Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Recency  | 
Page:  « First  ‹ Previous  2 3 4 5 6  Next ›  Last »  (6 total)
10:51 AM on 01/13/2009
Don't you just love how it is the " Brady background check " when it was the NRA who first lobbied for Congress to fund a study on doing background checks and it was the NRA who pushed for the background checks in the "Brady Bill" ?
11:46 AM on 01/13/2009
Why are your comments typically replete with criticisms of gun control advocacy/advocates; and in praise of the NRA, EmilyU? The latter ~ our dominant gun lobby ~ is specifically interested in pursuing a political agenda that may not be in the best interests of our public health, I feel; while the former, including the blog author, makes some of the best attempts at addressing violence & firearms.

Moreover, people already know that violent acts are easier to commit, when guns are already present. Several studies over the years have confirmed this theory ~ including one (for example), in which homicides were found to be almost 3 times more likely to occur, when there was a gun in the home (see JAMA's article "Regulating firearm advertisements that promote home protection: a public health intervention").

We also know that the risk of suicide increases in such instances ... adolescents were 13 times more likely to commit suicide with a gun (in the home). But ~ & this ties in with the importance of ongoing prevention efforts ~ adolescents, who were found to have psychiatric problems (such as depression), actually had a REDUCED risk of suicide when a gun was not present at home (see both AJDC's 1993 article on "Firearms and adolescent suicide. A community case-control study;" as well as the U.S. Dept of Justices' study on "Gun acquisition and possession in selected juvenile samples").
Silenced by HP. Cant be intimidated into Facebook
11:54 AM on 01/13/2009
"Why are your comments typically replete with criticisms of gun control advocacy/advocates"

Maybe because she is smart enough to see through their smokescreens and the bogus studies they fund.
02:50 PM on 01/13/2009
Where I have a big problem is with hypocritical gun ban advocates--like Dianne Feinstein having the only CCP in San Fransisco (I know her predecessor as mayor got shot--but since she had a police bodyguard why does she need a concealed pistol) or Ted Kennedy having bodyguards armed with submachineguns or Rosie O'Donnell having armed guards while insisting that I be thrown in jail for OWNING firearms--not committing crimes
09:32 AM on 01/13/2009
Quite often we hear that there is no need for gun ownership. Instead, we hear about the need for punishing firearm owners; really punishing them. About making more laws.

OK, let's test that thesis.

Let's take the case of MMM leader Barbara Graham.

Graham was convicted (yes convicted) for stalking and attempting to murder the person she thought had killed her son. In fact, she shot a person not involved at all. Her son, a high school dropout, had been arrested multiple times for drugs and carrying a firearm. In her home, the police found numerous other handguns including a TEC-9.

Yet, despite this, the MMM supported her during her entire trial.

So. when you hear Brady Campaign/MMM adherents talk about getting serious on crime--it's really about what THEY would do w/ firearms in the heat of the moment.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
09:12 AM on 01/13/2009
"Quite often we hear that there is no need for any laws on gun ownership." ~Jade

Another false proclamation. When did you ever here any of us, or the NRA for that matter (since you have them on the brain), say any such thing?

Talk about your "smokescreen".
08:58 AM on 01/13/2009
Quite often we hear that there is no need for any laws on gun ownership. Instead, we hear about the need for punishing criminals; really punishing them. About enforcing the laws.

OK, let's test that thesis.

Let's take the case of Sandy Abrams.

Abrams has been indicted on over 900 counts of violating federal gun violations. many of the weapons he illegally sold wound up being used in crimes including numerous murders, robberies, assaults and other acts of violence.

Yet, despite this, the NRA had him on their Board of Directors and sponsored a lawsuit on his behalf to allow him to keep selling weapons.

So. when you hear NRA adherents talk about getting serious on crime--it's a smokescreen.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
09:09 AM on 01/13/2009
Why do you people have this obsession with the NRA?

"So. when you hear NRA adherents talk about getting serious on crime--it's a smokescreen."

I'm not in the NRA, nor am I an "adherent". Neither are most of us here who call for punushing violent criminals. If someone sells guns illegally to criminals, put him in the cell right next door.

Statements like yours are the smokescreen, as is all the whining about prison overcrowding. You're not interseted in doing anything about violence. You are interested in disarming the law-abiding public.

It's a control thing, Mr. Soros.
11:52 AM on 01/13/2009
Since you (apparently) have all the 'answers,' mike102, I'd like you to consider giving your two-cents on the following question (that is ... if you're so inclined; no pressure, however). And just to clarify ~ I'm not interested in reading more links to guncite or other articles from other people; but rather, in your own personal beliefs & subjectivity take on:

* What is at the center of gun violence in America?
10:45 AM on 01/13/2009
"Abrams has been indicted on over 900 counts of violating federal gun violations. "

Cited, not indicted. And how many of those 900 citations were minor clerical errors? How many were errors made by the purchasor? According to ATF rules, even a spelling error can result in a citation.

"many of the weapons he illegally sold wound up being used in crimes including numerous murders, robberies, assaults and other acts of violence."

Gee, so now we are holding people responsible for what other people do? Cool. Let's condem the automakers and dealers for drunk drivers while we are at it.

If this guy has committed violations of law then put him away. But don't go around misstating things or trumping up things.
11:06 AM on 01/13/2009
It's an improvement. Jade used to claim 'convicted'.
12:52 PM on 01/13/2009
Actually, the word is "convicted."

Abrams got 5 years and his FFL taken away.

So, ask yourself--here's someone who was providing firearms to criminals and he only gets 5 years? Why did the NRA support him?
06:27 PM on 01/12/2009
The title of this list should really be "A New Day for Gun Violence". Considering the history of success that Brady law heavy areas have had in combating 'gun crime'.
07:21 PM on 01/12/2009
Too cynical.
07:42 PM on 01/12/2009
And too accurate.
11:43 PM on 01/13/2009
It is a simple statement of fact--the gun control you support so much INCREASES VIOLENT CRIME BY SHIFTING THE BALANCE OF POWER FROM THE VICTIM TO THE CRIMINAL.
02:06 PM on 01/12/2009
Ah yes, a new day for people like this to lord over our lives...
03:53 PM on 01/12/2009
Thanks for the reminder of the integrity problems that the gun control side has.
05:59 PM on 01/12/2009
I see Mycroft wishes to open that can...

Well, we can always talk about Larry Craig, Sandy Abrams, Duke Cunningham, Tim McVeigh...all NRA supporters or leaders.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
06:09 PM on 01/12/2009
06:14 PM on 01/12/2009
And we can always talk about Adolf Hitler, the architect of the modern gun control movement.
01:30 PM on 01/12/2009
"discussions about how to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people today."

Tell me Paul.

The Brady Campaign is firmly against concealed carry laws. These are people who have passed an extensive background check, taken a class on gun safety/use of force laws for their state and have submitted finger prints to their local LEO's.

Yet, you don't think these people can be trusted to carry a firearm.

Please inform us Paul, if those who submit to the requirements of getting a CCW permit can't be trusted in your eyes, just who can the Brady Campaign trust?
11:27 AM on 01/12/2009
"but don't tell me we can't uphold the Second Amendment while keeping AK-47s out of the hands of criminals."


Since it is already illegal for criminals to own ANY TYPE OF GUN, why would Obama single out just one model of firearm?

It wouldn't be that Obama sees no distinction between criminals and law abiding citizens and plans to push for a renewal of the AWB, could it?

I thought the BC said gun bans were off the table?
01:14 PM on 01/12/2009
Not to mention that possession of an actual AK-47 by ANYBODY without a BATFE Form 4, other than in the course of police/military duty, commits a 10-year Federal felony. And those rare AK-47's that _are_ civilian-transferable require a three to six month background check, cost upwards of $17,000, can't be taken out of state without Federal permission, your local chief law enforcement officer has to sign off on the application, and the BATFE gets to inspect your paperwork once a year.

Which suggests that whoever fed Mr. Obama that meme wanted him to _think_ that the "assault weapon" issue is about AK-47's, rather than THE MOST POPULAR NON-AUTOMATIC CIVILIAN RIFLES IN AMERICA.
12:46 PM on 01/13/2009
Excluding handguns & mainly because I haven't been able to find numbers anywhere that specifically back up ~ or support ~ such claims that a specific firearm is "the most popular non-automatic civilian rifle in America' ... I'd like to ask you, Benezra, how many owners have you found to be in this group & what number do you consider high enough to make such a claim that a weapon is 'the most popular' in our nation?

Just wondering, really.
12:52 PM on 01/13/2009
To reiterate: You may be right on this. Maybe more gun owners than not prefer this specific type of firearm than another in that classification. But if there are numbers to back this up, I'm assuming, for gun sales, etc. ... what are those numbers/percentage of gun owners?
11:11 AM on 01/12/2009
One more thing :

There are a myriad of ways a criminal can obtain a firearm, closing the gun show loophole, in theory, is one of them. The problem is, gun shows only account for 1% of guns traced back to crimes. Criminals have a myriad of ways to get gun, eliminating one, won't do anything. the facts on guns in America.
07:03 AM on 01/12/2009
Seventy-year-old woman holds home intruder at gunpoint, talks about ordeal

It was all started about nine o'clock Sunday night. Sandra says she was in the midst of splitting wood for her fire and making vegetable soup, when she heard a ruckus outside.

“All of a sudden, I’m hearing fast footsteps around my yard, around my deck,” says Sandra.

That's when she says she grabbed her gun and called 911. Moments later-- the intruder-- 28-year-old Cyrus Brown, broke through her back patio door, pushing his way through the glass.

“Immediately, I felt there was danger because he was so desperate,” explains the 70-year-old. “He's in the kitchen by the stove, I told him to get down on the floor. I said if you come any closer to me, I will shoot you to kill. I told him to sit down, don't move, and I want to see your hands at all times,” adds Sandra.

In that moment, Sandra says she was glad she had a gun and knew how to use it-- just in case.

“I thought that this could turn out badly because I heard of other people being murdered in their house, but I decided, I wasn't going to go down without a fight. I owe that to my children,” she explains. “Guns aren't all bad, only in the hands of the criminal and guns can be a good defense.”

Silenced by HP. Cant be intimidated into Facebook
07:54 PM on 01/11/2009
"79% of Americans favor requiring gun owners to register their guns with the local government. 68% favored both gun registration and licensing; "

Because the American public thinks that these things present an easy answer. Heck, most Americans think that registration is already the law when realtity is that it is only required in a few states. When it comes right down to it, neither licensing nor registration do anything to prevent criminal misuse or suicidal uses of firearms, the two leading causes of death involving firearms. The only area which might be affected by these invasive rules are accidental discharges, something which is already not very common.

"65% favored banning military-style assault weapons; "

And probably 80% of them think that means machine guns.

" 65% of voters favored requiring a five-day waiting period before purchasing a firearm. "

Because at least that many mistakenly think that people buying a firearm and then misusing it within five days is a real problem. Reality is that such events are extremely rare.

"83% of voters supported criminal background checks for all gun sales; "

Until they are asked how to implement such a rule.
Silenced by HP. Cant be intimidated into Facebook
07:45 PM on 01/11/2009
"On one hand, total gun bans aren't even a theoretical option anymore - a result that doesn't affect our work because the Brady Campaign doesn't favor such a policy. "

Not any more. But in it's previous incarnations, this group certainly has. Now you just support partial bans.
04:07 PM on 01/11/2009

According to that CNN poll: "Would you support or oppose amending the United States Constitution to ban individual gun ownership?" 78% say "oppose".
01:16 PM on 01/11/2009
From the Brady Blog, re: Allegheny County PA, and the election:

"Statewide, with the highest NRA membership per capita of any state in the Union, Obama won Pennsylvania by 55%-44%.

Now, did they really vote for the "most anti-gun president in history," or did they just come to realize the NRA was lying through their teeth?"

Paul, wasn't it you who said that if the Heller decision went our way, that 'Children would legally be able to carry assault weapons in close proximity to the White House', and that 'Terrorists would legally be able to set up sniper nests on rooftops along motorcade routes'?

And you claim the NRA was lying through it's teeth? LOL.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
01:59 PM on 01/11/2009
Right you are, LT. That was in the brief the BC filed with the Supreme Court.

Hard to believe, huh?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
02:54 AM on 01/12/2009
Correction- It wasn't in the amicus brief. It may have been a letter, and an article. I can't find it on their site now, but I'm sure we all remember it.
08:27 AM on 01/12/2009

The bill, H.R. 6691, would allow nearly anyone, even teenagers and children, to carry loaded assault rifles on the streets of our Nation's Capital.
I just don't know what went wrong!
09:22 AM on 01/12/2009
The Brady Center's press release contains a number of false claims. HR6691 would only repeal DC firearms regulations already ruled unconstitutional. As Federal law already prohibits possession of firearms to those who have been convicted of certain violent misdemeanor offenses and to those who have been convicted of multiple drug offenses and as HR6691 includes neither exceptions nor repeal to that law, the Brady center's claim that this bill would "allow many people who have committed a violent or drug-related misdemeanor crime to possess a gun" is demonstrably false. The claim that the bill would allow individuals to "posses and carry assault rifles in the Capital city" is misleading, and your interpretation of the claim to mean "on the streets of our Nation's Capital" is itself an illustration of the Brady's Center's intent to mislead; the law would allow individuals to posses and carry firearms only on their own property (at present, District law prohibits the possession and carrying of firearms even in an individual's own private residence). Additionally, as it is illegal for any individual to posses an "assault rifle" within the District at all, and as HR6691 includes no repeal of that restriction, the claim that it would allow "assault rifles" in any location within the District is demonstrably false; I am unable to concieve of any honest reason for the Brady Center's claim.

The full text of the bill may be found at
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
09:47 AM on 01/12/2009
Much obliged, TP.
12:53 PM on 01/11/2009
The BC correctly predicted the ruling! LOL!

If someone is beating you over the head with a bat, are you proud that you can correctly identify it as a Louisville Slugger? It took the BC months more than the rest of us to realize that their entire (warped) perception of the Second Amendment was inaccurate. ALL NINE justices ruled against the BC's claims of a "collective right" (whatever the hell that means!)

As an aside, as a Virginia Tech graduate student (I have my M.S. from VT and am pursuing my Ph.D.) who was there on 4/16, I find it terribly distasteful that the anti-gun crowd uses this as an example of what could be stopped. Clearly, allowing law-abiding citizens to carry for their protection is a better solution. How does the BC pretend that they could have made a difference, when we know that the murderer was able to get his guns legally?

I still think it's hilarious that the BC trumpets their predictive abilities! Ms. Cleo, I mean Paul, please tell me what the next Mega Millions lottery numbers are.