"Gun Show Loophole" is "Partial-Birth Abortion" for the Left

[friendly_iconoclast]

A way to get votes and money outof the excitable unthinking masses.
In other words, Moral Panic for fun and profit

[katandmoon]

1. YAWN

[friendly_iconoclast]

4. Thank you for your thoughtful response

I await your further posts with great interest.

[SteveM]

12. You can go to sleep: the GOP is on top of this for you (nt)

[Captain Hilts]

2. "Partial-birth" abortions are extremely rare. Buying guns at gunshows is not. nt

[tburnsten]

3. Buying them from private sellers

Is absolutely common, because people often feel like selling off their personal property, either to fund the purchase of something they want more or just because they need money. Whether that sale happens at a gun show or in someone's living room, in a Pizza Hut parking lot (;-)) or even in the lobby of a police station should it not be a prohibited building.

The "gun show loophole" consists of people attempting to make private sales appear to be dealers who are selling guns without following their process. That is totally false, since anyone with a Federal Firearms License must follow the exact same procedure for every gun they sell, no matter where they are. That is the mythical "gun-show loophole".

[MicaelS]

5. Since gun prohibitionists claim

That the gun show loophole needs closing so desperately because so many crimes and terrorist acts are committed with guns bought through this "loophole", the onus is on them to produce the hard data that shows just how many crimes and terrorist acts are annually committed via this loophole.

[Herman74]

7. No, it isn't on us.

"so many crimes and terrorist acts are committed with guns" PERIOD. End of story.

[SteveM]

13. Don't feed the elephant. PERIOD. End of story.

[friendly_iconoclast]

19. If someone in power says a law will make us "safer"

...it's not for the likes of us to dispute it, apparently

[one-eyed fat man]

6. new FBI study

New findings on how offenders train with, carry and deploy the weapons they use to attack police officers have emerged in a just-published, 5-year study by the FBI.

http://www.policeone.com/writers/columnists/force-science/articles/1243754/

WARNING: Facts contained in the study may cause shortness of breath, dimness of vision and dilated nostrils in gun control ideologues.


Who is amazed to see gun shows don't figure in to the equation?

"Predominately handguns were used in the assaults on officers and all but one were obtained illegally, usually in street transactions or in thefts. In contrast to media myth, none of the firearms in the study was obtained from gun shows."

Who is surprised that the crooks report no local, state or Federal gun law stopped them, EVER?

"Researcher Davis, in a presentation and discussion for the International Assn. of Chiefs of Police, noted that none of the attackers interviewed was “hindered by any law--federal, state or local--that has ever been established to prevent gun ownership. They just laughed at gun laws.'"

Who is surpised cops are lousy shots?

".........victim officers in the study averaged just 14 hours of sidearm training and 2.5 qualifications per year. Only 6 of the 50 officers reported practicing regularly with handguns apart from what their department required."

Who is surpised that most cops are hesitant to shoot even the most deserving while the criminal suffers no such moral compunctions?

In fact, Davis said the study team “did not realize how cold blooded the younger generation of offender is.

"--have no hesitation whatsoever about pulling the trigger. 'If you hesitate,' one told the study’s researchers, 'you’re dead. You have the instinct or you don’t. If you don’t, you’re in trouble on the street….'”

Who believes the horse manure about "assault weapons" and "gun show loopholes" and keeps putting this stuff into the Democratic party platform?

[iverglas]

9. well, I do hesitate to read anything written by someone

who thinks that "predominately" is a word ... and who is in the pay of the firearms industry ... but what the hell, there does seem to be a primary source.

Weapon Choice

Predominately handguns were used in the assaults on officers and all but one were obtained illegally, usually in street transactions or in thefts. In contrast to media myth, none of the firearms in the study was obtained from gun shows. What was available “was the overriding factor in weapon choice,” the report says. Only 1 offender hand-picked a particular gun “because he felt it would do the most damage to a human being.”

Researcher Davis, in a presentation and discussion for the International Assn. of Chiefs of Police, noted that none of the attackers interviewed was “hindered by any law--federal, state or local--that has ever been established to prevent gun ownership. They just laughed at gun laws.”

Quelle surprise!!!! People who break the law break the law!!!!!!! I know that no one here would ever have suspected such a thing.

I'll bet they wouldn't be hindered from acquiring DVD players by a law prohibiting them from owning them, either. They'd just steal them from LAW-ABIDING DVD PLAYER OWNERS the way they acquire their firearms -- from "law-abiding" firearm owners who are such fucking scum that they refuse to secure their firearms against theft.

Of course, if there were LAWS that required those "law-abiding" firearm owners to secure their firearms against theft, well, those "law-abiding" firearm owners just wouldn't obey those laws, so there we'd have one more law that didn't do anything to hinder criminals from obtaining firearms. I'm pretty sure I've got that right.

Then there are those firearms obtained in "street transactions". The ones that fell like lawn darts from the sky onto street corners. They didn't exist until they were bought and sold on the street. No need to investigate where they came from. They came from the sky.

There actually are several relatively reasonable people in this forum who advocate closing the private sale loophole. This would eliminate the risk of people acting in complete good faith, even, transferring their firearms to individuals who they have no way of knowing are ineligible to possess them.

Me, if I were recommending legislation to reduce the risk of ineligible individuals acquiring firearms, I'd be recommending that the law require:

- registration of firearms, to deter lawful owners from recklessly, intentionally or unwittingly transferring firearms to ineligible individuals
- licensing of firearms owners, to deter lawful owners from transferring firearms to ineligible individuals and to maintain better oversight of the lawfulness of firearms possession
- safe/secure storage of firearms, to reduce the risk of ineligible individuals acquiring firearms by theft and subsequent transfer

So would anybody else who actually gave a shit about keeping firearms out of the hands of ineligible individuals.

[one-eyed fat man]

15. grammar aside.............

"well, I do hesitate to read anything written by someone...who thinks that "predominately" is a word ... and who is in the pay of the firearms industry ... but what the hell, there does seem to be a primary source."

Don't see where these guys are gun industry hacks. However, their primary documents is an FBI study which is not published on line, as you have found. Had it been, I'd have posted a link to it myself.


"The FSRC was launched in 2004 by Executive Director Bill Lewinski, PhD. - a specialist in police psychology -- to conduct unique lethal-force experiments. The non-profit FSRC, based at Minnesota State University-Mankato, uses sophisticated time-and-motion measurements to document-for the first time-critical hidden truths about the physical and mental dynamics of life-threatening events, particularly officer-involved shootings. Its startling findings profoundly impact on officer training and safety and on the public's naive perceptions. For more information, visit www.forcescience.org or e-mail [e-mail]. If you would benefit from receiving updates on the FSRC's findings as well as a variety of other use-of-force related articles, please visit www.forcesciencenews.com and click on the "Please sign up for our newsletter" link at the front of the site. Subscriptions are free."

[one-eyed fat man]

20. Missing Weapons

Seems like the GAO found some difficulties with weapons security, and the Federal Agencies involved have FULL AUTOMATIC weapons, not the semi-auto versions civilians are permitted.

"Weapons missing, lost or stolen from the agencies involved were reported as follows: INS - 539; FBI - 221; DEA - 16; Marshals Service - 6, Bureau of Prisons - 2.

In addition, the FBI reported an additional 211 weapons found to be missing over a time period not covered by the latest audit.

During the course of the audit, local police departments recovered 18 of the missing weapons while investigating crimes. Examples of these recoveries included:

* Local police recovered a handgun stolen from an FBI agent’s residence in New Orleans, Louisiana, from the pocket of a murder victim;

* Police in Atlanta, Georgia, recovered a stolen DEA weapon during a narcotics search at a suspect’s residence; and

* Police in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and Tampa, Florida, recovered
INS weapons that were used to commit armed robberies."

Somehow I suspect that if government security measures are inadequate, that anything a mere individual might do would fail to pass your muster. The safe storage laws you, the VPC and Brady want are more along the lines, "If you didn't have them the crook couldn't steal them," rather than gun safes.

From the vitriol you expend on registering gunowners I have to wonder if you are another one of those who argued when various newspapers published the names and addresses of concealed carry permit holders it was equivalent posting the registry of sex offenders.

Apparently you think that everything that finds its way into unlawful commerce is with the collusion of ordinary folks who own guns.

No, I am sick of every charlatan who proposes another gun control law as a solution to the "crime problem". They are like the huckster selling snake oil of the back of the medicine show wagon. When challenged with, "Your cure ain't working," they glibly reply, "Friend, you just haven't swallowed enough."

[iverglas]

21. you're so smart

The safe storage laws you, the VPC and Brady want are more along the lines, "If you didn't have them the crook couldn't steal them," rather than gun safes.

Why would a smart fella like yerself decide to make such utterly and vilely false statements about a stranger like moi?



From the vitriol you expend on registering gunowners I have to wonder if you are another one of those who argued when various newspapers published the names and addresses of concealed carry permit holders it was equivalent posting the registry of sex offenders.

Do you? You have to? Why would you say you have to wonder? Do you not have google? Do you not have fingers with which to type a civil question before embarking on vicious speculation?

Myself, I wonder what this: "the vitriol you expend on registering gunowners" is referring to. Actually, I wonder what it means. Can you help?


Apparently you think that everything that finds its way into unlawful commerce is with the collusion of ordinary folks who own guns.

Apparently, you'd rather make false statements for which you have no factual basis, carefully shrouded in the disingenuous "apparently", than behave civilly.

[tburnsten]

24. How ironic

that a DEA weapon would turn up in a residence searched during a narcotics arrest.

[friendly_iconoclast]

36. You treat guns the way Bush treats Internet traffic

Gotta monitor those peons, right? After all, if we don't keep an eye on them, somebody *may*
commit a crime. Tell me the following wasn't a Freudian slip (bold type mine):

There actually are several relatively reasonable people in this forum who advocate closing the private sale loophole. This would eliminate the risk of people acting in complete good faith, even, transferring their firearms to individuals who they have no way of knowing are ineligible to possess them.

We need to close the open Wi-Fi loophole. This would eliminate the risk of people accessing pornography,
hate speech, or communicating with terrorist networks.


Me, if I were recommending legislation to reduce the risk of downloading music or visiting Al Quaeda sites, I'd be recommending that the law require:

- registration of modems, to deter lawful owners from recklessly, intentionally or unwittingly transferring data to ineligible individuals.

- licensing of computer owners, to deter lawful owners from transferring data to ineligible individuals and to maintain better oversight of the lawfulness of computer possession

- safe/secure access to Wi-Fi routers, to reduce the risk of ineligible individuals acquiring data by theft and subsequent transfer

Control: It's not just a Janet Jackson album!

[iverglas]

39. I'll just wander off shaking my head

and wondering, as always, why some people want to make themselves look like such complete morons ...


That's some fine nonsense you've made for yourself there. Hope you had fun.

But this one:

safe/secure access to Wi-Fi routers, to reduce the risk of ineligible individuals acquiring data by theft and subsequent transfer

Funny, that one.

Strikes me that people actually do demand that their data be protected from theft and subsequent transfer ...

I guess that's bad because it could affect them. Getting their guns stolen is bad because it could affect other people. Some people give a shit about other people, other people don't.

[friendly_iconoclast]

48. The trouble with being a moralizer....

...is that the people you are moralizing to have to recognize your moral authority
for it to have any weight.

John Calvin, as evil as he was, had influence. Phyllis Schlafly
gets by by longevity and the fact she provides the RW with a talking head with estrogen.

Andrea Dworkin just wasn't functional as a human being after a while. Betty Friedan had truth
and eloquence on her side.

As usual, the problem with the legal profession is the confusion of eloquence with truth.
You've a way to go before you're the Savonarola of Upper Canada.

[AtheistCrusader]

41. American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition

Disagrees with you.

v. intr.

To have or gain controlling power or influence; prevail: Good predominates over evil in many literary works.
To be of or have greater quantity or importance; preponderate: French-speaking people predominate in Quebec.

v. tr.
To dominate or prevail over.


Medieval Latin praedominārī, praedomināt- : Latin prae-, pre- + Latin dominārī, to rule (from dominus, master; see dem- in Indo-European roots).

pre·dom'i·nate·ly (-nĭt-lē ) adv., pre·dom'i·na'tion n., pre·dom'i·na'tor n.

[iverglas]

44. uh huh

I wondered what that was about myself. Couldn't figure out why a dictionary would be offering as an adverb something with an adjective root that wasn't in the dictionary.

If "predominate" isn't an adjective, then "predominately" isn't an adverb.

You'll notice that what you quote identifies "predominate" as a verb, not an adjective.

The adjective in question is "predominant", and the adverb is "predominantly".

My Oxford says:

predominately
adv. = PREDOMINANTLY (see PREDOMINANT).
<rare PREDOMINATE (adj.) = PREDOMINANT>

"Predominately" is a word made up by illiterates who are not aware that "predominate" is a verb and "predominant" is an adjective.



formatting fixed

[AtheistCrusader]

53. Two more.

"Adverbs typically express some relation of place, time, manner, attendant circumstance, degree, cause, inference, result, condition, exception, concession, purpose, or means."

Also, three for four so far, Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006 AND Webster's 9th New Collegiate Dictionary.

Random House:
pre·dom·i·nate Audio Help /prɪˈdɒməˌneɪt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation{pri-dom-uh-neyt} verb

1. to be the stronger or leading element or force.
2. to have numerical superiority or advantage: The radicals predominate in the new legislature.
3. to surpass others in authority or influence; be preeminent: He predominated in the political scene.
4. to have or exert controlling power (often fol. by over): Good sense predominated over the impulse to fight.
5. to appear more noticeable or imposing than something else: Blues and greens predominated in the painting.
–verb (used with object) 6. to dominate or prevail over.


—Related forms
pre·dom·i·nate·ly

Webster's:

predominate adj {alter of predominant} (1591):PREDOMINANT
---pre·dom·i·nate·ly adv


(Brackets replaced with curly braces due to forum software formatting)

[AtheistCrusader]

55. Also, your own source indicates PREDOMINATE (adj.) N/t

[iverglas]

11. hmm, interesting

Press release about the study (which doesn't seem to be available on line yet):

http://www.fbi.gov/pressrel/pressrel07/leoka051407.htm

A breakdown of the data concerning the weapons used in the slaying of officers shows that firearms were the weapons most commonly used in these incidents. Of the 46 officers who were fatally wounded with firearms, 35 were killed with handguns, 8 were slain with rifles, 2 were killed with shotguns, and 1 officer was murdered with an unknown type of firearm. Two officers were killed with vehicles.

Dear me. Surely that can't be. Eight of 46 fatal shootings of police were committed with rifles and two with shotguns? Ten out of 46? Over 20 percent?

Surely not. Everybody knows that long arms are not a crime problem.

Maybe it's a limited and specialized use/problem. Maybe criminals just keep / carry long arms in case they run into a cop who needs shooting ...

[one-eyed fat man]

17. you missed again.............

The study is entitled:
"Violent Encounters: A Study of Felonious Assaults on Our Nation’s Law Enforcement Officers.”
Anthony J. Pinizzotto, Edward F. Davis, Charles E. Miller III.
Dept. of Justice, National Institute of Justice
Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services Division
Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Assistance, 2006.

.........and apparently all these other gun industry "hacks" and/or "dupes" fell for it.

http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/Abstract.aspx?id=241978

http://www.southalabama.edu/univlib/govdocs/bibs/criminal_justice_bib.htm

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2194/is_3_77/ai_n25149613/pg_5

http://www.policemag.com/Channels/Gangs/2007/11/02/The-Killing-Mindset.aspx


The FBI press release you posted is NOT this study but "Preliminary Statistics for Law Enforcement Officers Killed in 2006"

[iverglas]

22. now, what would your point be?

The press release was linked to from the article you cited. I cited it for a particular purpose having nothing to do with your own.

Any chance you'd like to respond to my point?



.........and apparently all these other gun industry "hacks" and/or "dupes" fell for it.

I have no idea what they allegedly fell for, or what would make them hacks or dupes, but, oh, whatever, eh?

Any chance you'd like to respond to my point?

[one-eyed fat man]

28. I link to an article quoting a study

and you respond by saying,

"well, I do hesitate to read anything written by someone...who thinks that "predominately" is a word ... and who is in the pay of the firearms industry ... but what the hell, there does seem to be a primary source."

Sure looks like you dismiss the article as gun industry puffery and impugn the study.

You say, "Myself, I wonder what this: "the vitriol you expend on registering gunowners" is referring to. Actually, I wonder what it means. Can you help?"

and you say, "law-abiding" firearm owners who are such fucking scum that they refuse to secure their firearms against theft.

....and you say, "(T)hose "law-abiding" firearm owners just wouldn't obey those laws.... I'm pretty sure I've got that right."

So 'fucking scum' who 'just don't obey laws' is a compliment in Canada?

.... and then you say. "Why would a smart fella like yerself decide to make such utterly and vilely false statements about a stranger like moi?

This is not the first of your posts I have read. You make your feelings abundantly clear.

[iverglas]

31. read much?

I link to an article quoting a study and you respond by saying,
"well, I do hesitate to read anything written by someone...who thinks that "predominately" is a word ... and who is in the pay of the firearms industry ... but what the hell, there does seem to be a primary source."
Sure looks like you dismiss the article as gun industry puffery and impugn the study.

Need glasses, maybe?

Sure looks to me like ordinarily I take anything written by illiterates with an axe to grind with a grain of salt -- but if there is a primary source for what they are saying, it's a different matter.

I fail to see how it could look any other way to anyone.


and you say, "law-abiding" firearm owners who are such fucking scum that they refuse to secure their firearms against theft.

I did indeed. Do ALL "law-abiding" firearm owners refuse to secure their firearms against theft?

I didn't think so.

So, would there be some reason for you to pretend to think that was what I meant?


So 'fucking scum' who 'just don't obey laws' is a compliment in Canada?

Not so's I've ever heard. Do you have a reason for asking? "Fucking scum who just don't obey laws" would be a description of certain people who don't obey laws, I'd think. In fact, I'd be pretty sure.

How would you describe, oh, bank robbers? Would "fucking scum who just don't obey laws" be one option?

There are quite a few firearm owners in Canada who obey the safe/secure storage laws. Is there some reason you would think I'd be referring to them as "fucking scum who just don't obey laws"? I can't think of a reason, myself.


.... and then you say. "Why would a smart fella like yerself decide to make such utterly and vilely false statements about a stranger like moi?
This is not the first of your posts I have read. You make your feelings abundantly clear.

And I don't give a shit about what you have done or not done. I asked you a question.

You have now made two false statements about me:

Apparently you think that everything that finds its way into unlawful commerce is with the collusion of ordinary folks who own guns.

(That one would be a false statement about yourself -- you are saying that I appear to you in a way that I could not appear to any rational person, and I'm not going to assume that you are not a rational person)

The safe storage laws you, the VPC and Brady want are more along the lines, "If you didn't have them the crook couldn't steal them," rather than gun safes.

(That one's just a flat-out false statement about me: "The safe storage laws you ... want ...". False statement. Made by someone who knows that there is no evidence to support it, and by someone who should have known that there is evidence to refute it.)

Why have you made false statements about me?

[one-eyed fat man]

37. incongruous

"Law-abiding" and "just don't obey laws" strike me as mutually exclusive states. So which part am I most confused over?

Your characterization of gun owners who don't obey laws as 'law abiding' or the part where you say 'law abiding gun owners' don't obey laws?

Or do you, as in the bank robbers you cite, mean "fucking scum who just don't obey laws" and use guns to commit their crimes?

No, you didn't quite say all gun owners are scum. It is just unclear who you left out.

On the other point, then enlighten me to what you consider safe storage.

Locked in a house? Locked in a car trunk? In a gun cabinet? A gun safe?
In a holster on your hip? In a government controlled vault? In a foundry furnace at about 1200 degrees Celsius?

Tell me why I shouldn't believe that your goals are not the same as those of Josh Sugarman, The Brady Campaign, the VPC or Joyce Foundation.

"Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal." - Janet Reno, U.S. Attorney General (10 Dec 1993)

[iverglas]

38. you might want to consult a style manual

Try looking up quotation marks.

Here ya go. A quick google for "quotation marks" sarcasm.

http://www.wikihow.com/Detect-Sarcasm-in-Writing

Look for unusual usage of bold, CAPITAL, italics, or underlining that serve to emphasize sarcasm or scare quotes around words and phrases that are not from quoted material. A writer may choose to put a word in quotation marks (scare quotes) to indicate an unusual or ironic meaning. If the writing is extremely informal, a writer might put asterisks (*) around a word to emphasize the word or show sarcasm: “You know that I would just *love* that.” Writers may also use 'emoticons' such as a wink ;-), or a graphical eye rolling smiley, or perhaps just ::rolling eyes::. (Did you notice the scare quotes in the last sentence?) One also might use /sarcasm.

On the other point, then enlighten me to what you consider safe storage.

Enlighten yourself.

Get yourself a star, or just use google.

I've been here for several years, and I've discussed safe/secure storage on numerous occasions. You shouldn't really have any difficulty answering your own question.

I doubt that in real life you butt into a conversation and demand that everybody repeat everything they've said in the last 5 minutes, let alone 5 years, for your benefit. I dunno. Maybe you do.

Here, this should start you off.

http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=+site:www.democraticunderground.com+iverglas+%22safe/secure+storage%22

Results 1 - 30 of about 52 from www.democraticunderground.com for iverglas "safe/secure storage".


Tell me why I shouldn't believe that your goals are not the same as those of Josh Sugarman, The Brady Campaign, the VPC or Joyce Foundation.

Nah. You tell me why I shouldn't tell you to take along walk off a ...

[one-eyed fat man]

40. ok.........

The first half dozen posts all seem to be in the same vein. Randomly bouncing through 5 other pages of search results, I find repeated statements like:

"2. Require that firearms owners store their firearms safely/securely"

"Which is why where I'm at we have laws requiring safe/secure storage."

"regulations requiring safe/secure storage of firearms"

"- mandatory standards for the safe/secure storage of firearms "

"Criminal liability should attach if a firearm that was not securely stored is stolen..."

In the couple hours I spent going over your posts you never articulate what you consider acceptable storage. You mention not "leaving the keys in the ignition" in passing, by way of analogy, but otherwise I fail to see that you have any other standard or definition except the absolute: If a gun gets stolen, it wasn't properly secured.

[iverglas]

43. oh well, eh?

Too bad you didn't just try asking civilly in the first place. I would likely have put a smidgen of effort into finding you a couple of relevant threads.

You could try this search (ignore any clickability and just copy to google)

site:www.democraticunderground.com iverglas storage regulations

Post at top of the list I get looks good.
Post referred to in that post contains this:
http://www.canlii.org/ca/regu/sor98-209/whole.html
and that will be what you're looking for. Bare minimum.

Phew. I'm all worn out now.

Actually I am. Trying to finish work so I can go away for a long weekend of no work and all play in a few hours, and just found out a few hours ago my baby sister has cancer. My baby sister the lifelong non-smoking vegetarian, with colon cancer. Life will bite you every time (and in this case there's a good chance it will, since it's seeming pretty likely this cancer thang is genetic), so I'm just gonna go ahead and take a big bite myself first. I'll wave to you all from the top of the Ferris wheel.

[WWFZD]

47. Sorry to hear about

your baby sister. Colon cancer is a nasty one although the survivability rate is rising, especially with early detection.
I've read and heard, mostly anecdotally, that a vegetarian diet is conducive to the development of certain cancers in women, most notably breast cancer, while a diet high in animal protein is more responsible for colon cancer. Damned if you do, damned if you don't, might as well enjoy yourself.

Enjoy the short vacation. Cedar Point perhaps?

[friendly_iconoclast]

49. Also sorry to hear about your sis

Don't rack your self over her habits or lack thereof, sometimes cancer just happens.

Try to ride some of those cool old carousels while you are gone.

[iverglas]

51. ta ^^^

Pretty weirdo news in an already pretty weirdo week. With a 7 cm (nearly 3-inch) tumour that can't be operated on unless/until shrunk by radiation/chemo ... not one of yer early catches. Her two kids have Lyme disease, and it seems her partner now has it as well. The cancer though -- evidently hers is genetically related to the melanoma that my dad was dying of when he died of the unknown inherited heart condition. And thus related to the melanoma my brother was diagnosed with 6 months later and had successfully removed. Looks like if the quadruple coronary artery blockage don't get me, the cancer will. The genetic testing she's having done should say. Meanwhile, the genetic connection being assumed for now, it's colonoscopy time for moi. Aren't genes great?

Like the non-smoker with lung cancer and the vegetarian with colon cancer, me the lifelong pallid basement-dweller (a cool clammy place with a book and some old movies, that's where I wanted to be when I was a teenager, not toasting under some hot sun) with melanoma -- that would be one of life's charming little ironies.

Anyhow, the moral of this story should probably be, I dunno, smoke and eat meat and lie in the sun and get your colon checked. I'll stick with go on as many roller coasters as you can.

Cedar Point was one of the options considered, but it lost out. ;) It was, however, where my dad became the first case of roller coaster-induced subdural haematoma in the medical literature. Now that, I'm hoping, isn't hereditary.

Sadly, the antique carousel where I'll be seems to be closed for renovation.

[one-eyed fat man]

52. 50-50

First link was a dud, but the one to Canadian statutes worked. Those are familiar.

My uncle in Mississauga, had a hunting camp northeast of Hearst. He took me moose hunting there when I was 11. A grand adventure for a kid. Crossing the border was unremarkable but for a Canadian customs officer telling me my Model 94 Winchester was too light for the task and he recommended a .303 with 215 grain bullets instead.

Uncle Peter died of colon cancer last summer.

He got to feeling poorly. He made an appointment. He went through the system. It took 18 months to get to see the doctor who diagnosed his cancer and told him, "If you had been here a year ago we could have done something."

They sent him home to die.

[AtheistCrusader]

57. Sorry to hear that.

That can be a huge burden on a family. Glad that you can be there for her, it means worlds to the sick.

[AtheistCrusader]

42. "illiterates with an axe to grind"

People who live in glass houses throwing bricks, etc.

I think it would be more productive to attack the message, not the messenger.

[iverglas]

45. really?

You have some basis for insinuating I am illiterate?

You might want to acknowledge that while I attacked the messenger, I did not attack the message, other than to point out its complete incompleteness. My comments on the messenger had precisely fuck all to do with my comments on the message.

So you kind of seem to be left without a point to stand on here.

Why do so many people want to make themselves look so stupid?

[AtheistCrusader]

54. So you're just going to sit there

and declare 3 separate mainstream dictionaries to be 'illiterate'?

My point was attacking the messenger, especially on such petty ante bullshit, is not a very good idea. Especially when you are wrong.

[iverglas]

62. and my point

which you seem determined either not to get or to pretend not to get, is that I DID NOT ATTACK THE MESSENGER in any sense that makes anything I did relevant to this discussion. Fer fuck's sakes.

You are continuing to pretend that I committed the fallacy of attacking the messenger in order to discredit the message. I DID NOT DO THAT.

I made a negative comment about the messenger, one that might be construed as insulting.

If I tell you I hate your haircut and proceed to demolish whatever argument you have made, point by point, I HAVE COMMITTED NO FALLACY.

If I tell you I hate your haircut and proceed to ignore you while addressing the argument made by a source you have cited, I HAVE COMMITTED NO FALLACY.

If I have committed no fallacy -- as I HAVE NOT -- what is your point? What does my opinion about this secondary source matter to you?

If you want to discuss my opinion about the secondary source, feel free. You can disagree with it, you can claim to have proved that it is without foundation; whatever.

Just stop pretending that I have committed a fallacy by expressing it.

And no, I am not wrong. You don't seem to have managed to find a definition of "predominately" (and its supposed root adjective, "predominate") that indicates anything other than that it is some sort of variant of "predominantly" ("predominant").

You might want to investigate the nature of dictionaries. I'll offer assistance: they are records of usage, not authoritative statements of meaning.

[AtheistCrusader]

63. Etymology is fun.

Variant or not, common usage or not, Predominate and Predominant both date from the mid 1500's. They are both valid english words. Your own source identified Predominate as an Adjective. So do several other authorities. Dictionaries are built by experts 'in the biz' of human language, and I don't know if you've ever met any, but those experts have a pretty anal-retentive attention to detail and accuracy. Your knee-jerk smear of 'illiterate' was unwarranted, and incorrect. I also see no basis for 'in the pay of the firearms industry'. I don't even see any firearms adverts linked through that site, just accessories, radios, and law enforcement related equipment, hardly the 'firearms industry'. And 'illiterate' used in this context 'might be construed as insulting' is disingenuous at best. You absolutely used it as an insult. I never said it was central to your argument, just that your attack on the source was not only tasteless, but factually wrong.


As for your argument related to the study behind the article, only one paragraph seems worth discussing, as the others seemed more like observations.

"Then there are those firearms obtained in "street transactions". The ones that fell like lawn darts from the sky onto street corners. They didn't exist until they were bought and sold on the street. No need to investigate where they came from. They came from the sky."

Those firearms are traced when picked up by law enforcement. Anything made in what, the last 20 years or so, can be traced to the original point of sale and purchaser. For those firearms that don't trace to a legal distributor, they may very well come from the sky. Illegal importation can include air drop from various aircraft, just like many drugs can be smuggled in. When your border allows for the importation of many hundreds of tons of drugs a year, I don't think it's surprising that firearms can be trafficked as well, carried, driven, or flown over the border. I'd be shocked if they weren't imported by the literal truckload either. All it requires is proper coercion over the authority controlling the point of entry. Bribery, infiltration, or threat can be very useful for that. Big enough bankroll, and I don't think flying an entire UPS 747 full of guns into the country is an impossible feat. Last town hall I observed, where the police chief showed a confiscated firearm as an example, I noted it was a shotgun never legally imported to this country for civilian ownership. To say nothing of private transfers that are in and of themselves, first time criminal acts.

I am interested in a dialog on both safe storage and registration. I've mentioned a few times criteria that would make me comfortable with national registration, and storage requirements. Currently none of those criteria are even discussed. Neither side seems terribly interested in anything resembling a compromise.

[krispos42]

27. Actually, there's probably a good reason for that number

Police wear body armor. Rifles are far more powerful than handguns and shotgun pellets, and body armor won't generally stop a rifle bullet. Therefore, even though rifles are used far less often than handguns and shotguns, their fatality rate should be higher.

The increased power of a rifle matters much less in the general civilian world because citizens hardly ever wear body armor, thus increasing the fatality rate of handguns and shotguns.

[benEzra]

30. OMG, the sky is falling...

Yup, those rifle and shotgun murders sure do dominate the chart, and have been rising exponentially since...oh, wait, they're still on the decline.

Methinks some people who make a living/hobby scaremongering about the eeee-villls of modern looking rifles and shotguns must have the x-axis reversed or something.

BTW, would you condescend to tell me where you'd plot the number "10" for 2006 on that chart, and what it says about trends in police killings, hmmm?

[iverglas]

32. with whom do you imagine you are agreeing?

Yup, those rifle and shotgun murders sure do dominate the chart, and have been rising exponentially since...oh, wait, they're still on the decline.

Must be that straw personnage lurking in the corners. Nobody here seems to have said that rifle and shotgun murders dominate anything.


Methinks some people who make a living/hobby scaremongering about the eeee-villls of modern looking rifles and shotguns must have the x-axis reversed or something.

I think somebody spends too much time inhaling straw.


BTW, would you condescend to tell me where you'd plot the number "10" for 2006 on that chart, and what it says about trends in police killings, hmmm?

I'm sure you have a point here, but I'm equally sure I have no clue what it is.

I'll try to help you, though. From what I can see, the number "10" would be plotted just above where the blue line is for 2005, which looks to be at about 9.

On the other hand, the number "35", the number of law enforcment homicides by handgun, would appear to be somewhat below where the blue line is for 2005, which looks to be about 41.

So it looks like a slight absolute rise in "other gun" homicides and a slightly larger absolute decline in handgun homicides, giving us, as well, a rise in "other gun" homicides relative to handgun homicides.

That help at all?

[benEzra]

34. I'm surprised that you didn't bring in newer data...

as the 2006 and 2007 reports have been out for a while, and we already have 2008 midyear data from the NLEOMF. The FBI LEOKA data may be accessed via the FBI Uniform Crime Reports page here, and I'll link to the NLEOMF 2008 data below.

From the summaries from the press releases page:

2006: 46 gun-related murders (35 handgun, 8 rifle, 2 shotgun, 1 unknown type)

2007: 55 gun-related murders (38 handgun, 8 rifle, 9 shotgun, 0 unknown type)

I would point out that practically all "assault weapons" would be in the rifle category, whereas the 2006-to-2007 increases were all in in the handgun and shotgun categories; rifle murders didn't increase at all.

And good news for 2008:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-07-09-police-deaths_N.htm

Police deaths plummet in first half of '08

WASHINGTON — Police officer deaths plunged to their lowest midyear total in 43 years after an unusually deadly year for law enforcement officers, says a report released today by a national police advocacy group. The review reflects declines in all major categories of officer fatalities, including traffic accidents and shootings, the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund found.

Overall deaths declined from 100 to 59 in the first six months of 2007 compared to the same period this year. The number of overall deaths is the lowest since 1965, when 55 officers were killed.

Midyear shooting deaths fell from 38 in 2007 to 21 this year, the lowest number since 1960, when 18 officers were killed by gunfire.

Link to the 2008 preliminary figures here (PDF file)

I guess those rifle handgrips that stick out aren't the "OH NOES!!!" threat to police officers that some would like to portray them...

[benEzra]

58. No comment? (n/t)

[benEzra]

60. Bump. (n/t)

[benEzra]

64. Still no comment? (n/t)

[one-eyed fat man]

35. correlations

It would be interesting to see what further information is available when the complete report is released.

The cite notes that 9 officers were ambushed. Perhaps, a cunning criminal, deliberately luring an officer to where he could be killed, would plan to have something more potent than a pistol.

It is not long guns are never used in crimes, they are just used much less often than handguns. On the other hand, it would make sense their great power would result in greater lethality.

[krispos42]

26. It's language framing

The term was coined to control the language used in the debate. There is no "gunshow loophole" anymore than there is a "death tax", but look at the two words in the term:

"gunshow", a place where gun-sellers and gun-buyers converge to buy guns. Lots of guns. All kinds of guns. It deliberately strives to obscure the fact that the federal and state laws regarding purchasing guns is dependent on the seller of guns (licensed or private), not the geographical location.

"loophole", a mistake in the law that allows things to happen that the law was intended to prevent. As in, "golly, we meant that gunshows were to be regulated but we goofed!". The implication is that gun shows are some kind of legally lawless zone where guns can be bought and sold irrespective of state and federal laws and regulations.


It's bullshit.

[AtheistCrusader]

8. Also known as

The Estate Sale Loophole
The NewsPaper Loophole
The Craigslist Loophole
The Garage Sale Loophole
The Classifieds Loophole
The Friend Loophole


The term that should be used is 'Private Transfers' because that is exactly what is meant. It's just not as catchy as the GUN Show Loophole.

Fun fact, you cannot do private transfers to non-members at WAC gun shows here in Washington State, and membership requires passing a NICS check, or a valid concealed weapons permit, which also requires a valid NICS and FBI background check.

Gosh, I'm shocked that criminals don't get their guns from my local gun shows. You mean they can be foiled by a simple NICS check, and a huge room full of law abiding citizens with firearms? Amazing. Considering the number of off-duty and on-duty Police Officers in attendance, I can't imagine why I have never once seen a hip-hop/gang banger teenager at these shows. Total mystery to me.

[iverglas]

10. surely you have more imagination than that

Considering the number of off-duty and on-duty Police Officers in attendance, I can't imagine why I have never once seen a hip-hop/gang banger teenager at these shows. Total mystery to me.

I dunno. Maybe you don't. Maybe you are completely unfamiliar with the phenomenon of firearms trafficking, and how firearms purchased "legally" are trafficked on to be used to commit and facilitate crimes ...

[SteveM]

14. He does, but doesn't want to waste it on you! (nt)

[AtheistCrusader]

16. Straw purchasers

tend to be of a criminal type that is already known to law enforcement. I don't know what goes on in other states in this regard, but in Washington, you can't walk through a room at the show without seeing one on or off duty officer. This is not an environment that criminals tend to frequent. Not to mention the average citizen that attends these, that takes a dim view of people who put guns in the hands of criminals, second-hand. (I would like to see a more diverse crowd there, but just in the 5 years I've been a member, I have seen a noticeable improvement in that regard)

I think the totally clean 'god of war' type weapons dealer that is going to move guns at these shows from legal sellers to criminals, is a fairly rare or non-existent creature around here. The dirtbags that get caught simply don't acquire them that way. They steal them, primarily. They buy them from thieves on the street. It's too expensive to 'flip' the guns actually sold at the shows to valid members.

You'd get a hell of a lot more mileage focusing on safe storage, than you would doing anything to the Gun Shows around here. In States where there are shows that do not have membership and background check requirements, perhaps these shows are more of an issue.

[iverglas]

25. ya think?

In States where there are shows that do not have membership and background check requirements, perhaps these shows are more of an issue.

Like, maybe, Ohio? Where firearms are purchased that then show up being used in crimes in Canada after being trafficked across the border?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=175418

http://www.cbc.ca/toronto/features/staring/ellwand.html

[AtheistCrusader]

29. That's fine,

I have no problem with that, but why do our local democratic legislators keep beating the gun show drum when it's already a non-issue? You have to have a background check here. You have to be a dealer if you sell more than (some number, I would have to look it up) number of guns a month.

It's not an issue here, so it shouldn't be a legislative priority here. Do it somewhere it makes sense.

[WWFZD]

46. Ohio gun shows?

I've been to many and have never seen anything remotely like Mr. Ellwand claims he found. "several sawed-off shotguns, a favourite of bank robbers" and "fully operable machine guns, presumably for collectors" - obviously implying that any passing gang-banger can walk up to this display, plunk down the requisite cash and tote a 12 inch barreled shotgun and an M60 out the door.
And others.
"at least one bazooka" - he probably did see this and it was previously rendered permanently inoperable.

I've never been to a gun show in Niles but Geoff has this covered as well; "This show, held at the Eastwood Expo Center near the intersection of several busy interstate highways, is typical of dozens of gun shows held across Ohio each year."

"Shows such as these are the result of some of the loosest gun laws of any state in the Union. Ohio, along with Florida, boasts a law that allows individuals to sell firearms with no questions asked." - Yeah, Ohio, Florida and almost every other state in the US.

I'm not calling Mr. Ellwand a liar, just an imbecile who wouldn't recognize any of the scary items he feverishly dreamed he saw. Does this dude cover firearms issues for Mother Jones?

[iverglas]

50. imbeciles

http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=%22geoff+ellwand%22&btnG=Google+Search&meta=

Once again, I wander off shaking my head ...

[AtheistCrusader]

56. Yeah, this article is a huge piece of crap.

http://www.cbc.ca/toronto/features/staring/ellwand.html

"A wide selection of AK-47 semi-automatic assault rifles were on hand, along with several sawed-off shotguns, a favorite of bank robbers, and at least one bazooka - the famous anti-tank weapon."

A bazooka is a Destructive Device, not a firearm. The permits for it are extremely expensive and highly restrictive. There is absolutely no way that wasn't de-milled. It was a piece of metal, non-functional. Period. A collectors item with no mechanical ability to fire, no explosive charge, and no propellant.

Sawed off shotguns are NFA weapons, requiring a type 3 FFL to transfer. If he actually saw one with a shorter than 18" barrel, and the seller had no permit and the weapon was not registered (again, destructive device), and did not use an FFL to transfer it, he should have called the BATFE and they would have arrested the people selling it and charged them with felonies, to the tune of 10 years and $10,000. U.S.C. § 5861(d)

"Federal law requires that any rifle or shotgun with a barrel length of less than 18 inches and an overall length of less than 26 inches must be registered in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record, and the transfer of any such firearm must be reported to and approved by ATF."

"Then there were there fully operable machine guns, presumably for collectors, many of World War II vintage, but some much newer. One of the tables carried the handwritten sign "Buying Machine Guns"."

Legal in that state, but tightly controlled under the 1934 NFA. He couldn't just plunk down cash and buy one. Period.

"The bulk of the products offered at the Niles show were being sold by established gun dealers. Even under Ohio's laws they are obligated to have customers fill out an information sheet confirming they are Ohio residents with no criminal past. A phone call confirms the would-be buyer's information."

Translation: Normal paperwork and NICS check, just like if they had been in the sellers normal place of business.

"But this doesn't cover the private vendors, such as the men offering the Taurus or the .357 Magnum. They can legally sell any weapon as long as they don't know the buyer came from out-of-state or had intent to commit an illegal act. Two questions that I was never asked in several negotiations with sellers."

These questions are normally asked at the time of sale. If he didn't buy one, I don't consider that proof he wouldn't have been asked in the transaction. Same is required of a person selling at a garage sale, in the newspaper, or giving it as a gift.

"semi-automatic assault rifles" Cognitive dissonance. Congress defined such weapons as the AK-47 civilian semi-auto knock-offs as an "Assault Weapon", but no semi-automatic-only rifle is an Assault Rifle. Assault Rifles are by definition select-fire. Period. If you handed one of these weapons to an old Russian soldier, and told him it was an Assault Rifle he would tell you it was broken.

This guy has zero credibility with me. He has no idea what he was looking at, doing, or what laws were or were not being observed.

[WWFZD]

61. My bad,

I stand corrected. That Ellwand kid is not an imbecile, just a propagandist with no compunction against lying in order to advance an agenda. Ain't journalism grand?

[friendly_iconoclast]

18. At least iverglas is honest about wanting to end private sales

A refreshing contrast with this git from Rhody:

http://www.thebostonchannel.com/investigative/17235722/detail.html

I must note that the reporters did not actually commit the felony of purchasing a handgun illegally-
unlike the agents of NY City.

I am always supicious of any person or group that engages in 'heavenly deception'.

[iverglas]

23. the important emphasis being: at least *iverglas* is honest

At least iverglas is honest about wanting to end private sales

Since I have NEVER, EVER, EVER expressed any desire to end private sales of firearms, and since I in fact have no desire to end private sales of firearms -- your statement thus being completely false, leaving me being the honest one in this conversation.

[benEzra]

33. I'd say the "assault weapon" fraud is a more egregious example of a moral panic

complete with hyperbolic rhetoric, nonsensical policy proposals, risk exaggeration bordering on wacky, and all the rest.

FWIW, with regard to the "gun show loophole," I suspect the gun-control lobby could have had a workable compromise on private-sale background checks years ago had they made that their goal, rather than attacking down gun shows themselves or trying to piggyback registration onto the issue.

[JustinBuist]

59. Closing the gun show loophole isn't a "Left" only issue.

John McCain waddled up in front of a crowd at the NRA Convention this year and said he's in favor of closing the "gun show loophole." A few folks walked out after he did that.

There's really no reason to run away from it. The NRA certainly can't call any other politician out after McCain dropped that deuce in front of the crowd that day.