|
||
When A School Shooter Seeks A License To Carry A Loaded, Concealed Handgun
Recently we learned that a convicted killer in one of the most notorious school massacres in American history tried to get a permit to carry a concealed handgun.
Arkansas resident Drew Douglas Grant applied for a concealed carry permit on October 7, according to reports. Authorities said they discovered that his application omitted some information - in particular, the time he spent incarcerated in a Federal penitentiary.
Yet it was the set of fingerprints that Grant had to provide to the police, pursuant to Arkansas' licensing regulations, that proved key to discovering his true identity. Grant's prints matched those from one of the shooters at the Westside Middle School massacre in Jonesboro, Arkansas over 10 years ago - the fingerprints of Andrew Golden.
Together with an accomplice, Golden killed four students and a teacher and wounded 10 others at the school in 1998. Golden, who was 11 years-old at the time, had changed his name to Grant. Golden was caught because Arkansas gives law enforcement enough discretion to decide that handing a concealed carry license to a mass killer isn't in the interest of public safety.
The fact that Arkansas also requires applicants to provide fingerprints was a crucial tool that helped the police conduct a thorough background check, leading them to discover that Drew Douglas Grant was actually Andrew Golden.
This is a person who decided to go through legal channels to obtain a permit to carry a concealed, loaded handgun from state authorities, and was properly rejected.
Not too long ago, the National Rifle Association claimed that criminals never subjected themselves to legal means of getting firearms, and that no amount of criminal background checks would make a difference anyway.
- Shortly before the Brady Bill became law, former NRA chief lobbyist James Jay Baker said on CNN: "If anybody in your audience really believes that criminals go into gun stores, fill out paperwork and have their backgrounds checked out by police, they also believe in the tooth fairy."
- At about the same time, another former NRA spokesman, Richard Gardiner, said to PBS that dangerous people like "convicted felons, fugitives, just aren't buying guns from legitimate commercial sources."
- Similarly, NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre said to CBS News, "The other thing we've pointed out is the great majority of criminals don't buy their guns in gun stores anyway.... They aren't dumb enough to walk into a gun store."
Clearly, the gun lobby gives too many criminals too much credit - as people like Andrew Golden and hundreds of thousands of other dangerous people show us every year.
When it comes to Brady background checks, over 1.6 million felons, fugitives, domestic abusers, dangerously mentally ill and other prohibited purchasers have been rejected by the Brady Law in the last 15 years - all of them "dumb enough to walk into a gun store" to buy a gun.
In fact, in the last year alone over 135,000 dangerous people tried to buy guns from licensed gun dealers and were rejected by a Brady criminal background check.
The broader point of the Golden/Grant application is that strong gun laws work to protect the public. While Arkansas is hardly a model for common sense gun regulation, at least they require taking fingerprints before handing out a concealed carry license to someone.
Other states like Alabama, Kentucky, Minnesota, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, South Dakota and West Virginia don't require fingerprint checks. How many dangerous people have they handed concealed carry licenses to because of it?
The key lesson to be learned from Andrew Golden's blocked attempt is that there are things we can do to make it harder for dangerous people to get guns. Many criminals - even mass killers like the Jonesboro or Virginia Tech killers - still go through legal channels to get firearms every single day.
Strong, common sense gun laws could help stop them.
(Note to readers: This entry, along with past entries, has been co-posted on bradycampaign.org/blog and the Huffington Post.)
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
"I personally feel that if people have to give up access to specific weapons that can cause problems for, say, our law enforcement officers or others ... that seems to me to be a small price to pay for safety."~Kelli
You want people to give up access to "military style assault weapons", even though they are used in about 2% of crimes involving guns. They don't seem to be causing much of a problem for anyone, let alone police officers.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/fuo.htm
This past year, 4 Philadelphia police officers were killed in the line of duty; 2 in high speed chases, and two with guns. None were killed with "military style assault weapons" by the Brady definition of that term. One thing they all had in common was that they were killed by repeat, multiple felons. You want to help cops? Keep criminals in jail. If you want to bemoan the fact that prisons are overcrowded, I'm sure the families of these fallen officers would love to hear from you.
And as far as the dreaded "gun show loophole" is concerned, about 1.7% of crime guns are traced back to gun shows.
http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba/ba349/ba349fig1.gif
If you want to do something about violence in this country, punish the violent. There's a novel idea for you.
"You want to help cops? Keep criminals in jail."
Or at LEAST try actual rehabilitation methods which have a chance of working!!
Ben: There's a post (HP "picked") that I can't find right now ... but I ought to respond to. I ask that you not, please, make the mistake of attaching my opinions onto anyone else's. It is just my name here, and my two cents.
As far as your beliefs that decent compromises have already been made ~ such as those you listed ~ what I don't hear mention of, is the number of firearms & ammunition you DO have access to (& others as well in this country. You are not left 'high & dry' .... & not just a trip to my local gun shop will tell me this. Just look at the numbers of firearms we have here: Reuters, for instance, reported (a few years ago from a Small Arms Survey) that our nation has approx. 90 guns for every 100 citizens; & also owns 270 million of the world's 800-plus million known firearms. We are among the most heavily armed societies in the world. And this has not always been to our benefit, either, I feel. But we've done the best we can with a difficult issue: guns & violence. I personally feel that if people have to give up access to specific weapons that can cause problems for, say, our law enforcement officers or others ... that seems to me to be a small price to pay for safety.
Hope that answers your very good question better!
Kelli--you are trying to take guns that are rarely used in crime (ARs, AKs and 50cals) away from people that have not committed ant crimes. That is the worst way to achieve your stated goal of reducing violent crime/gun violence. The best approach I know of is to focus laws and efforts on the people that are commiting the crimes (if a person committs a violent crime they go in jail and stay there--if they are overcrowded__TOUGH--again if you can't do the time don't do the crime.. The firearms your law abiding neighbors own do you absolutely NO HARM--no matter how much the guns terrify you Even if you were my neighbor, the fact that I own guns is no more your business than what kind of scifi or fantasy books I read or own or what movies I watch until such time as I commit violent felonies with them. If I commit no crime, keep the hell out of my closet.
In terms of your 'closet' ... I could care less, and leave that up to you. Gladly!
As far as arguments over the rate of crime & victimization incidents from assault weapons goes ... I'd argue that too little information exists to state such things as 'fact.' Even the Bureau of Justice Statistics noted at one point that "the information that does exist uses varying definitions of assault weapons that were developed before the federal assault weapons ban was enacted." It is not easy to assess; and I don't know how the govt. has resolved this. Violent crime, by the way, is often seen in terms of estimate; because not all incidents of violent crime are reported to police.
Finally, when discussing murder rates in the U.S. ~ & not what my neighbors possess or don't possess as you put it, because I really don't care about that ~ the reality is that MOST murders are committed with firearms (at one point, it was said to be as high as 70%, though I don't know what today's numbers are). I don't necessarily like this either; but that seems to be the reality.
It's no debate, that it's a very bad thing for lethal weapons to be in the hands of criminals. How that is dealt with, however, is not for one or two people to decide ... but the whole of society. I feel strongly about that, and stand behind my views on this!
"I personally feel that if people have to give up access to specific weapons that can cause problems for, say, our law enforcement officers or others ... that seems to me to be a small price to pay for safety."
We already have. See National Firearms Act of 1934, Gun Control Act of 1968, McClure-Volkmer Act of 1986, and Law Enforcement Officers Protection Act of 1985 (signed into law 8/28/1986, aka the "cop killer bullet ban").
Small- and intermediate-caliber rifles with protruding handgrips are not in the category, and they pose no more danger to police than rifles without protruding handgrips. Or to the public, for that matter.
This past year, police-officer deaths reached their LOWEST LEVEL SINCE 1956. And as I recall, only 8 officers were killed using ANY type of rifle. Most officers were killed with handguns, because handguns are easily portable and rifles are not.
We'll keep our carbines, thanks.
Well, some argue that regulations/prohibitions ~ such as the prior assault weapons ban ~ are primarily about determining the amount of damage that can be done & looking at firearms from that perspective; while others (like myself & my circle of friends) take the position that it's about preventing violence (in particular, those shocking multiple killings like at Virginia Tech with, for example, high capacity magazines).
I certainly know, from your past post benezra, that you disagree with the latter on how effective such prevention of violence is ... or if it's even within the right of society to limit; but I'm guessing that you probably disagree with the former notion, as well. That doesn't really leave much room for 'compromise,' though, does it?
" I personally feel that if people have to give up access to specific weapons that can cause problems for, say, our law enforcement officers or others ... that seems to me to be a small price to pay for safety."
Why are pro-gun people the ones who have to always give something up? What are the anti-gun people going to give up?
When you compare this approach to weapons of mass destruction, I think you're entirely missing the point. I'll give you an example, though: After the VT massacre, there was much discussion concerning whether a few lives could have possibly been saved had the shooter not had access to 15-round magazines which were previously banned? It is an unknown ~ & an after-the-fact response ~ but the type of weapons & the amount of firing Cho was able to do warranted scrutiny by all concerned about such violence, esp. police.
"...specific weapons that can cause problems for, say, our law enforcement officers ..."
That is a misrepresentation. None of my "specific weapons" have ever caused problems for law enforcement. You seem to be the only person to have a problem with them.
That isn't true. You might want to pay closer attention to past news conferences/interviews surrounding the debate on whether the assault weapons ban should have been allowed to expire (you will find law enforcement speaking out there) ... as well as more current debates on the '08 reauthorization bill.
OK gang, here are the numbers.
The Chicago metro area, including Chicago itself has a population of 9,745,165.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_metropolitan_area
The City of Chicago, by itself, has a population of 2,833,321. according to the Census Bureau, 2006.
That means Jade was off by a mere 6,911,844 when he said 9.7 million of "those folks live in Chicago".
I hope that clears things up.
Yep. Cook County, ALL of the collar counties, Kankakee county, as well as parts of IN and WI.
Now being that fact that I cited the 5x the murder rate of the rest of the state numerous times to the UCR and the city of Chicago specific, what does that say about the 'intent' of Jade's reply?
Jade ~ a quick note before getting to other tasks this evening.
I knew exactly what you meant with your prior & recent posts on Illinois/chicago populations; and there is no way anyone on any blog could be expected to spell out every little detail ... so that others {like these less-than-admirable fellas} can completely understand.
If they don't get it the first time around, then it's their problem. Forget them.
OK gang, here are the numbers.
The Chicago metro area, including Chicago itself, has a population of 9,745,165.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_metropolitan_area
The City of Chicago, by itself, has a population of 2,833,321. according to the Census Bureau, 2006.
That means Jade was off by a mere 6,911,844 when he said 9.7 million of "those folks live in Chicago".
I hope that clears things up.
"Statistics are quite useful things. That's why many gunloons have little use for them." ~JadeGold
On the other hand, JadeGold just fabricates his statistics to suit his agenda. We tend to get ours from sources like the FBI and ATF, and DOJ.
Ask him what the population of Chicago is, sometime.
That's an untrue & unfair statement, vespian. I think you should remember a wise saying too: 'Attack is not always the best defense.' Make your points & back up your opinions; but steer clear of attacking "JadeGold" or others here. Just a bit of unsolicited advice!!
That's not an attack. It's absolutely true. I notice you have nothing to say about Jade's totally false attacks, though.
We have caught this person in numerous lies. He inflated the poplation of Chicago to about 22 million to make it seem that their homicide rate was much lower than it was, compared to the rest of Illinois.
If you're going to give unsolicited advice, you should at least know what you're talking about.
I have a wise, old saying for you, Kelli.
"When you lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas"
Just a bit of unsolicited advice!!
Any comment on Casey's calling us "loons"? Or does your call for civility only apply to those who you don't agree with?
Personally, I'd appreciate civility from all sides. (And thank you for your own civility, BTW---I have noticed, and I appreciate that.)
This says it all:
http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a186/kecibukia/IMG000034.jpg
So was this ignorance or lying?
Neither.
As TP well knows, Chicago--like any other major metro area--is more than just the city proper. It is a metro area. For example, DC--the city--only has a population of just under 600K. Yet, the DC metro area is about 5M.
Similarly, Chicago has a metro area, known as Chicagoland, has a population of well over 9M.
The pretense TP is engaging in is to pretend that all crime magically stops when one crosses over the border from Chicago city proper into the metro area. In point of fact, this is how the US Census and many law enforcement agencies tally statistics--on metro areas rather than cities. The reason being they recognize it is foolish and inefficient to believe a data point that occurs one inch over an imaginary line is invalid.
You can't accurately read your own links.
NoCaseyNoMore is absolutely correct in what he's saying about population & Chicago ... In the 2000 Census, there were approx. 3.0 million in the city of Chicago (itself) & 9.5 million in the Chicagoland area; that is, Chicago & its suburbs. I suspect that Leftright may have gotten his population numbers from Wikipedia, which is not the most reliable of sources (at any rate, I can't back LR's up here).
"NoCaseyNoMore is absolutely correct in what he's saying about population & Chicago ... In the 2000 Census, there were approx. 3.0 million in the city of Chicago (itself) & 9.5 million in the Chicagoland area; that is, Chicago & its suburbs."
The problem is, that isn't what he said. He said "Chicago". He did not say 'Chicagoland' or anything about the suburbs. The conversation was about the crime rate in Chicago, City of.
And he's such an honest guy, why does he need a half dozen phony usernames? He wasn't banned, so he's obviously being deceiptful.
What "Chicago" are you living in Kelli? Not the same one as the other 2.8 million people in the city. To get anywhere even close to 9.7 million, you'ld have to include Chicago, the rest of Cook County, and ALL the collar counties.
Are you making that claim?
You DO realize that I said where I got my numbers from, right? I went to www.census.gov, and then selected Chicago, which told me the first number, estimated 2007 population of Chicago. Then I selected the state of IL, which gave me my second number, the estimated 2006 population of IL.
If you bothered to read the link that Thirdpower provided so conveniently below, you would have seen Jadegold's exact (& correct, BTW) statement on population. He wrote there: "Illinois has a population of 12.8M. 9.7 of these folks live in Chicago." This is absolutely TRUE.
You've got another poster, LeftRight, confused beyond belief! He trusted what you had said; while I didn't.
"Illinois has a population of 12.8M. 9.7 of these folks live in Chicago." This is absolutely TRUE. "
Thank you for refuting your own claims. He said 9.7 live IN CHICAGO, and they do not. Good Lord!
There is a difference between Chicago and the Chicago Metro Area, like a 9 million person difference.
I did read the link. You reprinted what the link says in your post. Read it, why don't you? Where do you see mention of Chicagoland, or the suburbs, or the metro area?
LeftRight is not the one who is confused here, you are.
Earlier, you told us there were 3 million people in Chicago. Now you're saying that Jade's statement, in TP's link "9.7 million of those folks live in Chicago" is absolutely true. Well, it isn't true. People who live in Evanston, do not live in Chicago.
When you take the number of crimes in Chicago, with 3 million people, and divide it among the 12 million or so people who live in the entire Chicago metro area, it makes it seem that the crime rate in Chicago isn't so bad. That is exactly what Jade intended.
LeftRight is not confused at all. This is from the US Census Bureau, 2006 numbers.
Population of Illinois- 12,831,970
Population of Chicago- 2,833,321.
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/17000.html
It looks like LeftRight was right.
How, exactly, am I confused? I pointed out that the population of Chicago (the city, not the metro area) is less than 3 million. I then pointed out that the population of the state of IL is less than 13 million. Since I ALSO know that there are many metropolitan areas in the state (Springfield, around St. Louis, Peoria, etc...) which are smaller than Chicago but still relatively large, I find the figure of 9.7 million to be unbelievable, at least.
Illinois Factoids according to the 2007 IL UCR.
http://www.isp.state.il.us/crime/ucrhome.cfm
Illinois had a population of 12.83 million w/ a murder rate of 5.9/100K (752) in comparison to 6.2/100K last year.
Chicago had 22.1% of the population of Illinois yet accounted for 58.9% of murders w/ a per capita rate of 15.64/100K. A slight drop from last year in both population and murders.
Cook County had 41.2% of the population of Illinois yet accounted for 69.5% of murders w/ a per capita rate of 9.9/100K. It also had population and murder drops.
The Cook County murders in raw number/per capita decreased 9.7 and 9.2% respectively while arrest numbers and rates increased over 6.8% from '06 to '07. 2006 however, had an 18% drop.
If Chicago were to fall into Lake Michigan, the Illinois murder rate would drop to 3.09 .
Were the rest of Cook County to follow suit, the rate would drop to 3.03 .
So Chicago still accounts for 5x the murder rate of the rest of the state with it's "Model Gun Laws". For 2008, though, they saw an increase of over 15% giving the city a total of 508 murders for the year.
Dispute those numbers w/ real evidence if you can.
This is ridiculous ~ what exactly do you want argued about, when it concerns murder rates or violence in either the city of Chicago or Cook County? If you're trying to connect murder rates with firearms ... where is the information on the latter? How many of those murders involved guns? Do you know? I don't; and I'd like to.
Statistics are quite useful things. That's why many gunloons have little use for them.
Invariably, in forums such as these, the question is asked: what would you do if your family was be terrorized by knife-wielding killer-rapists? You'd want a gun then--right??? This question is then repeatedly asked in more lurid--and often, prurient--detail. It's almost as if the questioner is fantasizing about such a scenario.
But those pesky statistics rain on their parade. Your chances of you or your family being the victim of a violent crime are extremely small, on average. The term 'on average' is important because your chances of being a violent crime victim can be reduced even further than the extremely small on average chance simply by not being part of a criminal lifestyle. During the average American's lifetime, the chances he or she will be the victim of a violent crime--on average--is less than 1%. Of course, this number dramatically decreases if you're not associated with criminals, you're older, you live in rural or semi-rural area, etc.
Cont'd;
It is also important to note that contrary to the child-like belief expressed in these forums WRT guns, a gun may not prevent you from being a violent crime victim.
OTOH, statistics tell us that about 6-8% of the population are alcoholics. If you have a family of any size, there's a pretty good chance there's an alcoholic or two in your family. Drug addict stats are harder to ascertain but it's probably safe to say that drug abusers constitute more than 1% of the population.
Fully a quarter of all Americans meet the criteria for having a mental illness. A quarter of that number have mental illness severe enough to interfere with their daily lives.
In short, the gun loons are demanding there be no restrictions on guns whatsoever because they believe a less than 1% chance of violent crime necessitates it. OTOH, they are demanding this unrestricted access to firearms be given to a population that contains signicant numbers of drunks, addicts, and mentally ill.
"In short, the gun loons are demanding there be no restrictions on guns whatsoever" ~JadeGold
Another tactic that Jade uses, is to keep repeating his lies in the hope that readers are too lazy to read further down the blog.
When did any of us say any such thing, Jade?
"During the average American's lifetime, the chances he or she will be the victim of a violent crime--on average--is less than 1%. Of course, this number dramatically decreases if you're not associated with criminals, you're older, you live in rural or semi-rural area, etc."
Pulling stats out of your hat again, Jade?
If that were true, than there is less than a 1% chance that any of BenEzra's guns will hurt you. So why do you need all of this assurance that they won't?
And I'm sure the family of the dead victim of that home-invasion last night, that mike102 posted about, would love to hear your statistics. He was killed with a knife, by the way.
I know exactly what you are saying, nocasey.
Did you know that more than 75% of statistics are made up on the spot?
Who told you this?
"Statistics are quite useful things. That's why many gunloons have little use for them."
You mean, like the pesky statistic that even though substantially more Americans own "assault weapons" as defined by H.R.1022 et seq than hunt, only 3% of U.S .murders involve ANY type of rifle?
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/data/table_20.html
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/data/table_20.html
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_20.html
Or the pesky statistic that police gun deaths are now the lowest they've been since 1956?
http://www2.journalnow.com/content/2008/dec/29/fewer-police-officers-died-on-duty-this-year-repor
Sort of undercuts the "assault weapon menace" fraud, doesn't it?
You and I both know, ben, that assault weapons ~ even those made for the civilian firearms market ~ can be very easily misused/abused to harm others (true, really, with any type of firearm, you could reasonably argue).
But the key difference is that you like these types of weapons, & I don't. This creates a 'stalemate.'
Prepare to be debunked yourself.
"But benezra doesn't want the responsibility that comes with that. The responsibility of ensuring his guns aren't used in crimes or misued by him. In essence, he believes there should be no laws involving firearms despite the fact their misuse represents a huge public safety problem."
No nice way to say it. This is a bald-faced lie. Many times, on this forum, BenEzra has voiced his support for background checks prohibiting felons, and the menatlly ill from owning guns, and any other resonable restriction.
How is it you feel so free to just fabricate these things, Jade?
"Yet, the law doesn't say he cannot use a gun to defend himself, to hunt, to target shoot, to loving stroke and admire in private moments, etc. But benezra doesn't want the responsibility that comes with that. The responsibility of ensuring his guns aren't used in crimes or misued by him."~JadeGold
We are not resonsible for the actions of criminals. People like you who refuse to punish violent felons sufficiently, are.
And Ben doen't need to ensure that he will not misuse his guns. He has already done that by being a law-abiding citizen. Unless he proves to be otherwise, you have no legitimate beef, and are just trolling again.
And you still have no comment about the fact that the subject of Paul's blog, a mass murderer, is running around loose, purchasing guns illegally, and applying for carry permits, 10 years after his horrendous crime. He served two years per murder.
I'll bet you'd like to throw the guy who sold him the gun in jail for life, though. Or maybe not, since he's a criminal too.
Let's debunk benezra a bit.
His claim that gun control laws target "law-abiding" citizens is akin to arguing that drunk driving laws target teetotalers. In order to follow benezra's strange logic, one must believe that any law, whether it involves guns or traffic or fraud, is onerous and unreasonable regardless of its application.
In many, if not most states, people who have a blood alcohol measurement of .08 or higher are considered intoxicated or under the influence of alcohol. The law says this number means that you can be prosecuted and subject to sanctions if you drive. Yet, the law doesn't say you cannot have a beer or a glass of wine or a mixed drink. In fact, the law sets no limits on the number of drinks you can have. What it does set a limit on is a blood alcohol content--if you drive. This is because if you drive while impaired you present a threat to public safety and yourself.
benezra repeatedly claims that his 'rights' are being violated WRT guns. Yet, the law doesn't say he cannot use a gun to defend himself, to hunt, to target shoot, to loving stroke and admire in private moments, etc. But benezra doesn't want the responsibility that comes with that. The responsibility of ensuring his guns aren't used in crimes or misued by him. In essence, he believes there should be no laws involving firearms despite the fact their misuse represents a huge public safety problem.
""His claim that gun control laws target "law-abiding" citizens is akin to arguing that drunk driving laws target teetotalers."
Nope. Laws BANNING ALCOHOL would be targeting primarily law-abiding, responsible drinkers. Banning drunk driving only bans the MISUSE of the thing. Hint, it's a crime for someone to misuse guns, too.
The Brady Campaign COULD offer narrow proposals that target criminal misuse. They currently aren't.
"Yet, the law doesn't say he cannot use a gun to defend himself, to hunt, to target shoot, to loving (sic) stroke and admire in private moments, etc."
Yet you and the BC are certainly doing your best to change that, aren't you?
"But benezra doesn't want the responsibility that comes with that. The responsibility of ensuring his guns aren't used in crimes or misued by him."
Nope again. I TAKE responsibility for my guns.
Here's how I store them:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=2415415&mesg_id=2425155
I am a student of self-defense law. I shoot competitively to ensure safety and competence under stress. I could pass the state police rifle and pistol firearms qualification courses of many states.
"In essence, he believes there should be no laws involving firearms"
Bovine scatology. I have posted over and over and over all the gun-control laws I AM OK WITH, including on this very thread. But your admitting that would undermine your straw-man fallacy.
Unfortunately for benezra, his argument falls apart when he talks of banning alcohol. Banning alcohol is a total ban on the beer, wine, and spirits industry.
Total and complete.
Of course, there's no movement (however much the NRA and its dupes seek to invent one) that is calling for a ban of all firearms. Never has been; there isn't one now.
Essentially, benezra is attempting to equate the total ban of an entire industry (alcohol) with gun control which seeks to place common-sense laws on prohibiting certain people from obtaining enough firepower to arm a small nation. Again, benezra does not wish for any regulation of firearms whatsoever. Thus, criminals and mentally impaired will get firearms.
I certainly can't speak for benezra but what if he/she really meant ... target "law-abiding" gun owners rather than "law-abiding" citizens? In that instance the teatotaler analogy falls apart before it even begins. Don't you think?
Jade, no comet landings to report, but this deadly home invasion took place overnight, in Montgomery Twp. PA, just outside of Philadelphia, not too far from me.
http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/story?section=news/take_action&id=6594846
Police suspect that the victim, a man in his 20's, may have been followed home from his business in Philly. There have been other recent, deadly home invasions in the Philly burbs, and in the city. Police suspect those victims were followed home from their businesses also.
So, living in a nice town, in a nice neighborhood, is certainly no guarantee that you will not be a victim of home invasion.
NoCaseyNoMore (aka JadeGold) has an interesting take on this issue.
When we insist on maintaining our constitutionally guaranteed right to own firearms, to protect ourselves and our families against intruders, he tells us that there is a greater chance that a comet will land on our homes, than there is that they will be intruded upon. He actually said this.
When we (and the NRA) call for keeping violent criminals incarcerated for a long, long time, as a means of preventing further violence, he calls us "draconian".
Then he posts nonsense like this:
"So, when you hear on the news tonight (and most every night) that some criminal has just mowed down a couple of people--each and every NRA member is an accomplice."
Like I said, an interesting take.
Objecting to keeping repeat offenders in jail where they can't mow people down, makes YOU an accomplice Jade.
I also notice that you have not one word to say about the fact that Golden is out on the street 10 years after murdering five people. That makes you an accomplice too, Jade, not us, and not the NRA.
I missed the "greater chance that a comet will land on our homes" comment....... If that were the case I'd be hearing about a HELL of a lot of comets landing on people's homes, rather than hearing about break ins.....
Good morning, LeftRight. This gem of JadeGold wisdom was imparted to us on Bryan Miller's blog, NJ Voices, some months ago.
LeftRight.
In the interest in honesty. Jade responded to a question of what would he do if someone broke into his home meaning to do harm to him and his family by stating...
"What would you do if a comet hit your house?"
He answered an honest question with a ridiculous question rather than anwering, but he did not state that a comet falling on your house was more likely than a home invasion.
That's the difference you will find here. I will defend Jade if something false is attributted to him. He says plenty of ridiculous things as it is, we don't need falsehoods, even false recollections by others to make like like, well....like Jade.
http://www.bradycampaign.org/xshare/pdf/politics/obama-transition-memo.pdf
So much for "legitimate gun owners have nothing to fear from the gun-control lobby". Most of those proposals are aimed squarely at lawful and responsible gun ownership, not criminal misuse.
This boils down to the fact that once more, the NRA is enabling felons, the mentally ill and terrorists to obtain any firearm they wish.
And the fact is that NRA members are facilitating criminals, terrorists, and the mentally ill in getting these weapons.
So, when you hear on the news tonight (and most every night) that some criminal has just mowed down a couple of people--each and every NRA member is an accomplice.
Yadda yadda yadda.
I don't see anyone trying to repeal the National Firearms Act, the Gun Control Act, the National Instant Check System, the armor-piercing bullet ban of 1986, or otherwise legalize now-prohibited persons (felons and the mentally incompetent) to own so much as a single-shot, never mind legalizing currently restricted machineguns, AOW's, and DD's.
Jade, since you didn't address this on the other blog, what do you think about the fact that, in the gun-free paradise of Chicago, the homicide rate is over 500 over the past year?
Could it be all those criminals with guns that you don't think exist?
Greenslime:
I see you have new moniker. Did you get banned again?
BTW, I booked an ex-con into our county jail last night. He had a felony record for weapons and narcotics charges. When I asked him where he got his handgun he told me that he bought it illegally from a friend on the street. Not from a gun show, not from an FFL delaer but illegally on the street.
Michael
Kelli, let me ask you this.
Would you use any weapon, of any kind, to protect the family that you claim you would do "anything in your power" to protect ?
BTW, "killer bulldogs" don't count. They are living creatures, not weapons.
Perhaps she meant to say "killer bullpups?"
hahahahahahahahaha
Wanna bet she doesn't know what you're talking about?
Not being Kelli, I cannot speak for her, but I would say for myself:
No, I would not. Not because I don't love my family, not because I won't try to protect them, and not because I feel that it's wrong. Simply because I would not trust myself with a gun in my home, and therefore will never have one.
That's not to say that YOU cannot have a gun in YOUR home and use it, that's just saying that *I* will not.
"No, I would not. Not because I don't love my family, not because I won't try to protect them, and not because I feel that it's wrong. Simply because I would not trust myself with a gun"
"Ay, there's the rub".
We often hear 'I would not trust myself with a gun', from the anti-gun faction (the most notable being Jodie Foster). That's fine. If you don't, then you probably should not have one.
It is, however, grossly unfair, and presumptuous, to project this lack of trust you have in yourselves onto 80,000,000 of us.
What is multiple attackers were attacking your family and one of them with a firearm dropped that firearms within your grasp. You knew you could get it before he could and use it without putting your family in the crossfire. But, the attacker would surely retrieve it and rejoin his friend(s) attacking your family....
Would you, if this situation, get the gun and use it to stop the attack or stand by your convictions and let the attacker retrieve his firearm and continue attacking your family?
That's fair, Leftright.
I do feel a little differently than you, in that I don't feel I couldn't be trusted with a firearm ... I am just not willing to risk or even deal with the serious violence consequences that can result from almost anyone having a firearm (maybe that's the same thing you're saying ... but just in a different way). And what also influences my views on this issue has to do with my own personal values in that I have never taken another human life ... not ever. And I couldn't live with that on my conscience, either.
"No, I would not. Not because I don't love my family, not because I won't try to protect them, and not because I feel that it's wrong. Simply because I would not trust myself with a gun in my home, and therefore will never have one.
"That's not to say that YOU cannot have a gun in YOUR home and use it, that's just saying that *I* will not."
Thank you. It is a deeply personal choice, and I fully respect yours. Only you know your own situation, risks, skills, and temperament.
I do not think less of anyone who chooses not to own firearms for defensive purposes. I just dislike it when people attempt to make my choice for me.
"My body, my choice" applies to more than just reproductive rights.
Leftright--that is a very valid reason for not owning firearms--which is why I support law abiding people having the CHOICE to own a firearm or not. I also don't have a problem with the NICS (although I oppose waiting periods (because they don't work) and registration (because I have a problem with forcing someone who has been convicted of no crime to register firearms when felons are exempt on 5th amendment grounds)
Mike102, my 'weapons' are proactive measures, including:
Knowing where I live (crime rates); installing home alarm systems; having dogs (which I do, BTW) in my home that bark at the sound of unfamiliar noises; knowing my next-door neighbors & across-the-street neighbors & keeping an eye out for activities that shouldn't be occurring; having lights timed to go on, when returning late at night; using any kind of self defense that I've been taught by martial arts instructors; double-checking that I lock up my home tight (inc. all windows) when I leave; and having a phone nearby to immediately call local police.
And as far as people here possibly wanting me to give them a blanket-type approval for using their guns in the home, I cannot do that. No one should; because no one knows exactly what goes on inside another person's home ... & many shootings do occur in the home that are not within the 'home invasion, protection of home/hearth' rationale.
My last thought, is that some of you sound like you are 'training,' if you will, for combat readiness here! I know that you're taught in the military to 'think' about using firearms in a specific way ~ not the weapons-training, I mean; but the psychology that goes on when teaching someone it's acceptable to shoot & kill, etc.. Still, that is of course a different place & situation. Combat views on firearms may or may not apply to our civilian lives. Just a thought.
Gene Kelly would be proud.
I do everything you do (minus the dogs), as do most of us, I would imagine. But none of the "weapons" you mention are weapons.
And as far as your martial arts training is concerned, how effective do you think that would be against a couple of quick left jabs and a stout right cross, from a 200 lb. man, let alone an armed intruder?
"My last thought, is that some of you sound like you are 'training,' if you will, for combat readiness here!"
I've never been in the military, so don't start with that nonsense again.
I hope there isn't another email to the National Guard on the horizon.
Simply put then, you would not do "everything" in your "power" to protect your family.
BTW, Mike didn't say anything about guns. He asked if you would use a weapon of any kind.
So, Keli, why don't you address the hypothetical situations that I posed to you down-thread?
Old SF MJT
Please make up your mind if you want to be the Brady Campaign's spokesperson.
The BC says people who haven't recieved training shouldn't own guns and now you come along and say those who have recieved training are getting ready for combat.
Pick one and run with it.
Nice attempts at dodge the very simple questions asked of you. Let me try to make this an easier more direct question for you.
You said:
"please don't make the mistake that just because I don't approve of someone owning or even using, say, an AK-47 rifle against another (so-called civilian market version) doesn't mean that I wouldn't do everything, in my power, to protect my home & loved ones! I would."
So, if your family was under immediate attack and a firearm (be it your gun, a friend's gun, an attacker's gun, etc.) was present and readily available to you, and you knew that you could use that firearms to stop the attacker(s) without without further endangering your loved ones (e.g. they won't be in cross fire), would you use that firearm to stop the attacker(s) ?
This is a very simple, yes or no question.
(Keep in mind, avoiding answering this simple direct question tells the fence sitters here a lot about the integrity and honesty of your position.)
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
