Arizona Senator Lori Klein - Proud Gun Owner

[mikeb302000]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/17/opinion/sunday/17bruni.html?_r=1&emc=eta1">A New York Times op-ed by Frank Bruni

Tip sent in by Bruce

The dispute was this: Did a local lawmaker intentionally point her loaded .380 Ruger at a newspaper reporter during an interview, or was it all just a silly misunderstanding?

The reporter, Richard Ruelas, who writes for The Arizona Republic, said it was deliberate. Not hostile, mind you, but purposeful: State Senator Lori Klein was proudly showing off her piece. He told this story first in an article published Sunday in The Republic, repeated it in subsequent public comments and went through it one more time on the telephone with me. He sounded incredulous still.

He said that as he sat with Klein just outside the Senate chamber to discuss her gun-toting ways, “I looked down and saw a red dot on my chest.” He looked up and realized the dot was the laser sight of the Ruger, which she carries in her pocketbook. Although he wasn’t sure just then whether it had bullets in it, she informed him — after she’d lowered the pistol — that it always does.

The Republic article caused a public outcry that she had been reckless. Even Arizonans have their limits. She then disputed Ruelas’s account, saying that he had strayed into the gun’s sight as she demonstrated how it worked. After that she went silent.

The author goes on to bemoan the fact that "a cavalier attitude about guns persists and even flourishes" in spite of the recent high profile shooting in Arizona. He states that the Senator's pink gun is not cute and cannot be compared to Häagen-Dazs ice cream. But what in the world does Lori Klein and all the other lawful gun owners have to do with the criminal use of guns? Aren't they two completely separate things? That's what our gun-rights friends keep trying to say.

In my opinion they're all part of the same problem. There's much more in common between criminal gun owners and lawful gun owners than there is between either of them and the gun control folks. Let me explain.

All the guns that are used in crime start out legally owned by someone. In the case of Jared Loughner, he himself was the legitimate and legal owner of the gun, as sad a fact as that is, given the terrible and tragic lack of mental health screening that exists. He bought the gun, and then used it in a crime.

But, the same is true for the inner city hoodlum who shoots a rival drug dealer in Newark. He may have bought the gun from another criminal, in fact his particular gun may have had several illegal owners before it was used in a murder. But if you could trace it back far enough, you would find a point at which it passed from the hand of its legitimate owner to that of a criminal.

This is why we need strong gun control laws at the national level AIMED AT THE LAW ABIDING. No one disputes the fact that criminals won't obey our silly laws. That's exactly the reason, along with the fact that the legitimate gun owners of America seem to have such a hard time holding on to their guns, that we need proper gun control laws.

Of course, http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2010/08/one-strike-youre-out.html">if I were writing those laws, Lori Klein would have to relinquish her guns immediately.

http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/">(cross posted at Mikeb302000)

How does that sound? Please leave a comment.

[lapfog_1]

1. When I was a kid

I was taught that I should NEVER point a gun (loaded or not) at anything or anyone I didn't want to shoot.

[mikeb302000]

5. yeah, you and every other kid

yet so many of them don't get it.

[pipoman]

2. Unrec for shameless blog linking

[mikeb302000]

6. why is that shameless?

Are you a responsible person around here for admin?

[pipoman]

15. I've been around here a while

and plugging a personal website or blog at every opportunity is considered by most in these parts as spam, and yes, a shameless attempt to get hits on some lame site which would otherwise be the ghost town it deserves to be.

[gejohnston]

3. First, I really don't read op eds because they

are opinion often written by people with an ax to grind and or does not have the slightest clue what they are talking about. I certainly don't base any of my opinion on theirs. Does he use recreational drugs? If so, he alone contributes more to gun violence than almost all of the law abiding gun owners combined.
Do you know the difference between an article and an op-ed?

This is why we need strong gun control laws at the national level AIMED AT THE LAW ABIDING. No one disputes the fact that criminals won't obey our silly laws. That's exactly the reason, along with the fact that the legitimate gun owners of America seem to have such a hard time holding on to their guns, that we need proper gun control laws.

What's this "we" shit? You don't even live in the US. You would be amazed how often the cops lose theirs, including machine guns. So you think restrictions on me will make crime go down and the gangsters won't get their guns? Gee, didn't happen in Canada since 1977. Then there is UK, Jamaica, or any place else. For that matter, the same is true in Italy where you currently reside. Then there are all of those gun free paradises with murder rates that make the US look like Japan and Norway.

In my opinion they're all part of the same problem. There's much more in common between criminal gun owners and lawful gun owners than there is between either of them and the gun control folks.

Bullshit. Many of the gun control folks are criminals themselves, look at some of the members of MAIG. They have more felons than the NRA.

How does that sound? Please leave a comment.

Quite frankly, absurd is the nicest thing I can say.
Ever consider Ad words? I noticed you have not had any comments on your blog lately, is your readership down? You might think about expanding your readership by writing better posts, expanding your horizons in other subjects (preferably something you actually know something about or at least think deeply about.) Mine is kind of a hobby, so I don't worry about it that much.
You do know this is old news and has already been discussed, right? This makes the third thread on the same person.

[mikeb302000]

7. I agree with you about op-eds

but I still like to read 'em. Some are fairly balanced and make fair points, some aren't and don't.

When I say "we," I'm referring to gun control advocates. Where I live has nothing to do with anything. Living abroad certainly wouldn't be a detriment to my having an objective look at how fucked up things are in the States regarding gun control. Gun owners who want as few restrictions on their gun rights, regardless of the consequences, are the ones who cannot be objective.

You calling what I write "absurd" and saying that I should choose another subject that I "know something about or at least think deeply about," are pretty slick insults, but nothing more. You're just another guy who has difficulty dealing with other opinions.

My opinion is that gun availability is a big problem. What's yours?

[gejohnston]

13. not intended to be insults

I am actually trying to be helpful.

Living abroad certainly wouldn't be a detriment to my having an objective look at how fucked up things are in the States regarding gun control. Gun owners who want as few restrictions on their gun rights, regardless of the consequences, are the ones who cannot be objective.

No, living abroad does not, but I don't think you are being objective. Simply describing something as "fucked up" does not show a high level of analysis. I think traffic in Rome is fucked up. Please explain to me why the most "fucked up" places in the US have stricter gun laws than Italy? On the other hand, all of the countries that make the US look like Norway and Japan all have UK style gun bans? That is why I say you don't think very deeply on this stuff.
I have no problem with other opinions if: they are well thought out or actually based on something.

My opinion is that the problem is with the drug war and users of recreational drugs who scapegoat me or some farmer in Montana for the problems they contribute to. They make the drug business profitable. That profit allows drug dealers and gangsters to afford guns to kill each other. That is the vast majority of murders in the US. That is probably true with Italy too. What I really detest are over paid blow hards like Bill Mahaur whining about the NRA causing gang violence while hugging their bongs.

[Katya Mullethov]

18. Cash fuels the violence

And prohibition generates the margins
http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/americas/07/14/mexico.marijuana/index.html?hpt=hp_c2

The inbound logistics of prohibition have intrigued me since early adolescence . The thing is ...this stuff
aint worth squat , not without prohibition . They are just now getting around to scapegoating YOU and it isnt the dope smokers that are doing it either , it's the same people that started it all .

[mikeb302000]

55. the war on drugs is part of the problem

gun availability exacerbates it. We (the U.S.) do not have strict gun laws. The mish-mash of conflicting regulations from state to state which are easily circumvented do not count as strict gun control.

If we did have decent gun control, the criminals would be forced to use knives and baseball bats and they'd inflict a lot less damage. Plus the too-high percentage of lawful gun owners who are on the brink of flipping out would be in many cases screened out and disarmed.

The lawful and responsible gun owners who own guns today would still own them even if the strictest possible set of laws went into effect.

[eqfan592]

67. "gun availability exacerbates it."

Got evidence? And I mean evidence establishing a true causal link and not a weak correlative one as some folks around these parts find sufficient.

[SteveM]

68. Problems here...

"The war on drugs is part of the problem, gun availability exacerbates it."

With regards the violence surrounding the WOD, It IS unregulated prohibition which fuels and fires the problem. Trying to reduce "gun availability" is merely another chapter in -- you guessed it -- prohibition. I find it curious how some folks don't see the irony of how a massive, sophisticated and powerful drug-running scheme cannot be just as effectively used to produce, sell and distribute guns.

"The mish-mash of conflicting regulations from state to state which are easily circumvented do not count as strict gun control."

An unusual admission of how gun-control laws fail. You should note that the WOD was nationalized over the years little "success" in stemming the flow of drugs. We should expect little from some national scheme of prohibition; however, "model legislation" can be adopted by many states so that we do not have unnecessary incarcerations of legally-carrying citizens crossing the border into a state where "conflicting regulations" exist.

"If we did have decent gun control, the criminals would be forced to use knives and baseball bats and they'd inflict a lot less damage."

Such "decent gun control," if it were so restrictive as to keep crims from obtaining them, would have to be straight-line prohibition coupled with confiscation. Even then, the manufacture and distribution of firearms would go underground, using modern CNC machinery and very small spaces; you know, like meth labs and automated pot growing warehouses.

"Plus the too-high percentage of lawful gun owners who are on the brink of flipping out would be in many cases screened out and disarmed."

What is "too-high percentage?" What is "on the bring of flipping out?" How would you "screen out and disarm" and not violate the due process rights of citizens, let alone their individual RKBA?

"The lawful and responsible gun owners who own guns today would still own them even if the strictest possible set of laws went into effect."

Would this be by grandfathering current lawful gun owners, or do you have a regulatory scheme which would accomplish this?

[slackmaster]

4. I wouldn't confiscate cars from someone who got a speeding ticket or ran a red light

As long as there were no injuries or deaths as a result.

I think a more appropriate remedy would be a modest fine and a requirement to take a remedial gun safety course.

[mikeb302000]

8. first of all, we're talking about guns not cars

as for the appropriate punishment, I say immediate loss of gun rights for life for any misuse of a gun. You know what the result of that would be in say, 10 years. Think about it.

[eqfan592]

14. It was a fair analogy.

Both acts have the potential to cause serious harm, and treating them similarly would appear to be rational. And what would be the result of your plan after ten years? Likely not even close to what you think it would be. :)

[slackmaster]

16. A general principle in criminal justice says punishment should be proportional to actual harm done

You're talking about a draconian, authoritarian response to simple carelessness even if there is zero harm done.

As a taxpayer, I don't want to pay for the impact of more people being disqualified from having effective tools for their own defense.

[aikoaiko]

79. We already have laws that address for misuse of of guns - felonies that prohibit gun ownership.

This issue is already addressed.

[Euromutt]

9. You might want to try comprehending the economics of contraband

All the guns that are used in crime start out legally owned by someone.

No, they don't. Not all, by any means. In countries with stringent gun control laws, crime guns are likely to have smuggled into the country or illicitly manufactured. The weapons may not even ever have been legal in their country of origin.

Exhibit A: according to this article in the Guardian from a few years back, the best-selling firearm on the British black market at the time was the Baikal MP-79-8. This was a pistol made to fire 8mm tear gas cartridges rather than live rounds, but because the design is basically a minor adaptation of the 9x18mm Makarov pistol, it proved fairly simple to retrofit the gun with the few parts (primarily the barrel) needed to turn it back into a pistol capable of firing live rounds. Within short order, a criminal enterprise was buying these in Russia and Germany, converting them in underground workshops in Lithuania, and shipping them to the UK.

Exhibit B: in China, private citizens cannot legally own anything heavier than a .177-caliber air rifle, and they need a permit for that. Nevertheless, organized crime takes advantage of corruption and shoddy inventory control in the state-controlled arms manufacturing industry to almost literally buy guns at the back door of the factory. Since there's no record of these guns, for legal purposes they don't even exist.

Exhibit C: the story is very similar with crime guns in western Europe. These guns are manufactured in Turkey, Bulgaria and the former Yugoslavia, sold off to local organized crime by corrupt employees or government officials, and smuggled along the "pipeline" for Afghan heroin--which, not coincidentally, passes through these same countries--to the drug dealers in Germany, the Netherlands, etc. who may either keep them for their own use or sell them on the local black market.

The United States forms the exception, not the rule, that guns used by the criminal element are overwhelmingly "diverted" (as the ATF calls it) from the legal market. Even so, law-abiding gun owners are not, for the most part, the problem. According to the ATF's report "Following the Gun", published in 2000, some 32% of guns "diverted" into the criminal circuit were trafficked illegally by FFLs (i.e. federally licensed dealers). Another 20% were straw purchased from FFLs at their fixed places of business. A similar number were diverted from gun shows, but lest anyone think this vindicates the "gun show loophole" claim, the majority of firearm vendors at gun shows are FFLs (who therefore have both the means the legal obligation to conduct NICS checks on buyers) and the number of firearms they have available for sale is larger than that of private sellers; as a result, it is a conservative estimate that 3/4 of guns diverted from gun shows are also straw purchased from FFLs.

So to sum up, even in the United States, something in the order of 2/3 of crime guns at least were not previously legally owned by private citizens (since straw purchasing is illegal, essentially constituting a criminal conspiracy, it follows that the straw purchaser did not at any point legally possess the firearms in question).

Now, you might say "okay, but with more stringent gun control laws, we could still reduce the number of diverted guns by a third." Problem is, that's not how it works. The black market in firearms is an industry driven primarily by demand, and those members of the criminal element who feel they need a firearm are both willing and able to pay the massive markup that comes with the product being illicit. As Daniel Polsby put it in his article "Firearm Costs, Firearms Benefits and the Limits of Knowledge" (Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, vol. 86, no. 1, 1995: 207.):

The acquisition behavior of illicit retail customers should be discouraged modestly at best by piling costs on gun runners. These customers are seeking to invest in capital plant for which there exists no ready substitutes. Licit buyers, on the other hand, usually are shopping for items of personal consumption, for which a number of obvious substitutes (e.g., archery; B-B guns; and for that matter, going to the movies) evidently exist. The implication of this situation, though usually ignored, is very important: the price sensitivity of firearms buyers will diminish as their motive for owning a firearm becomes more sinister.

The evidence for this assertion can be seen in the fact that British criminals are, according to the Guardian article mentioned earlier, willing to pay around £2,000 for a Glock that retails for $500-600 in an American gun shop, and "£700 to £800" for German-made blank-firing starter pistols that cost the supplier €60 to buy and £30 to convert to fire live rounds (and probably .22LR at that).

The upshot of this is that, even if you could impose such stringent limitations on the American market to private citizens, and on private gun ownership, as to entirely cut off the sources of crime guns from domestic sources, the demand for crime guns would simply be met with guns smuggled in from overseas. Let's be realistic: it's physically impossible to grow coca plants or opium poppies in the United States, and yet, more than enough powder cocaine and heroin (fucking tons every year) are smuggled into the country to meet the demand, not to mention sizable quantities of crystal meth and marijuana. What makes you think that the same enterprising sparks involved in that particular enterprise couldn't bring in more than enough handguns and ammunition to supply criminal demand by the same route?

The past several years, I don't seem to be able to visit my home country of the Netherlands without some high-profile gun crime occurring while I'm there, whether it's the murder of a marijuana grower by business associates machine-gunning his car (2008), or some petty thug gunning down, in broad daylight and next to a playground full of children, some guy who supposedly dissed his girlfriend (a supermarket checkout girl) (2009), or four guys robbing a gas station along a motorway leading to a police chase involving an exchange of gunfire (2011). Sure, the amount of violent crime committed with guns is nowhere near the levels found in the United States, but it's increasingly evident that that's not due to any inability on the part of Dutch criminals to acquire and use guns when they want to. Hell, back in the 1970s the German Rote Armee Fraktion (aka the "Baader-Meinhof Gang") had an outpost in Amsterdam for the purpose of acquiring firearms on the black market. Said outpost was an apartment in the same building as that of my paternal grandparents, yippee skippy, but fortunately, having lived through the Nazi Occupation, they weren't too traumatized by a gun battle occurring in the street outside when the Dutch cops moved in.

[mikeb302000]

56. I'm talking about Newark and New Orleans

what are you talking about?

[Euromutt]

66. I'll repeat the sentence you evidently skipped

The upshot of this is that, even if you could impose such stringent limitations on the American market to private citizens, and on private gun ownership, as to entirely cut off the sources of crime guns from domestic sources, the demand for crime guns would simply be met with guns smuggled in from overseas.

As you said yourself, "No one disputes the fact that criminals won't obey our silly laws." So why should they obey the laws against illegally importing firearms and ammunition, any more than they obey the laws against illegally importing cocaine and heroin?

[ileus]

10. LCP's kill people...

[ileus]

11. No No....that's LCP's point at people. They kill coyotes.

[Hoyt]

12. That "cavalier attitude" about guns is the biggest problem. That needs to change.

[Blown330]

17. The technical ignorance about guns...

...needs to change. I'd say we should start with you but that might be too much of a challenge to start out with.

[Hoyt]

19. "Technical Ignorance" -- who cares what the difference is between a clip and magazine.

The point is, do we want folks walking around with a gun or two strapped to their bodies? I think not.

[eqfan592]

21. I care when it is a person proposing legislation to ban something...

...that they can't even identify. And I have no issue with someone legally carrying a firearm in public. So you can "think not" as much as you want. After all, that does appear to be what you do best. :hi:

[Blown330]

22. We?

Think you mean "I", since you in no way represent a significant plurality. Police and deputies walk around with a gun or two strapped to their bodies all the time. They do so even when not in uniform and acting in their official capacities. Sorry, your tired rhetoric and irrational fears are simply the product of ignorance; technical, social, and political.

[DonP]

23. Of course we want people walking around armed - don't be silly!

That's why, in bipartisan votes in 49 states the people we elected voted for it. And not one state is even talking about repealing it.

Why would you think "we don't want folks walking around with a gun or two ..."? When obviously a majority of people voted for people that voted for it?

Or have you decided the people are too dumb to know what's best for them? Or you don't you believe in a representational government anymore?

Or you just believe in it when they do what you want them to do?

[MicaelS]

24. I and a lot of gun owner do want,

You and your fellow gun prohibitionists don't want. The fact that your side has lost since 1994 should tell you about your "wants".

[rrneck]

26. Oh look!

Another vacuous moral pronouncement from the Earl of Umbrage.

[Hoyt]

27. Almost 300,000,000 Americans don't carry, see no need to. I think if we put it to a direct vote

the results would be different from what we have now which is just a bunch of right wing legislation designed to keep TBaggers, those who live with gun caches, those who aspire to live in compounds . . . . . . Happy. Well, those aren't the average citizen as the numbers show.

We need to change opinions, just like what was done with cigarettes. Show photos/videos of folks drooling over tactical weapons; strapping weapons to their bodies in irrational fear of other citizens; folks dealing in guns without background checks; folks with a hoard/cache of weapons they could use against other citizens in a disaster or otherwise; folks (including yahoos) blasting away at silhouette targets; and much more.

That would go a long way to convincing the public that a bunch of "cowboys" in our parks, restaurants, churches, bars, etc,, is not in our best interest. Personally, I don't care what the gun obsessed do with them in their own home, but when they start polluting society and promoting more and more guns -- that's different. Countries like Switzerland, Denmark, etc., have it right -- you can own em if you must, but very few can carry them in public.

Same thing happened with smoking. We need to go after gun manufacturers, people who promote guns, folks who are obsessed with the things, folks who pollute society strapping them to their bodies, etc. It's little different from someone walking around with a bomb or spear gun.

This gun culture BS has run it's course now that we are in the 21st Century. It'll be a tough fight, but one worthwhile in the long-run.

[ileus]

29. Since you put it that way...that is scary.

[rrneck]

30. Absolutely!

Gretchen, bring us another round of Chardonnay.

[rrneck]

32. You responded to your own post again.

Freud is laughing his ass off somewhere.

[PavePusher]

34. He's his own sock puppet....

Ouroboros ain't got nothing on him...

[rrneck]

35. Gah!

:rofl:

[Hoyt]

36. No, I tried making one response to four gunners posting the same BS.

It's difficult responding directly to people who are so irrational they have to strap a gun or two to their body to walk out of the house.

[eqfan592]

38. Pot, meet kettle. Nt

[Hoyt]

39. Sorry, man, I walk out of my house every day without even thinking about needing a gun to make it

through the day -- along with almost 300 million others.

[eqfan592]

40. Good for you and them....

....but that literally means nothing in terms of this specific discussion. Simply because the majority don't carry doesn't mean those that do are irrational. Rationality is not based only on what the majority does our doesn't do, or even on what they do or don't believe.

[PavePusher]

42. A majority, of people who voted, put Regean and Bush 1 & 2 into office.

That must mean they were the "rational" choices.

Did I follow his logic correctly? I do so want to get these things right....

[Hoyt]

45. I bet the NRA and its members would mess themselves if it were put on the 2012 ballot.

[eqfan592]

50. LOL, yeah, I'm sure they would.

Just not for the reason you think they would. You've convinced yourself that there is a "silent majority" on this issue that would appear to exist only in your mind. And yet somehow WE are the irrational ones. Seriously, hoyt, you are a laugh a minute. :P

[DonP]

53. Hey, it worked for Nixon, didn't it? Oh wait - never mind.

It's a common delusion when you need to desperately believe in something so much - that all logic and thought go out the window. Just like a Fundie aggressively denying evolution and demanding creationism be accepted as "science". People like him really believe they are the majority, or at least think they should be.

Even after 49 states voted for CCW with bipartisan majorities, he still sees it as an evil, corrupt plot by the NRA/GOP that the more intelligent (him and like minded people)can overturn with a little PR, some well intentioned excutive orders and a little facsist enforcement, as needed.

It's kind of pathetic because for 15 years every vote and court decision of any significance has gone against them with no sign of changing. That's why he hopes for some mystical national "change of heart". It's all he has going for him.

I won't hold my breath waioting for the "Silent Majority" to rise up against gun owners anytime soon. But I bet a lot of them are shopping for their own guns now.

[Euromutt]

46. On the other hand...

...you obsess over the few million who do in language and with a fervor that approaches that of Colonel Jack Ripper's fixation on "Purity of Essence."

[Hoyt]

48. Ironic you mention Gen Jack D Ripper, a paranoid/delusional character who believes guns/bombs

should be used against humans.

[eqfan592]

51. lol, not really ironic.

Fitting is a better word for it, I would think, especially in regards to the first character traits you mentioned. ;)

[Euromutt]

54. I think the word you want is "alanic"

Something is "alanic" when someone incorrectly describes it as ironic.

[rrneck]

41. Next time

try actually talking to people instead of broadcasting bigoted insults.

[ileus]

72. You just don't like strap on guns...

[Euromutt]

37. There's one thing missing from your plan of action

Any coherent reason why this should be done, other than to satisfy your personal prejudices. You used the phrase "polluting society" twice in the above post, and that seems to be about the only rationale you can come up with. Except it isn't a rationale at all: it's merely an expression of your subjective distaste with a thin varnish of argumentum ad populum.

Look, I smoke. I know it's bad for me, and I know it's potentially harmful to those around me, which is why I don't smoke in the house, or the car, and make sure I'm downwind of other people before I light up. But I do these things because there's empirical evidence that smoking is harmful; I don't do it just because some self-appointed moral guardian has decreed that society must share his personal distaste of tobacco.

[PavePusher]

43. "Tacky!" n/t

[ileus]

47. 1% of the population doesn't drive legislation, no matter what you claim.

There's many people beside baggers out there than enjoy the shooting sports, hunting, and being able to defend themselves while in public.

Freedom will carry on....the dark ages are behind us (hopefully) and firearm freedoms can still be expanded.

[SteveM]

70. "Same thing happened with smoking." I don't smoke my guns.

[ileus]

28. Honest citizens with CHP's or OCer's yes..criminals no...

[SteveM]

69. If you seek to ban something, you better know what the diff is...

I'm not interested in what you want with regards to people walking around with a gun or two strapped to their bodies. Besides, if they were concealed, what is your concern? If they are openly carried, avoid those folks if it bothers you.

[rrneck]

20. Nice.

1. Select divisive wedge issue.

2. Start blog on the cheap.

3. Quote item from major news outlet.

4. Leverage quote on partisan forum by flogging it with hyper partisan comments to generate hits on blog.

Did Arianna Huffington open a journalism school?

While increased restrictions on firearms availability may or may not be a good thing how many people will be killed or injured because they did not have a gun when they needed one because of new laws and what remedy do you offer?

I mean beyond some vague platitude.

[mikeb302000]

57. that's exactly the right question

do guns do more harm than good. My belief is there's no doubt that they do more harm. Just look at the news. The ratio between defensive gun use stories and those of gun violence is about 1 to 100. People on both sides of the argument can find stats to support their cause. But the news doesn't lie.

[X_Digger]

63. Setting policy by news frequency?

Summer of the Shark, anyone?

How often have you seen the story, "Criminal chooses different victim because this one was armed. No crime committed. No film at 11." Oh that's right, such stories don't make the news. Doesn't mean it didn't happen.

How stupid is it to base policy on the frequency of any particular occurrence in the news? If you went by the news, you'd think there was a rash of cute little white girls being abducted / killed. Hint, there isn't.

Fucking duh.

[rrneck]

64. "The news doesn't lie".

If it bleeds, it leads.

If it's such a good question why don't you answer it?

As I type this Rupert Murdoch is appearing before members of the House of Commons to answer charges of corruption. Your consumerism is showing.

[PavePusher]

65. Diane Sawyer recently pronounced....

that all of NBC "couldn't find any verifiable instances of successful self-defense with a firearm".

Apparently, they couldn't even Google their own fucking network.... Media-hack-whore is the descripter that comes to mind whenever I see her.

[MicaelS]

25. I think it sounds like shit, just most of your posts

And your blog. You equate gun owners with criminals, and you expect to have any rational discussion with us?

[mikeb302000]

58. wrong

I do not equate gun owners with criminals. Why do you have to exaggerate what I say and then argue against that as if I said it? Isn't http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2009/06/famous-10.html">what I actually do say bad enough for you?

[Union Scribe]

60. He's just using DU to drive traffic by copying and pasting his shit here.

I don't know why that's even allowed.

[Atypical Liberal]

31. Law-abiding gun owners.

In my opinion they're all part of the same problem. There's much more in common between criminal gun owners and lawful gun owners than there is between either of them and the gun control folks. Let me explain.

All the guns that are used in crime start out legally owned by someone. In the case of Jared Loughner, he himself was the legitimate and legal owner of the gun, as sad a fact as that is, given the terrible and tragic lack of mental health screening that exists. He bought the gun, and then used it in a crime.

But, the same is true for the inner city hoodlum who shoots a rival drug dealer in Newark. He may have bought the gun from another criminal, in fact his particular gun may have had several illegal owners before it was used in a murder. But if you could trace it back far enough, you would find a point at which it passed from the hand of its legitimate owner to that of a criminal.

The simple, undeniable truth is that the data clearly shows that almost all firearm homicides are committed by people with extensive prior criminal histories, including, on average four felonies.

http://www.cardozolawreview.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=138:kates201086&catid=20:firearmsinc&Itemid=20

The idea that any gun owner is a potential murderer who could snap at any moment is not born out by the statistical data about actual murderers.

Yes, every law-abiding person is law abiding right up until the time they aren't. But it is also true that people who commit murder have almost always committed a lot of serious crimes before that serious crime. And most of those prior serious crimes would already prohibit them from owning firearms.

[mikeb302000]

59. well, sort of

have you considered the career criminal who up until a certain point in his career has no felony convictions. Technically he's a law abiding gun owner. How about all the folks who own guns legally and have serious problems with drugs, alcohol, depression or anger? To recognize that some of them are going to end up badly, not to mention their wives and kids, is not the same as saying "that any gun owner is a potential murderer who could snap at any moment."

What you're doing is trying to deny these facts of reality.

[Atypical Liberal]

61. A law-abiding career criminal???

well, sort of have you considered the career criminal who up until a certain point in his career has no felony convictions. Technically he's a law abiding gun owner.

A career criminal is still a criminal. I don't see how he could be considered a "law abiding" anything.

Just because he hasn't committed any felonies that disbar him from owning a firearm does not mean he his law-abiding. A petty criminal is still a criminal.

How about all the folks who own guns legally and have serious problems with drugs, alcohol, depression or anger? To recognize that some of them are going to end up badly, not to mention their wives and kids, is not the same as saying "that any gun owner is a potential murderer who could snap at any moment."

What you're doing is trying to deny these facts of reality.

No, the facts of reality are that the majority of people (roughly 90%) who commit homicide with a firearm have extensive prior criminal histories, including, on average, four felonies.

http://www.cardozolawreview.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=138:kates201086&catid=20:firearmsinc&Itemid=20

"For instance, though only fifteen percent of Americans have criminal records, roughly ninety percent of adult murderers have adult records (exclusive of their often extensive juvenile records), with an average adult crime career of six or more years, including four major felonies.14 Moreover, leading American criminologists know the prior criminality of murderers is so well established by dozens of homicide studies as to rank among the axioms of criminology.(15)"

...

"he use of life-threatening violence in this country is, in fact, largely restricted to a criminal class and embedded in a general pattern of criminal behavior. . . . irtually all individuals who become involved in life-threatening violent crime have prior involvement in many types of minor (and not so minor) offenses. . . . The frequency, seriousness, and variety of offending are all strongly predictive of life-threatening violent offending. Even in the case of life-threatening domestic violence, most of these violent offenders have a history of prior involvement in criminal behavior and serious forms of violent crimes.(20)"

Another simple fact is that there are only about 1 million violent crimes a year in the United States, but there are estimated to be 40-80 million firearm owners. What this means is that even if every single violent crime, firearm-related or not, was committed by a firearm owners, at best only 2.5% of firearm owners can be involved in violent crimes each year. There simply aren't enough violent crimes to go around.

Any gun-crime control effort should focus on the characteristics of that 2.5%, not the 97% who are not involved in violent crimes. The best way to do this is to focus on people who's past behavior is highly indicative of future violent crime, and craft policies that affect them most of all.

[one-eyed fat man]

80. What idiocy!

"...the career criminal who up until a certain point in his career has no felony convictions. Technically he's a law abiding gun owner.


Are you saying a career criminal is NOT a criminal until he is caught and convicted?

So you can lie, cheat and steal and it's all good unless you get caught? Situational ethics at its finest...or just plain stupid.

Here's a clue, a criminal is someone who engages in unlawful behaviors. Cheating at solitaire is still cheating, even if you are only fooling yourself. Character is defined as doing the right thing even when no one is looking. You made your position clear.


I suppose you believe in OJ's plan to find the real killers too!

[bellcrank]

82. Many years ago, I would have paid handsomely for a bit of whatever you're smoking.

:eyes:

[PavePusher]

33. "How does that sound?"

It sounds like you're being a douche.

Try again with something other than paranoid conjecture and baseless insinuation.

[gravity556]

44. Ruelas

is an anti-gunner just beyond Hoyt and jpak on the hopolophobia scale of anti-gun hysterics. Were I a betting man, I'd wager a dollar that the gun was unloaded and the laser left on, providing an opportunity for Mr. Ruelas to make some anti-gun hay in an effort to both draw readership (flogging his column) and embarass a legislator he doesn't like. Speculation, of course, but no more than Hoyt's insisting that every individual who carries is some paranoid wreck, scared of his own shadow.

Also, OP, this line: "This is why we need strong gun control laws at the national level AIMED AT THE LAW ABIDING. No one disputes the fact that criminals won't obey our silly laws. That's exactly the reason, along with the fact that the legitimate gun owners of America seem to have such a hard time holding on to their guns, that we need proper gun control laws." is idiocy. You want to remove my firearms while knowing that you're having no effect on criminals. I would comment further, but decorum and the forum rules prohibit the only heartfelt responses that I feel are appropriate.

[mikeb302000]

74. well you'd lose that bet

The Senator herself said the gun was loaded. You know, what good is a gun if it's unloaded?

[benEzra]

49. As Yoda would say, "This is why you fail."

There's much more in common between criminal gun owners and lawful gun owners than there is between either of them and the gun control folks.

I know I've said this before, but this type of attitude is precisely why your movement is in the sorry shape it's now in.

You're making exactly the same mistake that Carrie Nation and her ilk made about non-teetotalers, i.e. "people who drink wine with meals are more like alcoholics, criminals, and gangsters than they are like their Earl-Grey-drinking neighbors."

The problem with ad hominem demonization of an outgroup (other than the moral questions pertaining to slander and libel) as a means to advance your cause is that such demonization only works against a minority that is comparatively small and intimidated to start with. When your lobbyists argue in all seriousness that 80+ million likely voters are evil and you try to take away their rights on that basis, don't be surprised when those voters turn around and kick your electoral butt in the next election.

[Atypical Liberal]

62. Great point.

The problem with ad hominem demonization of an outgroup (other than the moral questions pertaining to slander and libel) as a means to advance your cause is that such demonization only works against a minority that is comparatively small and intimidated to start with. When your lobbyists argue in all seriousness that 80+ million likely voters are evil and you try to take away their rights on that basis, don't be surprised when those voters turn around and kick your electoral butt in the next election.

Exactly. Mike, and others like him who share this opinion, have just said that 40-80 million voters aren't much better than murderers.

Not only is it ridiculous - it is probably true that the more serious a firearm owner is about firearm ownership the more law abiding they are - it is highly offensive and motivating.

[mikeb302000]

75. actually what I say is

this:

Although the majority of the 80 million gun owners have gun ownership in common with the criminals, they agree with me. Most people including most gun owners want proper gun control laws. It's only the extremists who oppose reasonable restrictions, which, let's not forget, were approved by Big Tony himself in the Heller decision.

[SteveM]

71. Indeed. His sentence reveals what this is about: Culture war.

[friendly_iconoclast]

73. They wanted culture war, they started culture war, they fought culture war with a will...

...And now, they're losing the culture war.


Good. Let them go down in history in the same dustheap with Carrie Nation, Harry J. Anslinger, Frederic Wertham,

Jack Thompson, and every homphobic fundie who bloviates about other peoples' marriages...

[SteveM]

78. That's the thing I find so puzzling about the so-called Defense of Marriage Act...

These people who want to defend marriages must feel pretty insecure if they are some how "threatened" by GLBT marriages, and further, must call upon that institution they so hate, despise and wish to destroy: The federal government.

[X_Digger]

52. unrec -- blogspam n/t

[mikeb302000]

76. what does that mean?

Does it mean that you disagree with my position? Many people who disagree with me on gun control prefer to attack me personally or whine about the way I link back to my site rather than enter into the discussion. Is that what you're about, X_Digger?

[X_Digger]

77. Flog your blog elsewhere.

Hell, include it in your signature.

When you come up with a rational topic, I'll jump right in. You should know by now that I have no problem jumping into a discussion.

[bellcrank]

81. If only cops, crooks and republicans are allowed to have guns,

will you be satisfied?