Labor Day Body Count in NY and Elsewhere

[mikeb302000]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904537404576553181576923182.html">WSJ reports on the Labor Day festivities in the Big Apple

The shooting of a police officer in Crown Heights, Brooklyn, on Monday night punctuated a Labor Day weekend burst of violence that left at least 10 dead and more than 50 injured since Friday morning.

While all eyes are on http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2011/09/oh-look-another-example-of-how-unsafe.html">Carson City, Nevada today, the body count in New York is pretty impressive. Let's not overlook it, or forget that every single day there is an average of 80 something dead from gunshots, EVERY SINGLE DAY.

Where do all the guns come from, we'll at the risk of repeating myself, they come from http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2011/09/more-on-way-gun-flow-works.html">the gun manufacturers directly, they come from http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2011/08/criminal-ffl-gun-dealers-trial-delayed.html">the FFL gun dealers, and they come from you, http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2011/06/why-they-oppose-background-checks.html">the individual legitimate gun owners.

Since we all agree criminals don't obey laws, proper gun control has to be aimed at the law-abiding. Unfortunately a certain amount of inconvenience would be necessary if we were to make improvements, but based on that, resistance is strong from the gun community. Led by their standard bearer, Monsieur La Pierre, the rank and file gun-rights advocates fight any and every attempt to improve the situation.

The results are they continue to enjoy their guns unhampered by such inconveniences as licensing and registration and background checks on all transfers, and gun violence also continues unhampered by those common-sense remedies.

Does anyone not understand why I blame the gun owners, that is the gun owners who resist proper gun control laws?

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/">(cross posted at Mikeb302000)

[PavePusher]

1. Jebus is back on that rubber pogo stick....

"Since we all agree criminals don't obey laws, proper gun control has to be aimed at the law-abiding."

Nothing at all Stalinistic there, nope....

[mikeb302000]

4. no, not at all.

You gun rights guys are the ones who keep harping on the idea that criminals don't obey therefore our gun control laws can't work. I'm just agreeing with you. The laws I'm talking about are ones which would help you individual owners ensure that your guns don't end up in the wrong hands, with little inconvenience to you. No private sales, for example.

For the FFL guys and the gun manufacturers stricter controls are needed to ensure the same thing on a larger scale.

Tell me, what could you possibly object to about these proposals.

[rl6214]

7. so because all you potheads and drug addicts don't follow the laws

the cops should be able to stop and search us law-abiding non drug users whenever they want?

Gotch

[We_Have_A_Problem]

21. What could I object to?

For starters, the fact that you're punishing me for the potential actions of criminals.

No private sales? So you're trying to control what property I own and what I choose to do with it? That isn't a little inconvenience. That's a pretty big one.

Holding me responsible for what a criminal does with something he steals from me? Wow - um...lets see...hold the owner of a car responsible if it is stolen and then used to run down a busload of nuns...yeah - i don't think so.

Essentially all of your proposals stem from the idea that guns are something we are permitted to have only by a benevolent government. That is simply NOT the case in the United States. Once you get past that mentality, you may start to understand why your ideas are pure garbage.

[rl6214]

6. No, not Stalinistic

I'd say more like Mussilinistic.

[PavePusher]

29. O.K., I can go with that... ;>) n/t

[PavePusher]

2. WTF?!

"and gun violence also continues unhampered by those common-sense remedies."

Uh... didn't you just say: "Since we all agree criminals don't obey laws..."?

And then this: "Does anyone not understand why I blame the gun owners..."?

Unholy Fuck, you are the Waffle King. That kind of mental whiplash should leave you with a near-terminal concussion.

[MyrnaLoy]

3. shooting deaths

Here's two more at a shooting range:

The shooting range has seen other killings, the Star reported, including the suicide of a man in March 2010 and the deaths of three people in 1997 who killed themselves with guns they rented there.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/09/07/couple-who-met-online-found-dead-at-kansas-shooting-range/#ixzz1XFIJaj5l

[rl6214]

5. As usual, don't click on the links because they lead

directly to his blog. Pretty dishonest if you as me, putting up a blind link to your blog so you can make a few bucks.
\
Too bad NY city dosen't have some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country. Oh wait, they do and we still have this level of crime and violence.

"Since we all agree criminals don't obey laws, proper gun control has to be aimed at the law-abiding."

Oh, good idea. Penalize the law abiding to get at the criminals. How about we also make no-knock entry by police legal, warrantless searches and wiretaps and racial profiling in police stops legal as well.

On top of that I think we should assume you deal in kiddie porn since it is people with computers that spread it so the cyber police should be able to access your harddrive any time they want because afterall, criminals don't obey the law so proper enforcement of those laws has to be aimed at the law-abiding.

" Unfortunately a certain amount of inconvenience would be necessary if we were to make improvements"

Unrec for your blind links to your blog.

[Union Scribe]

32. And he seems to be adding more and more of them

There are FIVE in that post that go back to his for-profit blog. But, gee, we can't call that spamming or anything.

[DCKit]

8. I am sooooo going hunting this year. For deer.

[SteveM]

24. Me too! I now get 2/yr. (damned economy). Got the cost down low. nt

[ileus]

9. Have you contacted your Congressman to voice your concerns about gun sales?

Constant whining to "us" won't help solve the problem. You really need to start at the state level, and go up from there.

[rl6214]

12. Contact his congressman?

I didn't know we had any italian congressmen.

[jmg257]

10. In a sad way...this is the smartest thing you have said yet....

"Since we all agree criminals don't obey laws, proper gun control has to be aimed at the law-abiding."

LOL! Cause Lord knows that controlling those law-abiding folks will REALLY teach those criminals a lesson!

Fascinating stufff...you should take it on the road!

[SteveM]

25. Does have an Orwellian ring. nt

[jeepnstein]

11. So we're going to be put at the mercy...

of people who sell a product that is already illegal, who have sophisticated international smuggling routes, who can get about anything they really want at any time? Give me a break. Instead of gang bangers using whatever's cheap they'll be buying real AK's for half the money. Yes, I have seen a machine gun that was imported to the U.S. by a drug dealer by way of Columbia. It was a Browning M2. The guy who had it wasn't exactly a rocket scientist although he was a Harvard grad.

The overwhelming bulk of U.S. Citizens are peaceful and law-abiding folks who can be trusted with their freedoms.

[rl6214]

13. Unlike those that run to italy then whine about gun control

"The overwhelming bulk of U.S. Citizens are peaceful and law-abiding folks who can be trusted with their freedoms. "

[Glassunion]

14. Gun control does not seem to be working in NY.

Please explain how you think it will work elsewhere.

"The results are they continue to enjoy their guns unhampered by such inconveniences as licensing and registration and background checks on all transfers, and gun violence also continues unhampered by those common-sense remedies."

NY requires licensing and registration. They also require background checks on ALL transfers. You say they are "common-sense", but I disagree. If they are common-sense, why don't they work?

[DanTex]

15. To elaborate on "proper gun control has to be aimed at the law-abiding"

This point seems to have been missed, or at least misinterpreted by a bunch of people here.

It is true that once a criminal gets hold of a gun, that criminal will generally ignore any gun control laws. However, guns do not start out in criminal hands, the vast majority start out at FFLs, and then at some point along the way they get diverted from a law-abiding citizen to a criminal. And so effective gun control laws, by changing the way that law abiding citizens handle or transfer guns, make it more difficult for criminals to get guns even if criminals ignore the law.

It doesn't seem to be all that complicated, not sure why so many people don't seem to understand this. Background checks are a great example. Before the Brady Bill, it was already illegal for felons to purchase or buy guns, but predictably, a lot of felons would just ignore the law and purchase guns from FFLs anyway. But now, an FFL is required to perform a background check, and since FFLs are law-abiding, and this has made it more difficult for a felon to purchase a gun. Why? Because even though the felon has no intention of obeying any laws, the FFLs do. Criminals can ignore the background check law all they want, as long as they aren't trying to buy guns from an FFL.

The same holds for things like a licensing/registration program. Yes, criminals can ignore the registry, but FFLs and law-abiding citizens will not. In fact, the same is true for any other gun control law. For example, machine guns are highly regulated in the US. Of course, I'm sure criminals don't care about the laws at all and would be happy to own a machine gun. And yet, very few criminals do. Why? Because the laws which are obeyed by law-abiding citizens make it very difficult for a criminal to get hold of a machine gun in the first place.

[Glassunion]

17. You show me proper gun-control, and most likely the vast majority of us would have no problem.

From my perspective, I push back at gun control because 2nd Amendment aside, most laws that adamant politicians come up with violate my rights.

I fully support background checks on firearm purchases. I fully support the NICS system, and I feel that the states should be far more proactive in keeping the information accurate and up to date. Personally, I would love to open up NICS to private sellers as well. It just needs to be done without violating the privacy or any other right for that matter.

I have yet to see where registration and licensing has any impact whatsoever on crime.

I'll give you some examples of proposed legislation to show you why I push back at gun control.

H.R. 227: Child Gun Safety and Gun Access Prevention Act of 2011 - Sounds reasonable right?
The problems I have with the bill:
1. I feel that an 18 year old is an adult. They can vote, they can go off to war. Restricting a civil right to an adult is unacceptable in my opinion.
2. "a large capacity ammunition feeding device" is not defined in the bill and this opens up an arena for police abuse.
3. It not only allows for penalties for firearms possession of those under 21, but for firearm accessories as well.

The problems that I DO NOT have with it:
1. School districts should provide or participate in a firearms safety program for students in grades kindergarten through 12.
2. The safety program should not be mandatory if the parent of the student to exempt the student from the program.
3. It also provides for grants for law enforcement to offer training programs as well.

H.R. 308: Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Device Act
My main issue with the bill is I think the restriction of 10 rounds is absurd. However I will also highlight other areas where I have a problem with the bill.
1. Why is the .22 rimfire excluded? Why not the .25? Seems odd to me.
2. Why are all law enforcement officers both active and retired exempt? Double standard.
3. Why are certain corporations exempt? Another double standard.

S. 176: Common Sense Concealed Firearms Permit Act of 2011 - It says common sense... So it must be so.
My issues:
1. Where are the states rights?
2. Since when does the federal government require an individual to show 'good cause' before exercising a right?
3. They don't define what is good cause.
4. Also, what is a factor for determining is an individual is 'worthy of public trust'? It is not defined in the bill.
5. It also requires law enforcement to maintain and keep files on all individuals who carry without an exemption of the federal government from having access to said information. A de facto federal registry. Which correct me if I'm wrong, would violate the GCA of 1968?
6. Overall this bill opens up an avenue for police abuse and severe inconsistencies across the board.

"Common sense" and "Reasonable" are subjective. You show me "Proper gun control" and in all likelihood, I would agree with it. But if politicians cannot even write a piece of legislation that does not violate anything in the BOR or even existing laws, you will never see me get behind it.

[gejohnston]

18. Machine guns were rarely used before NFA

or Canada before 1952 when Parliament passed the machine gun registry (which was laxer than our law until 1977). While the mob did buy them, the few high profile robbers like Dillinger etc. usually stole theirs from National Guard and police armories. On the other hand, machine guns are used more often in UK and Europe.

[SteveM]

27. The notorious Ashley gang of South Florida (early motor bandits)...

preferred Browning Automatic Rifle to the Thompson sub-machine gun due to the former's superior fire power. And they got them from armories or outright hijackings. But they were the exception in choosing full-auto arms.

[gejohnston]

31. Bonnie and Clyde had BARs too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1918_Browning_Automatic_Rifle

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clyde_Barrow

[SteveM]

26. Can't agree with "criminal difficulty." You leave out motivation...

"In fact, the same is true for any other gun control law. For example, machine guns are highly regulated in the US. Of course, I'm sure criminals don't care about the laws at all and would be happy to own a machine gun. And yet, very few criminals do. Why? Because the laws which are obeyed by law-abiding citizens make it very difficult for a criminal to get hold of a machine gun in the first place."

Criminals would have to have a strong motivation to obtain a full-auto weapon. They choose instead handguns, which are easily-concealed and easier to use. If a long gun in semi-auto were that popular among thugs, they would already be employed in more than the 2.8% portion of all gun crimes. Semi-auto center-fire rifles are popular (over 16,000,000 in civilian hands), and comparatively cheap. Yet, thugs don't use them.

In Mexico, where there is motivation for gangs to get full-auto, the "market" is the Mexican military, or from other Central and South American countries where many are still available due to the legacy of guerrilla warfare and U.S. intervention. They sure aren't getting them from Joe's Gun Shop. In fact, I don't think there is much motivation for law-abiding U.S. citizens to obtain full-auto either.

[rrneck]

16. Good idea!

Lets tell law abiding citizens that they are, as a group, responsible for the crimes perpetrated against them. And then let's tell them that we need to make it more difficult to defend themselves against those commiting those crimes.

The left in this country handed the gun issue to the right on a silver platter by doing exactly that.

[Atypical Liberal]

19. Another non-starter.

Since we all agree criminals don't obey laws, proper gun control has to be aimed at the law-abiding. Unfortunately a certain amount of inconvenience would be necessary if we were to make improvements, but based on that, resistance is strong from the gun community. Led by their standard bearer, Monsieur La Pierre, the rank and file gun-rights advocates fight any and every attempt to improve the situation.

No. Absolutely not.

I am not going to tolerate much inconvenience on behalf of criminals.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

20. I'll bet this "blame the victim" approach works for other crimes too! ...

For example, since rapists don't obey laws, we should levy legislation aimed at law-abiding women.
We can reduce the incidence of rape & sexual assault if we mandate women not to not dress provocatively, openly flirt or flaunt their sexuality. Ultimately, this is just a first step where the ultimate goal would be a strict sunset curfew for women and a dress requirement which achieves total body coverage (except the face/eyes) with loose fitting clothing.

[Remmah2]

33. That would be the equivalent of banning booty. nt

nt

[azureblue]

22. Once again - what is the NRA's proposed solution

to the problem of criminals getting guns? Once again, what is the NRA's position of keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill and criminals, without affecting the rights of "law abiding" gun owners? What is the NRA doing right now, to address this issue? Do they have any active, effective programs going on? What is the NRA actually doing to keep guns away from people with criminal records? The mentally ill? People who are on psycho active drug medication? For sure- if a person is on a regime of taking meds that says "do not operate a motor vehicle, machinery, etc., -- tell your doctor if you have suicidal thoughts, depression, sudden exhilaration, mood swings, sleeplessness, etc." then they should not be allowed to "operate" a gun!

I have asked for the NRA's stance and solution, and what they are doing right now, at least five times, but there has not been a single direct response. I doubt there is one. What I have seen is the NRA wants to ignore this problem - the usual response when this subject is brought up is a slew of red herrings, buck passing, and scare tactics. And no solutions, and for sure, no direct action by the NRA. And this issue will continue, because of the NRA's refusal to step up and actually do something about it.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

23. The problem there is...

...it isn't the NRA's responsibility to come up with solutions, and they cannot do so anyway.

The NRA is a private civil-rights organization dedicated to a single issue. They are not a governmental agency or a legislative body.

The responsibility lies with Congress on a national level and the state legislatures on a more local one. If they wish to hold firearms as the focal point of how they address crime and criminal behavior, the onus is upon them to come up with solutions which affect criminals and ONLY criminals.

All that aside, the NRA has put forth many suggestions, among them, our current instant check system.

Currently, it is illegal for a felon or someone who has been adjudicated mentally ill to own a firearm. What more would you have done? Remember, you cannot infringe upon the rights of the law abiding to prevent a potential criminal act.

[SteveM]

28. You want an NRA response? Ask them, not me. nt

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

30. The NRA supported (and continues to support) NICS Legislative efforts

NICS is the federal background check system used when a gun is purchased. When introduced, often called the "Brady Check" or "Background Check", the NRA endorsed the legislation. NICS is the primary tool to combat illegally purchased handguns.

According to the NRA-ILA legislative initiatives, some of the efforts continually lobbied for every year regarding the NICS include improving the accuracy of NICS records, reducing delayed approvals for firearm purchasers, requiring federal and state governments to remove or update inaccurate records when discovered, permanently prohibiting the FBI from charging a “user fee” on NICS background checks, providing necessary funding for the NICS so that it can operate as accurately/quickly as possible, and providing necessary funding for states to transmit records on prohibited classes of persons so that the NICS is effective and efficient.

[Spoonman]

34. I'll take a stab at this one

Does anyone not understand why I blame the gun owners, that is the gun owners who resist proper gun control laws?

A catastrophic case of constipation?

"at the risk of repeating myself" - Criminals commit crimes because candy ass puss wads don't want prison to be punishment.

The US recidivism rate at over 60% proves "rehabilitation" doesn't work, and anyone that thinks our prison system "punishes" criminals is a fucking idiot!

Having two friends that a prison guards at TDC Huntsville has afforded me a great deal of "inside" information into just how much we pamper our inmates.

When prison becomes a BAD PLACE where BAD SHIT happens, crime will drop.