ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2014 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Thursday, January 17, 2013

Gun bans don't work

A prosecutor from Washington DC recounts his experience with one of the strongest gun bans in the country:
As a former prosecutor in Washington, D.C., who enforced firearms and ammunition cases while a severe local gun ban was still in effect, I am skeptical of the benefits that many imagine will result from additional gun-control efforts. I dislike guns, but I believe that a nationwide firearms crackdown would place an undue burden on law enforcement and endanger civil liberties while potentially increasing crime.

The D.C. gun ban, enacted in 1976, prohibited anyone other than law-enforcement officers from carrying a firearm in the city. Residents were even barred from keeping guns in their homes for self-defense.

Some in Washington who owned firearms before the ban were allowed to keep them as long as the weapons were disassembled or trigger-locked at all times. According to the law, trigger locks could not be removed for self-defense even if the owner was being robbed at gunpoint. The only way anyone could legally possess a firearm in the District without a trigger lock was to obtain written permission from the D.C. police. The granting of such permission was rare.

The gun ban had an unintended effect: It emboldened criminals because they knew that law-abiding District residents were unarmed and powerless to defend themselves. Violent crime increased after the law was enacted, with homicides rising to 369 in 1988, from 188 in 1976 when the ban started. By 1993, annual homicides had reached 454.
As I've already shown by citing the international firearms homicide statistics, guns are quite clearly not the problem.  It is absolutely impossible to reasonably claim, with a straight face, that the Obama administration's push for gun control has anything whatsoever to do with reducing gun deaths in particular or the violence in general.

This is obvious because regardless of whether one looks at Western Europe, Latin America, Australia, the UK, or US cities such as Chicago and Washington DC, gun bans have reliably led to more violence, and often, more firearms homicide.  The logic is not compelling, it is conclusive and inescapable.

And it leads one to the next question.  Since reducing the rate of gun deaths and criminal violence is obviously not the objective of pursuing increased restrictions on firearms and further infringing upon the Second Amendment rights of the American people, what is the real objective?

Now, I know what I believe it to be.  But I'm interested to hear the claims, and the supporting arguments for those claims, from those who believe it to be anything but the eventual disarmament of the American people.

Labels:

552 Comments:

1 – 200 of 552 Newer› Newest»
Anonymous Enquiring minds January 17, 2013 9:37 AM  

yes, dh, do tell

Anonymous Edjamacator January 17, 2013 9:38 AM  

It's all for the children. Obviously!

Blogger Tiny Tim January 17, 2013 9:43 AM  

Your guns are being taken to destroy all you are.... and all you would have ever been.

The freaks want to rule, and they will kill to get their way.

Anonymous Diane Feinstein January 17, 2013 9:45 AM  

Unintended effect? Yeah right, it worked exactly how it was meant to.

Blogger Tiny Tim January 17, 2013 9:46 AM  

"And how we burned in the camps later..............."

Blogger Tiny Tim January 17, 2013 9:51 AM  

"The nazi's told us to pack up our belongings. We were being spirited away for our own safety. The resorts we were going to were very nice. I had seen the pictures and I have to say I liked what I saw. We would at least see old friend's and not be harmed. We were hated and we were afraid...."

Blogger TontoBubbaGoldstein January 17, 2013 9:51 AM  

POWER TO THE PEOPLE!!!*








* The people in charge, that is.

Blogger Shimshon January 17, 2013 9:52 AM  

Vox, are you asking about the real objective of the ones in power and calling the shots, or the useful idiots who blindly support them?

Regarding the ones actually enacting the disarmament policy (and not even so slowly anymore), I'm pretty sure they know exactly what they want, which is probably what you believe they want as well.

The useful idiots believe the propaganda, hook line and sinker. You should show this to them, and they'll insist, conclusive and inescapable logic to the contrary, that the facts are wrong. The source is wrong. Something is wrong. Because everyone just knows that more guns equals more crime, and vice versa.

Blogger Shimshon January 17, 2013 9:52 AM  

Sorry, that was...

You could show this to them...

Blogger Tiny Tim January 17, 2013 9:55 AM  

"The guard at the train station was very nice. He told me their main concern was the safety of the children......... they were concerned with our children. I was put at ease."

Anonymous Anonymous January 17, 2013 9:56 AM  

Eyewitness to the Ayers Revolution
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/eyewitness-to-the-ayers-revolution/
Posted By Bob Owens On October 28, 2008

When Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn led the domestic terrorist group Weather Underground in 1969, a chance meeting led Army veteran Larry Grathwohl into joining the group. Grathwohl served as a courier, running messages between the group’s leadership (called the “Weather Bureau”) and individual cells that were to carry out attacks.

Grathwohl was also an informant for the FBI.

In an interview from the 1982 documentary No Place To Hide that recently surfaced, Grathwohl discussed what the Weathermen intended to do after overthrowing the U.S. government, including what they would do with those Americans who refused to embrace communism [1].

I asked, “Well what is going to happen to those people we can’t reeducate, that are diehard capitalists?” And the reply was that they’d have to be eliminated.

And when I pursued this further, they estimated they would have to eliminate 25 million people in these reeducation centers.

And when I say “eliminate,” I mean “kill.”

Twenty-five million people.

Anonymous The other skeptic January 17, 2013 9:59 AM  


As a former prosecutor in Washington, D.C., who enforced firearms and ammunition cases while a severe local gun ban was still in effect, I am skeptical of the benefits that many imagine will result from additional gun-control efforts.


You cannot get a man to believe something when his livelihood depends on him not believing it.

Blogger Tiny Tim January 17, 2013 10:00 AM  

The left seethes with envy and hatred. They are losers, hangers on, welfare queens. They want what you have. They want to silence your spirit. They will kill you when the time comes, if you make it "too easy"............

Anonymous The other skeptic January 17, 2013 10:02 AM  


And when I say “eliminate,” I mean “kill.”

Twenty-five million people.


This is not surprising. After all, for most in power, the people (voters) are simply an unavoidable route to power and a nuisance once there.

Blogger Tiny Tim January 17, 2013 10:06 AM  

For all of you Stasi minders, will you be willing to push the igniters on the ovens when the time comes?

That is the question I ask when I see you molesting my grandmother at the airport. This is the question I ask when I see you insert your fingers into two women on a highway in Texas because they threw a cigarette out onto a highway.....

What would it take for you to kill me?

Anonymous Starbuck January 17, 2013 10:06 AM  

As far as the people in government and their handlers/controllers - It is about control. You cannot control people that can defend themselves. Well, you can but it is much harder.

As far as the useful idiots i.e. progressives. They believe that if you outlaw guns that people will somehow obey these laws. It works with drugs, right? The criminals using guns will be arrested. So to them it is not a problem. Now, most of these progressives do not live in dangerous areas so they do NOT see why anyone would need a gun. They also cry when someone goes hunting to feed their family and I have heard these same people say that people should not be allowed to hunt.They are looking for the garden of eden and mean to create it through laws. What they don't understand is that the people they are doing their bidding do not care about them one bit. Hence - Useful idiots.

Anonymous Godfrey January 17, 2013 10:08 AM  

The reason is that the international power elite want unchallenged power and control over a defenseless populace. The support for my claim is over three thousand years of documented human history and over fifty years of personal observation of human nature.

Sorry, I don’t subscribe to the ridiculous political religion (i.e. fantasy) that government is an institution run by wise virtuous angelic-like beings working to bring about a utopia in which the masses can happily frolic.

Anonymous Anonymous January 17, 2013 10:08 AM  

Speaking of Bill Ayers, he founded the weather underground after SDS kicked him out for suggesting massacres of elementary school students to advance their agenda.

Anonymous The other skeptic January 17, 2013 10:11 AM  

It is amusing how fond Tad is of his Democrat talking points

Perhaps he should be restricted to using the printing press to distribute his arguments. Even photocopiers are not allowed!

Blogger Tiny Tim January 17, 2013 10:12 AM  

"I also believe that a lot of gun owners would agree that AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers..." - Barak Obama

Ak-47's, not AR-15's. Quite telling. Quite telling indeed.

Anonymous The other skeptic January 17, 2013 10:13 AM  


The reason is that the international power elite want unchallenged power and control over a defenseless populace. The support for my claim is over three thousand years of documented human history and over fifty years of personal observation of human nature.


Just as the local warlord/strong man had during feudal times.

Blogger Tiny Tim January 17, 2013 10:14 AM  

If you do not exercise your rights, you do not have those rights...........

Anonymous Mr Green Man January 17, 2013 10:18 AM  

Being anti-gun is anti-woman! Because DC is so busy on the gun crime, it can't investigate the rapes:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jan/17/washington-police-accused-rape-failures

Anonymous Lysander Spooner January 17, 2013 10:21 AM  

Facts are not important in the mind of the Amerikan Nazi.

Anonymous Tad January 17, 2013 10:24 AM  

@Vox Day

And it leads one to the next question. Since reducing the rate of gun deaths and criminal violence is obviously not the objective of pursuing increased restrictions on firearms and further infringing upon the Second Amendment rights of the American people, what is the real objective?

As is the case with many folks with a limited understanding of politics, your premise is without merit. As is your contention that the purpose of this recent action on the part of the administration is motivated by a desire to kill Americans. You've offered nothing in the way of reasonable evidence for this paranoia-fueled claim. More importantly, you know this isn't the case, and yet you say it.

It's quite clear that the current increased attention on gun violence by the administration and their proposals are meant to remove easy access to unnecessarily and overly dangerous guns meant merely to kill large numbers of people and to better prevent guns from getting into the hands of those who are proven or highly likely to be mentally unstable and proven to be untrustworthy.

Anonymous The other skeptic January 17, 2013 10:28 AM  


It's quite clear that the current increased attention on gun violence by the administration and their proposals are meant to remove easy access to unnecessarily and overly dangerous guns meant merely to kill large numbers of people and to better prevent guns from getting into the hands of those who are proven or highly likely to be mentally unstable and proven to be untrustworthy.


You've offered nothing in the way of reasonable evidence for this sycophantic and socialist-boot licking claim.

It is quite clear you are simply trying to help another Stalin-like massacre of the people to come to fruition.

Anonymous Tad January 17, 2013 10:38 AM  

@the (paranoid) Other Skeptic

You've offered nothing in the way of reasonable evidence for this sycophantic and socialist-boot licking claim.

I point you to the words issued yesterday by the president, vice president and other members of the administration.

Anonymous Mina January 17, 2013 10:38 AM  

"what is the real objective?"

I posted something longish the other day pondering about this very thing.

The conclusion I came to is that they desire the outcome that is expected (by reviewing history, facts, logic, etc) not they outcome they say they want.

Anonymous Salt January 17, 2013 10:41 AM  

But I'm interested to hear the claims, and the supporting arguments for those claims, from those who believe it to be anything but the eventual disarmament of the American people.

I've wondered about this. Historically, disarmament would appear to be the case. There's so much evidence as to make anything else laughable.

So I'll posit this. Given the pharmacological changes we've seen over the past few decades, might it be some form of drug induced pathology people of a certain bent are susceptible to?

Anonymous Krul January 17, 2013 10:42 AM  

In the first place, Shimshon is right to distinguish between those at the top and the Useful Idiots (UI). The UI are motivated by a knee-jerk reaction to a poorly understood situation in the context of an "education" composed primarily of leftist narratives. They feel only that, to paraphrase South Park, "Guns are bad, m'kay?" and they uncritically accept gun control proposals without really asking themselves whether they can or will work.

As for those at the top, they are in two categories. One is the Revolutionary (R), a descendent of the professional Marxist revolutionaries of the 19th century who gave us communist takeovers in Russia and other countries. R's may or may not be Marxist in ideology, what characterizes them is extremist devotion to a utopian vision of the future.

The second category is composed of the Politicians (P). P's are interested only and exclusively in attaining power for themselves. They are uninterested in ideologies except as means to manipulate the crowd.

The interesting thing here is that it creates a sort of parasitic circle. The Rs may take advantage of the Ps' ambitions, and the Ps take advantage of the Rs' fanaticism. Meanwhile, both groups are essentially enslaved by the UI. The UI is the defacto god of the Ps and Rs, who are compelled to say or do anything no matter how fatuous or destructive in order to maintain their power/advance the cause. Meanwhile the Ps and Rs set themselves up as being essentially gods in the minds of the UI, who are convinced to accept the pronouncements of those above as absolute truth.

It's actually quite lovely, in a grotesque way. An entire ecosystem composed only of leeches, ticks, and mosquitos.

Anonymous Choam Nomsky January 17, 2013 10:42 AM  

"As is your contention that the purpose of this recent action on the part of the administration is motivated by a desire to kill Americans"

Not kill, control. The killing just happens as part of it. As anyone who actually studies history knows...(including our Founding Fathers).

How much is Soros paying you again to post your tripe?

"It's quite clear that the current increased attention on gun violence by the administration and their proposals are meant to remove easy access to unnecessarily and overly dangerous guns"

Unnecessary to whom?

Dangerous to whom?

"proven to be untrustworthy."

Untrustworthy to whom?

Anonymous Mina January 17, 2013 10:43 AM  

As a counterpoint to the Milton Wolf talking points posted above, I submit my entry:

Strategy for Destroying Gun Control

I have used these strategies for the win for several years on "another topic". They work.

"This page is not about defending Second Amendment rights. The National Rifle Association and its allies have done enough defending, enough trying to hold on to the rights that belong to the American people, while the liberal elitists and collectivists have picked away at those rights a piece at a time. It is time to follow the advice of General George S. Patton: "We are not interested in holding on to anything except the enemy. We're going to hold on to him by the nose, and we're going to kick him in the balls."

This page is not only about keeping the elitists and collectivists from taking more, it is about destroying much of what they have already won. It is about leaving their movement in the same condition that the Russian field marshal Alexander V. Suvorov (1729-1800) left the Turkish fortress of Ismail."

Anonymous Noah B. January 17, 2013 10:43 AM  

Most collectivists aren't trying to cause genocide. They're like the termites eating the wood from the frame of a house. The termites aren't trying to destroy the house, they're just being termites.

Anonymous VryeDenker January 17, 2013 10:44 AM  

If South Africa is anything to go by, it's not so much that they want to destroy you. It's that they want to make you more dependent on the state for security. They can then bestow protection on you if you play nice, or take it away and let "regular crime" deal with.

Anonymous Tad January 17, 2013 10:44 AM  

@Salt

I've wondered about this. Historically, disarmament would appear to be the case. There's so much evidence as to make anything else laughable.

And yet, not a single proposal sought to disarm or confiscate. So, where is your evidence that these new proposals are meant to do this? It should be easy to provide it...since there is "so much".

Blogger jamsco January 17, 2013 10:46 AM  

"Since reducing the rate of gun deaths and criminal violence is obviously not the objective of pursuing increased restrictions on firearms and further infringing upon the Second Amendment rights of the American people, what is the real objective?"

Vox, you're starting with the wrong premise here.

The real objective for these law-makers is either (A.) "reducing the rate of gun deaths and criminal violence", or (B.) Attempting to give the voters the perception that they are trying to reduce the rate of gun deaths and criminal violence.

And while you have shown that the evidence that more gun control will not produce these results is "conclusive and inescapable" to you and others, you haven't shown that it conclusive and inescapable to these politicians, nor have you shown that they've even seen your statistics.

They have seen other data that lead to a different perspective than you have.

Again, please note that I have made no assertion as to which side is correct.

Anonymous DrTorch January 17, 2013 10:47 AM  

"what is the real objective?"

I assume it's to create a black market for guns, which the gov't can sell to. Then it has an income source to pay down its debt.

Anonymous Choam Nomsky January 17, 2013 10:47 AM  

"And yet, not a single proposal sought to disarm or confiscate."

Weasel words. "Proposal"

As if disarming or confiscating is something a State can do without groundwork.

You're as slimy as you are predictable. Soros should get his money back.

Anonymous Tad January 17, 2013 10:48 AM  

@Choam

Unnecessary to whom?
Citizens

Dangerous to whom?
Citizens

"proven to be untrustworthy."

Untrustworthy to whom?

society

Anonymous Anonymous January 17, 2013 10:48 AM  

"They have seen other data that lead to a different perspective than you have."

Proof, please.

Anonymous MOΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ January 17, 2013 10:49 AM  

98% of the people in this country do not commit violent crimes.
99.999% of the gun owner do not commit violent crimes.
100% of the elected politicians are committing crimes every time they vote. every time they open their mouth its to brag about the crimes they are about to do or have done.
Gun control is the Government saying the people are to stupid to have rights because they don't know right from wrong.
These elected have done the same thing with health care and your retirement. By them taking control of it they are saying your too stupid to manage and plan for yourself.

Anonymous Ariel January 17, 2013 10:49 AM  

My family has always supported the right to bear arms. We've only ever had a single handgun in our home, however. But something about this 'gun grab' got our attention. We dug into our savings and my hubby went out and bought a rifle, a shotgun, and another handgun this week. We are planning on buying another rifle next month.

Better to be forewarned and forearmed...

Anonymous Tad January 17, 2013 10:50 AM  

@Choam

As if disarming or confiscating is something a State can do without groundwork.

Paranoia!! There are drugs for that. Therapy can help too.

Anonymous Noah B. January 17, 2013 10:50 AM  

New York's new laws disarm people. They either disarm voluntarily or they are threatened with gradual violence from the state if they refuse to comply and are discovered.

Obama is proposing the same thing at the national level but didn't have the stomach for trying to get it done by executive order, even though he suggested as strongly as he could that he was willing to act without Congress if they didn't cooperate without explicitly stating that.

So once again Tad, you're a liar.

Anonymous Salt January 17, 2013 10:50 AM  

@ Tad

Evidently you are capable of cognition only once it becomes full blown. Makes me actually wonder if the claims of Contrailists might be correct and you are susceptible to the drug induced pathology TPTB seek.

Anonymous Tad January 17, 2013 10:51 AM  

Gun control is the Government saying the people are to stupid to have rights because they don't know right from wrong.

The right to keep and bear arms is not threatened by the proposals offered yesterday.

Anonymous Noah B. January 17, 2013 10:52 AM  

"Paranoia!! There are drugs for that. Therapy can help too."

And lists of prohibited persons!

Thanks for demonstrating that the slippery slope does actually exist. This is like trying to prove that someone is violent by continually harassing them until they snap.

Anonymous drose January 17, 2013 10:53 AM  


"You've offered nothing in the way of reasonable evidence for this sycophantic and socialist-boot licking claim."

"I point you to the words issued yesterday by the president, vice president and other members of the administration."

Because as we all know, the president, the vice president, and all their underlings never ever lie about anything right, Tad?

Anonymous Stilicho January 17, 2013 10:53 AM  

Tad, please answer Vox's question:

what is the real objective?

Anonymous Tad January 17, 2013 10:54 AM  

@Noah

Obama is proposing the same thing at the national level but didn't have the stomach for trying to get it done by executive order, even though he suggested as strongly as he could that he was willing to act without Congress if they didn't cooperate without explicitly stating that.

Obama is not proposing confiscation or disarming anyone. That claim is without merit. He never said he would enact bans on high capacity magazines or assault weapons via executive order. You are paranoid.

Anonymous Choam Nomksy January 17, 2013 10:54 AM  

(Non sequiturs and weasel words...typical)

Tad:

Please list your proof that guns are "unnecessary" or "dangerous" for every citizen.

How does an abstraction like "society" maintain "trust" over anything?

Anonymous The other skeptic January 17, 2013 10:55 AM  

Since the murder rate is correlated strongly with race perhaps we should put more effort into keeping guns out of the hands of those races that commit more murders.

Anonymous Mina January 17, 2013 10:55 AM  

"Gun control is the Government saying the people are to stupid to have rights because they don't know right from wrong."

Just like New York state knows better than its people what their diet should consist of in regards to 17oz big gulp soda pops.

Anonymous Tad January 17, 2013 10:55 AM  

@Noah

Thanks for demonstrating that the slippery slope does actually exist. This is like trying to prove that someone is violent by continually harassing them until they snap.

Seek help.

Anonymous Choam Nomsky January 17, 2013 10:56 AM  

Too bad those Founding Fathers were paranoid about the State.

Tad would've locked them up in mental institutions.

"what is the real objective?"

I'd guess for Tad, it's locking people like me up in institutions for "re-education" in service of "mental health"...

Anonymous Tad January 17, 2013 10:56 AM  

@stilcho

what is the real objective?

Answered

Anonymous Tad January 17, 2013 10:58 AM  

@Choam

I'd guess for Tad, it's locking people like me up in institutions for "re-education" in service of "mental health"...

Not suggesting you be locked up. You appear relatively stable. Merely suggesting you seek help for your paranoia.

Anonymous Salt January 17, 2013 10:59 AM  

Obama had loosed a murky worded trial balloon. It was just enough to illicit reactions based on what people might perceive his meaning to be. Personally, I think he backed down from where he wanted to go.

Blogger Conan the Cimmerian, King of Aquilonia January 17, 2013 11:00 AM  

Quote:

Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal.

Janet Reno

Anonymous Noah B. January 17, 2013 11:01 AM  

"Obama is not proposing confiscation or disarming anyone."

Once again, you're a liar. He is without question proposing to disarm those people who are added to the NICS lists via the strengthened background checks. These prohibited persons include people convicted of petty misdemeanors for which there was no theoretical maximum penalty at the time of their conviction. How hypocritical to disarm these people when the commander in chief has admitted to multiple felonies in writing.

"He never said he would enact bans on high capacity magazines or assault weapons via executive order."

I never claimed he said that, dumbass.

Anonymous dh January 17, 2013 11:01 AM  

This is my case. In five concise parts.

1. I hold that your premise is wrong. Pres. Obama is not seeking to prevent or curb general gun violence. All of the actions taken and proposed are designed to limit a specific type of gun violence. Namely:

Most gun owners are responsible and law-abiding, and they use their guns safely. The President strongly believes that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to bear arms. But to better protect our children and our communities from tragic mass shootings like those in Newtown, Aurora, Oak Creek, and Tucson, there are common-sense steps we can take right now.

Your stated premise - that Pres. Obama is attempting to reduce gun violence, in places like Chicago, Washington DC, etc is incorrect.

2. We know your premise is wrong by examning the actions taken and proposed. Seperate from the stated goals, which we can discard as conclusive proof because they are made by politicans and handlers, we can break down the policy goals put forth into three categories:

a. Limiting the leathal impact when mass shooters start a rampage.

i. By forcing a shooter to reload more often, and to carry more magazines clips. This simple math. For each second spent reloading, the shooter is not shooting. Smaller capacity magazine clips mean a lower bullet-to-weight ratio.

ii. By limiting the types of weapons available to ordinary Americans. Although almost entirely toothless, the assault weapons ban would limit types of weapons that are considered to be "high powered", lowering the gap between first responders (i.e. police) and crazy gunmen.

b. Stepping up enforcement and reporting by mental health workers and doctors. Existing laws prohibit gun purchases by persons with severe mental instability, or drug addiction. (As of now, however, there is still no law facilitating taking guns away if you develop a mental problem. There is nothing pending to change this).

c. Increased enforcement of existing laws, promotion of voluntary measures, and expansion of the background check system. Earlier changes after the Virgina Tech kills cleaned up several problems in the background check system. Private person to person sales allow unspecting law-abiding gun owners to sell their weapons to person who already legally prohibited from owning weapons. This requirement is already in place in several states, and gun sales and ownership are not impacted.

3. We also have strong historical evidence to suggest that Pres. Obama does not favor a large change in gun control laws, handgun bans, confiscation, or other measures other than what he has recently proposed. For the first two years of his term in office, Pres. Obama had the opportunity to radically alter gun laws, and he did not exercise that opportunity. Instead, he focused on other goals. The support levels for and against gun control are not substantially different now than they were then, nor is the climate. Precipitating events - including mass shootings - occured during this period - including a mass shooting in Binghamtpon NY and Fort Hood. Additionally, the GOP was even weaker at that point than they are now. It is logically incoherent to suggest that Pres. Obama passed on opportunities to get what he wanted, at that time, in favor of pushing through half-measures and small changes to existing laws.

Anonymous dh January 17, 2013 11:02 AM  

(continued)

4. We also can infer that your premise is wrong because the evidence you are using does not reflect what is being proposed. You state the evidence is that "gun bans" do not work. The gun ban you reference in Washington DC was overturned as illegal by the Supreme Court in Heller vs. District of Columbia. Pres. Obama nor any large part of Congress has not pushed for that to be reversed, nor have they sought to expand a Chicago-style ban to other areas of the countries. The only guns Pres. Obama is proposing to ban are assault weapons that have previously been banned, under a law that expired, plus new restrictions on magazine clips of a certain size. This has no relationship to handgun restrictions that had been in effect, or are currently in effect, in places like Chicago. So while these proposals are neither useful in reducing general gun violence, they are also clearly not disarmament of the American people. We know this because during the time they were in effect the American people were not disarmed.

5. Finally, we can infer that your premise is wrong because you have presented no evidence of the intent or future plans of Pres. Obama, or any other person, to do anything other than what they say they want to do. While it is true that some people who support Pres. Obama (myself included) wish to see the 2nd amendment repealed and replaced an alternative, the goals of supporters are not transitive. I cannot hold Ron Paul responsible for your views, and likewise, you cannot hold Pres. Obama responsible for my views.

Anonymous Stilicho January 17, 2013 11:03 AM  

Tad, answer Vox's question.

Anonymous Tad January 17, 2013 11:03 AM  

@salt

Obama had loosed a murky worded trial balloon. It was just enough to illicit reactions based on what people might perceive his meaning to be.

Trial balloon?? It's not a trial balloon. It's a list of actions that the executive branch will definitely be taking and a call on congress to enact very specific legislation. This is past the "I wonder how they'll react" stage.

Blogger Conan the Cimmerian, King of Aquilonia January 17, 2013 11:04 AM  

Quote:

My view of guns is simple. I hate guns and I cannot imagine why anyone would want to own one. If I had my way, guns for sport would be registered, and all other guns would be banned. Deborah Prothrow-Stith

Blogger Conan the Cimmerian, King of Aquilonia January 17, 2013 11:05 AM  

Quote:
If I could have banned them all...I would have!
Diane Feinstein
Gun owner with concealed carry permit

Anonymous dh January 17, 2013 11:05 AM  

Once again, you're a liar. He is without question proposing to disarm those people who are added to the NICS lists via the strengthened background checks. These prohibited persons include people convicted of petty misdemeanors for which there was no theoretical maximum penalty at the time of their conviction. How hypocritical to disarm these people when the commander in chief has admitted to multiple felonies
in writing.


This is false for two reasons:

1. NICS only prohibits new sales of weapons. It has no bearing on whether or not you are allowed to posses the weapons you alread own. NICS does not determine whether or not you are eligible. It reflects that eligiblity.

2. Adding to someone to NICS doesnt make them ineligible to own guns. IF you are incorrectly sold a gun because NICS clears you, it doesn't take you off the hook. NICS is designed to protect gun dealers from violating gun laws, not to create loop holes for gun buyers who are ineligible.

NICS does not confer or deny the right to own or purchase a gun.

Anonymous Tad January 17, 2013 11:05 AM  

@Noah

Once again, you're a liar. He is without question proposing to disarm those people who are added to the NICS lists via the strengthened background checks.

Background checks come in advance of obtaining the arm. It's not disarming...it's keeping highly dangerous weapons out of the hands of those proven to unwilling to follow simple laws.

Blogger Conan the Cimmerian, King of Aquilonia January 17, 2013 11:05 AM  

Quote:

We're bending the law as far as we can to ban an entirely new class of guns.
Rahm Emmanuel

Anonymous Mina January 17, 2013 11:06 AM  

Krul January 17, 2013 10:42 AM:

Consider too the %'ages of our politicians that could be considered Sociopathic.

From what I understand, a career in Government is a great cover for them. The job is rife for opportunities to practice their sickness on the folks all around them and those they govern and do so with almost completely impunity.

Conventional appearance

Glib, superficially charming, often highly verbal

Promiscuous sexual behavior

Manipulative and cunning

High sense of entitlement

Lacks a sense of moral responsibility or moral conscience

Shallow emotions

Callousness, lack of empathy

Lying without remorse, shame or guilt.

Interested only in their personal needs or desires, without concern for the effects of their behaviors on others.

Anonymous alexamenos January 17, 2013 11:07 AM  

Political power comes out of the business end of a gun, Lefty elites know this;

Lefty elites want more political power, always;

Small government types, constitutionally restrained government types, lower tax types are overwhelmingly white heterosexual males, and as such white heterosexual males are the bulwark of opposition to the ever-expanding power dreams of Lefty elites;

Lefty elites really hate heterosexual white males, especially southrons and those from flyover country, and would love to see us have less and political influence;

Heterosexual white males, especially southrons and those from flyover country, have a lot of guns;

Political power comes out of the business end of a gun.


Having said that, I'm pretty sure the reason Lefty Elites want to disarm us is to protect the precious children.

Blogger Conan the Cimmerian, King of Aquilonia January 17, 2013 11:07 AM  

Quote:

We're going to hammer guns on the anvil of relentless legislative strategy! We're going to beat guns into submission!

Charles Schumer

Anonymous BillB January 17, 2013 11:07 AM  

@Tad the troll

US V Miller (1939) - the court ruled that guns such as a sawed off shotgun were not shown to be standard military, and thus Militia, weapons. So using the SC's decision that military and militia weapons are the same, these "unnecessary and overly dangerous guns", [there are no unnecessary and overly dangerous guns just unnecessary and overly dangerous people], are EXACTLY the type of weapons protected by the 2nd amendment.

The 2nd grants no rights, the right to keep and bear arms existed BEFORE the constitution and exists even if the 2nd was never enumerated in the Constitution (US v Cruikshank (1876):

An historical discussion on the 2nd:

Story, Joseph, LL.D., 1833, Commentaries on the
Constitution of the United States, Book III, Pg. 746-747,
Paragraph 1889 - 1890


[Story was an SC justice from 1811 to 1845. He is recognized as a preeminent authority on the Constitution by the courts.]

...


"1889. The next amendment is: 'A well regulated militia
being necessary to the security of a free state, the
right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be
infringed.'


1890. The importance of this article will scarcely be
doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon
the subject. The militia is the natural defence of a
free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic
insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by
rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people
to keep up large military establishments and standing
armies in time of peace, both from the enormous
expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile
means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled
rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the
rights of the people. The right of citizens to keep
and bear arms has justly been considered, as the
palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it
offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and
arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if
these are successful in the first instance, enable the
people to resist and triumph over them.
And yet,
though this truth would seem so clear, and the
importance of a well regulated militia would seem so
undeniable, it cannot be disguised, that among the
American people there is a growing indifference to any
system of militia discipline and a strong disposition,
from a sense of its burthens, to be rid of all
regulations. How it is practicable to keep the people
duly armed without some organization, it is difficult
to see. There is certainly no small danger, that
indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to
contempt; and thus gradually undermine all protection
intended by this clause in our national bill of
rights."


...


Yep. The freaking people were getting lazy within 50 years of the formation and didn't want to maintain the burden that the Founders had carried. So much for getting the people today to behave any better.

Beware of what you wish for, for you may get it.

I love folks who grovel and gush about laws they like but whine about laws they don't like. I can't wait until it's their ox being gored to see how they cry. But then they will have nothing to use in their fight because they gave it all up when those in power came for us.

Blogger Nate January 17, 2013 11:07 AM  

"Now, I know what I believe it to be. But I'm interested to hear the claims, and the supporting arguments for those claims, from those who believe it to be anything but the eventual disarmament of the American people."

I believe a gun free america is absulutely the goal. We're talking about hoplophobes here.

Anonymous Tad January 17, 2013 11:08 AM  

@stilcho

Tad, answer Vox's question.

Who are you?

Blogger Conan the Cimmerian, King of Aquilonia January 17, 2013 11:09 AM  

Quote:

I don't believe anybody has a right to own any kind of a firearm. I believe in order to obtain a permit to own a firearm, that person should undergo an exhaustive criminal background check. In addition, an applicant should give up his right to privacy and submit his medical records for review to see if the person has ever had a problem with alcohol, drugs or mental illness... The Constitution doesn't count! John Silber

Anonymous Mina January 17, 2013 11:09 AM  

http://www.tomwoods.com/blog/we-really-are-governed-by-sociopaths/

"The US is already in a truly major depression and on the edge of financial chaos and a currency meltdown. The sociopaths in government will react by redoubling the pace toward a police state domestically and starting a major war abroad. To me, this is completely predictable. It’s what sociopaths do."

Blogger Conan the Cimmerian, King of Aquilonia January 17, 2013 11:11 AM  

Quote:

Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States.
Noah Webster

Anonymous Salt January 17, 2013 11:11 AM  

Tad, you idiot. It's that very "I wonder how they'll react" stage that was the trial balloon. People reacted to their perception of what he might do.

I think he backed down from where he wanted to go.

OpenID simplytimothy January 17, 2013 11:13 AM  

@Mina

Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership uses the words, "destroy gun control," not "defend gun rights,"


I love it.

Anonymous Stilicho January 17, 2013 11:13 AM  

Tad, quit avoiding the question. Attacking Vox's (or anyone's) opinion does not answer the question asked. It is a simple, straightforward question. Just answer it.
what is the real objective?

Blogger Conan the Cimmerian, King of Aquilonia January 17, 2013 11:14 AM  

Quote:

Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of all Americans to feel safe.
Diane Feinstein

Anonymous The other skeptic January 17, 2013 11:16 AM  

I think Tad is a government stooge whose job is to identify all those with anti-Government tendencies.

Blogger Conan the Cimmerian, King of Aquilonia January 17, 2013 11:16 AM  

Quotes:

I don't care about crime, I just want to get the guns.
Howard Metzenbaum

I am one who believes that as a first step the U.S. should move expeditiously to disarm the civilian population, other than police and security officers, of all handguns, pistols and revolvers ...no one should have a right to anonymous ownership or use of a gun.

Dean Morris
Testimony to Congress

Anonymous Mina January 17, 2013 11:17 AM  

simplytimothy January 17, 2013 11:13 AM:

I love the references to the use of Bayonet in war and how to know when to use it.

Back to the analogy of "using the bayonet." In the 18th and 19th century, a charge with cold arms- the bayonet, lance, or sabre- could be carried home only against demoralized, poorly-trained, or cowardly troops. No commander in his right mind would order a rush, for example, against a steady line or square of Wellington's Redcoats. But we can imagine Marshal Suvorov looking at an equivocating, evading, doubletalking mass and yelling with delight, "Cossack bait!" or "Give 'em the cold steel!" In the political arena, we are of course talking about people in weak, indefensible, or intellectually dishonest positions: the Feinsteins, Kennedys, Rowans, and Clintons. In such a case, there is no need to be polite, respectful, or even circumspect; one can and should roll right over them.

Blogger Conan the Cimmerian, King of Aquilonia January 17, 2013 11:18 AM  

Quote:

I do not believe in people owning guns. Guns should be owned only by the police and military. I am going to do everything I can to disarm this state.
Michael Dukakis

Anonymous Tad January 17, 2013 11:18 AM  

@Stilcho

Just answer it.
what is the real objective?


See above.

Blogger Cogitans Iuvenis January 17, 2013 11:19 AM  

@ Tad
As is the case with many folks with a limited understanding of politics, your premise is without merit. As is your contention that the purpose of this recent action on the part of the administration is motivated by a desire to kill Americans. You've offered nothing in the way of reasonable evidence for this paranoia-fueled claim. More importantly, you know this isn't the case, and yet you say it.

It's quite clear that the current increased attention on gun violence by the administration and their proposals are meant to remove easy access to unnecessarily and overly dangerous guns meant merely to kill large numbers of people and to better prevent guns from getting into the hands of those who are proven or highly likely to be mentally unstable and proven to be untrustworthy.


VD has not indicated that the Obama administration's desire to restrict the right to bear arms is motivated by a desire to kill people. He, and many others, contend that it is because statist and those in power do not like the idea of the populace being armed. What VD does say is that Obama's actions may help facilitate some future enemy, be it internal or external, and that is akin to saying that Chamber Nevillen capitulation to Socialist Germany helped facilitate the outbreak of WWII. It is a true state, and it doesn't imply that Mr. Nevillens the ultimate result was intentional, any more than it would be for Mr. Obama, but that doesn't change the fact that those actions did contribute.

What is clear about his actions is that Obama is defaulting to his statist mindset. If he thought there was any real chance that an executive order on banning assault rifles would have been feasible he probably would have done it. Statist, at their core, distrust the common man, and are only comfortable when 'exceptional' individuals are their to act as shepards. However, this notion is flawed on it's face, since there are no exceptionally gifted individuals, or at least those individuals are very rare, that can do anything like the philosopher king that statists are so enamored with.

Case and point. China is facing demographic decline and this belies the belief that they will be a future super power as no nation has ever been a super power with a declining population. This demographic decline is purely the manifestation the technogractic elites of the PRC in efforts to curb 'overpopulation'. Yet these suppossed giants among men couldn't forsee the situation it would place their nation in. And now that demographic decline is a known threat to China, something the technocrats are well aware of, you would think they would take action to ameliorate their problem. They have done the opposite, the just came out yesterday and announced they will not be lifting their one-child policy. A stupid decision on their part, and exposes that fallacy of the faith in statism, and the implicit trust in technocrats, that it is.

http://behindthewall.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/16/16544706-china-one-child-policy-is-here-to-stay?lite

Anonymous Tad January 17, 2013 11:19 AM  

@Stilcho

I think Tad is a government stooge whose job is to identify all those with anti-Government tendencies.

Damn...I'm caught.

Stilcho....as I told others, the smart thing to do is to seek help for that case of paranoia.

Blogger Conan the Cimmerian, King of Aquilonia January 17, 2013 11:20 AM  

Quote:

If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them...'Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in,' I would have done it.
Diane Feinstein

Blogger Tiny Tim January 17, 2013 11:20 AM  

"you don't need guns" say the clipped haired, metal piercing, STD carrying, welfare taking, freaks who want to kill me and my family (unless we can be "reeducated")..........

Blogger Conan the Cimmerian, King of Aquilonia January 17, 2013 11:21 AM  

That Diane Feinstein....
Now who is the person that the Dems are tapping for their control legislation?

Anonymous Stilicho January 17, 2013 11:21 AM  

Tad, I do not see an answer to Vox's question in your posts. Please specify by cutting and pasting in response to this post.

Blogger Conan the Cimmerian, King of Aquilonia January 17, 2013 11:23 AM  

Quote:

I want to make it as hard as possible. Gun owners would have to be evaluated by how they scored on written and firing tests, and have to pass the tests in order to own a gun. And I would tax the guns, bullets and the license itself very heavily.
Joycelyn Elders

Anonymous Tad January 17, 2013 11:23 AM  

@Cogitans

VD has not indicated that the Obama administration's desire to restrict the right to bear arms is motivated by a desire to kill people.

Vox Day:

"the American people would have to be blitheringly stupid to imagine that those attempting to disarm them are doing so for any reason except to be able to kill them at will."

Anonymous Stilicho January 17, 2013 11:24 AM  

Stilcho....as I told others, the smart thing to do is to seek help for that case of paranoia.

It's not even a failure of reading comprehension with you any longer, it is a simple failure to read. Now, answer Vox's question.

Blogger IM2L844 January 17, 2013 11:24 AM  

what is the real objective?

Divide and conquer.

Anonymous Tad January 17, 2013 11:25 AM  

@Stilcho

Tad, I do not see an answer to Vox's question in your posts. Please specify by cutting and pasting in response to this post.

Look harder. It's there in plain sight.

Anonymous Tad January 17, 2013 11:26 AM  

@Stilcho

It's not even a failure of reading comprehension with you any longer, it is a simple failure to read. Now, answer Vox's question.

Look closely.

Anonymous p-dawg January 17, 2013 11:26 AM  

"But I'm interested to hear the claims, and the supporting arguments for those claims..."

Well, lemme tell ya...

"...from those who believe it to be anything but the eventual disarmament of the American people."

Oh, doh, never mind.

Anonymous Noah B. January 17, 2013 11:27 AM  

@dh

Adding names to NICS will prevent gun sales that would have otherwise occurred. That is disarmament. In the future, please refer to a dictionary if you need help with the big words.

Anonymous VD January 17, 2013 11:28 AM  

Answer the question clearly and in an unambiguously straightforward manner, Tad. What do you believe the true objective of the Obama administration, with regards to its newly issued executive orders and its call to Congress to enact new gun-related laws, is?

Anonymous Noah B. January 17, 2013 11:29 AM  

"Background checks come in advance of obtaining the arm. It's not disarming...it's keeping highly dangerous weapons out of the hands of those proven to unwilling to follow simple laws."

Tad, you fool, keeping people from buying highly dangerous weapons IS disarmament.

Blogger Conan the Cimmerian, King of Aquilonia January 17, 2013 11:30 AM  

Quote:

We can't be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans to legitimately own handguns and rifles...that we are unable to think about reality.
William Jefferson Clinton

With just a few minutes of internet checking, obviously, only the mentally unstable and paranoid think that the agenda here is registration then confiscation.

Anonymous Loving tribute to Falco January 17, 2013 11:34 AM  

Tad answered the question at 10:24am. In a clear and unambiguously straightforward manner.

Anonymous Mina January 17, 2013 11:36 AM  

equivocating, dodgey, side wise answer in : 3 - 2 - 1

I am starting to think we have at least one sociopath among us, not just in Wash DC ...

Anonymous p-dawg January 17, 2013 11:37 AM  

@Tad - a ban on weapons is literally disarmament. That is not a comment on whether disarmament is good or bad, just that you're pretty silly if you think that banning weapons is not disarmament. Additionally, there's a different word for a "right" that you can only exercise after explicitly asking permission. It's "privilege". Please note the difference.

Anonymous patrick kelly January 17, 2013 11:38 AM  

dh you pedantic anal twit. (is tard your sock puppet?)

When I look at the number of people murdered with handguns compared to rifles of any kind, including those scary lookin' "assault" weapons, it becomes very apparent that in a numbers game that reducing handgun murders would have a significantly greater affect on overall firearm related murders than even magically making all scary lookin' rifles go poof and disappears tomorrow.

(Stay with me here, it ain't brain surgery) So, if handgun bans, like in DC or Chicago,can be shown to have little or no effect on overall murders via firearms, it is very reasonable to infer that "gun bans don't work" when the proposed gun bans primarily deal with those relatively numerically insignificant scary lookin' assault weapons and their magazines with capacities over 10 rounds.

Truth is not established by some sophisticated academic wrangle over definitions and syntax, sometimes there are actual, observable results and consequences in the material world.



Anonymous Mina January 17, 2013 11:39 AM  

"Tad answered the question at 10:24am. In a clear and unambiguously straightforward manner."

... yet refused to go to the trouble, repeatedly, to simply copy it and paste it when requested to do OR to direct anyone to the answer.

Back in the day, that was what I would do at work when I didn't want to play someone's game and want them to play mine, instead.

Don't know what you call it, but it's dishonest at best.

Anonymous Tad January 17, 2013 11:39 AM  

@Vox Day

Answer the question clearly and in an unambiguously straightforward manner, Tad.:

January 17, 2013 10:24 AM

Anonymous MJC January 17, 2013 11:40 AM  

Tad cannot see past the current move. I'll bet he finds chess very confusing. "how can they put me in checkmate? All they've done is move a few pawns."

Anonymous Tad January 17, 2013 11:42 AM  

@Mina


... yet refused to go to the trouble, repeatedly, to simply copy it and paste it when requested to do OR to direct anyone to the answer.


If someone is going to make a demand that someone do something, without first have looked to see if they did it even after being told that they did it, they deserve no help.

Anonymous MOΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ January 17, 2013 11:42 AM  

They don't go into depth about what mental heath problem would restrict ones ability an owning a weapon.
Nor do they go into any depth about what they are going to look for in background checks.
An individual that was falsely put on drugs from a public school. will always be considered a mental problem. Today most children are put on drugs because the teachers have mental problems.

The government catch all phrase when checking your background
Anything you have said or done in the pass the government has the right to determine at any time that that individual will no longer have any rights.

Anonymous Bohm January 17, 2013 11:43 AM  

I don't whether to laugh or cry when reading the tortured logic and paranoid blather of US gun lovers.

Why is it 'impossible' to suppose, after the relentless succession of horrendous mass murders in the US, that Obama's new controls can't possibly be aimed at reducing the slaughter?

Could it be that the administration is seeing numbers which suggest that, actually, there is support (outside the right wing bubble) for such measures?

The paranoid blather is always about protecting Americans' 'freedom' from the tyranny of Washington. Then, in the next breath, it's about Americans' need to protect themselves from each other.

You'd think the US is currently the safest place on Earth. Or a totalitarian dictatorship waiting to happen.

Anonymous Tad January 17, 2013 11:43 AM  

@MJC

Tad cannot see past the current move. I'll bet he finds chess very confusing. "how can they put me in checkmate? All they've done is move a few pawns."

YEs, that's possible. The other possibility is that I'm not reading more into proposals than is really there and I'm not paranoid.

Anonymous Salt January 17, 2013 11:47 AM  

Ok, Tad. Your 10:24.

It's quite clear that the current increased attention on gun violence by the administration and their proposals are meant to remove easy access to unnecessarily and overly dangerous guns meant merely to kill large numbers of people and to better prevent guns from getting into the hands of those who are proven or highly likely to be mentally unstable and proven to be untrustworthy.

Easy access? Bans do not alter access, just drive them underground.

Now cops have repeatedly gunned down children, people of questionable mental agility, the elderly, engaged in home invasions, off'd pets, ad nauseum. Many in massive hails of ordinance. Shall we add in collateral damage the military has inflicted?

Who's unstable here?

Anonymous stg58/Animal Mother January 17, 2013 11:47 AM  

It doesn't matter what any of you say, including Vox. All Tad says to anything is "No, you are wrong. Wrong and crazy. It doesn't mean that. You are paranoid."

Anonymous Signe January 17, 2013 11:48 AM  

1. NICS only prohibits new sales of weapons. It has no bearing on whether or not you are allowed to posses the weapons you alread own. NICS does not determine whether or not you are eligible. It reflects that eligiblity.

dh, you're not even a good liar. I quote:

5. Propose rulemaking to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun.

What does that mean but assessing "whether or not you are allowed to possess the weapons you already own"?

Anonymous dh January 17, 2013 11:49 AM  

When I look at the number of people murdered with handguns compared to rifles of any kind, including those scary lookin' "assault" weapons, it becomes very apparent that in a numbers game that reducing handgun murders would have a significantly greater affect on overall firearm related murders than even magically making all scary lookin' rifles go poof and disappears tomorrow.

(Stay with me here, it ain't brain surgery) So, if handgun bans, like in DC or Chicago,can be shown to have little or no effect on overall murders via firearms, it is very reasonable to infer that "gun bans don't work" when the proposed gun bans primarily deal with those relatively numerically insignificant scary lookin' assault weapons and their magazines with capacities over 10 rounds.


I agree 100% with, in general, on gun violence. Banning a small subset of guns that is responsible for a disproportinately small amount of gun violence is not going to reduce the overall picture of gun homocides at all.

However, if you are only examining a small subset of gun homocides - mass killings - than it's a different story. And, if your goal is not to stop them, but to abate them (mainly, make them less deadly), than we are left to contemplate a different equation. That question is: are so called "assualt weapons", a fictional term, more deadly than hand guns (for which we have much greater data), and will restrictions on them reduce the deadliness of mass shootings.

For the first part of the question, perhaps someone else is more qualified to answer. It seems on the surface that a weapon that shoots heavier caliber bullets, at a faster speed, more quickly is deadlier than it's counterpart.

For the second part, I do not know the answer. There may be statistics to back it up. From a purely logical standpoint, it makes sense that if you have to stop to reload twice or three times as often, it decreases the amount of potential damage you can do by the time it takes to reload a magazine clip and resume firing. A few seconds, tops per magzine clip? Is this significant? I don't think it amounts to much.

Anonymous Tad January 17, 2013 11:50 AM  

@Bohm

Could it be that the administration is seeing numbers which suggest that, actually, there is support (outside the right wing bubble) for such measures?

Of course the administration sought knowledge of what the American people would support. Not only did they talk directly to interest groups across the spectrum, but they did extensive polling. They know their is support for the proposals they've offered.

Anonymous Signe January 17, 2013 11:53 AM  

The other possibility is that I'm not reading more into proposals than is really there and I'm not paranoid.

There's another square on my Troll Bingo card. One more, c'mon, make a crack about dissent not being allowed here or refer to the "real work" you have to do.

Anonymous dh January 17, 2013 11:54 AM  

Easy access? Bans do not alter access, just drive them underground.

This is clearly false. Compare Japan and the United States. There are of course handguns in Japan, but it is laughable to pretend that there are tens of millions of black market handguns in Japan. There are more deaths from accidental discharges of legally owned and operated handguns in the US than there are gun homocides in all of Japan.

Regarldess of whether or not Japan is a free society, and probably it's not, as VD as had said, the question of whether or not banning guns does't limit access is comically untrue. Banning guns can absolutely limit access.

(Not to say, however, that banning guns in any part of the US will limit access, or even the whole country. This is strictly a supply issue; even if no new guns were made, there are so many in circulation that the practical effect of a ban in the US would be epic failure).

Blogger Conan the Cimmerian, King of Aquilonia January 17, 2013 11:54 AM  

TAD: Yes, that's possible. The other possibility is that I'm not reading more into proposals than is really there and I'm not paranoid.

Quote:
If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them...'Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in,' I would have done it.
Diane Feinstein

Who again has been tapped and is in charge of the O's gun legislation?

Oh that's right, Feinstein.

So one must be paranoid to believe this woman has anything in mind that might be a brick by brick slow roll to registration and confiscation.

Anonymous WinstonWebb January 17, 2013 11:56 AM  

Bohm January 17, 2013 11:43 AM

I don't whether to laugh or cry when reading the tortured logic and paranoid blather of US gun lovers.


Go ahead and cry, Nancy. I think I speak for all of us when I say "We don't give a shit."

Anonymous Mina January 17, 2013 11:58 AM  

Tad:

"Back in the day, that was what I would do at work when I didn't want to play someone's game and want them to play mine, instead.

Don't know what you call it, but it's dishonest at best."

Being that VD is an expert at Game I am 100% sure he knows what's afoot here.

I look forward to your eventual evisceration. You are well on your way.

Not feeding the troll, just giving it fair warning. :-D

I do that for the rats and mice in my barn when the cats get them and start batting them about, too. Although it is kind of fun to watch them play with it before they kill it and eat it.

Anonymous dh January 17, 2013 11:58 AM  

5. Propose rulemaking to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun.

What does that mean but assessing "whether or not you are allowed to possess the weapons you already own"?


You fail, again.

Police seize weapons all the time. Let's say you are arrested, and charged with a non-gun minor crime, while carrying a weapon. Right now, you have a right to get your gun, that taken while you were in custody, back.

The proposed change would allow them to verify you are eligible to have that gun back. Right now, they do not routinely do this.

The NICS is the tool to determine if you are eligible to own a gun. It reflects whether or not you have some preclusion from owning a gun, that came up since you purchased it.

Anonymous Stilicho January 17, 2013 11:58 AM  

This?

to remove easy access to unnecessarily and overly dangerous guns meant merely to kill large numbers of people and to better prevent guns from getting into the hands of those who are proven or highly likely to be mentally unstable and proven to be untrustworthy.

and this?

The right to keep and bear arms is not threatened by the proposals offered yesterday.

Hippity hoppity bunny boy. It is your assertion that the purpose of the current gun control movement by elected officials is NOT to deprive citizens of the right to bear arms, it is, rather, to deprive SELECTED citizens of the right to bear SOME arms that leftists do not approve of. Correct?

Blogger Conan the Cimmerian, King of Aquilonia January 17, 2013 11:58 AM  

stg58/Animal Mother:

It doesn't matter what any of you say, including Vox. All Tad says to anything is "No, you are wrong. Wrong and crazy. It doesn't mean that. You are paranoid."


Could you be anymore correct?
And the answer would be: None, none more correct.

Anonymous Mr. Nightstick January 17, 2013 11:59 AM  

This post contains the 54th mention of the word Tad on this page.

Anonymous Mr. Nightstick January 17, 2013 12:00 PM  

Conan beat me to it. It is the 55th mention.

Anonymous Mina January 17, 2013 12:01 PM  

Mr. Nightstick January 17, 2013 12:00 PM:

I know it's become a troll feeding frenzy in here lately.

I'll be glad when VD finishes him off.

Anonymous dh January 17, 2013 12:01 PM  

They don't go into depth about what mental heath problem would restrict ones ability an owning a weapon.

This is false. This is spelled out in great detail in the law. It was recently amended in 2007 (under Pres. Bush, of course), to be even more specific.

Nor do they go into any depth about what they are going to look for in background checks.
This is false. The categories of people banned from new purchases is clearly enumerated in the law. To the degree that there is discretion (and there is some) involved, that is also clearly laid about the ATF.

An individual that was falsely put on drugs from a public school. will always be considered a mental problem. Today most children are put on drugs because the teachers have mental problems.
This is false. Mental health problems must be adjuticated to be entered into the NCIS and to prohibit you from buying a firearm.

The government catch all phrase when checking your background
Anything you have said or done in the pass the government has the right to determine at any time that that individual will no longer have any rights.

This is speculation.

Blogger Conan the Cimmerian, King of Aquilonia January 17, 2013 12:03 PM  

And please one of the troll geniuses, explain Switzerland and how all men are required to keep a fully automatic weapon in their home and their lack of gun violence.

I see your Japan and I raise you a Switzerland.
(and the answer to both is quite homogenous)

Anonymous Starbuck January 17, 2013 12:09 PM  

Background checks come in advance of obtaining the arm. It's not disarming...it's keeping highly dangerous weapons out of the hands of those proven to unwilling to follow simple laws.-Tad

Tell me Tad, how on earth will that stop someone who wants to shoot little children at a school? PLEASE tell me as I don't get it.

Will you answer be "He won't be able to purchase a gun legally if he is a criminal, mentally unstable. Plus if he was able to purchase a gun, he wouldn't be able top purchase an assualt rifle and certianly not 'clips' greater then 10 bullets."

This is where I see a lot of disconnects. A person can purchase a full automatic assault rifle. They are available illegaly. Plus they can purchase "clips" much greater then 30 rounds.
Gun control laws WILL not protect anyone. Don't you understand that? Please tell me you can understand this.

Passing laws does not stop criminals. Why? Because they are criminals! And that is what criminals do - BREAK LAWS!

Putting in ANY gun laws only restrict people who are obeying the laws. It in no way restricts law abiding citizens.

Please... tell me you understand?

Blogger Kentucky Packrat January 17, 2013 12:09 PM  

NICS does not confer or deny the right to own or purchase a gun.

This is disingenuous. FFLs are forbidden to sell to a person who fails an NICS check, and the current effort is to force private citizens to use FFLs to run an NICS check. Yes, there are ways to appeal failed NICS check, and 99+ percent of those appeals succeed, but a right impeded is a right denied.

i. By forcing a shooter to reload more often, and to carry more magazines clips. This simple math. For each second spent reloading, the shooter is not shooting. Smaller capacity magazine clips mean a lower bullet-to-weight ratio.

OK, people. If you don't know guns, don't pretend you do. I sometimes mess up and call magazines clips. THIS is a MecGar-made Beretta 92FS magazine, similar to the ones I lost in my recent boating accident. These are clips for an SKS (and poor clips at that). They don't look alike, they don't act alike, and there is absolutely, positively NOTHING in existence called a "magazine clip".

Now that we know you don't know much about guns, let's talk about magazine weight. They have almost none. My lost-in-the-boat-honest MecGars weighted about 4 ounces. Aluminum AR-15 magazines run about 3 ounces as well. Since 99% of the weight is the springs, smaller magazines will weight about the same amount, too. Putting a bag over your shoulder full of 7 round magazines is going to be no less easy than trying to pack ~ 1/5 the same number of 30 round magazines.

I shoot IDPA as a relaxation technique (which is good, because I can't shoot to win). My time with 10+1 magazines is around twice that of the people shooting .45ACP 1911s with 8+1 magazines, who reload more than I do. Why? When you train, reloading is not that hard to do fast. I can manage a reload in about 5 seconds if I don't care about dropping a non-empty magazine (against IDPA rules, BTW). I know people who can manage 2 seconds clean reloads without even trying hard.

The only mass shooting where reloading didn't occur was the Giffords shooting, and his gun jammed BECAUSE of his 30 round magazine. In Aurora and Sandy Hook, the fire rate was so low that any shooter could have reloaded with 5 round magazines, much less 15 or 30.

In a confined space like a room, a shotgun with a wide choke is a LOT more dangerous than an AR-15. The shotgun can dispense 9-12 .33 caliber balls per shell, which will dump full power into a human body. At the same distance, that .223 round is going in and going straight out without doing much more than tearing a small hole in the process. Within 100 yards, I would rather face an idiot with an AR-15 and a 30 round magazine than the same idiot with a double-barrelled shotgun.

Anonymous dh January 17, 2013 12:09 PM  

And please one of the troll geniuses, explain Switzerland and how all men are required to keep a fully automatic weapon in their home and their lack of gun violence.

I see your Japan and I raise you a Switzerland.
(and the answer to both is quite homogenous)


I do not hold up Japan or Switzerland as models for the US. It's virtually no comparison. Culturally, politically, ethnically - incompatible.

I only hold up Japan as refutation to people who claim that banning guns cannot restrict access to guns. This claim is not supported. One lesson to take from Japan, on gun control, is that for it to work, it must long-running, absolute, iron-fisted, and unconcerned with liberty.

Anonymous Starbuck January 17, 2013 12:11 PM  

it in no way restricts law abiding citizens should have been
it in no way restricts criminals.

Anonymous MOΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ January 17, 2013 12:12 PM  

Speeding is the number one cause of traffic death.
Drunk driving is the second, its an easy target for the government To go after.
Why are the fines and penalties less for speeding then for being under the influence?
The acts of free speech has caused more people to do wrong and commit violent acts against others then the second amendment has. The riots in the late sixties first started in the black churches.

The first amendment is the problem. It allows to many people with mental problems talk.

Blogger Conan the Cimmerian, King of Aquilonia January 17, 2013 12:16 PM  

I do not hold up Japan or Switzerland as models for the US. It's virtually no comparison. Culturally, politically, ethnically - incompatible.

Correct, which means it is pretty narrow and useless as an example of much of anything.

I only hold up Japan as refutation to people who claim that banning guns cannot restrict access to guns. This claim is not supported.

Still narrow and relatively useless.

Drugs and other contraband are banned in high security prisons and that works out well, doesn't it?

Your argument is pedantic and amounts to picking at nits.

Grasping at straws is perhaps a better way to characterize it.

Anonymous dh January 17, 2013 12:23 PM  

This is disingenuous. FFLs are forbidden to sell to a person who fails an NICS check, and the current effort is to force private citizens to use FFLs to run an NICS check. Yes, there are ways to appeal failed NICS check, and 99+ percent of those appeals succeed, but a right impeded is a right denied.

I don't agree. The NCIS is the tool of the underlying restriction. For a private person to person gun sale, the purchaser is still prohibited from making the gun purchase. The difference, under the NCIS system, is that the seller knows that the person is prohibited, and therefore cancels the transaction.

If you are to argue that any restriction on ownership of any weapon is a violation of the 2nd amendment, I agree with you, that the NCIS system is an infringement. If however, you agree that there are legitimate restrictions on ownership based on criminal background, illegal immigration status, etc than extending this verfication is not an infringement. It is simply enforcement of existing gun laws, extended to more people. The only people who would be denied a gun transaction are those people who were already ineligible.

Regarding magazine/clip - I apologize. This is an error and a stupid one. Because of the length of several posts I have been writing them offline from blogger, and copying/pasting them in, and now I've kept repeating it. In the process I have been losing some spacing and punctation. I am trying to capture that the restrictions are on both magazines, and clips.

I will, additionally, readily admit I am not a gun expert. I own one single handgun, an entirely unsexy and unappealing small caliber revolver. It has neither a magazine, or a clip, so far as I can tell.

The only mass shooting where reloading didn't occur was the Giffords shooting, and his gun jammed BECAUSE of his 30 round magazine. In Aurora and Sandy Hook, the fire rate was so low that any shooter could have reloaded with 5 round magazines, much less 15 or 30.
I agree. The main factor in the Sandy Hook shooting was that police were cowardly slow to intervene. Had the shooter been more proficent, the potential for carnage was even greater. An expert marksmen, in about 20 minutes of shooting, could easily have killed an even greater number of people. There is some small amount of good news involved which is that the most insane shooters are typically so insane that they are not comptent marksmen.

This is why it's important to point out that Pres. Obama has proposed two actions to deal with that critical failing of the police: to put more armed officers in schools, and to get police departments and other first repsonders to act more quickly and forcefully when dealing with mass shootings.

Anonymous MOΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ January 17, 2013 12:24 PM  

dh
your at home, when three home invaders break in with baseball bats. they are going to kill you because they just want to see some one die. What would be better a gun with 7 rounds or one with 17 rounds?

Blogger Conan the Cimmerian, King of Aquilonia January 17, 2013 12:25 PM  

MOΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ:
The first amendment is the problem.


Correct. Which is why we need sensible 1st amendment laws for the children. You aren't against common sense and reason for the children are you?

Restrictions will be as follows:



1. All photocopiers and printers shall be registered with the Federal government. Any sale or transfer of a photocopier or printer will require fingerprinting, photographing, permission from the chief law enforcement officer of the city/county, a $200 fee, and a permission slip from the Federal government. Possessing an unregistered photocopier or printer shall result in up to 10 years in Federal PMITA Prison.

2. Photocopier and printer paper trays shall only hold 7 sheets of paper. Possessing a paper tray of over 7 sheets of paper shall result in up to 10 years in Federal PMITA Prison.

3. All pens and pencils shall be registered with the Federal government. Possession of an unregistered pen or pencil shall result in up to 10 years in Federal PMITA Prison

4. ALL purchasers of pens and pencils shall be subject to a background check (this will close the infamous “OfficeMax Loophole”). Willful evasion of this shall result in up to 5 years in Federal PMITA Prison.

5. All sales of printer/copier/looseleaf/construction paper over 1000 sheets will be reported to the Federal government.

6. Anyone who wants to post on facebook or any other Internet discussion forum must apply for a license that puts their real name and address, username, and password into a registry with the Federal Government, and re-apply for that license every 5 years. Failure to do so or providing false information shall result in up to 10 years in Federal PMITA prison.

Now, you may say this sounds extreme. But when you look at the costs to society of libel and slander, and the children whose lives have been lost to cyberbullying, those who oppose these common-sense reasonable restrictions must examine their consciences.

More restrictions to come as new issues arise.

Anonymous dh January 17, 2013 12:26 PM  

Drugs and other contraband are banned in high security prisons and that works out well, doesn't it?
Yes, in supermaxes, it sure does. In general population prisons, not much.

Which basically underscores it, doesn't it? The Supermax is Japan, the general population prison is Chicago.

This is not nit-picking, however. A resounding criticism of gun bans in not only that they "don't work", but also that they "can't work". The "can't work" argument is not true, on it's face. There is contemprary, actual, empiracl evidence that it "can work", where work is defined as eliminating or nearly eliminating all gun homocides.

Blogger Joe A. January 17, 2013 12:28 PM  

OT: an awesome new video game coming out, sponsored by Obawma and friends...

www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2013/01/feds-fund-video-game-featuring-female.html

Anonymous dh January 17, 2013 12:29 PM  

your at home, when three home invaders break in with baseball bats. they are going to kill you because they just want to see some one die. What would be better a gun with 7 rounds or one with 17 rounds?

17. Whats the point?

Anonymous VD January 17, 2013 12:29 PM  

It's quite clear that the current increased attention on gun violence by the administration and their proposals are meant to remove easy access to unnecessarily and overly dangerous guns meant merely to kill large numbers of people and to better prevent guns from getting into the hands of those who are proven or highly likely to be mentally unstable and proven to be untrustworthy.

That's obviously incorrect. If they genuinely cared about keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally unstable, they'd call for putting the mentally unstable into institutions. The fact that they aren't addressing any other weapons, including weapons to which the mentally unstable are more prone to resort, proves this is not the genuine issue.

Try again.

Blogger Conan the Cimmerian, King of Aquilonia January 17, 2013 12:32 PM  

There is contemprary, actual, empiracl evidence that it "can work", where work is defined as eliminating or nearly eliminating all gun homocides(sic).

And there is also the counter example of Switzerland, awash in fully automatic weapons where all the men are required to keep one in their homes. And yet, no high gun violence and gun related homicides.

I saw your Japan and I raised you a Switzerland.

Anonymous BillB January 17, 2013 12:34 PM  

Some more historical information concerning the adoption of the Bill of Rights and the relationship of the Bill of Rights to the original Constitution. The central legal precept is: leges posteriores priores contrarias abrogant. Latter law supersedes prior law. Note the following Preamble of the Bill of Rights states this legal precept in its own language but with the same desired outcome.

The Preamble to The Bill of Rights

Congress of the United States
begun and held at the City of New-York, on
Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.

ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.


The answer is YES, the BoR restricts ALL powers previously delegated whether to Congress, the President, the Judicial branch, or to state governments through Article VI Paragraph 2.

When some claim our rights are not absolute, they are parroting claims by other persons. Nothing in the Constitution implicitly or explicitly makes this claim. The Declaration counters this claim through its "inalienable" statement concerning our Rights, Rights endowed by our Creator. And yes, IMO those who don't believe in the Creator, don't have these Rights. Don't like it, discuss it with whomever or whatever you believe in.

Anonymous dh January 17, 2013 12:36 PM  

And there is also the counter example of Switzerland, awash in fully automatic weapons where all the men are required to keep one in their homes. And yet, no high gun violence and gun related homicides.

I saw your Japan and I raised you a Switzerland.


Again, I don't see the point. We are not talking about how to stop gun violence. The question is whether a gun ban can in fact restrict access to guns. The claim is that it cannot, the gun access just goes underground. That can be true, but it is not necessarily true. See Japan.

Switzerland, having no gun ban and lots of guns, is great evidence of a different claim, namely, that the existence of guns in general does mean lots of gun violence.

Two examples, two different claims.

Anonymous Tad January 17, 2013 12:40 PM  

@stilcho


Hippity hoppity bunny boy. It is your assertion that the purpose of the current gun control movement by elected officials is NOT to deprive citizens of the right to bear arms, it is, rather, to deprive SELECTED citizens of the right to bear SOME arms that leftists do not approve of. Correct?


No. My assertion is exactly as I stated it.

Anonymous dh January 17, 2013 12:40 PM  

That's obviously incorrect. If they genuinely cared about keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally unstable, they'd call for putting the mentally unstable into institutions. The fact that they aren't addressing any other weapons, including weapons to which the mentally unstable are more prone to resort, proves this is not the genuine issue.

1. The other weapons to which the mentally unstable are prone to resort are not responsible for mass killings.

2. This does not follow. Because one action that could be taken, is not taken, does not mean that the goal is not the same. E.g. I am a massive fat-ass, like most Americans. Because I have not started exercising regularly and taking care of my health does not mean I am not concerned with my fat-assery. It only means that whatever my concerns are, they are not sufficent enough to cause me to take that step.

3. Finally, even if this line of thought did follow, Pres. Obama is in fact proposing changes to mental health funding, so that more people can be put into institutions. This is referenced in the list of executive orders regarding mental health funding.

Anonymous Bohm January 17, 2013 12:42 PM  

Switzerland compared with UK, firearm related death rates per 100,000
UK figures are 2012, Swiss are 2011, nontheless indicative

homicide: Swiss 0.52. UK 0.04
Suicide: Swiss 3.15 UK 0.17
unintentional: Swiss 0.10 UK 0.01
intentional: Swiss 0.07 UK 0.02
Total death rate: Swiss: 3.84. UK 0.25

Plus, nobody takes the Swiss army seriously.

Anonymous patrick kelly January 17, 2013 12:45 PM  

dh: "The NICS is the tool to determine if you are eligible to own a gun. It reflects whether or not you have some preclusion from owning a gun, that came up since you purchased it."

And when they do not return the gun as a result, they have disarmed that person and confiscated his firearm.

" One lesson to take from Japan, on gun control, is that for it to work, it must long-running, absolute, iron-fisted, and unconcerned with liberty."

Yes, which is completely, unreservedly, absolutely, unacceptable to me.

Hey, FYI, they still haven't found a scary lookin' rifle with hi-capacity magazines that was used at Sandy Hook. All they found was some handguns at the scene and a shotgun in his trunk. The whole tenuous connection with a Bushmaster AR-15 is based on a statement made by a coroner in answer to a leading question from a reporter about whether or not the wounds were from a hi-powered assault rifle, and reports that they guy's mother owned one. Either the coroner's statement is wrong ( I highly suspect), or the weapon and/or shooter have not been found or correctly identified (possible, food for thought).

Anonymous outlaw x January 17, 2013 12:45 PM  

They dont want your guns they eant your bullets.

Anonymous MOΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ January 17, 2013 12:46 PM  

dh
17. Whats the point?
If you know that 17 is better then why does the government want you to only have 7.?

Blogger Conan the Cimmerian, King of Aquilonia January 17, 2013 12:47 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Anonymous WinstonWebb January 17, 2013 12:47 PM  

Bohm January 17, 2013 12:42 PM
...nobody takes the Swiss army seriously.


...nobody takes your posts seriously.

Go cry somewhere else, Nancy.

Blogger Conan the Cimmerian, King of Aquilonia January 17, 2013 12:48 PM  

dh:

Again, I don't see the point. We are not talking about how to stop gun violence.


dh: There is contemprary, actual, empiracl evidence that it "can work", where work is defined as eliminating or nearly eliminating all gun homocides.

So either we are talking about it or not. You seem to be talking about it, but then claim you are not.

Either plentiful guns are related to violence/homicide, or they are not.

Either no/highly restricted guns are related to violence/homicide, or they are not.

Either you are being pedantic or obtuse.

Nit picking, grasping at straws, etc.

Anonymous MOΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ January 17, 2013 12:51 PM  

dh
3. Finally, even if this line of thought did follow, Pres. Obama is in fact proposing changes to mental health funding, so that more people can be put into institutions. This is referenced in the list of executive orders regarding mental health funding.

There are medical professionals that will say being fat is a mental problem. therefore you will be denied the right to bear arms.

Blogger Kentucky Packrat January 17, 2013 12:52 PM  

However, if you are only examining a small subset of gun homocides - mass killings - than it's a different story. And, if your goal is not to stop them, but to abate them (mainly, make them less deadly), than we are left to contemplate a different equation. That question is: are so called "assualt weapons", a fictional term, more deadly than hand guns (for which we have much greater data), and will restrictions on them reduce the deadliness of mass shootings.

The issue here is that there are less than 75 people killed a year in mass shootings, and less than 400 people killed per year by rifles of any kind in the US. All it would take is less than 400 Defensive Gun Uses a year with guns over 7 rounds in capacity to make such a law a negative upon society. The recent DGU event in Atlanta where a woman wasn't able to stop an attacker with 6 .38s clearly show how this is possible, given that there are around 1 million DGUs per year, the concept that more than 400 deaths are prevented by guns holding over 7 cartridges is a near-certainty.

Therefore, dh, you are proposing to hurt the US.

Anonymous Mina January 17, 2013 12:52 PM  

"Switzerland compared with UK, firearm related death rates per 100,000
UK figures are 2012, Swiss are 2011, nontheless indicative"

Use violent crime rates, not gun crimes. UK has onerous gun bans, so they kill each other with their hands.

Strangling, beating, stabbing, etc all create a much higher violent crime rate in the UK vs most countries in the world (IIRC they are 4th highest.)

Blogger Conan the Cimmerian, King of Aquilonia January 17, 2013 12:53 PM  

In which Bohm proves the point.

Switzerland is awash in fully auto weapons and yet they have approx. 10 homicides per 2 million to GB's (all guns banned) 1 per 2 million.

Anonymous Tad January 17, 2013 12:53 PM  

@Vox Day


That's obviously incorrect. If they genuinely cared about keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally unstable, they'd call for putting the mentally unstable into institutions.


Or, they could have called for redefinitions of what is a mental disorder. Or they could have called for a public disclosure of all those that have taken mood altering medication. Or they could have simply called for jailing anyone acting in a suspciously paranoid way. You are right, there are a number of things they could have called for to address he issue of keeping guns out of the hands of mentally unstable people. It turns out they only took a few of the possible steps. The fact that they didn't take all possible steps doesn't meant they aren't concerned with doing this. It could mean they didn't think all the possible steps were constitutional. It could me they couldn't pass all the possible steps. It could mean that many of the possible steps would have negative consequences they didn't want to see occur.

By your reasoning, the fact that we did not nuke Afghanistan does not mean we were not serious about taking out the Taliban. It was an option. By your reasoning, the fact that a single payer plan was not ultimately proposed in the Obamacare legislation means the administration was not serious about reforming healthcare. It was an option. By your reasoning, the fact that Obama did not call for legislation banning all hand guns is evidence he didn't want to address gun violence. It was an option.

Anonymous dh January 17, 2013 12:55 PM  

And when they do not return the gun as a result, they have disarmed that person and confiscated his firearm.
Yes, but not as a result of the NCIS. The NCIS was the tool; the disarming happened because of whatever the NCIS reflected. In that case your critcism should be for the underlying regulation - whether it's a felony rule, a mental health rule, etc.

This is like when morons blame credit reporting agencies for preventing them from buying a house or a new car. The reporting agency is not the one with the problem, the problem comes from the underlying person who provides data to the agency.

Yes, which is completely, unreservedly, absolutely, unacceptable to me.
Fine. Fair enough. The only point made, and accepted, is that claiming a gun ban "can't work" is not true. It can.

Hey, FYI, they still haven't found a scary lookin' rifle with hi-capacity magazines that was used at Sandy Hook. All they found was some handguns at the scene and a shotgun in his trunk. The whole tenuous connection with a Bushmaster AR-15 is based on a statement made by a coroner in answer to a leading question from a reporter about whether or not the wounds were from a hi-powered assault rifle, and reports that they guy's mother owned one. Either the coroner's statement is wrong ( I highly suspect), or the weapon and/or shooter have not been found or correctly identified (possible, food for thought).

It is food for thought. At this point there's no reason that it hasn't been clarified.

Anonymous dh January 17, 2013 1:02 PM  

There are medical professionals that will say being fat is a mental problem. therefore you will be denied the right to bear arms.

This is false. The law as it stands today says that you must be adjuicated of that. Which means, some due process. Additionally, in 2007, the list of mental illness that would trigger a ban was enumerated, and shortened, after negogiations with the NRA. This was passed into law as the NICS Improvement Act of 2007.

So, once again, you are just making stuff up.

Anonymous civilServant January 17, 2013 1:04 PM  

I agree 100% with, in general, on gun violence. Banning a small subset of guns that is responsible for a disproportinately small amount of gun violence is not going to reduce the overall picture of gun homocides at all.

However, if you are only examining a small subset of gun homocides - mass killings - than it's a different story.


If one bans a category of firearms because they kill many people on rare occasions then banning many firearms because they kill many people every year naturally follows. Yes?

Anonymous dh January 17, 2013 1:05 PM  

Either you are being pedantic or obtuse. Nit picking, grasping at straws, etc.
This really isn't that hard. If there are no guns, there is no gun violence. Before guns were invented, go back 2000 years, there was no gun violence. So we have evidence that having no guns means no gun violence. Likewise, in Japan, there are virtually no guns, currently. And there is, likewise, virtually no gun violence.

That's all this means. It means nothing else, nothing more.

Anonymous Godfrey January 17, 2013 1:09 PM  

“So this is how liberty dies… With thunderous applause”

Sometimes I think it a curse to possess keen sense of consciousness and a critical mind. The life of a nitwit would be so much simpler.

Blogger Kentucky Packrat January 17, 2013 1:09 PM  

This is why it's important to point out that Pres. Obama has proposed two actions to deal with that critical failing of the police: to put more armed officers in schools, and to get police departments and other first repsonders to act more quickly and forcefully when dealing with mass shootings.

Mr. Obama proposed the first BECAUSE the NRA did so. You should remember that the administration's proxies first went to the press to make fun of this proposal and to call it outrageous. Then Mrs. Boxer took ownership of the proposal, and all of the sudden Mr. Biden and Mr. Obama always wanted it.

Off-site first responders can NEVER respond quickly enough to prevent events like Sandy Hook. Big city SWAT teams and the military have learned this the hard way. If you face multiple attackers, 5 minutes is enough to set up a killing zone (and every report from every one of these events has been of multiple shooters, until stories get straightened out). If you get yourself killed, you can't help the civilians, so you have to move methodically.

Clackmas is just the latest to prove that the only serious way to prevent a mass event is to have an on-site armed person, whether civilian or police. When faced with armed response, the universal action is to commit suicide, even when the good guy doesn't shoot.

The only thing Mr. Obama's proposals will do is hurt civilians ability to respond. Crazy people and the suicidal are harder to stop with pistol rounds; they tend to bull through shots that would make most people surrender or go into shock. That means you have to shoot them more. Less bullets available means less shots available, and that makes the job harder.

Good news: New York's 7 bullet ban doesn't exclude law enforcement. FFLs are not delivering purchased magazines, to keep from breaking the law. Now if the FFLs would stop delivering the guns in protest too, life would prove to be more fair.

Anonymous Mina January 17, 2013 1:09 PM  

"Before guns were invented, go back 2000 years, there was no gun violence."

So what? You are just as dead getting clubbed over the head as you are if you are shot.

It is a silly argument. You can't unring a bell. It is logistically impossible and totally unreasonable to ban "things" for which there is a demand. Guns exist. Deal with it. Live in the real world.

Anonymous Edjamacator January 17, 2013 1:11 PM  

Tad wouldn't recognize that his point is invalid even if a jackboot with an Obama "O" on it crushes his head into the dirt. If he was able to look past the boot and see Obama himself leading an army of shock troopers as they shot up the populace waving an Obama flag and crying out "Glory to Obama! Kill all who oppose him!" all he would still think was "when did conservatives get into power?"

Tad's probably right up there with Sharpton wanting Obama's face on Mt. Rushmore. I wouldn't be surprised if he even prayed to him and thanked him for his daily bread. Regressives have a sick worship desire towards Obama and have to filter every little political thing through the "Obama is Great" screen before processing it.

Anonymous The Truth January 17, 2013 1:12 PM  

The divide here is very simple, and it can be shown by answering one question:

"Is it EVER acceptable for a citizen to violently resist a government agent when the latter is performing an action as prescribed by law?"

If your answer is "Yes", then you have no common ground and will never find a compromise with one who answers "No".


Anonymous Jack Amok January 17, 2013 1:14 PM  

If South Africa is anything to go by, it's not so much that they want to destroy you. It's that they want to make you more dependent on the state for security. They can then bestow protection on you if you play nice, or take it away and let "regular crime" deal with.

Vrye is right. Dependency is their real goal. They want to remove all ability for people to fend for themselves, either economically or in physical self-defense. It's all part of centralizing power in their hands, taking it out of ours.

They want to be slave masters, but they don't want to think of themselves as such. They want us to beg them, beg their superior, noble, sophisticated selves, for their help, protection and wisdom.

Since they're pretty much morons, the only people who beg them for help are the helpless. They need more helpless people. Gun Control is about making us helpless.

Anonymous Mina January 17, 2013 1:14 PM  

Here's a basic concept that seems to be missed here:

no gun violence <> no violent crime

<> means "not equal", "not equivalent"



Anonymous Edjamacator January 17, 2013 1:14 PM  

This really isn't that hard. If there are no guns, there is no gun violence.

Are you still dead if you get stabbed enough?

And what then? Ban knives from everyone? This really isn't that hard. People will always have the violent among them, and it's better to be equally or better armed than they are than it is to be helpless.

Anonymous Signe January 17, 2013 1:16 PM  

...in 2007, the list of mental illness that would trigger a ban was enumerated, and shortened, after negogiations with the NRA. This was passed into law as the NICS Improvement Act of 2007.

Do you really not see the big problem with a law so broad that even its makers thought it was over the top?

Anonymous Tad January 17, 2013 1:17 PM  

@Edjamacator

Tad's probably right up there with Sharpton wanting Obama's face on Mt. Rushmore. I wouldn't be surprised if he even prayed to him and thanked him for his daily bread. Regressives have a sick worship desire towards Obama and have to filter every little political thing through the "Obama is Great" screen before processing it.

I don't think there is any room on Mt. Rushmore. Anyway, I prefer to wait to see what happens in the second term.

Anonymous Porky? January 17, 2013 1:19 PM  

WWTD?

What Would Trayvon Do?

Anonymous MOΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ January 17, 2013 1:20 PM  

This is false. The law as it stands today says that you must be adjuicated of that. Which means, some due process. Additionally, in 2007, the list of mental illness that would trigger a ban was enumerated, and shortened, after negogiations with the NRA. This was passed into law as the NICS Improvement Act of 2007.

So, once again, you are just making stuff up.

No more then the government makes stuff up so they can create more laws and rule to control the people. I m not making stuff up. Your fat and have a mental problem. Your Like most mental people unable to control themselves.

What are you going to do when people like me are in power and want to put fat people away?

Anonymous Signe January 17, 2013 1:22 PM  

And what then? Ban knives from everyone?

It so happens they've thought about it.

Anonymous hygate January 17, 2013 1:24 PM  

25 million dead

The population of the US in 1969 was around 202 million. So one out of eight people "eliminated."

Anonymous MOΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ January 17, 2013 1:29 PM  

They should outlaw clothes. Naked people have the lowest crime rate.

Anonymous Edjamacator January 17, 2013 1:29 PM  

I don't think there is any room on Mt. Rushmore. Anyway, I prefer to wait to see what happens in the second term.

Ah, so it's not out of the question, you just think another monument something nearly as huge should be made for him? I know you think you're kidding, but c'mon.....you're not, are you? Ask yourself deep down why you stand up for him despite all the arguments that show you the truth.

Anonymous MOΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ January 17, 2013 1:32 PM  

In the beginning man was naked

Blogger Cogitans Iuvenis January 17, 2013 1:33 PM  

You will have to provide more than just that quote as it lacks context. As it stands 'those attempting to disarm' could refer to Obama and his administration', which would be a hyperbolic statement imo, or it could simply refer to the general impetus of those who disarm indiviuals, in which case his statement is not without merit. Hitler did disarm the Jews and lennin did disarm the peasents in order to make.it easier to exterminate their opposition.

In the end, regardless of the veracity of VDOV statement, the disarmament if the people is a grave concern. While Obama might not wish to completly disarm Americans, which I doubt given background in academia, his steps at some restrictions are dangerous because of the tendancy of government creep. Hitler didn't create government gun control, the Weimar republic did, he simply took it a step further.

Anonymous robwbright January 17, 2013 1:33 PM  

This Federalist Paper from James Madison is beautiful - and makes the purpose of the 2nd Amendment quite clear... I note that Madison's position was that supporters of a regular, standing U.S. Army were "traitors".

http://patriotpost.us/documents/345

Anonymous dh January 17, 2013 1:35 PM  

It is a silly argument. You can't unring a bell. It is logistically impossible and totally unreasonable to ban "things" for which there is a demand. Guns exist. Deal with it. Live in the real world.

This is untrue. That's the point. You can unring the bell, see Japan.

Anonymous Elmer (just plain ole Elmer, ya know, like in yogert) January 17, 2013 1:38 PM  

Need I remind everyone here why we are talking about gun control.

On a similar and relative matter, we are discussing a "crime scene." In all matters of crime, "follow the money." So, in getting to the heart of the matter, Barnewall (expert in money and banking) has responded personally to me in the last 24 hours. This was her responses to me, re: the email I sent to the LRC Blog members:

I totally agree, we are in a war.  it is a very different kind of war, but it is a war, nonetheless.

The alex jones rejection of the existence of leo/lee wanta.  I have been told he is fed information by the CIA -- not that he works for them or that he's a shill, but that they do provide him information and sometimes it's false-flag based... like his information about Lee.  How can the agency admit that he's real and alive when they stole his/our funds by telling banks around the world that he was dead?  answer:  they can't.  They'd be liable for the dollars taken from the international banks to which they lied.  What i've heard -- and i have a lot of intel sources outside of Lee -- is that Jones is given information by the agency and sometimes they slip him a mickey.

They are attacking the independent banks in this country with a vengence -- the banks that are the primary funders of independent businesses.  Do away with the funding, the big banks don't want independent businesses as clients, and the middle class disappears.  Add to that the unlawful foreclosures -- the primary asset of the middle class is the primary residence.  Destroy the value of that asset via the fraudulent and worthless mortgage-backed securities, and you destroy the middle class.  It makes me ill.

Lee believes that the fedres needs to be absorbed by treasury and i agree... but i don't trust the Tim Geithners or the Jack Lews of the world any more than i trust Ben Bernanke.  I wrote an article for another publication about the importance of investigating the topic "immoral debt."  What we have is immoral debt... lee talked about it when i inverviewed on december 20th... he mentioned how we can do away with the $10 trillion of immoral debt that was taken on by the fedres that is unconstitutional debt... the definition of immoral debt, in my opinion.

I will say that covering the Wanta material isn't the safest thing someone can do.  These are the most powerful people in the world and payment to lee wanta represents a failure on their part.  They don't like failures and they like even less what Lee would do with his money that would be destructive to the Rothschild cabal.

The danger in getting involved with the Wanta material -- the truth is, though, that if they all did their jobs and reported it, the truth would come out and no one would get hurt... they aren't going to get rid of so many people

There are hundreds of pages of documentation proving that what is being said in this book is accurate.  If they won't cover the story because they think it's a false flag, please have them show me their documents.  I've shown them mine.

I wrote in the article about how the middle class was being destroyed -- and why (because they want only a working/slave class and an elite class that is present in all communistic and socialist forms of government)


If anyone here wants the full context of the communication (original email with responses), email me at dhh451 at gmail. Be glad to share this with you. As Barnewall so succinctly stated:

...the truth is, though, that if they all did their jobs and reported it, the truth would come out and no one would get hurt...

Let the paradigm shift begin...

Anonymous Tad January 17, 2013 1:38 PM  

@Edjumacator
Ah, so it's not out of the question, you just think another monument something nearly as huge should be made for him? I know you think you're kidding, but c'mon.....you're not, are you? Ask yourself deep down why you stand up for him despite all the arguments that show you the truth.

I'm certainly not kidding that Mt. Rushmore is filled. Plus, look how long it has taken to get that crazy Crazy Horse mountain carving done.

So, I say no to a mountain carving for Obama. A statue is good, but then I'd argue a statue somewhere on public land for every president is a good idea. But again, lets wait until the end of the 2nd term.

As for why I stand up for him, it's simple, his view of policy more adheres somewhat closely to mine. So, from a political perspective, i support him. However, I'm not sure what you are referring to when you say "despite all the arguments that show you the truth."

Anonymous Mina January 17, 2013 1:39 PM  

I don't live in Japan nor do I want to so I don't give a rats ass what they did there.

Japan was not a constitutional republic, right? Then it's irrelevant.

Anonymous dh January 17, 2013 1:39 PM  

Off-site first responders can NEVER respond quickly enough to prevent events like Sandy Hook. Big city SWAT teams and the military have learned this the hard way. If you face multiple attackers, 5 minutes is enough to set up a killing zone (and every report from every one of these events has been of multiple shooters, until stories get straightened out). If you get yourself killed, you can't help the civilians, so you have to move methodically.
Agreed.

Mr. Obama proposed the first BECAUSE the NRA did so. You should remember that the administration's proxies first went to the press to make fun of this proposal and to call it outrageous. Then Mrs. Boxer took ownership of the proposal, and all of the sudden Mr. Biden and Mr. Obama always wanted it.
Agreed. It still doesn't mean he didn't take actions to make it actually happen. He has done so. It doesn't mean that he's a good guy, it just means what it means. The NRA proposed it, Pres. Obama eventually agreed.

Clackmas is just the latest to prove that the only serious way to prevent a mass event is to have an on-site armed person, whether civilian or police. When faced with armed response, the universal action is to commit suicide, even when the good guy doesn't shoot.
Agreed, this seems to be the same end-game for most of the worst of the shooters. Many seem to have no intention of going to jail. The sooner you get resistance in the face, the sooner they pop-off plan-B.

Anonymous dh January 17, 2013 1:43 PM  

I don't live in Japan nor do I want to so I don't give a rats ass what they did there.

Japan was not a constitutional republic, right? Then it's irrelevant.

Japan is a constitutional republic. It is not irrelevant in discussing the range of possibilities.

It is incorrect to say that something is "not possible", when what you mean is "not possible, in America". Especially when the largest basis of VD's support for his "guns are not the problem" defense is based on international data.

Anonymous dh January 17, 2013 1:44 PM  

And what then? Ban knives from everyone? This really isn't that hard. People will always have the violent among them, and it's better to be equally or better armed than they are than it is to be helpless.

This really isn't the point of what I argued. The claim is out there that you simply cannot effectively ban guns. Because of the black market That claim is not accurate.

Anonymous dh January 17, 2013 1:46 PM  

What are you going to do when people like me are in power and want to put fat people away?
I will vote against you. And pressure my representatives to oppose your policies.

And, in the end, if that's not enough, I will decide whether going to jail or complying with the duly enacted law of the land is the right decision for me, at that time.

Blogger IM2L844 January 17, 2013 1:46 PM  

Obama is clearly trying to egg-on some kind of societal confrontation. He chooses his rhetoric very carefully to lovingly stroke the sentiments of Marxist liberals and unnecessarily push the already inflamed buttons of libertarian leaning conservatives. Why?

Was it really necessary for him, in his snarky little speech, to characterize the anti-gun-control lobby as being unreasonbly (and I quote) "opposed to gun safety" and therefore insinuating his opposition is irrational, and uncaring? Nobody is opposed to gun safety. Since his proposals are, for all practical purposes, toothless, he is obviously just stirring the pot. To what end?

Anonymous dh January 17, 2013 1:46 PM  

WELL

It's been really fun. Unfortunately, offline until I think Sunday GMT.

Anonymous Elmer (just plain ole Elmer, ya know, like in yogert) January 17, 2013 1:46 PM  

What will the 21st century "Lexington Green" look like?

I fear and predict it may well be a County Sheriff S.W.A.T. vs. a Federal Govt. S.W.A.T....

These will be the first official shots fired...

Anonymous Mina January 17, 2013 1:49 PM  

IM2L844 January 17, 2013 1:46 PM:

Thank you for bringing us full circle.
Great questions.

Blogger Cogitans Iuvenis January 17, 2013 1:49 PM  

@ DH

Japan is a terrible example. They are culturally different from the US to a great degree. While their are less acts of violence done to others, they are far more likely to committ suicide. Most importantly, Japan has a police state that would make even the most law and order republican uncomfortable. There have been numerous complaints about coerced confessions and other actions that are positively unacceptable in the US. If you are going to compare the US to another country then you need to compare apples to apples. Japan is an orange.

Anonymous Jake January 17, 2013 1:50 PM  

dh,

Just a few weeks ago Vox posted statistics on this. Japan is the exception not the rule (probably a cultural phenomenon, not a gun-availability thing). Please also consider the multitude of OTHER nations that have extensive gun control and THEIR crime rates rather than just isolating one of cases that support your position and pretending that proves some sort of causation where there isn't even a correlation.

1 – 200 of 552 Newer› Newest»

Post a Comment

NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS. Anonymous comments will be deleted.

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts