Another shooting, another 10 youth killed, and where is the Republican reaction?

[Kulindahr]

So this op-ed makes a case the press has not widely reported, but it has potential to change the debate. It suggests that the NRA has a very dark side that most Americans don't know about. It undermines law enforcement by abetting gun traffickers, criminal gun dealers, and criminal gun users. Because of Congress, out of pure cowardly fear of the NRA, the ATF operates with about the same number of agents nationwide as it did 40 years ago, fewer than the number of officers in the Washington, D.C., police force, yet it is charged with investigating violations of federal gun, arson, explosive and other laws nationwide. Here is part of the intricate argument of how the NRA undermines law enforcement:

"Consider, for example, the federal law requiring licensed gun dealers to notify the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives when a single purchaser buys two or more handguns within five days. The A.T.F. knows that multiple purchases are an indicator of trafficking, and that traffickers can evade the law by making a single purchase from five, 10 or 20 different gun stores. So why doesn’t the A.T.F. crosscheck those purchases?

[Quoted Text: Truncated] © 2015 The New York Times Company

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/07/o...mtrref=www.nytimes.com&assetType=opinion&_r=1

The BATF is so corrupted by Parkinson's Law and others they should just be shut down.

BTW, firearms dealers don't have to maintain inventories for the government -- but as two gun store owners have pointed out to me, if they don't maintain inventories, they don't get insured. Insurance companies require the paperwork from a business when there's a lost or stolen item.

"Off the books" is a myth anyway: one off-the-books sale that is caught, and not only will that dealer not ever sell guns again, he'll be not selling them from behind bars for at least twenty years. It's a theoretical possibility that isn't worth worrying about.

 

[Kulindahr]

As a former officer and one who has studied more than 220 departments in the US as well as in the UK, I think the "everybody needs a gun" mentality in the US clearly creates more problems than it solves. As I have stated earlier, when I began police work in 1979, the assumption was that most people were unarmed. Yes, you checked to make sure a trunk was closed and shone your flashlight into the car as you approached (or watched for furtive movement) but in more than 10 years on the road, I never encountered a weapon. Concealed weapon licenses and permits were difficult to come by and we usually knew who had them in the community of 10,000 (and county of nearly 70,000).

Today, everyone wants a gun; everybody must be assumed to be "packing" and now the NRA and right wing wants to flood the market by arming every man, woman, and child with a weapon. When I was just in England, they have "Armed Response Units" that are strategically deployed in large cities but the vast majority of officers (and population) are unarmed. You find that the officers are much better at "talking a subject down" and "de-escalation" than officers in the United States.

Putting more guns on the street is a sure fire way to kill even more people. I was just reading that a woman shot at a shoplifter in the Detroit Metro area yesterday (or the day before). Shoplifting is not a felony and does not justify deadly force. She was legally carrying a weapon and fortunately never hit the person fleeing else she would likely be facing homicide charges (and justifiably). The old west was unpleasant for a variety of reasons and I don't need to see people strapping on their leg shooters and shotguns to feel safe; knowing how most people shoot, I feel extremely threatened because I'd be the one shot before the bad guy. Add to that the chaos that comes when a shooting does occur because the police have to now assume EVERYONE is armed and EVERYONE may be a perpetrator and it is a sure-fire accidental death waiting to happen.

"Flood the market"? Where do you get these emotional drivers about the NRA? The NRA doesn't care about that market except wanting the government to leave it alone.

If guns make people safer, Ronald Reagan should never have been shot; he was surrounded by people with rather awesome firepower and yet a crazy with a pistol still almost killed him. Same with Gerald Ford. Same with President Kennedy. And the same with Ft. Hood's shooting.

Fallacious reasoning. By it, soldiers with guns would be no safer than soldiers with no guns.

In general, guns make people safer -- just as in general, the globe is warming.

 

[thewiz]

You are very much wrong on the NRA. As a former member of the NRA, their interest is in gun manufacturers, not the individual citizens. Why do you think the answer always is: "We need more guns?"

And all you have to do is look at data -- compare the US to the world -- and guns do not make people safer. This is one you and I will vehemently disagree on.

http://www.thenation.com/article/does-nra-represent-gun-manufacturers-or-gun-owners/

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/12/whom-does-the-nra-really-speak-for/266373/

 

[Kulindahr]

What Carson said was a lie, because he wouldn't do what he said. The man couldn't even speak up when it came to the debates, he sure as shit isn't going to run up against a person on a mass shooting. He only said it to appeal to voters and nothing more.

Good old ad hominem.

 

[luckynumbah7]

Good old ad hominem.

If he can't even speak up in a debate what would indicate that he'd confront someone with an actual weapon? That's an actual question, by the way.

There's graveyards full of people who depend on ammunition or weaponry, thinking it will provide grace under pressure. Alas, it don't work like that.

 

[Kulindahr]

You are very much wrong on the NRA. As a former member of the NRA, their interest is in gun manufacturers, not the individual citizens. Why do you think the answer always is: "We need more guns?"

I've never heard the NRA say "We need more guns", and I'm a long-standing Endowment member. And insiders report that the NRA does not dance to manufacturers' tune(s), but that if anything it's the other way around: manufacturers know better than to piss off La Pierre and his gang of PR consultants who practically run the place now.

One reason the manufacturers have thrown more support to the NRA in recent years is that they are worried about groups like the Gun Owners of America and the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, who with their racist-tinged views and poorly hidden support for a police state are worrisome. The NRA's rhetoric has shifted toward the reactionary for the same reason.

And all you have to do is look at data -- compare the US to the world -- and guns do not make people safer. This is one you and I will vehemently disagree on.

http://www.thenation.com/article/does-nra-represent-gun-manufacturers-or-gun-owners/

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/12/whom-does-the-nra-really-speak-for/266373/

The "rest of the world" is irrelevant unless crime is coming from there. Even at the low end of estimates, a defensive gun use occurs in the U.S. every few minutes on average. In most of those, criminals back down merely at the sight of an armed citizen. Those are the only numbers that matter: citizens protecting themselves.

And that more guns do not mean more danger keeps getting proven in the United States with steady regularity: year after year, there are more gun owners, and more guns, and violent crime keeps going down.

 

[Kulindahr]

If he can't even speak up in a debate what would indicate that he'd confront someone with an actual weapon? That's an actual question, by the way.

There's graveyards full of people who depend on ammunition or weaponry, thinking it will provide grace under pressure. Alas, it don't work like that.

Verbal insecurity (if that's his problem) does not mean other insecurities. I've known people who couldn't speak up in front of others but in a situation requiring action saw what to do and acted before the rest of us really figured out what was going on -- like, leaping over a road bank before a tumbling car got there because he saw that was where the point of leverage to keep it from falling over into the river was going to be (some of us called him crazy, others called him brave; he just looked confused at both those and said it was the only thing to do).

 

[Kabluey]

Verbal insecurity (if that's his problem) does not mean other insecurities. I've known people who couldn't speak up in front of others but in a situation requiring action saw what to do and acted before the rest of us really figured out what was going on -- like, leaping over a road bank before a tumbling car got there because he saw that was where the point of leverage to keep it from falling over into the river was going to be (some of us called him crazy, others called him brave; he just looked confused at both those and said it was the only thing to do).

That's not 'beating an insecurity' that's reflexes.
Household cats do the same, faster.

 

[Kabluey]

One reason the manufacturers have thrown more support to the NRA in recent years is that...

Manufacturers make in excess of $6 billion per year in sales of firearms and ammunition to citizens.
If that's not a clear financial interest in maintain sales, then what is?

The "rest of the world" is irrelevant unless crime is coming from there. Even at the low end of estimates, a defensive gun use occurs in the U.S. every few minutes on average. In most of those, criminals back down merely at the sight of an armed citizen. Those are the only numbers that matter: citizens protecting themselves.

And that more guns do not mean more danger keeps getting proven in the United States with steady regularity: year after year, there are more gun owners, and more guns, and violent crime keeps going down.

Crime is decreasing across the developed world, not just the USA. The gun homicide rate is substantially higher than other developed countries.
Even if the US violent crime rate decreases at the same rate as the rest of the developed world, it will still be several times worse than comparable countries.

Widespread access to guns is the only difference between the USA and the rest of the developed world. Do the math.

 

[Kabluey]

Fallacious reasoning. By it, soldiers with guns would be no safer than soldiers with no guns.

In general, guns make people safer -- just as in general, the globe is warming.

Exquisitely fallacious reasoning.
Soldiers are safer if their targets are unarmed.

Guns do not make people safer. If that was the case, the USA would be the safest country in the developed world.
It has the most guns and it's the least safe.

Just because you desperately want the opposite to be true, doesn't mean reality agrees.

 

[otters]

Guns do not make people safer. If that was the case, the USA would be the safest country in the developed world.
It has the most guns and it's the least safe.

Apparently, US American "Libertarians" don't care.

UNODC murder rates:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

 

[Kabluey]

Given the statements of the leaders of the hoplophobes, that's totally correct: the goal is to ban all weapons. Criminal gangs are just drooling over the possibility of that happening!

BTW, the only "reasonable" controls are the ones that would enhance aspects of the people being a well-regulated militia.

Nah - there are way too many crazies. Mostly they're the ones who want the guns.

Ban all weapons? Sounds good. Happens in the rest of the developed world, and look! Hardly any homicides there.

 

[Kabluey]

Apparently, US American "Libertarians" don't care.

UNODC murder rates:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

Admittedly, North Korea is worse. Kosovo though, now has a lower homicide rate than the USA.
How long ago was that frontier past compared to other countries' lawless periods?

 

[kallipolis]

Guns do not make people safer. If that was the case, the USA would be the safest country in the developed world.
It has the most guns and it's the least safe.

Noteworthy...and, perhaps the very young girl shot dead by a very young boy, after the girl refused to show him her dog's newly born puppies, might have lived had she been armed with a Colt 45...possibly, leaving the boy dead.

 

[Kulindahr]

That's not 'beating an insecurity' that's reflexes.
Household cats do the same, faster.

Was that supposed to have something to do with my post????

 

[Kulindahr]

Manufacturers make in excess of $6 billion per year in sales of firearms and ammunition to citizens.
If that's not a clear financial interest in maintain sales, then what is?

That has nothing to do with my post.

Widespread access to guns is the only difference between the USA and the rest of the developed world.

 

[Kulindahr]

Exquisitely fallacious reasoning.

Yes -- your entire post is....

Soldiers are safer if their targets are unarmed.

Yes! And the bad guys are safer if their targets are unarmed!

So the thing to do is make sure that the bad guys don't have unarmed targets.

Guns do not make people safer. If that was the case, the USA would be the safest country in the developed world.
It has the most guns and it's the least safe.

Just because you desperately want the opposite to be true, doesn't mean reality agrees.

Guns make people safer all the time. On average one every few minutes in the United States is safer because of a gun. Were it not for a gun, a gal I know would have been raped; were it not for a gun, a bunch of kids I once knew would have been molested; were it not for a gun, I would be severely crippled or dead.

I can only conclude that you are in favor of rape, molestation of children, and my own crippling or death.

 

[Kulindahr]

Nah - there are way too many crazies. Mostly they're the ones who want the guns.

Ban all weapons? Sounds good. Happens in the rest of the developed world, and look! Hardly any homicides there.

The "rest of the developed world" is accustomed to thinking in terms of rights coming from the government, which at root means they believe that they are the property of the state. The United States was the first and is perhaps still the only country where people have realized that governments are creatures of power, that must be shackled and regarded with mistrust lest they turn again to tyranny, as governments have all through history.

The "rest of the developed world" regards their citizens as disposable, required to be victims who cannot select the great equalizer for defending themselves against the animals among us who would attack them. They "care" about their citizens only in the aggregate, not as individuals -- only the elite and the powerful, who are allowed to have bodyguards, are considered to be real individuals worthy of protection.

Try to ban weapons in the United States, and if there is any spirit of liberty left here, government functionaries will die in the tens of thousands as free people set things to rights.



BTW, the "rest of the developed world" is hardly entitled to an opinion, since for the most part they rely on the United States to be the nation with military might, so they can indulge in other pursuits. When all those other nations step up and assume the burden of their own defense instead of leaning on the U.S., they might be worth listening to.

 

[otters]

Guns make people safer all the time. On average one every few minutes in the United States is safer because of a gun. Were it not for a gun, a gal I know […]; were it not for a gun, a bunch of kids I once knew […]; were it not for a gun, I […].

I can only conclude that you are in favor of rape, molestation of children, and my own crippling or death.

Don't deflect with anecdotes. And disgusting "conclusions".

Let's talk about FIGURES.

Are the UNODC figures bedtime stories, or not?

(See above, #211.)

 

[Kulindahr]

Don't deflect with anecdotes. And disgusting "conclusions".

Let's talk about FIGURES.

Are the UNODC figures bedtime stories, or not?

(See above, #211.)

They're irrelevant. What is relevant is that one every few minutes, a person in the United States is defended by a gun against a criminal -- and that's by the most pessimistic estimates. If the NRA's favorite researchers are correct, it's multiple times per minute.

BTW, those anecdotes aren't deflection, they're demonstration that the liberal position doesn't give a shit about individuals: they WANT those of us protected by guns to be raped and assaulted and molested rather than let anyone be armed against the criminals,so long as they can have their statistics.