NRA Defeated In Key Gun Violence Prevention Vote: Elections Have Consequences

The National Rifle Association leadership suffered a major defeat in the U.S. Senate today, losing a key vote on a bill that would have radically weakened rules governing the concealed carrying of firearms around the country.

Gun violence prevention advocates across America worked day and night contacting their Senators, convincing them to defeat the gun lobby's dangerous proposal. Today, all their hard work paid off as Senators voted to protect American communities and reject gun lobby threats.

One point of interest is the fact that three targets of strong NRA attacks in the 2008 elections for U.S. Senate, who went on to win their elections anyway, were part of a group that made the difference today in helping keep our communities safe.

Last November, these three individuals were all rated 'F' by the NRA. The NRA went on to spend more than a combined $600,000 to defeat them and elect their opponents. What's more, the NRA's preferred candidates in each of these three races were incumbents, and all three incumbents were defeated.

What good did the NRA's money and endorsements do for former Senator Norm Coleman, former Senator John Sununu and former Senator Gordon Smith? Not enough to return them to the Senate. Voters in those states rejected the gun lobby's attacks last November and voted for their opponents.

Today, while gun violence survivors and victims' families, law enforcement, and the American public can express their gratitude for the leadership of Senators Richard Durbin of Illinois, Dianne Feinstein of California, Charles Schumer of New York and Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey, there are others to thank for today's win.

Victims of gun violence can also thank the people of Minnesota for electing Senator Al Franken, the people of New Hampshire for electing Senator Jeanne Shaheen, and the people of Oregon for electing Senator Jeff Merkley.

Today's vote is proof that hard work, and elections, have real-life consequences that can help save lives. The NRA's diminished clout at the ballot box is now translating into diminished clout on the Hill.

After today's victory, I am hopeful that our Congress will begin to address proactive measures to reduce gun violence in this country by doing things like requiring background checks for all gun sales, particularly at gun shows.

We've heard a lot about gun rights so far in this Congress. Now is the time to talk about gun responsibilities.

Note to readers: This entry, along with past entries, has been co-posted on bradycampaign.org/blog and the Huffington Post.

Comments

[ProGunAmerican]

I bought myself a Ruger Mini-14 today, with 4 extra 20 round magazines. Anything I can do to piss off the Brady's, its my pleasure. It feels good, having obtained one of these, not knowing what Obama might do in the future. I'm calling it a "homestead defense rifle", as I live out in the stick's, 20 miles from the nearest Sheriff's office.

[djkrlsn]

What is worse for most BC supporters--while I have 2 5 rounders for my mini 14. I have multiples in 20, 30 and 40 rounds

[benEzra]

I recently upgraded the furniture on my 2002 model SAR-1 to a bit more modern setup. The primary reason was to allow mounting of a light, but it also made the carbine considerably more modern looking:

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/benEzra/76

For non-gunnies, that is not a NFA Title 2 restricted AK-47; it is a non-automatic civilian carbine that looks like a real AK and shares a lot of parts commonality (and the AK's legendary reliability), but which functions like an ordinary self-loading deer rifle, e.g. a Ruger Mini Thirty. Optic is a Russian Kobra collimator sight; light is a Surefire G3 LED.

And yes, that's a *2002* model. Contrary to popular belief, the 1994 Feinstein non-ban did not ban sales of civilian AK's; on the contrary, it doubled or tripled them. All it did was harass lawful gun owners via silly cosmetic/ergonomic restrictions.

[kaveman4]

I realy do love my mini-14.

One thing to look out for though is that it's possible to lock the rear latch of the magazine even though the front latch (post and hole) are misaligned. The sight picture also takes a bit of getting used to if unfamiliar with peep and blade, but after a few range trips, you'll enjoy the hell out of it.

[mike102]

"Today, while gun violence survivors and victims' families, law enforcement, and the American public can express their gratitude for the leadership of Senators Richard Durbin of Illinois, Dianne Feinstein of California, Charles Schumer of New York"

Paul, I was just wondering if Dianne Feinstein's and Chuck Schumer's concealed carry permits are not valid in all 50 states. ?????

[djkrlsn]

I find gun ban supporters like Feinstein, Schumer or Rosie O who either have CCWs or go NOWHERE without their armed bodyguard more than a little hypocritical (after all, if they are entitled to use firearms to protect themselves--why aren't their constituents/fans)

[jimtom]

BenEzra: Responding to my argument that a biometric handgun could be resistant to being rigged to being "live" so that the bad guys get around the owner identification safeguards. I said, "Now how can you possibly make such an assertion in the absence of a mass production ready model being ready for manufacture?" BenEzra wrote a thoughtful response which was: "Because of the way firearms work.

A firearm using cased ammunition uses a mechanism to strike the primer of the ammunition hard enough to set it off. The firearm also has to be capable of disassembly by the user for routine cleaning, lubrication, and maintenance.

Your hypothetical "biometric handgun" would insert an electronic lock into that mechanism to lock it when engaged and unlock it when disengaged. So you need electronics to ID the user, a solenoid triggered by those electronics to unlock the gun if the user is recognized, and a power supply.

Here's the problem---­regardless of how sophisticated the electronics are, if you can gain access to the solenoid, you can either fix it in the "on" position mechanically, or else bypass the user-ID electronics and trigger it for anyone."

If the proposed technology cannot overcome the problems you raise, the gun should not be marketed.
This is an amazing Country when it comes to developing new technology. I hope future developers can prove you wrong.

[djkrlsn]

And since LEOs have to use firearms that are issued or approved by their departments (and since the departments already have the armourers in place to troublesho­ot)--start­ing your favorite technology there to prove reliability would remove some opposition--but since self defense is certainly a fundamental right (with the police HAVING NO RESPONSIBILITY for our safety per several cases repeatedly cited already) combined with SCOTUS clearly stating that the 2nd amendment protects an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT--any laws that not only ban purchase of EVERY handgun currently made (Heller specifically protects the right to own (and therefore PURCHASE of handguns in COMMON USE) will not pass muster post Heller (and requiring surgery in order to exercise a right protected by the BOR also does not pass muster)

[benEzra]

That may be one reason why NJ's apparently defunct biometric-gun program invested so much PR in the Metal Storm system, which is harder to bypass. The downside is, it is wildly impractical for civilian use, as you have to remove the barrel and ship it back to the factory to reload it, and NJ was looking at a ridiculously low 7-round capacity before that happens.

More on the Metal Storm concept, which makes a lot of sense for automatic military point-defense systems against missiles and such (comparable to the Phalanx CIWS that protects some Navy ships), but makes very little sense for a civilian handgun:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1281426.html

And even the Metal Storm system could still be overridden given unlimited access, it would just be a little less straightforward than gluing a solenoid in the right position.

[djkrlsn]

Also, since you want the legal owner to have to go to some unspecified government agency (in places like Chicago, DC, Los Angeles or San Francisco--any discretion the local lawmakers and LEAS are granted WILL BE ABUSED (in Cali--CCWs are granted at the sole discretion of the police chief or sheriff--and in L A and San Fran--the average resident WILL NOT GET A PERMIT WITHOUT SUING THE LOCAL LEA--I am sorry, refusing to obey state law by setting reasonable standards for issue is an abuse of discretion. Also, how many times must the lawful owner pay the NICS and activation fees after the dumbgun tech cr*ps out should a legal gun owner have to pay on the same gun before he/she is entitled to a handgun of similar quality WITHOUT your demanded "biometrics". Also, since SCOTUS said I am entitled to use the gun for lawful purpose--that INCLUDES training friends and family members--forcing them to pay for a background check, service fee and undergo surgery for a couple of hours at the range on top of range and ammo fees

[OdinsEye]

TheKurgan writes -

"If you want to target shoot with a rifle, that's fine, too. Keep it under lock and key at the range."

I'll keep mine at home, thank you.

"But no NRAer will EVER convince me that you need a handgun in the home, teflon coated bullets to kill cops, machine pistols to shoot 400-600 cyclic tiny penises down range, or anything else ludicrous like that."

Handguns are among the best self-defense devices there are, though personally I prefer a carbine rifle.

Teflon coated bullets are a scare tactic trumped up by NBC and the gun control camp. Teflon does NOT improve a bullet's ability to defeat police body armor. Repeated testing by the US goverment and independent labs have conclusively shown this. Think about it -- if simply coating a bullet in Teflon increased its ability to penetrate armor, the military would use nothing but teflon coated ammo. The reality is the military doesn't.

Machine pistols are very strictly controlled items and the paperwork to own one takes months to process. You can't just walk into a gun store or gun show and buy one and walk out with it. You may be mistaken't thinking of the 1994 Assault Weapon Ban -- if so, please be aware that the '94 AWB did not address or have any affect on any full-auto machine guns to include machine pistols, sub-machine guns, assault rifles, or crew-served firearms.

[OdinsEye]

homenurse61 writes -
"Just curious, why do you (or anyone else) need an assualt weapon? Does it increase your manliness?"

We'll ignore the juvenile ad hominem.

First, you, like many Americans, probably mistakenly think 'assault weapons' are machine guns. They are not. They are simply certain semi-auto firearms which some people find scary because of some of their features, primarily external features. Semi-auto firearms including hunting rifles and shotguns have been commercially sold in the US for over 105 years.

Second, it isn't about need.

[kaveman4]

Uh oh, Odin...You have just invited the logical wrath of Jadegold.

Nevermind the actual text of the bill, he will argue that the '94 AWB was about full autos.

god's speed.

[djkrlsn]

Guy Cabot is completely unable to tell the truth if firearms are involved--logic has nothing to do with it

[OdinsEye]

If so, Jadegold's knowledge of firearms is severely lacking.

[fusilefin]

I'm personally upset that the amendment didn't pass. I live in Missouri, a state that recognizes every other state's concealed carry law. But every state does not recognize Missouri's CCW law. Wyoming, for instance, doesn't recognize Missouri's CCW, however I can get a Florida non-resident permit to carry concealed that Wyoming does recognize. It would be much simpler if there were a national law requiring states to honor other states concealed carry law. It works for drivers licenses.

[jimtom]

U.S. Handgun Facts I’d Like to Know

Part One

Does having a handgun(s) in a home reduce or increase the likelihood that a resident of the home will be shot and injured over the course of one year; five years; ten years?

Will be shot and killed by the handgun(s) in the home and by a resident of the home over the same periods of time?

Will be shot by a non-resident of the home using a handgun other than the one(s) brought into the home by a resident over the same periods of time?

In cases where a criminal used a handgun(s) in a crime, was the handgun found to be registered to another individual?

If the handgun was registered to another individual, how did the criminal charged in the crime acquire the gun (by percentage):

--by theft from the registered gun owner?
--by way of a straw purchase.
--by sale from the registered handgun owner in a legal documented sale?
--from the registered handgun owner without documentation or notification of local LE?
--in an illegal “street sale”

In cases where an armed criminal and an armed civilian confront one another, by percentage

--Are shots fired? – Initially by the criminal? By the civilian?
--The criminal is shot but the civilian(s) is not?
--The civilian(s) is shot but the criminal is not?
--The criminal in shot and killed but the civilian(s) is not?
--The civilian is shot and killed but the criminal is not?

[legaleagle 45]

I believe most of those stats are availble either through DOJ uniform crime stats are the FBI. The acquistion of a firearm question is answered in a report which surveyed persons incarcerated on a gun crime offense.

The other answers can be found in a different study or studies, but I am uncertain whether they will tell you who shot first. I know they divide the armed criminal into subgroups ... those which are armed with a firearm and those which are armed with a weapon other than a firearm, such as a knife... with another category for those criminals that are unarmed.

All of the above studies date from the 1990's and I have not accesed them recently. They are online however and you should be able to dig them up, albeit with a bit of persistance, desire and effort.

[jimtom]

I've checked both DOJ and the UCRs, neither breaks down crime details in the way I'm suggesting. They note weapon, whether persons were known to each other or strangers, crimes and victimization by race, by age, by gender, etc. They don't ask and then answer the questions I've posed. Moreover, as you noted, what studies there are quite dated by now.

I asked because when Brady or Kellerman or Joyce Foundation cite studies, they are dismissed a priori as being biased by pro gun folks. When Kleck or conservative "think tanks" cite studies they are dismissed a priori by gun control folks. It would be nice if the pro and anti factions could mutually agree on a neutral third party to do the study and find answers to the questions I've posed. That would at least provide some "ground truth" in terms of the statistics. Interpreting them would, of course, be another matter.

[djkrlsn]

jimtom--since the BC and the Joyce Foundation BOTH SUPPORTED the laws that Heller tossed--any studies bought and paid for by them will automatically be viewed as biased--do you think they would pay for a study that shows their claims are as bogus as we both know they are

[djkrlsn]

Many of your questions look like they are based on the thoroughly debunked Kellerman study- and that study has been rehashed repeatedly--and besides the only people who think that bonehead got it right are confirmed gun banners like Kelli and Mistress Cabot (who posts under Jadegold, MonsieurLinoge, allaboutlinoge, nocaseynomore and caseytool)

[jimtom]

My questions are not based on anything or anyone. They are based on my desire to have answers to the questions posed so that further analysis can be performed to better determine what the numbers "mean".

[OdinsEye]

In most states firearms, including handguns, are not registered.

[OdinsEye]

BTW, Kleck's study as well as the NSPOF do try to categorize if the DFU was verbal/physical reference, brandishing, discharging, wounding, or killing. They also try to determine if the crime being defended against was likely to have resulted in death/serious injury, might have resulted in death/serious injury, or probably would not have resulted in death/serious injury. I believe Kleck's numbers were 14%, 15%, and 71% respectively.

[kaveman4]

"In cases where an armed criminal and an armed civilian confront one another, by percentage

--Are shots fired? " Initially by the criminal? By the civilian?
--The criminal is shot but the civilian(s) is not?
--The civilian(s) is shot but the criminal is not?
--The criminal in shot and killed but the civilian(s) is not?
--The civilian is shot and killed but the criminal is not?"

I'll answer these questions based on my own personal DGU at the age of 14.

1. Shots fired by me based on percieved threat of death or great bodily injury.
2. The criminal is not shot because I wasn't aiming at him since I figured a lowly .22 rifle was no match for a 350 pound animal. I just wanted to display defiance to his attack.
3 & 4. Neither I nor the criminal sustained any injuries. Both walked away quite healthy after confrontation was defused by my willingness to show I wasn't easy prey.

I should probably also note that I never reported this incident to the police since my attacker was a black bear in the South Hills campground in Idaho.

You can read the whole story here...

http://daysofourtrailers.blogspot.com/search?q=black+bear

[jimtom]

U.S. Handgun Facts I'd Like To Know

Part Two:

What percentage of residences are robbed where the residence does NOT participate in a home security plan?

-- Where household income is less than $20k/yr
-- More than $20k/yr but less than $40k/yr
-- More than $40k/yr but less than $80k/yr
-- More than $80k/ but less than $150k/yr
-- More than $150k/yr

Where the residence does participate in a home security plan and signage to that affect is displayed controlling for the same household income levels?

[djkrlsn]

While I agree that firearms should be secured when the owner is not home, firearms are a reasonable and valid part of any security system. I always find the ADT/Brink ads that show a criminal breaking into a home that said criminal knows is occupied and running away if the alarm sounds--it strikes as for more likely for the criminal to run if resident grabs defensive firearm and administers a couple of injections of lead

[jimtom]

Fine. But do you know any place(s) where objective data regarding the questions I've asked might be found?

[legaleagle 45]

There is a study out on this also... but it relates to homicides

However, the specific breakdowns you request I have never seen. The criteria employed in the study is based upon factors which are indications of wealth, rather than specific levels of wealth. Thus, for example your relative risk of homicide associated with renting a house is 5.8 times greater than if you own a home. A stat that might surprise you is the stat concerning security systems... The relative risk is that you are 2.2 times more likely to be a victim of homicide if you have one than if you do not. The reason for this is because people who live in high crime areas are at a greater risk of homicide than the general population. People living in a high crime area also tend to obtain security systems in order to protect themselves. This is what is known as "linked correlation" in which one factor (high crime rates in this instance) are causitive factors for both behaviors.

Some would use the raw data to argue that security systems cause homicides... which is clearly not the case.... giving truth to Mark Twain's adage "Lies, damn lies and statistics.

[djkrlsn]

I still get a kick at the idiocy of the security company adds that show a burglar breaking into a known to be occupied residence only to run away at the sounding alarm--burglars tend not to like occupied homes because the burglar will be likely to get shot if he breaks into the wrong house (and with around 40% of the homes having guns inside--that is quite a few wrong houses)

[OdinsEye]

Define "home security plan". I have a home security plan and it does not involve ADT, Brinks, etc.

[Thirdpower]

IANSA states that there are about 1000 firearm deaths/day, 250 of which are of a military nature. The remainder are homicides (560), suicides (140), and unintentional (50).

So let's do some crunching.

US firearm homicides/day (34)/World firearm homicides/day (560)= 6.1%

A discrepancy of 33.9% if guns cause crime.

US firearm suicides/day (~46.5)/World firearm suicides (140) = 33.3%

A discrepancy of 6.7% if guns cause suicide.

US firearm unintentional and unknown deaths/day (2.77)/ World unintentional firearm deaths/day (50) = 5.5%

A discrepancy of 34.5%.

So the US is missing about 190 homicides, 10 suicides, and 17 unintentional deaths by firearm/ day according to the anti's own numbers. So while the US does have a higher number of suicides by firearm than many nations, it does not have higher suicides overall nor does it equal the percentage of ownership. The US also only accounts for about 1/20th of the firearm homicides and accidents when the anti logic says it should be 8x higher.

So since the private ownership of firearms isn't 'causing' firearm crime or deaths, isn't 'causing' crime of any sort, and industrialization isn't a common factor, perhaps there are other factors involved.

[djkrlsn]

I had the chance to see a DVD Rebecca Peters of IANSA debate Wayne LaPierre on gun control--Peters said that people that are target shooters should find another sport, self defense was NOT a valid use for a firearm, and any firearm should have a range of less than 100 meters--I have a suspicion a powerful slingshot has a range that long

[Thirdpower]

And guess which organization is a member of IANSA?

[DMeadows]

". . . I believe the more people carry guns the more likely it is that otherwise non-fatal arguments, confrontations, will turn fatal."

--jimtom


If you believe something which is not borne out by the facts of the last 20 years of advances in gun rights in the majority of states and more people lawfully carrying guns, what effect does that have on your credibility?

Gun control advocates have emphatically foretold "more blood in the streets" at each step of concealed carry liberalization, gun restrictions repeal, AWB sunset, etc.

If a belief does not equal reality, which is correct? I go with reality.

[jimtom]

The largest single cause of a shooting incident (at 29%), according to the FBI, is "an argument between the two parties." So it would seem that my concern is valid.

[OdinsEye]

You have to be careful when reading the circumstances. Many incidents can fall into more than one circumstance.

In 2007, there were 1599 fatal shootings during the commission of another felony. There were 2,225 during non-felonies involving "other arguments" - but the nature of those arguments is not broken down, meaning the nexus of the argument could still be criminal.

[Ohio9]

But "an argument between two parties" can be many different things. It could be a case where a criminal murders his partner in crime because he wanted a bigger share of the loot.

[jimtom]

BillW: "Violent deaths are fewer in nations with strict regulation of guns."

Molonlabe: "Oops! Someone's been drinking kool-aid instead of doing their homework!" Molonlabe then quotes an unnamed source as follows: "Britain's violent crime record is worse than any other country in the European union, it has been revealed. Official crime figures show the UK also has a worse rate for all types of violence than the U.S. and even South Africa - widely considered one of the world's most dangerous countries. "

Countries Amount
United States: 0.042802 per 1,000 people
Finland: 0.0283362 per 1,000 people
Portugal: 0.0233769 per 1,000 people
France: 0.0173272 per 1,000 people
Iceland: 0.0168499 per 1,000 people
United Kingdom: 0.0140633 per 1,000 people
Italy: 0.0128393 per 1,000 people
Spain: 0.0122456 per 1,000 people
Germany: 0.0116461 per 1,000 people
Netherlands: 0.0111538 per 1,000 people
Denmark: 0.0106775 per 1,000 people
Norway: 0.0106684 per 1,000 people
Ireland: 0.00946215 per 1,000 people
Switzerland: 0.00921351 per 1,000 people
Greece: 0.0075928 per 1,000 people

SOURCE: Seventh United Nations Survey of Crime Trends and Operations of Criminal Justice Systems, covering the period 1998 - 2000

More recent data is needed, but the above suggests that violent crime in the UK is only 1/3 as likely to turn into murder as in the U.S.

[Thirdpower]

Data almost ten years out of date JT? Why don't you use the 10th data set that is more current?

http://www.unodc.org/documents/data-and-analysis/CTS10%20homicide.pdf

Then there's the facts that even the UN says comparisons are bad because of different measuring systems and that the UK authorities have been caught fabricating their data.

[jimtom]

If you are aware of more recent data comparing homicide by firearms rates in Western European and the U.S. please point us to them.

[molonlabe]

Wasn't Celine Dion's "My Heart Will Go On" the song of the year in 1998?

My, how times have changed.

[Thirdpower]

Using JT's argument, one is then morally responsible for the criminal use of ANYTHING taken from your home. Money, prescription/OTC drugs, etc.

I wonder if he keeps all those things locked up in safes when not in use.

[djkrlsn]

but per Jt-- "guns are different"­==primaril­y because he does not approve of civilian ownership of firearms

[Berettasskeeter]

Jimtom makes very eloquent arguments, quoting statistics that support his side. What he forgets is that his statistics and argument are meaningless. The Bill of Rights was inserted into the Constitution to protect God-given Rights from intrusion by the government! All the statistics, ranting and raving about the unfairness of it all, are moot. It is a Right, and has been upheld, directly and indirectly, throughout the history of the United States. We can disagree all day long on which President is or has done what to help or hurt the U.S., but they must still adhere sufficiently closely to the Constitution so as to preclude their removal from Office. The BOR was adjudicated to apply to the People as Individuals quite some years ago!
Its a fact! Don't like it? Try to change it. But beware. I and millions of others think this is a cornerstone of freedom. You mess with it at your peril.
Semper fi

[jimtom]

"The Bill of Rights was inserted into the Constitution to protect God-given Rights from intrusion by the government! "

The Constitution is mute on the source(s) of rights. There is absolutely no mention of god anywhere in the Constitution.

[benEzra]

That'd be from the Declaration of Independence.

The Court has long held that the fundamental rights protected by the Constitution existed prior to the Constitution and are not dependent upon the document for their existence, though (United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)), and that decision predated incorporation.

[djkrlsn]

jimtom--If you don't like Skeeter's "God given rights" use either "preexisting rights" or "natural rights"--the basic argument against what you want is the same

[legaleagle 45]

With all due respect jimtom, I believe your moral condemnation of all gun owners is quite silly. First let me state that I do not own a gun and never have and probably never will... not because of some moral decision, but primarily because I am an uncoordinated nerd.

Were you aware that in the USA more people are murdered with knives than are murdered with rifles and shotguns COMBINED? So why not also condemn knives? The common counter to this argument is that a gun is "designed" as a weapon. Apparently an inanimate object is endowed with an aura of evil based upon its design? Do they give off evill vibes or something? Further, the definition of "weapon" includes 2 alternatives : 1.) An object which designed to kill or injure; 2.) An object which is used to kill or injure. Under that definition, a fly swatter is a weapon. Are they evil?

Ok, you may wish to refine Webster's definition to include only those designed weapons, that can kill or injure humans. Do you know how many times insecticide has been used to kill humans? Ok, you may then wish to refine your approach to condemn only those weapons which are designed to kill humans. Well guess what? Most rifles and shotguns are designed to kill tasty animals. Thus, I believe that your condemnation can only be valid if you assert that guns give off evil vibes which causes people to murder. Thus, silly

[jimtom]

LegalEagle 45: "Were you aware that in the USA more people are murdered with knives than are murdered with rifles and shotguns COMBINED? So why not also condemn knives?"

Murder Victims
by Weapon, 2003-2007
Federal Bureau of Investigation
Unified Crime Report, 2007

Weapons 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Total 14,465 14,210 14,965 15,087 14,831
Total firearms: 9,659 9,385 10,158 10,225 10,086
Handguns 7,745 7,286 7,565 7,836 7,361
Rifles 392 403 445 438 450
Shotguns 454 507 522 490 455
Other guns 76 117 138 107 115

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Knives or cutting instruments 1,828 1,866 1,920 1,830 1,796

If your ability to cite judicial decisions gave you a personna of credibility, YOU JUST LOST IT!

[jimtom]

You don't get to just ignore the numbers killed by handguns to try to bolster your case.

[legaleagle 45]

Claim by legaleagle : " Were you aware that in the USA more people are murdered with knives than are murdered with rifles and shotguns COMBINED?

Statistics cited by jimtom in an attempt to refute claim:

2003: rifle homicided = 392 + Sotgun Homicides = 454 Total rifle + shotgun = 846

2003 Total knife homicides 1,828

according to my math 1,828 > 846

1 point for legaleagle, 0 points for jimtom

2004 rifle homicides = 403 + Shhotgun homicides = 507 Total rifle + shotgun = 910

2004 total knife homicides = 1,866

according to my math 1,866 > 910

2 points for legaleagle, 0 points for jimtom

2005 rifle homicides = 445 + Shotgun homicides = 522 Total rifle + shotgun = 967

2005 total knife homicides = 1,920

according to my math 1,920 > 967

3 points for legaleagle, 0 points for jimtom

2006 rifle homicides = 438 + Shotgun homicides = 490 Total rifle + shotgun = 928

2006 total knife homicides = 1,830

according to my math 1,830 >928

4 points for legaleagle, 0 points for jimtom

2007 rifle homicides = 450 + Shotgun homicides = 455 Total rifle + shotgun = 905

2007 total knife homicides = 1,796

according to my math 1,796 >905

FINAL SCORE:

5 points for legaleagle, 0 points for jimtom

wanna try again?

[legaleagle 45]

"If your ability to cite judicial decisions gave you a personna of credibility, YOU JUST LOST IT!"

Please be assured jimtom that what when I occassional make mistake (which I do), I will readily admit the error and in addition I will usually apolgize for that error, especially if my error is compounded by using the mistaken facts as an offhand insult. You will also discover that I rarely use insult except when someone insults me first, or when someone makes what I believe is an incredibly idiotic assertion.

In this thread, my claim was quite accurate. For whatever reason, perhaps merely misreading what I actually said, you choose to question my credibility. If I were you, I would apologize.

[OdinsEye]

"Were you aware that in the USA more people are murdered with knives than are murdered with rifles and shotguns COMBINED?"

2003:

Rifles & shotguns = 846
Knives/cutting inst. = 1,828

2004:

Rifles & shotguns = 910
Knives/cutting inst. = 1,866

2005:

Rifles & shotguns = 967
Knives/cutting inst. = 1,920

2006:

Rifles & shotguns = 928
Knives/cutting inst. = 1,830

2007:

Rifles & shotguns = 905
Knives/cutting inst. = 1,976

Looks to me like LegalEagle was correct.

[jimtom]

If I ascribed that guns give off evil vibes which causes people to murder my argument would be silly. I don't make any such claim. Nor have I slandered the 30 million Americans who own handguns. I've pointed out, however, that these Americans are the primary source of the handguns that are turned against them in crimes, which then motivates them and other Americans to go out and buy millions of more guns, which then serve as the source of more guns for the criminals and on and on.

I've also stated that I believe after Heller any State passing a "safe storage" law for handguns will be challenged in Court and that challenge is likely to prevail. It's a belief, and I've stated as much.

Since most of the gun rights bloggers on the site have indicated that they bear no moral, let alone legal, responsibility for how guns stolen from them might be used by criminals in the future I've indicated that such thinking, in my view, is "morally challenged." BenEzra indicated that gun owners could be subject to criminal sanctions if their stolen guns are used in criminal acts. I've asked for evidence that this happens in the real world in this country, and so far, we're all still waiting for him to provide it.

[jimtom]

BenEzra, I apologize, it was Ohio9, not you, who was asserting that gun owners can be or are subject to criminal sanctions if their stolen guns are used in criminal acts.

[legaleagle 45]

"Nor have I slandered the 30 million Americans who own handguns. "

No, you have slandered the 30 million American gun owners who do NOT own handguns.

"I've pointed out, however, that these Americans are the primary source of the handguns that are turned against them in crimes"

Your premise is faulty, therefore your conclusion is meaningless... GIGO. "Stolen guns account for only about 10% to 15% of guns used in crimes," ---BATFE

"I've also stated that I believe after Heller any State passing a "safe storage" law for handguns will be challenged in Court and that challenge is likely to prevail."

I agree.

BTW Laws do exist which impose both criminal and civil responsibility and I can provide evidence of same if you wish. However, I do not know whether those laws have ever been invoked to ascribe liability to an individual, but I would be surprised if they had not. The key factor in crafting such laws and imposing such liability is that you probably can not impose "strict liability". There must be some level of wrongfull behavior which made the criminal misuse more likely to occur. The standard of wrongfull behavior will need to be higher to impose criminal liability as opposed to civil liability... for example, simple negligence would be sufficient to impose civil liability, while criminal liability might require a dgree of reckless behavior.

[jimtom]

Part C:

I leave it to the new participants to decide for themselves as to the moral, if not legal, culpability of the gun owners on this blog for the handgun murders of 12,000 of our fellow countrymen and countrywomen each year. Clearly, to me, the answer is yes (and we won't even go into their moral responsibility for the hundreds of little kids who are killed or wounded every year "playing" with a parents gun, or the hundreds of teens who commit suicide in a moment of desperation with a parents gun) But I guess I'm more than a bit unusual to these folks, I actually feel terrible sadness when innocents like Eve Carson are murdered by firearms, even though I never knew her. What would their hypothetical response to her murder have been, "If she'd been wearing a gun on her hip at 4:00 in the morning when her home was invaded by two gangbangers she might be alive today!"

I actually feel that things I do and choices I make may have moral consequences. And I actually think that I owe my fellow Americans a country that is safer when I leave it than it was when I entered it.

Silly me.

[molonlabe]

"I actually feel terrible sadness when innocents like Eve Carson are murdered by firearms, even though I never knew her. What would their hypothetical response to her murder have been, "If she'd been wearing a gun on her hip at 4:00 in the morning when her home was invaded by two gangbangers she might be alive today!"

JT, I'm confused. Did the firearms enter Carson's residence prior to the gangbangers or was it the other way around? If the firearms entered first, what relavence do the gangbangers have to the story? If the gangbangers entered first, certainly they posed no threat until the firearms showed up, no? Hypothetically speaking, couldn't the gangbangers be charged for not providing a civic duty to protect Carson from the firearms?

Please clarify. I'm having a hard time following.........

[jimtom]

Molonlabe: "Please clarify. I'm having a hard time following........."

No need to. You know how to read, and you know perfectly well what I'm saying. Your absurd "counterpoints," simply illustrate the point I'm making all the better to the new participants.

[Willbill]

Part 1
Studies have found that citizens use firearms for self defense between 150,000 and 3,052,717 times a year. The lowest estimate comes to about 410 times a day, and the highest estimate is 8,363 times a day. Of course firearms are used thousands of times a day for other lawful purposes like recreation shooting, sports and competition shooting, hunting and collecting.

http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/KleckAndGertz1.htm

Do you actually believe that the disarming the 150,000 – 3,052,717 of your fellow citizens who use firearms to defend themselves annually with firearms causing them to become victims of crime rather than survivors would make for a safer society?

[jimtom]

Willbill: "Studies have found that citizens use firearms for self defense between 150,000 and 3,052,717 times a year".

Yeah, except that it's largely anecdotal and yelling "I have a gun," and the burglar runs away counts as much as confronting the burglar with your gun. In the first instance we can't even be certain that there was a criminal to defend against, we just have the gun owners statement, perhaps this is a contributing factor to a range of somewhere between 80,000 (not 150k) and 1.5 million for defensive gun uses annually?

"Do you believe that the disarming the 150,000 " 3,052,717 of your fellow citizens who use firearms to defend themselves annually with firearms...would make for a safer society?"

OdinsEye, tell us, as an LEO, what do police in the U.S., at when I was a kid, tell citizens to do if they are confronted by someone with a gun? What did cops tell you to do when they came to your elementary and secondary schools to talk to you?

"Of course firearms are used thousands of times a day for other lawful purposes like recreation shooting, sports and competition shooting, hunting and collecting."

Just so you newbies understand what good old Will is saying here, to paraphrase:

"It's better that 12,000 Americans be murdered by handguns every year so I don't have to give up...recreation shooting, sports and competition shooting, hunting and collecting.

Like I said, somewhat morally challenged aren't they?

[Willbill]

Part 2
Moreover, studies have concluded that there is no correlation between firearms ownership and crime. Swiss citizens have easier access to firearms than in many U.S. States and municipalities, and the Swiss encourage firearms competition in all age groups. Most towns in Switzerland have their own shooting ranges, and it is estimated that there are 1.2 million to 3 million firearms in private ownership. In fact Switzerland requires every male over the age of 20 to own an assault rifle, yet their crime rate and murder rate is much lower than the U.S. Indeed, study Harvard study found that many of the countries with the strictest firearms prohibitions have higher murder rates than nations without such restrictions.
http://www.dsgl.org/Articles/oteromyths.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_rates
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_ownership

We have enough laws on the books prohibiting the illegal sales, trafficking, and use of firearms. This nation must put more effort into enforcing the laws that are on the books now, and always prosecute violators to the full extent of the law. Violation of our nation’s firearms laws should never be plea-bargained as well as any violent felony.

[jimtom]

Will, oh Will....where do the bad guys get their guns from? As I said, guns enter the legal market from the manufacturers, so tell Will, in your world how do they get into the hands of those who have them illegally?

[Ohio9]

Using your logic, all legal drivers are responsible for the 40.000 car accident deaths per year, along with the many crimes committed with cars, including auto theft and armed robbery (which cars are used as getaway vehicles)

Jimtom: "I actually feel terrible sadness when innocents like Eve Carson are murdered by firearms, even though I never knew her. What would their hypothetical response to her murder have been, "If she'd been wearing a gun on her hip at 4:00 in the morning when her home was invaded by two gangbangers she might be alive today!"

Assuming she was asleep, that's not the place to have a gun. But she could have kept a gun in a night stand or quick-opening gun safe. We'll never know if having a gun would have prevented her death, but we do what the results of her NOT having a gun.

Jimtom: "I actually feel that things I do and choices I make may have moral consequences. And I actually think that I owe my fellow Americans a country that is safer when I leave it than it was when I entered it.

Silly me."

It is silly to think that disarming crime victims would make the world safer

[jimtom]

Cars are not designed to kill people, and we have laws that cover just about every conceivable contributory factor when they do kill people that punishes the drivers. No so with guns. "It's not my vault, it was stolen...er, yesterday, yeah that's it, it was stolen yesterday!"

[jimtom]

I'm more interested in disarming criminals, especially gangs. Where do they get their guns? Oh yeah, from law abiding gun owners.

It would be nice to know, since you guys will never believe Kellerman and us guys will never believe Kleck, whether or not handguns in the home reduce or increase the likelihood that residents of the home will be shot.

In cases where an armed homeowner confronts an armed burglar or home invader it would be nice to know the full spectrum of "outcomes" of such confrontations.

And for the record, Eve Carson was not asleep when Atwater and Lovette entered her home. They saw her walking in the living room.

One of the more tragic aspects of her killing was that she had this encounter with two incredibly ignorant young men. Both are high school drop outs. Apparently they did not know that your photograph is taken when you use an ATM machine or enter a convenience store at 4:30 in the morning to use an ATM. Eve was killed to keep her from identifying them. But because both already had criminal records their photographs were on file with area police, making them fairly easy to identify. If they had simply worn masks and gloves throughout the entire incident there would have been no reason to kill her

[benEzra]

Jimtom, I hope you are an absolute teetotaler from alcoholic beverages. Otherwise, your logic would make you morally culpable for the deaths of 100,000 Americans annually, regardless of how responsibly you drink.

I am 100% with you that every single one of those murders is a tragedy. But going after the people who are NOT the problem is not going to save any lives.

Learn the lessons of alcohol prohibition and take a more intelligent approach to the drug issue; address inner-city blight, education, and mental health care, and work on socializing adolescents (particularly those in blighted areas) into adult roles. We have already reduced the murder rate by nearly half from its peak in the early '80s, and we can do more.

Or, you can continue to tilt at windmills, and continue your pointless jihad against the lawful and nonviolent. Thankfully, the Democratic Party has abandoned your approach, and is now focusing on the real issues....

[jimtom]

benEzra. "I am 100% with you that every single one of those murders is a tragedy. But going after the people who are NOT the problem is not going to save any lives." Ben, your crocidile tears are showing. Ben, where did the killers get their guns?

The alcohol analogy misses the mark. If I do something while intoxicated that harms someone else, I'm held responsible. When gun owners fail to secure their weapons against theft they are usually not held responsible for how the gun is later used, and after Heller, it will be virtually impossible to impose statutory regulations that impose standards gunowners must meet to secure their arms from theft.