Tag: gun control

It’s Not Justice, But It Could Have Been Worse

KevinLeave a comment

Thanks to Kim du Toit, I now know what happened in the case of Ronald Dixon, the Navy vet who shot an intruder in his home. Dixon discovered the intruder in his son’s bedroom. Said intruder had a LONG criminal record.

Dixon was charged for using an unlicensed handgun to defend himself and his family. This was, after all, New York City – where they consider deporting resident aliens who shoot robbers because said alien used an unlicensed handgun while defending his life.

Of course, if you WANT a permit in NYC, it costs a minimum of $329 and takes a minimum of six months to get – unless, of course, you’re politically connected or a celebrity (but I repeat myself.)

In Mr. Dixon’s case, enough people raised enough stink that the prosecutor found it necessary to reduce (but not drop) the charges to “disorderly conduct.” Dixon will, unfortunately, serve three days, but the conviction will not show up on his record. So, supposedly he could still qualify for a permit. But seeing that the number of permits in NYC has been declining, and given the difficulty and expense involved in getting one (especially since Mr. Dixon currently works two jobs) I don’t see how he’s going to have the time.

Now, how about we raise a stink and get Sr. Acosta’s charges reduced to “disorderly conduct.”

And let’s see if we can get some NYC District Attorneys out of office next year.

One other thing: The NY Post editorial called Acosta and others who recently defended themselves in NYC “vigilantes.” Note to NY Post: Use a dictionary. A vigilante is defined as “a member of a volunteer committee organized to suppress and punish crime summarily.” What these guys did was self-defense. Let me see if I can clarify the difference. A vigilante is someone like, oh, say Barbara Lipscomb, (AKA Barbara Graham) who shot a young man who she thought was responsible for the death of her son. He wasn’t. But even if he had been, that would have been the act of a vigilante, as per the dictionary definition. But shooting someone who is directly threatening your life and property? That’s called self-defense – not “vilgilantism.”

Oh, and Mrs. Graham/Lipscomb/Martin? She was one of the organizers of the original Million Mom March. And she was supported during her trial by Bernadette Trowell, the President of the MMM organization.

Odd, that.

Real Quick:

KevinLeave a comment

The tidal wave of hits from getting Instalaunched seems to have passed. For those of you who decided to hang around like driftwood washed ashore, welcome! I promise to build a bonfire I’ll try to post something worth reading this evening.

In the meantime, read up on Canada’s complete disaster otherwise known as their attempt to register all (legal, honest) gun owners and their firearms.

It seems that they had recent computer crashes that wiped out quite an unknown number of names in the registry. But that’s just the latest in a long series of problems.

Here’s what has happened since May 7:

– The Justice Department revealed it had awarded $400,000 to a gun control coalition last year and the money was used to hire lobbyists to press the government to maintain the program;

I cannot help but wonder if The Brady Center or The Violence Policy Center receives federal dollars. I know that the Centers for Disease Control are using tax dollars to promote gun control as a “health care” topic.

– The former head of the centre said no one was fired at the centre despite Prime Minister Jean Chretien’s claim that people were dismissed or demoted as the costs of the registry soared;

You mean he lied? But, but, he’s a government official!

– It turns out the government had spent at least $17 million more on the firearms registry than the outrageous $1 billion cost cited by Auditor General Sheila Fraser last fall; and

– Ontario announced it will join Saskatchewan, Nova Scotia, Alberta and Manitoba in refusing to prosecute people who have not registered their guns, leaving the job up to already over-burdened federal prosecutors.

The registry, which was sold to Parliament and the general public on the promise that it would only cost taxpayers $2 million, and then be self-supported from fees. Now, according to this piece, the bill has exceeded the $1 billion that the Auditor General projected. I have to give her the benefit of the doubt – she did say that the accounting was so screwed up and that the information was so hard to drag out of anybody that at best the $1BN was a guess, but she figured it would take until 2005 to hit that mark. It’s only 2003. And estimates are that at least a quarter of Canadian gun owners have not registered. There’s some question as to just how many gun owners there are in Canada, but the government estmates that 500,000 owners have not complied. They have until the end of this month.

On the good side, five of Canada’s provinces have refused to prosecute violators, leaving it up to the federal government to enforce.

But gun control proponents here think, for some reason, that American gun owners would go along with the idea.

Not bleeding likely.

You People ELECTED This Asshat?

KevinLeave a comment

More from the Pasadena Star News article about the proposed 10¢ per round tax:

Assemblyman Mark Ridley- Thomas, D-Los Angeles, authored AB 992 because he said he believes the state’s health- care system needs relief during the current fiscal crisis. Officials estimate that the state’s budget shortfall is about $38 billion over the next 13 months.

Ammunition qualifies for a sin tax because guns are even more harmful to society than alcohol and cigarettes, he said.

“Alcohol and cigarettes are not by definition designed to do destruction. Guns are,’ Ridley- Thomas said.

Really? Let’s see: According to this Centers for Disease Control site, “Cigarette smoking accounts for approximately one in every five deaths in the United States.” Some 2,403,351 deaths occurred in the U.S. in 2000. That would make tobacco the cause of some 480,000 deaths that year.

According to this CDC page, “Excessive alcohol consumption is an important factor in more than 100,000 deaths in the United States each year.” According to this CDC report alcohol is directly responsible for 19,358 deaths not including “accidents, homicides, and other causes indirectly related to alcohol use as well as deaths due to fetal alcohol syndrome.” According to this site Fetal Alcohol Syndrome affects about 1 in 1,000 newborns and “(t)wo to three times that many are born with an alcohol-related developmental disorder, but they do not have any obvious physical abnormalities.” There were 3,959,417 births reported in the U.S. in 1999. That means that over 3,900 infants were the victims of Fetal Alcohol Syndrome. Some 8,000 to 11,000 more suffered from alcohol related disorders. I thought the big concern was over The Children(tm)? Alcohol was a contributing factor according to this CDC site, in 17,448 motor vehicle fatalities. That’s on top of the 19,358 deaths caused directly by alcohol, and just a small part of the 100,000 deaths annually.

Death by gunshot, both homicide and suicide accounted for 28,663 of the total, and many of them also involved alcohol or other, illicit drugs. If you take suicides out of the equation (and I do, because I don’t believe that the method of suicide has much to do with the act of suicide) the number drops to 11,807.

Considering that there are an acknowledged 200,000,000 plus guns in private hands, that’s an awfully low number for something “designed to do destruction.”

Gunshot wounds, about half of them accidental, cost the health-care system more than $250 million annually, Ridley-Thomas said.

Yeah? According to this site, the percentage of accidental gunshot injury nationwide over the period from 1993 to 1997 is 20%. Are Californians somehow more accident-prone than the rest of America? And according to this site, “the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration reported that alcohol-related crashes in 2000 were associated with more than $51 billion in total costs.” That’s Billion. With a “B.” Divide equally by 50 states (although California has far in excess of 1/50th the number of automobiles in the country) and you’re still looking at over a billion dollars.

“We just have the proliferation of these weapons of destruction and it has a completely negative effect on society,’ he said.

It doesn’t have a negative effect on ME. It doesn’t have a negative effect on the absolute minimum 108,000 people each year who use a gun to defend themselves.

Come out and say it, goddamnit. If you want to ban guns, say it. Stop this incremental death-by-a-thousand-cuts before you piss us off enough to do what the Declaration of Independence says we ought to. Put it up to the voters and let them decide. Enough of this nanny-state “we know what’s best for you” bullshit!

Where the Hell Were the Parents – Follow-up

KevinLeave a comment

Well, right on schedule: JoinTogether jumps on the “WE NEED MORE GUN LAWS!” bandwagon and fires up the calliope before the blood dries. Right. All the laws we’ve got now haven’t helped. Let’s do it some more, only harder.

“Sadly, school shootings and gun suicides have become all too familiar in the United States and Pennsylvania,” said Miller, “but they needn’t be. These avoidable incidents don’t happen in other developed countries, where guns are not readily available for disturbed youth to take to school to threaten or harm students, adults or themselves, like occurred today in Wellsboro.”

They don’t drug their children instead of raising them in other developed countries, either. We didn’t have these kinds of “disturbed kids” in the 40’s or 50’s or 60’s or even 70’s. Why was that? Guns were certainly “readily available” back then. What’s changed isn’t “gun availability.”

Edbril continued, “A law was recently passed in New Jersey which will soon require all new handguns to include childproofing technology that will prevent their use by anyone but authorized adult users, thus reducing the potential for the sort of tragedies we have seen three times in six weeks here.”

Which will have absolutely no effect on the 200,000,000+ guns already out there you IDIOTS. And the “child” was 12 years old. He’s probably more than bright enough to defeat any “safety mechanism” including a gun safe.

Miller expanded: “We don’t know where the guns brought to school today were acquired by this child, but we do know that prohibited underage purchasers can obtain handguns too easily through illegal street sales. The illegal market for handguns devastates Pennsylvania. We can drastically reduce the illegal market by disrupting straw purchases of multiple handguns through passage of CeaseFire PA’s Handgun Trafficking Reduction Act.”

Right. A 12 year old bought a duffelbag full of guns on the street. My sweet freaking jebus.

GUN LAWS WILL NOT STOP THIS!

I Hate the Ignorant Media

KevinLeave a comment

Nod to AR15.com for the story.

RAP BIG ARRESTED AT NEWARK

Rap entrepreneur Master P has been busted at Newark Airport with six hollow-point bullets, the deadly and illegal ammo known on the streets as “cop-killers.”

Like hell they are. They might be known as “perp-killers” because they’re carried by damned near every police officer in America, and by most people with defensive handguns in the rest of America. “Cop-Killer” bullets, you moron, are the nearly apocryphal “armor-piercing” ammunition that hollow-points most definitely are not.

The Louisiana-based hip-hop star and record executive, 36, whose real name is Percy Miller, was due to board an America West flight to Los Angeles late Tuesday when he was stopped by Transport Security Administration agents.

Law-enforcement sources said the “gangsta rapper” told guards he was checking a small case which held a licensed, unloaded handgun. Officials found the six bullets in a separate magazine.

Possession of the deadly ammo is a third-degree felony in New Jersey – with probation for conviction on a first offense and up to 18 months in prison for a subsequent conviction.

Not quite. New Jersey law says this:

f. Dum-dum or body armor penetrating bullets. (1) Any person, other than a law enforcement officer or persons engaged in activities pursuant to subsection f. of N.J.S.2C:39-6, who knowingly has in his possession any hollow nose or dum-dum bullet, or (2) any person, other than a collector of firearms or ammunition as curios or relics as defined in Title 18, United States Code, section 921 (a) (13) and has in his possession a valid Collector of Curios and Relics License issued by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, who knowingly has in his possession any body armor breaching or penetrating ammunition, which means: (a) ammunition primarily designed for use in a handgun, and (b) which is comprised of a bullet whose core or jacket, if the jacket is thicker than.025 of an inch, is made of tungsten carbide, or hard bronze, or other material which is harder than a rating of 72 or greater on the Rockwell B. Hardness Scale, and (c) is therefore capable of breaching or penetrating body armor, is guilty of a crime of the fourth degree. For purposes of this section, a collector may possess not more than three examples of each distinctive variation of the ammunition described above. A distinctive variation includes a different head stamp, composition, design, or color.

g.Exceptions. (1) Nothing in subsection a., b., c., d., e., f., j. or k. of this section shall apply to any member of the Armed Forces of the United States or the National Guard, or except as otherwise provided, to any law enforcement officer while actually on duty or traveling to or from an authorized place of duty, provided that his possession of the prohibited weapon or device has been duly authorized under the applicable laws, regulations or military or law enforcement orders. Nothing in subsection h. of this section shall apply to any law enforcement officer who is exempted from the provisions of that subsection by the Attorney General. Nothing in this section shall apply to the possession of any weapon or device by a law enforcement officer who has confiscated, seized or otherwise taken possession of said weapon or device as evidence of the commission of a crime or because he believed it to be possessed illegally by the person from whom it was taken, provided that said law enforcement officer promptly notifies his superiors of his possession of such prohibited weapon or device.

(2)Nothing in subsection f. (1) shall be construed to prevent a person from keeping such ammunition at his dwelling, premises or other land owned or possessed by him, or from carrying such ammunition from the place of purchase to said dwelling or land, nor shall subsection f. (1) be construed to prevent any licensed retail or wholesale firearms dealer from possessing such ammunition at its licensed premises, provided that the seller of any such ammunition shall maintain a record of the name, age and place of residence of any purchaser who is not a licensed dealer, together with the date of sale and quantity of ammunition sold.

New Jersey Title 2C, Section 39-1

So, is it illegal to possess hollowpoints or not? And just where was this guy going with his licensed, cased pistol? The story continues:

The bust came three months after an aspiring rap producer was sentenced to a year in jail for stalking the platinum-selling Miller.

Antwan Baker, 32, was ordered to stay away from the record mogul for the next 10 years after first accosting him at Chicago’s O’Hare Airport.

Sources said yesterday they believed that Miller had bought the gun in Louisiana and that it was properly registered.

So he’s been threatened and has a licensed handgun for self-defense with bullets that are kinda, sorta maybe illegal in Jersey?

Port Authority cops questioned the rapper, then arrested him for having the bullets. He was taken to Union County Jail in Elizabeth, issued a summons and released.

The controversial bullets, also known as “dum-dums,” are designed to mushroom on impact and to cause a maximum of serious physical injury and pain to the target.

The bullets also are outlawed in New York and their use is prohibited in warfare by international treaties.

Not quite right. They’re outlawed for mere peons to have, but the Police carry them because they’re the most effective handgun ammunition you can use. According to this site the NYPD has used the Speer 9mm 124 grain +P Gold Dot Hollowpoint as its issue ammo since 1999.

“Dum-dums.” Nobody’s called them that since the 60’s. Why can’t reporters spend ten minutes and gather FACTS? (At least he called it a “magazine” and not a “clip.”)

All Assault Weapons Ban, All the Time

KevinLeave a comment

Here’s another “striver.”.

“Return of Assault Weapons Feared in U.S.” A Toronto Star piece. I feel a fisk’n coming on!

They go by names that suggest power and danger — the “Streetsweeper,” the TEC-9, the MAK90, the AK-47.

And that’s exactly what these military-style assault weapons bring. The power to kill indiscriminately.

As opposed to, say, the Marlin 336, the Mossberg 500, the Remington 7400, the Browning BAR, the … but you get the idea. It’s not the weapon, it’s the human being behind the trigger.

Now there is fear here that the bullet-spraying semi-automatic weapons are heading back to American streets.

This assumes that they A) were on the “street” in any numbers to begin with, and B) the law had anything to do with them leaving. Neither of which assumption can be proven given the available data.

The gun debate in the United States has moved back to the forefront as a 1994 ban on assault weapons lurches toward an expiry date and it promises to become a pivotal issue in the next presidential election.

U.S. President George W. Bush surprised many when he distanced himself from the powerful National Rifle Association during the 2000 campaign, advocating an extension of the assault-weapon ban that ends in September, 2004.

But there are signs here that Bush now appears to want to have it both ways, tacitly supporting the extension to court suburban support in key states, while doing nothing overtly to stop a move that could see Congress simply avoid a vote on the extension and let it die.

Politics. Ain’t it a bitch?

That would be a powerful nod-and-wink to the firearms lobby, which, by some accounts, poured $1.6 million into the 2000 Bush campaign.

Wow. $1.6 mill? Out of a total of $193,088,650 according to OpenSecrets.org. Boy, I bet they really noticed that slightly less than 1%. And now he rewards them by saying he’d support extension of the ban. What a backstabber, eh?

“Does George W. Bush want to be known as the pro-assault weapon president?” said Joe Sudbay, the public policy director of the Washington-based Violence Policy Center.

No, he wants to be known as Mr. President. He’s a politician.

“He may be trying to have it both ways now, but it will be pretty clear by Sept. 13, 2004. He either supports the extension or he doesn’t … he either extends it or he doesn’t.”

Whoa. Thanks for that stunning piece of logic.

The 1994 law made it illegal to import, manufacture, transfer or possess 19 types of semi-automatic weapons, although the law was “grandfathered,” meaning anyone who legally owned such weapons before that date could retain them.

“Loophole! Loophole!” he screams.

Tom DeLay, the Texas Republican and House of Representatives majority leader, said last week he didn’t believe the extension would come to a vote in the Republican-dominated House. DeLay’s statement drew a surprising rebuke from the Republican Speaker of the House, Dennis Hastert, showing that the gun ban does not easily cut across Republican-Democrat lines in this country.

While many Democrats are fearful of defeat if they are targeted by the gun lobby in the coming elections, there are many Republicans representing so-called “soccer mom” suburban constituencies who could become electoral toast if they are seen to be backing a measure which would bring the deadly weapons legally back to the streets of America.

That’s the beauty of it. They don’t have to “back a measure.” Just not vote “yes” on any new bill proposed to revoke the sunset.

White House spokesperson Ari Fleischer said last week Bush has not had any change of heart from his 2000 campaign promise. But he offered no explanation as to why Bush has given no presidential muscle to the promise. He has not been shy about stumping the country pushing for his tax-cut proposals, but has said nothing publicly about assault weapons.

“The House does everything the president wants,” New York Democratic Senator Charles Schumer said. “He wants a dividends tax cut, they do it. He wants one bill or another, they jump. In fact … they say `how high?’ He’s got to walk the walk (on guns). If the president wants this bill to come to his desk, it will. If the president doesn’t, he can have his minions whisper to the House, `kill the bill,’ and he’ll never reach it.”

I think Up-Chuck overestimates just how much Bush can lead the members of the House around. The gun question is an entirely different question to constituents compared to a tax cut. Nobody except a member of the democratic party elite opposes keeping more of their own money.

In 1994, the ban passed the House by a mere two votes, but it has been something less than a rousing success, even the anti-gun lobby concedes.

So LETS RENEW IT! Yeah, that sounds like Democratic logic.

Many weapons manufacturers simply cosmetically changed the specs on the weapons to circumvent the ban, cynically adding “AB” to their model numbers, indicating they were changed “after the ban.”

“Loophole! Loophole!”

In 2000, 28,653 died of gunshot wounds in the U.S.; 94 children and teens in Louisiana alone. The gun death rate during that year was 10.4 per 100,000 population.

Down from 34,050 and a rate of 14.84 in 1981. And your point is….?

The Violence Policy Center released a study last week indicating that 41 of 211 law enforcement officers gunned down in the line of duty between Jan. 1, 1998, and Dec. 31, 2001 — almost one in five — were felled by assault weapons.

A report which I illustrated misidentified 19 of the 41 weapons as “assault rifles.” Five of the 19 were “banned” handguns, but the other 14 weapons identified as “assault rifles” weren’t on the “banned” list either by description or name at all. As I said in my earlier piece:

Four (4) with M1 Carbines, eight (8) with SKS rifles, two (2) with Mini-14’s, three (3) M-11’s, and two (2) TEC-9’s. First, the M1, SKS, and Mini-14’s are not and have not been classified as “assault weapons” – no lethal pistol grip on those guns. They look like “nice” semi-automatic rifles because they have the pretty non-lethal wood stocks, rather than the ugly, lethal plastic and metal ones. The M-11 and the TEC-9 are not rifles, they’re handguns. That’s NINETEEN (19) of the 41. And, if these guns were created “solely to kill people,” what of the other 170 officer deaths? They were killed with weapons designed to tickle people?

Now, according to this site between the years of 1998 and 2001 (inclusive) there were 229 officer deaths by firearm, not 211. And according to this table the number of police deaths, at least for the last couple of decades (and excluding the 72 killed in the Twin Towers in 2001) has been apparently unaffected by the relative explosion in the mid 1980’s of “assault weapons” (as defined by the law) into the general populace. They’re trying to make it sound like the presence of “assault weapons” has somehow added 41 deaths that otherwise would not have occurred. The evidence does not support this. But that’s the conclusion you’re supposed to draw. “Ban ’em, and these cops would have lived!”

This piece is much the same.

During a three-week reign of terror last October, the Washington snipers used a modified Bushmaster assault rifle, an XM15 M4 A3. The company’s sales have soared since 1994.

And, as I have pointed out elsewhere, the “Washington snipers” fired a single shot at each victim. They could just as well have used a target rifle. Their choice of weapon was irrelevant.

The teens behind the 1999 Columbine massacre used modified TEC-9s.

No, according to the Denver Post, only Kliebold had a Tec-9. And aren’t you forgetting the SAWED-OFF SHOTGUNS BOTH OF THEM CARRIED? Not to mention the fact that they were also carrying “a backpack and a duffel bag filled with bombs.” And you’re worried about a TEC-9?

“There’s not a dime’s worth of difference in the performance characteristics between the guns on the banned list and the guns not on the banned list,” said NRA executive vice-president Wayne LaPierre.

Hey, they didn’t misquote him!

Anti-gun advocates want an even tougher ban to replace the 1994 law, but, right now, there is little hope in Washington the law will be improved. It is more a question of a dogged fight to keep the status quo.

It didn’t work, so LET’S DO IT AGAIN ONLY HARDER!

Bryan Miller of Philadelphia knows something about fight and he doesn’t buy the conventional Washington spin.

Miller joined the advocacy group CeaseFire PA after his brother, an FBI agent, was slain at District of Columbia police headquarters in 1994. It was a case of mistaken identity. The gunman, carrying a concealed TEC-9, was looking for the head of homicide. Mike Miller was in the “cold case” squad.

“He went the wrong way … but somebody was going to die, anyway,” Miller said. Since then, Miller has worked tirelessly to control guns in his country.

“…but somebody was going to die, anyway.” Yup. And he could have used a non-banned Browning Hi-power. Or a sawed-off shotgun. His choice of a Tec-9 was immaterial. Someone was going to die.

“Tirelessly to control guns in his country?” More like “tirelessly to disarm the victims.” Nothing these people want will prevent someone intent on killing from doing so. Gun control is not crime control. It didn’t work in England, and it can’t work here.

“These guns are ugly,” he said in an interview.

WE HAVE A WINNER!

That’s it exactly. They’re ugly, scary-looking guns, so we must ban them! Pitchforks! Torches! Kill the monster! Kill the monster!

“We have tapes of those kids firing away in Columbine. We have families of victims and people like me who have lost loved ones to these guns.

“We have lots of support. And we are just getting started.”

My condolences. Seriously. But you and the families didn’t lose their friends and loved ones to “those guns.” You lost them to the bastards pulling the triggers. And until you figure that out, you’ve got a helluva lot of people on my side opposing you.

Wake up.

The British Still Aren’t Getting It

KevinLeave a comment

A recent BBC News “Talking Point” question was How can guns be made less accessible? Well, seeing as they’ve made damned near everything illegal, and what is left legal is under draconian restriction, I was quite interested in what the Brits had to say. Let’s sample a few, shall we?

The problem isn’t the guns, it’s the total inability of the police to police the streets! If people carrying illegal thought the might get stopped and arrested it might deter them. But the chances of them being arrested are about zero. We don’t need more laws we just need to enforce the very strict ones we already have. We need less “sound-bites from Ministers and more Police on the streets. After all, when did you last see a Police Officer on the beat?
Andy, UK

Someone else who believes that the government is responsible for his safety.

This Government’s standard response to such problems is to launch a spin campaign to convince the public that they are taking action – it is far easier than doing something effective.
Chris, UK

A cynic! But he doesn’t give any suggestions for “something effective.”

The new legislation should offer an amnesty for those who surrender their weapons to police within a time frame. We have seen this policy of amnesty in parts of Africa such as Angola and Sierra Leone.
Namabanda Mubukwanu, UK

And those are such safe places to live, aren’t they? I mean, Sierra Leone lifted their curfew just last year!

We should also ban toy guns for children. I can’t think of a sicker, more twisted ‘toy’ and corrupting influence on a child. And the age limit should be raised for movies that feature an excessive use of guns. Never mind 18, we should introduce a 21 certificate for violent films. And maybe the BBC could help by not showing as many war films at Christmas and on Sundays. Drop the violence completely.
Iain Harrison, UK

I’m rendered nearly speechless at the inanity of Mr. Harrison. Way to go, Iain!

Ban gun shop websites! I just put in gun shop in a search engine and came up with at least 700 results. This is too much.
Helen, UK

Well, hell, while we’re at it, let’s ban pornography and news sites, too!

Are these people naturally morons, or is it something in the water?

The latest figures prove that the government’s current legislation on firearms is not working. Will making this legislation tougher solve the problem? In a word – no. The people that are obtaining these weapons are the kind of people that have no respect for the law or their fellow citizens. Why not stop wasting money on actions that are all show and no substance and tackle the real problems like how are these weapons getting here in the first place and why aren’t they getting destroyed the moments they are impounded?
Ian, UK

Apparently this Ian drinks bottled water occasionally. But not enough.

Gun crime is hugely related to how guns are portrayed in the media, especially the music industry. Some gangster rappers glamorise guns in their music. If that can be tackled, then gun crime will fall.
Daniel, UK

I thought it was toy guns and violent films?

If Steve:

How about prison for the rest of their natural lives with hard labour and no chance of parole if a gun is used in any crime? Make the punishment a good deterrent!
Steve, UK

and Warwick

Deterring crime with severe sentences is a very ineffective measure. Unless one lives in a police state, criminals just assume that they won’t get caught. A more effective method would be to extend the weapons amnesty concept by offering a reward for weapons that is set higher than their street value. Of course, this has to be handled carefully to avoid fuelling demand. It would also face opposition from the tabloid reading types, but if it works, so what? Fighting crime shouldn’t be the crude popularity contest that it is.
Warwick, UK

were to meet, would there be a particle / antiparticle annihilation?

Oh, and offering more than “street value” for street weapons? First, where would they get that much money, and second, why would they want to fuel gun smuggling by the containerload? Warwick, I suggest you start drinking Evian. Perrier in a pinch. I understand the French economy needs a boost.

One obvious solution is to make them illegal. If that doesn’t work then, er, make them more illegal. Oops, sorry, I forgot, the government tried that and it didn’t work. How about banning people from wearing clothes, so they can’t hide a gun if they have it?
Dave Tankard, UK

Cynic, cynic, cynic. That last idea? I shudder to picture it. Most Brits don’t look like Page3 girls. And aren’t British winters brutal? Dave Tankard, eh? I bet he’s not drinking water.

I doubt that tougher penalties alone will work. The government should go for a complete ban on the import of all replica guns, and a ban on air guns, except in licensed clubs. If it puts a few gun shops out of business, then I would rather my taxes be used to buy them out than see the current trend in shootings continue.
Nick, UK

Yeah! You need more gun laws! Er, weren’t the recent shooting deaths of two young women committed with a machine gun?

Once again the government, with the backing of various police chiefs are looking at bringing in new laws to “control gun crime”, despite having the most draconian laws in Europe which they appear singularly unable to enforce! I take it the law abiding will suffer as usual?
Gordon, UK

Gordon seems to take offense at your suggestion, Nick.

Funny isn’t it – the government announce all kinds of things they’re going to do about gun crime, and then days later we find out that the rate has doubled since they came to power. You don’t think they’re cynically managing the news (and you) do you? No, perish the thought!
Andy Edmonds, UK

More cynicism. Tsk, tsk.

Five years for every round possessed and 10 years for every round fired, that would be a deterrent. An Uzi clip being fired would put someone in jail for 450 years, that would deter all but the most hardened criminals.
Drb, UK

Well, that’s an idea. One of the few actually presented. I don’t think it would work, but it’s an idea. And I have no idea where they’d put all those criminals. I understand that their jails are already full to bursting.

Guns will become inaccessible to law abiding citizens. Criminals however will still be able to get their hands on weapons.
Doug, UK

“Will become”, Doug? They’re close enough to that now as to make no difference. According to the Home Office there were, in England & Wales, 125,363 firearm certificates on issue at the end of 2000, and 600,733 shotgun certificates. That’s down from 133,600 firearm certificates and 623,100 shotgun certificates in 1997. Assuming a complete overlay between firearms certificate holders and shotgun certificate holders that’s about 600,000 people out of a population of 52 million who possess at least one gun. At most, with no overlap, that’s 725,000. That’s 1.1 to 1.4% of the population. Oh, wait, that’s legal owners. Jebus only knows how many illegal possessors there are. The last amnesty netted a reported 40,000 weapons – but almost none from the crime-ridden areas. And I doubt a single one of those 40,000 were on a certificate.

Makes you wonder just how many “off certificate” weapons there are, doesn’t it?

Besides, it doesn’t matter how many guns the law-abiding permit holders have. They can’t use their guns for defense of self or society anyway, under current UK law.

“When I Want a Legal Opinion on Gun Control, I Ask a Doctor!”

KevinLeave a comment

 or “For the Best Advice on Health Care, Consult the NRA!”

I downloaded the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy “Fact Sheet” (and those quotes are there for ALL the reasons) on “Myths and Facts: Lawsuits brought by Cities or Injured Persons Against the Gun Industry.”

Allow me to fisk it. (Hey, it’s lunchtime. I’ve got an hour to kill.)

“Since 1998 more than 30 cities and counties in the United States have filed lawsuits against the firearm industry for the deaths, injuries, and other costs associated with guns.”

Um, no. Associated with the misuse of guns. That’s a critical distinction which I will return to.

“Myth: Guns are a lawful product so manufacturers should not be held liable for selling them.”

This is a myth? Anheuser Busch isn’t “held liable” for selling beer, even though alcohol is misused and is a component in more death than guns ever were. Ford isn’t “held liable” for selling cars, though they’re used in the commission of crimes.

FACT: Makers of every other product are subject to at least some liability – especially if they fail to take some reasonable steps to reduce the chance that their product will harm someone. This is how the U.S. legal system works. Guns should be no different.”

Well, THAT clears it up. Question: Don’t gun grabbers control supporters claim that “guns are made solely to kill people?” Um, then how do you “reduce the chance” that a product – designed to kill – will “harm someone?” Don’t think too hard about that – your brain will explode.

You see, the difference here is that the lawsuits are not protesting that guns are defective, but that they’re Effective. If they filed a lawsuit against, say, Lorcin protesting that they made crappy guns that you couldn’t depend on and that would fall apart if you ran more than one magazine through one (assuming you could get a magazine through one) then that would be a product liability suit. But that’s not what they’re doing. They’re filing suit because the guns do what they’re designed to do: throw a small metal pellet at high velocity in the direction the weapon is pointed, when the loose nut behind the trigger pulls said trigger.

That’s not a failure of the gun manufacturers, it’s a failure of the operator. Case in point, watch this negligent discharge. There’s not a thing wrong with that gun except the moron with her finger on the trigger. When she pulled it, the gun fired just like it’s designed to do.

They counter:

“Myth: Holding gunmakers liable for injuries caused by guns would be like holding car manufacturers liable for injures caused by drunk drivers.”

Yeah, I just said that. But nooooo they claim:

FACT: It is important to understand that lawsuits against gunmakers do not argue that the manufacturers should be liable simply because they make and sell guns. Instead they argue that there are things the manufacturer could do – but knowingly choose not to do – to make their products less likely to harm children and others, or to be used by criminals. It’s the gun manufacturers’ failure to take these reasonable and feasable steps that the lawsuits assert should make them liable. Put another way: if a car maker designed a car so that even a young child could easily operate it without permission (e.g., it didn’t need a key to start), or marketed the car (somehow) to appeal directly to drunk-drivers, we would think they were liable.”

Well, that’s interesting legerdemain. I’ve seen some of the things they want put on guns to make them “less likely to harm children.” Locks, EXTREMELY heavy triggers, magazine disconnects. Things that POLICE DEPARTMENTS eschew because the primary purpose of a handgun is self-defense, and these things make it likely that when you NEED the gun, it won’t function. It’s interesting that in the laws passed requiring the implementation of “smartgun” technologies – ostensibly to do what these lawsuits are pursuing – the police are EXEMPTED from having to implement the new technology. (Question: Are car manufacturers the subject of lawsuits because the market a product (insanely fast cars) to SPEEDERS?)

Regardless, the court isn’t the place to go in order to force manufacturers to change their products, the legislature is. They’ve tried that and failed. I love this quote from an honest judge:

As an individual, I believe, very strongly, that handguns should be banned and that there should be stringent, effective control of other firearms. However, as a judge, I know full well that the question of whether handguns can be sold is a political one, not an issue of products liability law, and that this is a matter for the legislatures, not the courts. The unconventional theories advanced in this case (and others) are totally without merit, a misuse of products liability laws.” — Judge Buchmeyer, Patterson v. Gesellschaft, 1206 F.Supp. 1206, 1216 (N.D. Tex. 1985)

Gee, ya THINK? And Judge Buchmeyer isn’t alone.

“The Court finds as a matter of law that the risks associated with the use of a firearm are open and obvious and matters of common knowledge.”
– Judge Ruehlman, Court of Common Pleas of Ohio, City of Cincinnati v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp. et al., No. A9902369, 1999 WL 809838, *1 (Ohio Com.Pl. Oct. 7, 1999).

“In the view of this Court, the City’s complaint is an improper attempt to have this Court substitute its judgment for that of the legislature, which this Court is neither inclined nor empowered to do.” Ibid. at *1.

“In substance, the City and its Mayor opt to engage in efforts at arbitrary social reform by invoking the process of the Judicial Branch of Government, where apparently the City perceives, but fails to allege, irreversible failures in the appropriate Legislative Branch(s) of Government….The City should not be permitted to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court to overlay or supplement existing civil and criminal ‘gun’ statutes and processes (either state and federal) by means of a series of judicial fiats which, when taken together, would only create a body of ‘judge made gun laws’.”
– Special Judge James J. Richards, Lake Superior Court, County of Lake, City of Gary v. Smith & Wesson, Cause No. 45D05-005-CT-243, slip op. 7 (Ind. Super. Ct. Jan. 12, 2001).

“The County’s request that the trial court use its injunctive powers to mandate redesign of firearms and declare that the appellees’ business methods create a public nuisance, is an attempt to regulate firearms and ammunition through the medium of the judiciary…. The County’s frustration cannot be alleviated through litigation as the judiciary is not empowered to ‘enact’ regulatory measures in the guise of injunctive relief. The power to legislate belongs not to the judicial branch of government but to the legislative branch.”
– Judge J.J. Fletcher, District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District, Penelas v. Arms Technology, Inc., 778 So.2d 1042, 1045

There have been 33 lawsuits of this type filed. The majority have been rejected on the grounds Judge Buchmeyer cites, or other grounds having to do with the appropriateness of trying to use the courts to accomplish ends the courts are not there for. A couple have been dropped after wending their way through the appeals system, and a few are still pending. But it only takes one to get a judgement that will put the gun manufacturer(s) out of business, and the cost of fighting these cases is enough to severely wound the manufacturers. And THAT is the goal.

Whoops! Lunchtime is over. I’ll come back to this, as there is more crunchy goodness to fisk.

KevinLeave a comment

The Department of Tinfoil Hats

Now THIS is interesting. Sitemeter tracks the system origin of visitors to my blog, and tells me how much time the visitor spent, and how many page views they had.

Of course, most visitors are in-and-out, spending a recorded 0 minutes and 0 seconds. I wonder if this isn’t slightly in error, because a lot of these in-and-outs are apparently repeats, hitting a few times a day, or over successive days. Of course, this could be different viewers who happen to share the same domain.

But I found one point of interest – a visitor or visitors from The John Hopkins Medical Institutions server. And he/she/they have spent some time perusing the blog.

Welcome! And I’m curious as to how you found me.

I cannot help but wonder, however, if he/she/they are visiting from The John Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research.

Now I’m going to have to peruse a couple of the articles there and see what they have to say. Considering the fact that they seem to believe that suing the gun companies out of existence is “an effective public health tool for injury and gun violence prevention,” I believe we will not see eye-to-eye on the topic.

More later.