The Real Truth For All You Number Analytical Types
Everybody needs to watch this for some real truth about gun violence.
You are far more likely to be killed by a medical error than any type of gun violence.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SK7WrsnuDPc
It's not really about gun prohibition
Gun prohibition only works if there aren't many guns in circulation to begin with, and it's quick and easy for law enforcement/military to pick up those guns, and the law enforcement/military people aren't corrupt or infiltrated by criminals. For example, Mexico has nearly absolute gun control, with only one legal gun store in the country, but it's pretty easy to get a gun (illegally) there - you just go to a cop, pay the requisite amount of money and the cop delivers the gun and ammo to your door, and he'll even teach you how to fire it. There's a separate marketplace for drug gangs, some of which have infiltrated the army or local police forces, or both.
That's not the situation in the US, we have an estimated 300 million guns in circulation, almost one for every person in the US. A "War on Guns" would have the same success as the "War on Drugs" and enforcement would be costly in terms of dollars and human lives, not to speak of the political effects amongst the population. With gun prohibition, there'd probably be a resurgent militia movement, and troops going house to house to seize guns might kick off a domestic insurgency, especially if people were killed in the process.
School shooters tend to be individuals who are socially isolated, odd, intelligent, and who have been severely bullied, and it's that last part which is not really being mentioned in the most recent controversy. In the case of Adam Lanza, when he was still in school, when he'd walk down the hall, if he encountered students walking towards him, he'd flatten himself against the wall, and hold his briefcase up in such a manner as to shield himself. It strikes me that this is a learned behavior - probably he'd been repeatedly punched.
A rabbi in Newtown stated that:
Quote:
I personally know from a classmate and neighbor of Adam Lanza that he was brilliant, odd and severely bullied.
From:http://www.thejewishweek.com/editori...cies-are-vital)
Lanza was referred to a school psychologist because it was thought that he *might* be a target for bullies, but it strikes me that there is a good amount of denial going on here, in retrospect. Instead, Lanza, like the other school shooters, is characterized as "evil" and the blame is set squarely on him. That's the easy way out.
Here's another case which, thankfully, did not result in a school shooting:
Quote:
I stood out like a black thumb; I was the most bizarre-looking kid in town. My style was met with equal parts disgust and fascination by my classmates, and the bullying predictably escalated—I was verbally and physically assaulted on a regular basis, receiving death threats at least once a month. Teachers not only didn’t bother to defend me, they would often chime in with comments about my appearance, maybe in an effort to impress the more popular kids, who were usually the offspring of the grown townspeople with high standing in the community.
The bullying was not only halted by the people whose job it was to do such things, it was actively encouraged. Once again, the victim of the bullying was sent to the school psychologist:
Quote:
I was also informed that I was emotionally disturbed and I was ordered to undergo sessions with the school therapist twice a week. I hated him. He was smarmy and condescending, and when I told him I was tired of being harassed he told me that the other kids were just blowing off steam, that their reactions were normal. He also claimed that people probably weren’t picking on me as much as I imagined. When he walked me out after that session, two people yelled “psycho” at me in front of him.
The bullying didn't stop, with this result:
Quote:
Thus, my clothing and behavior became increasingly bizarre—I felt that upping the ante was the only reasonable solution to the cards I had been dealt. I wanted to create a persona that would help to minimize my harassment, which I figured would be a hyper-real, meaner version of myself. I grew tired of trying to do damage control so I figured I may as well give them what they wanted. Every step I took caused a scene—all I had to do was show up at a school function and people would get visibly upset. I once made a brief 15-minute appearance at a formal dance wearing a short silver dress, and those 15 minutes resulted in weeks of chatter—tales of my “insane” dress circulated until it was said that it had spikes and squares sticking out of it. It was like being a celebrity. A PTA meeting was held, and one of the topics debated was whether I could be banned from all dances and after-school functions.
Luckily, she was able to get out of that town, and get some insight as to what she had gone through, and was able to make a decent life for herself. Here's the whole article: http://www.vice.com/read/i-was-a-sus...school-shooter
It's not gun control which needs to be addressed here, because desperate people, people driven crazy with a need for revenge, will always find a means to bring it about. Mental health screenings might help, but as above, if the underlying causes of the problem are not addressed, those will be of little use as well.
Failures in Law Enforcement
Mr. Bratton (inadvertently ?) disclosed, in his comments on ammo "clips" (his usage), what he really wants:
Quote:
He says he'd support "anything that reduces the number of rounds in a clip." In an attack like the one in Newtown, Conn., Mr. Bratton says, the faster a deranged killer can shoot, the more damage he can do—and the less time is allowed for the police to arrive. "Oftentimes it is in the changing of a clip that the opportunity presents itself for stopping. What's the right number—seven, 10, 15? Who knows? The right number is no bullets in the clip, but that's not going to happen."
No bullets mean an inoperable firearm; which equals a firearms ban - e.g. (sort of like) Australia, or where New York (state and city) may well be headed.
However, he did bring up two points which I believe are worth discussing; that is, he and I have at least a common framework in them.
One was a very brief comment (allegation) of prevalent failed background checks:
Quote:
"Clearly a large number of people who shouldn't have firearms actually apply through the process and obtain firearms."
That assertion is unsupported in the WSJ article. I'd like to know the "large number"; but more so, the reasons why felons (etc.) are slipping through the bureaucratic process. If Bratton speaks factually, this is then one area where substantial improvements can be made - without passing a passle of new laws.
His other point (finding my agreement) was the current failure to prosecute crimes of illegal possession and illegal use under existing gun laws:
Quote:
But the gun reform that truly gets Mr. Bratton fired up is one you don't hear much about these days. It is what he calls "certainty of punishment," or stricter gun-crime sentences.
"People are out on the streets who should be in jail. Jail is appropriate for anyone who uses a gun in the commission of an act of violence. Some cities have a deplorable lack of attention to this issue," he says, citing Philadelphia.
In Chicago, where the murder rate rose 16% last year, "to try to put someone in jail for gun-related activity you really have to go the extra mile," he says. "If there's one crime for which there has to be a certainty of punishment, it is gun violence." He ticks off other places where help is needed: "Oakland, Chicago, D.C., Baltimore—all have gangs whose members have no capacity for caring about life and respect for life. Someone like that? Put 'em in jail. Get 'em off the streets. Keep people safe."
Again, new laws are not required, but prosecutions under existing laws are.
Unfortunately, gun prosecutions are uneven and generally down-trending. These stories (one 2011, one 2013) are exceptions which seem to prove the trend. Kan. ranks 3rd nationally in gun prosecutions - U.S. Attorney: Turn over the armed felons to us (AP, Roxana Hageman, January 11, 2013):
Quote:
WICHITA — The U.S. attorney’s office in Kansas has filed so many firearms cases that the state ranked third last year among the 93 judicial districts nationwide in the numbers of gun prosecutions, Justice Department figures show.
Only Puerto Rico and the Western District of Texas had more federal gun prosecutions than Kansas in the fiscal year ending September 2012.
Kansas was first in the nation in gun prosecutions in 2011, but fell to third place in 2012 despite prosecutors filing even more cases.
U.S. Attorney Barry Grissom credits the growing number of gun prosecutions in the state to his office urging local law enforcement agencies to refer to federal prosecutors cases of convicted felons who are unlawfully in possession of firearms — even when they do not have enough evidence to pursue other state charges.
Grissom told the Wichita Pachyderm Club on Friday that he told the local agencies, “If they are felons and you can pull them over and they are armed, give them to us and we will cut them out of your community. You can have a huge impact on the crime rate.”
Federal prosecutors in Kansas filed gun-related charges against 447 people last year, up nearly 85 percent from the average of the four previous years. Firearms prosecutions nationwide remained relatively flat during that time, with 11,728 defendants charged last year.
and Federal firearms prosecutions decline in U.S., but surge in Mobile; why? (Brendan Kirby, Press-Register, Monday, May 16, 2011):
Quote:
MOBILE, Alabama -- Federal firearms prosecutions, on a steady decline nationwide in recent times, hit a decade-long low in January. Not in Mobile, though, where U.S. prosecutors brought more guns cases in 6 months than they did the entire previous fiscal year.
For 4 of those months, the judicial district that includes 13 southwest Alabama counties had the nation’s highest per capita rate of firearms prosecutions.
To prosecutors and law enforcement leaders, the data shows that federal-local cooperation is taking dangerous criminals off the streets. To some defense lawyers, it demonstrates an overreach by a justice system that’s trying to burnish its reputation.
U.S. Attorney Kenyen Brown said, “I think it sends a clear message: If you are a felon and you have a gun, law enforcement will investigate you and the U.S. Attorney’s Office will prosecute you.”
http://media.al.com/live/photo/firea...d0998fc5b9.jpg
The down trend extended through FY 2010. Based on the SU TRAC database, FY 2011 continued the downtrend, but FY 2012 appeared to show an upswing.
Quote:
FY 2011
Decline in Federal Prosecutions from ATF-Led Investigations
(24 Oct 2011) During the first ten months of FY 2011, federal prosecutions credited to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) have fallen almost 7 percent from the previous fiscal year. This continues a downward slide that began six years ago, according to TRAC's analysis of timely Justice Department data.
So far this fiscal year, the number of ATF-led investigations that resulted in prosecution have totaled 7,282. If the same pace continues for the remaining two months, criminal filings should reach 8,738. This would be 18 percent fewer than the peak in FY 2005 of 10,715 ATF prosecutions during the Bush Administration.
Quote:
FY 2012
ATF Prosecutions Turning Around in FY 2012
(31 Jul 2012) The latest available data from the Justice Department show that, during the first eight months of FY 2012, the number of prosecutions for weapons and other offenses referred by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) has staged a turnaround. While these prosecutions have fallen steadily after reaching a peak in FY 2005, the latest government figures show an upward trend, with 6,258 new matters filed so far during FY 2012. If this pace continues, FY 2012 will see 9,387 ATF prosecutions, an increase of 5.9 percent over FY 2011.
With 142 ATF prosecutions per million population, the Southern District of Alabama led the nation on a per-capita basis, with more than four times the national average. The Eastern District of North Carolina saw 242 ATF prosecutions, more than any other judicial district, followed by Kansas with 232.
The US attorneys in Mr Bratton's targets (Philadelphia, Oakland, Chicago, D.C., Baltimore) may argue they have more important things to do.
The bottom line is that even a gun-banner (Mr Bratton) and a very retired small time target shooter (JMM99) can find points of agreement.
Regards
Mike
I can speak of magazines all day;
but former police chief Bratton spoke in terms of "clips" - his usage, not mine.
And being eminently fair and balanced to those on the opposite side from me, I felt it only fair and balanced to continue his usage.
Regards
Mike
After 35 years, I find the cause of my shortcomings...
in using my Remington 541-S, which accepts either a 5-thingee whatchacallit:
http://forum.gon.com/attachment.php?...1&d=1231590356
or a 10-thingee whatchacallit:
http://cdn2.armslist.com/sites/armsl..._541_s_640.jpg
I simply failed to use the 5-thingee whatchacallit as a palm rest. :)
I won't do a Brent Musburger ... ; I won't do a Brent ...; I will not do a Brent ....
But, Annalies Cook can say "clips" and "bullets" all that her blessed little heart desires. ;)
Regards
Mike
PS: Pics are accurate depictions of the model, but not pics of my rifle.
Gun Control - The Honest Debate Question
Actually, I'd "interpret" SB 249 (despite being unfamiliar with Californianese :)), as presently written, as being meant to apply only to semi-automatic actions (whatchacallits - what you call it). It could, of course, be easily amended to apply to bolt actions, pump actions and lever actions (whatchamacallits - what you may call it).
As I said:
Quote:
Now, Sen. Yee might say that's not what he "meant" to attack in SB 249 - that is, what he intends to ban are whatchacallits, and not whatchamacallits.
All of this type of regulation beats around the bush if one's point of regulation is going to focus on regulation of firearms (as to specific types and components); as opposed to regulation of the persons possessing firearms (criminals and mental cases), or as opposed to protection of places where firearms might be used for mass murder.
So, I tend to some flippancy when discussing that sort of gun control (e.g., I've often said that "gun control" means a near-perfect grouping at 1000 yards ;)). Probably, I shouldn't, but I do.
Bill Bratton, in the article that currently set me off, points up the real problem - for which, neither he nor I demand a solution:
Quote:
The problem with the gun and ammo bans, he offers, "is that that's going forward." They do nothing about the 350 million firearms, including assault weapons, and hundreds of thousands of extended clips already in circulation. "You can't deal with that retroactively."
That is also a problem that is long out of the bag, the toothpaste tube and the barn. And, I (like Bill Bratton) would not elect to tackle that ex post facto problem.
However, it could be (as opposed to should be) dealt with in the US, albeit at God knows what costs. Australia, with impetus from Gun Control Australia, did its gun control program after the 1987 Melbourne killings, et al. The first step in the program is gun confiscation - phrased in terms of a gun buyout program:
Quote:
Because the Australian Constitution prevents the taking of property without just compensation the federal government introduced the Medicare Levy Amendment Act 1996 to raise the predicted cost of A$500 million through a one-off increase in the Medicare levy. The gun buy-back scheme started on 1 October 1996 and concluded on 30 September 1997.
[23] The buyback purchased and destroyed more than 631,000 firearms, mostly semi-auto .22 rimfires, semi-automatic shotguns and pump-action shotguns. Only Victoria provided a breakdown of types destroyed, and in that state less than 3% were military style semi-automatic rifles.
In the US, the logical justification (possibly without compensation) could be a combination of public health and national security issues (with liberal application of John Yoo's memos on inherent presidential powers in domestic matters - here's one). Of course, there's the little matter of the Second Amendment; but court cases take a long time - and the Supreme Court of today is not necessarily the Supreme Court of tomorrow.
The second step is a tight regulation of the much fewer firearms that are left - as well as tight restrictions on where they are stored, and who can use them:
Quote:
Firearms categories
Firearms in Australia are grouped into Categories determined by the National Firearm Agreement with different levels of control. The categories are:
Category A: Rimfire rifles (not semi-automatic), shotguns (not pump-action or semi-automatic), air rifles, and paintball markers. A "Genuine Reason" must be provided for a Category A firearm.
Category B: Centrefire rifles (not semi-automatic), muzzleloading firearms made after 1 January 1901. Apart from a "Genuine Reason", a "Genuine Need" must be demonstrated, including why a Category A firearm would not be suitable.
Category C: Semi-automatic rimfire rifles holding 10 or fewer rounds and pump-action or semi-automatic shotguns holding 5 or fewer rounds. Category C firearms are strongly restricted: only primary producers, occupational shooters, collectors and some clay target shooters can own functional Category C firearms.
Category D: Semi-automatic centrefire rifles, pump-action or semi-automatic shotguns holding more than 5 rounds. Functional Category D firearms are restricted to government agencies and a few occupational shooters. Collectors may own deactivated Category D firearms.
Category H: Handguns including air pistols and deactivated handguns. (Albeit both SA and WA do not require deactivated handguns to be regarded as handguns after the deactivation process has taken place. This situation was the catalyst in QLD for the deactivation and diversion of thousands of handguns to the black-market – the loophole shut since 2001) This class is available to target shooters. To be eligible for a Category H firearm, a target shooter must serve a probationary period of six months using club handguns, and a minimum number of matches yearly to retain each category of handgun.
These categories – A,B,C,D and H were those determined by the NFA. The others listed here are determined by the states that have implement them at their own discretion.
Target shooters are limited to handguns of .38 or 9mm calibre or less and magazines may hold a maximum of 10 rounds. Participants in certain "approved" pistol competitions may acquire handguns up to .45", currently Single Action Shooting and Metallic Silhouette. IPSC shooting is approved for 9mm/.38/.357 handguns that meet the IPSC rules, but larger calibres are not approved for IPSC handgun shooting contests. Category H barrels must be at least 100mm (3.94") long for revolvers, and 120mm (4.72") for semi-automatic pistols unless the pistols are clearly ISSF target pistols: magazines are restricted to 10 rounds. Handguns held as part of a collection were exempted from these limits.
Category R/E: Restricted weapons: machine guns, rocket launchers, assault rifles, flame-throwers, anti-tank guns, Howitzers, artillery, etc. can be owned by collectors in some states provided that these weapons have been rendered permanently inoperable. They are subject to the same storage and licensing requirements as fully functioning firearms.
Certain Antique firearms can in some states be legally held without licences. In other states they are subject to the same requirements as modern firearms.
All single-shot muzzleloading firearms manufactured before 1 January 1901 are considered antique firearms. Four states require licences for antique percussion revolvers and cartridge repeating firearms, but in Queensland and Victoria a person may possess such a firearm without a licence, so long as the firearm is registered (percussion revolvers require a license in Victoria).
I don't applaud the Aussies' result (in my eyes, a horrible situation), but I do appreciate their straight-forwardness in doing it.
Regards
Mike
Weapons Control: The UK experience
Quote:
Originally Posted by
jmm99
At what point in the weapons control spectrum will law abiding people resist and refuse to comply by:
1. Non-violent resistence ala Gene Sharp, which could get quite confrontational; or
2. Selective violence in support of a larger poltical effort; or
3. Confrontation with military forces if those forces are ordered to quell the "insurrection".
In the US, resistence has been via the courts and the ballot box.
Is there any history in other countries where weapons control programs (including confiscation by whatever name) have been resisted in any of the three escalating ways described above ? AUS and NZ seem to have accepted the gun controls without substantial adverse struggle. Has that also been the case in Europe ? - my knowledge of response to gun control there is frankly minimal.
Interesting questions posed here, but maybe too reflective of the American situation since the three options for resistance are after a legislative or executive decision is made to implement weapons control.
In recent UK experience legislation to implement further weapons control has come after massacres, Dumblane in 1996 with sixteen dead children and one adult teacher (at a school) and the 1997 Firearms Act:
Quote:
which effectively made private ownership of handguns illegal in the United Kingdom.
and Hungerford in 1987, with seventeen killed in the streets of a small town, and the 1988 Firearms Act:
Quote:
banned the ownership of semi-automatic centre-fire rifles and restricted the use of shotguns with a capacity of more than three cartridges (in magazine plus the breech).
Links for Dunblane:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunblane_school_massacre and Hungerford:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungerford_massacre
Which came first is a moot point, public concern and revulsion or a political response "to show control". My recollection is that the legislation was largely unopposed in parliament and public opinion was so in favour extra-parliamentary opposition could easily be ignored.
Actual implementation was easy, as all the weapons legally held were registered with the police and so the vast majority were surrendered. Needless to say not all, as this curious incident shows:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-20994897
It is noteworthy that the Cumbria incident in 2010, with twelve dead shot in a rural area, by a man with a legally held shotgun and bolt action rifle, led to no further weapons control:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumbria_shootings
There is a substantial minority here who see that weapons control has disarmed the rural population and reflects the views of an urban elite whon have pursued other laws, notably around "field sports". See:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Countryside_Alliance
Has weapons control been effective in the UK? For legally held, declared weapons I'd say yes. Much of that success comes from the simple fact gun ownership is so small, farmers, enthusiasts and rural dwellers. As for illegal firearms that is quite different, I'd say no. The complicated array of legislation is a hindrance and pro-active LE investigations are rare. Anecdote suggests obtaining ammunition is the problem, not having a gun.
Different Experiences and Ideologies
David,
I don't quite understand the logic of this:
Quote:
Interesting questions posed here, but maybe too reflective of the American situation since the three options for resistance are after a legislative or executive decision is made to implement weapons control.
Who, in their right mind, would employ any of the three resistence methodologies before a legislative or executive decision is made to implement weapons control ? Even Gene Sharp's non-violent resistence methods often are illegal or involve some illegal acts. Hence, even they are a last resort.
When legislative and executive decisions are pending (as is now ongoing in the US), resort to political and legal methods (ballot box, lobbying, civil court actions, etc.) are the acceptable methods. Then, it depends ...
I'd not be surprised that little or no resistence has been offered against gun control measures adopted in European countries, or in the UK and its colonies. As I understand the history there, Kiwigrunt's comment is quite valid:
Quote:
... owning guns is really more of a privilege than an absolute right.
The American experiences (and its pieces of paper) are quite different.
As an example, I'd suggest Lexington-Concord (April 19, 1775), which was an attempted seizure of illegal weapons by soldiers of the lawfully-constituted civil authority. From the British Documents:
Quote:
Orders from General Thomas Gage to Lieut. Colonel Smith, 10th Regiment 'Foot, Boston, April 18, 1775
Having received intelligence, that a quantity of Ammunition, Provisions, Artillery, Tents and small Arms, have been collected at Concord, for the Avowed Purpose of raising and supporting a Rebellion against His Majesty, you will March with a Corps of Grenadiers and Light Infantry, put under your Command, with the utmost expedition and Secrecy to Concord, where you will seize and distroy all Artillery, Ammunition, Provisions, Tents, Small Arms, and all Military Stores whatever. But you will take care that the Soldiers do not plunder the Inhabitants, or hurt private property.
One can find in Massachusetts of that time (even before shots were fired at Lexington) examples of:
1. Non-violent resistence.
2. Selective violence in support of a larger political effort.
3. Confrontation with military forces.
Those methods were just as unlawful then as now. The American patriots were well aware that, if one commits sedition and treason, one had best win - or be prepared to suffer the consequences of losing, including the loss of one's own life.
So, American experiences and ideology (as framed by the Second Amendment) may be unique - as any country has some unique aspects that are material to insurgency and counter-insurgency.
Regards
Mike
PS: Examples of point 2 ("selective violence") are easily found in the era of Reconstruction, Redemption and Restoration (1866-1906). The major efforts by all sides in that complex struggle were political and legal ("lawfare" with some vengence). However, violence was strewn throughout the period - in aid of the political and legal efforts which were the primary focus.
That violence often centered on who was to possess and use firearms. In McDonald v Chicago, Justice Thomes (pp. 67-122) did a bangup job in presenting this history of selective violence and its materiality to the Second Amendment; e.g.:
Quote:
Take, for example, the Hamburg Massacre of 1876. There, a white citizen militia sought out and murdered a troop of black militiamen for no other reason than that they had dared to conduct a celebratory Fourth of July parade through their mostly black town. The white militia commander, “Pitchfork” Ben Tillman, later described this massacre with pride: “[T]he leading white men of Edgefield” had decided “to seize the first opportunity that the negroes might offer them to provoke a riot and teach the negroes a lesson by having the whites demonstrate their superiority by killing as many of them as was justifiable.” S. Kantrowitz, Ben Tillman & the Reconstruction of White Supremacy 67 (2000) (ellipsis, brackets, and internal quotation marks omitted). None of the perpetrators of the Hamburg murders was ever brought to justice.[22]
[22]Tillman went on to a long career as South Carolina’s Governor and, later, United States Senator. Tillman’s contributions to campaign finance law have been discussed in our recent cases on that subject. See Citizens United v. Federal Election Comm’n, 558 U. S. ___, ___ (2010) (STEVENS, J., dissenting) (slip. op., at 2, 42, 56, 87) (discussing at length the Tillman Act of 1907, 34 Stat. 864). His contributions to the culture of terrorism that grew in the wake of Cruikshank had an even more dramatic and tragic effect.
McDonald, p.119.
The selective violence in 1775 Massachusetts was on a lesser scale than such scenes as the Hamburg Massacre of 1876. It was more intimidation and assaults on civilian and military agents of the lawfully-constituted civil authority.
That ocean divide enables differences
JMM responded to my post:
Quote:
David,
I don't quite understand the logic of this:
My original post (in part) stated:Interesting questions posed here, but maybe too reflective of the American situation since the three options for resistance are after a legislative or executive decision is made to implement weapons control.
Who, in their right mind, would employ any of the three resistence methodologies before a legislative or executive decision is made to implement weapons control ? Even Gene Sharp's non-violent resistence methods often are illegal or involve some illegal acts. Hence, even they are a last resort.
I was curious that JMM had jumped to the resistence or resistance options without mentioning what came beforehand. So I commented accordingly and being mindful of the US debate over weapons control - in which I am an interested observer. Even though I live close to Europe I am not familiar with what individual nations do on weapons control, hence recourse to examples from the UK.
What I do find perplexing about American attitudes is that some additional weapons control is clearly needed, but there is no national consensus on this. Indeed politicians appear to express anguish after events like Newtown, Conn. and then hope the issue goes away. Or in the case of the NRA stay silent and then make a statement after a "decent" pause.