrats_aim_for_new_support_on_gun_issues/

[ruralpro]

62. no one owns

the 2cnd ammendment, it speaks for its self. All that has to be done is for the candidates to support the constitution.

[MrBenchley]

58. 4 Shot Outside Colonial Theater (CA)

"Sacramento police are looking for two people in connection with a weekend shooting that left four people wounded -- one of them critically.
The shooting happened late Saturday night outside the Colonial Theater on Stockton Boulevard following a concert. "

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ibsys/20031215/lo_kcra/1920270

[MrBenchley]

85. Shot Man Shows Up At Local Hospital, Later Dies

"A man who showed up at an emergency room early Monday with a gunshot wound died a short time later.
Bronson Robinson, 33, was taken to University Hospital just before 6:30 a.m., WLWT Eyewitness News 5 reported.
The shooting happened while Robinson was involved in a verbal altercation with three or four men in the 1600 block of Vine Street, police said. "

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ibsys/20031215/lo_wlwt/1920533

[MrBenchley]

87. Two Shot At Worcester Store (MA)

Two people were shot in a Worcester home improvement store Monday afternoon.
NewsCenter 5 learned that two people were shot inside the Lowe's Home Improvement Store at 533 Lincoln Street in Worcester. The store is located just off Interstate 290.
One of the victims was an employee and the other was a contractor for the store, according to a Lowe's spokeswoman. "

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ibsys/20031215/lo_WCVB/1920916