Rosemary Billquist was shot and killed by hunter Thomas Jadlowski
Previous Post
Next Post

This is one of those stories you dread reading, yet seem to encounter almost every deer season. As Liberte reported over the weekend, “A hunter who shot and killed a woman he mistook for a deer as she went on an evening walk with her dogs has been indicted on manslaughter charges, according to the Department of Environmental Conservation.”

While you probably know the four rules of firearm safety, they can’t be repeated often enough.

  • Every gun is always loaded.
  • Never point a firearm at anything you aren’t willing to destroy.
  • Keep your finger off the trigger util you’re ready to shoot.

And number four, the one hunter Thomas Jadlowski broke…

  • Know your target and what’s beyond it.

And yet, the story of this tragedy gets worse

…Jadlowski told police he fired a single round from his hunting pistol at what he thought was a deer the length of two football fields away. He heard (Rosemary) Billquist cry out, ran to her and called 911. Jadlowski was applying pressure to Billquist’s wound when first responders arrived in the field.

The shooting occurred well after sunset, when hunting is prohibited.

If the report is accurate and Jadlowski was actually 200 yards from Billquist when he pulled the trigger, he couldn’t possibly have adequately identified his target as the light disappeared after sunset.

Many of us enjoy hunting. No one who takes the time to venture out in search of that 12-point buck wants to come home empty-handed. And yet…

Jadlowski surrendered himself to police and was arraigned today in Chautauqua County Court on charges including manslaughter in the 2nd degree and hunting after legal hours.

Jadlowski entered a not-guilty plea. Bail was set at $50,000 cash or $100,000 property. He’s due back in court in late January.

It simply isn’t worth taking pot shots at targets you can’t be sure of, never mind doing it after legal hours. That’s something Jadlowski will no doubt be telling himself for the rest of his life.

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. He should have claimed to be an illegal alien and that the gun “just went off” then he would be free to go.

    • “But it says here you were born in the US.”
      “I know, but I identify as an illegal immigrant.”
      “Well then, you’re free to go!”

      Might actually work if he was in San Francisco.

      • Actually, if he really wanted to get away with murder he should have claimed to be a white cop who thought the woman was an unarmed black man, woman or 14 year old child.

        • That argument only works in Republican areas. In liberal ones like Buffalo, he should have claimed he was attempting to commit suicide because he was depressed about being transgender and when he went to put pistol down, it went off accidentally.

        • George Soros must have ponied up for another round of funding for trolls. They are pervasive this week. And I bet they don’t even own a gun.

        • Until we all find out the unarmed black man cracked the officers skull and tried to grab his gun… Waahh wahhh. And then dumbasses can still burn their own city down. Yep that’ll teach the cops to defend themselves.

        • Wah Wah Wah. The reality is that cops are less likely to shoot blacks than whites. Your racist narrative is trumped by actual research.

        • Really? NYPD Ofc Peter Laing was convicted of manslaughter and in his case it was due to a richochet.

    • If you live in San Fransisco they’ll give you not one, but a whole team of public defenders.

        • Yeah… because a convicted felon illegal didn’t just walk on more or less all charges not a week ago despite confessing to shooting an innocent woman. Apparently, it’s not a crime to shoot people in CA so long as you’re not white and your victim is.

        • The only racist lies being told here are coming from you and every other gun-grabbing malcontent that trolls these pages.

  2. As well he should be. It’s a tragedy all around, but I’m pretty sure this is a textbook involuntary manslaughter. Don’t shoot at stuff you can’t see.

      • It helps when the cops and prosecutor screw the pooch on your case, like the ones in San Fran did.

        • +1 all the way up.

          Textbook manslaughter and deservedly so for the deer hunter.

          San Francisco messed up their case by trying for too much at all levels of prosecution from interrogation to courtroom. Without knowing anything about the Jury I’m hesitant to scapegoat 12 people who are almost always primed to believe a prosecutor first.

  3. Any takers on a bet that he won’t be convicted of manslaughter ? Maybe he can get the case tried in San Francisco. The murderer of Kate Steiner was supposedly aiming at a seal according to one version. Correct identification of targets seems to be a problem these days.

    • Let me guess, you are another ignorant bigoted Trump supporter? What the f*** does this have to do with the Kate Steiner case?

      • The simple fact that this guy doesn’t get a pass because of the color of his skin unlike the career criminal scumbag in the other case. But I guess killing innocent people is only a crime if you’re white.

      • Damn how this system needs a “block” function. You dont deserve the time it takes for my eyes to scroll through your posts.

      • We already know that you’re just another bigoted Shillary supporter. If that illegal alien scumbag was kept OUT of the country in the first place, instead of being deliberately let in and sheltered by neo-Marxist malcontents like you, Steinle would still be alive today.

        But, I guess you don’t give a shit if one of yours kills a white person, you RABIDLY RACIST piece of shit.

      • I am a Trump supporter, minus the colorful descriptive terms.
        I am also a gun owner with an LTC permit in Texas (who grew up in San Francisco). I have read the law and here is the connection between this story and the Kate Steinle case: I have jumped through all the hoops to own and legally carry a firearm which the illegal alien in San Francisco did not. I cannot imagine any way that I could shoot at a seal, or simply have a misfire, or even a “good shoot” at a bad guy where I simply miss, and KILL a young woman and not be convicted of manslaughter. I cannot be convicted of illegal possession of a firearm as a fallback (see earlier in this paragraph).
        The case discussed in this article is exactly why I voted for Trump. As long as the consequences for American citizens are different than for illegal aliens committing the same crime I cannot respect the law or the people that create or enforce the law. If the man who shot the woman in this article is found not guilty then I will change my tune. Hence the first sentence of my earlier post.

    • There was a case in Maine where a woman was shot in her backyard. There was the blame the victim and as she was a newcomer to the state, a tendacy to see her as ” not one of us.
      The hunter was a well known local and kept apologizing. He did shot her from 65 yards in daylight. However, the grand jury did not indite him. Reportedly people at a game cheered when it was announced.
      Looks like it was much the same as this case.

      • As soon as I read “white mittens”, I knew what happened. Yes the woman does share some blame in her own death. Even my 12 year old knows there are some colors you do not wear during hunting season.

    • Well, he’s obviously a great shot. Too bad he’s not great at identifying what he was shooting at.

  4. He’s one of yours, mateys. A good guy with a gun. Any wonder there are large numbers of people who want to put “reasonable restrictions” upon the idea that any breathing body has a God-given right to carry a gun? Kate Steinle was a tragic death caused by a “professional” who could not maintain control over his firearm. This episode is just horrendous.

    One must be completely without mental capacity for reasoning to believe that shooting at a presumed deer, two hundred yards distant, in fading light would be prudent. Indeed, I am quite skeptical that the shooter actually “saw” anything, and was simply taking a random shot into an area he thought would be devoid of people (or animals).

    The upshot is that this shooter is no more acceptable than a poor migrant who is too addled to know better than to put a gun in his hand in a crowded venue.

    You say guns are not the problem? Maybe you are right. The problem is guns in the hands of people with complete disregard for anything but their immediate pleasure, which happens to be just about the entire population of the US.

    Another innocent person executed so that someone can boast of their rights.

    • No ethical hunter would have made the mistakes this man did. I claim no camaraderie with his type… and I’ll thank you not to lump myself and the millions more like me into the same category as him. To assume that we are all the same makes you a bigot… and bigotry makes you a terrible person.

      • The handle “Good Guy with a Gun” is all yours. All “Good Guys with a Gun” are yours. You presume every person not holding a criminal record is a “Good Guy”, and if that person carries a gun, the title of “Good Guy with a Gun” attaches automatically. You cannot disassociate from the handle when a “Good Guy” goes “Bad”.

        You belong to the tribe of “Good Guys with Guns”. One of your tribe murdered an innocent woman. He is one of yours, no matter how you squirm. You are looking squarely into the face of why people wanting reasonable restrictions on gun possession believe there really are no “Good Guys with Guns” because everyone of those so claimed is only a moment away from becoming not only a threat to innocent life, but a killer of innocent life.

        • And you belong to the tribe that has the blood of every unarmed man or woman that has been murdered with no way to defend themselves. Every genocide. Every street attack in a ‘gun free zone’. That’s the blood you and your kind are soaked in.

          See, I can paint with a broad brush, also. And there’s more truth to my generalization than there is to yours.

          • Only among “Good Guys with a Gun” is someone clamoring for a safer society flogged with mythical guilt over not ensuring every person is armed with a gun. Do you not find it interesting that almost to exclusion, the killings in “Gun Free Zones” are conducted by people thought to be “Good Guys”?

            It is because neither you, nor anyone else, can determine who will one day become the next mass murderer that we of the “anti-gun” movement disbelieve that more guns makes anyone safer. Guns do not make anyone safer. Simply put, guns are not “force fields”, talisman objects, imbued with mysterious powers to prevent someone from being attacked. If guns were as powerful a defense as you want to believe, there would be virtually no “gun crime” against anyone within reach of a firearm.

            A gun may make someone, in quite limited circumstance, capable of responding forcefully to a forceful attack, but the gun doe not make the potential victim any safer atall.

        • “You presume every person not holding a criminal record is a “Good Guy”.

          False. Your presumption about what we presume is inaccurate.

          Constitutional Rights do not only apply to those who are ‘good people’. Assholes, for example, are entitled to their First Amendment rights just like the rest of us. So you can rest easy, and keep on posting.

          • First Amendment.
            Could you give an estimate of how many people have been rendered dead on the spot due entirely and solely to misuse of words?

            Perhaps the Fourth Amendment has been misused such that a person was directly rendered “room temperature” through misapplication of the provision?

            Maybe the Seventeenth Amendment?

            OK, just name one other constitutional right or protection that resulted immediately and directly in death due to misuse of such a right.

        • So you of the ‘anti-gun movement’ believe, basically, that all people are evil. Everybody is a potential mass murderer.

          No innocence until proven guilty. All people, in your world, are guilty and can not prove themselves innocent.

          True fascism coming from the country that once stood alone against the fascists. England truly has become a 3rd world country.

          • “So you of the ‘anti-gun movement’ believe, basically, that all people are evil. Everybody is a potential mass murderer.”

            Thank you for calmly walking in.

            Perhaps this analogy:
            I, a complete stranger, dressed quite casually (grunge, is it?), needing a shave, with large sunglasses, a watch cap, and seemingly looking quite normal, approach your three year old daughter as she plays with your pet terrier. Out of your earshot, I bend down, look your daughter in the face, and quietly say, “What a nice little dog you have to play with. I’m glad he makes you happy.” That said, I slowly stand up and linger there, looking down lingeringly, then move off a sort distance, and observe your daughter and her dog. Given that circumstance, would you automatically presume I am a harmless, friendly fellow who just finds children and dogs joyful to contemplate? Would you think that maybe there is potential danger lurking about your daughter? Would you praise her for being kind to a stranger when she tells you about the “nice man who said he was glad my dog made me happy”?

            You see, you know nothing about me, other than what you observe, and swirling around your head are thoughts of child molesters. However, from my appearance, you cannot know that I am an undercover detective mingling with people while watching for potential child molesters. Now reverse the situation.

            I am dressed in clean leather shoes, chinos, a sport coat, carrying a briefcase, sipping on a Starbucks concoction, all the while watching carefully for unattended children who might walk away with a nice looking man who is friendly. Since I look quite “normal” am fitting in perfectly with the others in the crowd, you pay me no attention. However, once you look away to talk to your wife, I move to quickly scoop up your daughter and, laughing and snuggling, carry her away. You had no idea that the “normal” looking, nearly invisible young man with a briefcase would suddenly, without warning, with no provocation, snatch up your daughter and depart.

            By the same measure, you cannot determine that the oh so “normal” looking guy has a twenty two round GLOCK under his coat, and he suddenly displays it, firing indiscriminately into the crowd. Just as you cannot determine who is a potential child molester, neither can you determine who is the potential mass shooter. The child molester can tragically dispense with your daughter, but not two, three or a dozen children at once. The “Good Guy with a Gun” how is bent on mass murder can kill your child and a dozen like her before you can even present your firearm.

            So no, we don’t think of all people as evil, we recognize that at any moment a seemingly “normal” person can become a mass murderer.

          • I suppose “commie” rates right up there with “troll” as a conversation ender. Once one has been called a “commie” the only course remaining is to soak oneself in lighter fluid and flip a match onto the result. Oh my. being called a “commie” makes me want to wet my pants in fear and trembling. Is calling someone a “troll” or “commie” what is taught in your schools these days as elegant debate?

        • “Could you give an estimate of how many people have been rendered dead [due to] misuse of words?”

          Setting aside the arbitrary and self-serving qualifiers you heaped on (immediately, solely, on the spot, etc) as immaterial to the larger question of cause and effect, we can attribute hundreds of millions of human deaths to the use of words in various political manifestos and speeches.

          • “Setting aside the arbitrary and self-serving qualifiers…”

            No, you may not. Those qualifiers are quite germane. Of the “rights”, or amendments, of the constitution, only one can result in the immediate death of an innocent person due to misuse of that right. Even inciting a group to revolution does not result in immediate death due to gunfire. The negligent discharge of words does not result in an ounce of lead flying at over 1000fps into the body of an innocent woman walking her dogs at dusk.

        • Thank you, sux, for reconfirming what I just said. A bit long winded, perhaps. It just boils down to what I said already.

          You view all folks as guilty. And they can’t prove their innocence.

          Thanks to the attitude you and others on your side display we now have Trump in office happily appointing federal judges of a conservative nature.

          I don’t know if you’re aware of how arrogant and condescending you sound. But I hope you don’t change. You and your buddies made Trump possible and will give him a second term.

          Thank you.

          • Every person possessing a gun has a higher potential for causing negligent death through mishandling of a gun. A person not possessed of a gun presents a dramatically reduced potential to cause negligent death through mishandling of a gun. My not carrying about a handgun increases your risk of unnecessary death through shooting not a whit. The opposite cannot be claimed.

        • “Those qualifiers are quite germane”

          Hardly. They were your attempt to buttress what you knew was a weak argument and pre-empt the rather obvious counterpoints.

          • “They were your attempt to buttress what you knew was a weak argument…”

            Hardly. The point of the exercise is to underscore the simple fact that there is no constitutional provision the, when misused, can result in the immediate death or grievous bodily harm. Everything you identified in an attempt to avoid the obvious requires far and away more time and resources that to kill a fellow citizen through a negligent discharge.

            The frontier days are no more. The purpose of a militia is obsoleted by a huge standing army, an enormous military reserve component, and, what, one hundred thousand armed police? Your nation has survived over one hundred fifty years without any danger of the rise of a Stalinist government bent on mass murder of the citizenry. Look at all the nations in Europe who are peopled with populations that do not have the unfettered right to possess firearms. How many of those states do you see having criminal tyrants murdering people in the streets simply because the people do not carry firearms?

        • “The point of the exercise is to underscore the simple fact that there is no constitutional provision the, when misused, can result in the immediate death or grievous bodily harm.”

          And the point of my response was that 1) immediacy is irrelevant and 2) the premise is clearly wrong.

          “The purpose of a militia is obsoleted by a huge standing army, an enormous military reserve component, and, what, one hundred thousand armed police?”

          Not only is it not made ‘obsolete’ by those things, it is made ever more important. I’ll let Tench Coxe explain it:

          “As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.” (Tench Coxe in ‘Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution’ in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789 at 2 col. 1)

          “Your nation has survived over one hundred fifty years without any danger of the rise of a Stalinist government bent on mass murder of the citizenry”

          Precisely. We did so as an armed citizenry.

          “Look at all the nations in Europe who are peopled with populations that do not have the unfettered right to possess firearms.

          Yes, look at their history of being terrorized by brutal tyrants and regimes right into the mid 20th century. The US military has been baby-sitting Western Europe ever since.

          You did a commendable job of making my argument for me. I suspect that was not intended.

          • @Frank — That’s what gun-grabbers like 2Asux do.

            They simultaneously 1.) don’t even make any cogent, consistence, or coherent arguments in the first place, 2.) cannot make any sincere or legitimate attempt at even addressing the substance of any counter-arguments presented to them, and 3.) only end up making our arguments all the stronger because they have literally no idea what they’re even talking about whatsoever.

            All while only being capable of pretending to know what they’re even arguing over, how to argue in favor of their allegedly deeply-held and personally-developed position, or even how to argue, period.

          • The nations of Europe today are not slaves to dictators or other absolute rulers. The governments of those nations are not working everyday to create the police state you believe is the only alternative to chaotic individual sovereignty. Pro gun people continually talk as if the only thing standing between the Gulag and freedom is the few armed militants. How then to explain all the free people in Europe who do not fear their government’s every move is one more step toward communism? How do you explain that those European peoples do not need guns everywhere to keep their governments from overnight becoming Stalin’s Russia? If ever there were a nation ripe for a fascist dictator, it is modern Italy. Where is the reincarnation of Mussolini? The Greeks haven’t been ruled by right wing Colonels for decades.

            The nations of Europe prove that it is quite possible and plausible for governments to be socially conscious, yet live in harmony with their populations without a fantastical threat of armed insurrection intended to turn back all those horrible social programs.

        • @2Asux — The nations of Europe today are, in fact, slaves to an unaccountable central consortium known as the European Union. It has sought and is currently seeking to override the duly-passed laws of its member-states. Particularly of Poland, which has not taken in a single “refugee” (READ: predatory economic migrant from AfPak NOT actual refugees from Syria) and, curiously, has not suffered even one terrorist attack or mass public sexual assault episode as seen in Germany. Or even Czechoslovakia, whose gun control laws are arguably the most lax in all of Europe which the E.U. demands they tighten up for absolutely NO good reason whatsoever. The individual governments of those nations are also already working to create the police state we known is the only alternative to chaotic individual sovereignty. The U.K. is the most watched nation on the planet, by its own government, and that says something after the Snowden revelations about the NSA here in the U.S. In Finland, your children all but belong to the state from birth. In Sweden, the local police are all but begging the military to come in and dismantle their “no-go-zones” — established predominantly by Muslim immigrants — so explosively violent towards their law enforcement that they cannot even build any new police stations in these areas without construction workers being shot or grenaded. Had you actually paid attention to what is going on in Europe, you’d know that they’re such a shining example to follow, for just about anything. Anti-gun people continually talk as if the only thing standing between total anarchy and peace is a few (poorly-trained) government agents. How, then, to explain to people who categorically know better than you that this government’s every move is automatically circumspect and likely not in our best interests? How do you explain to a still relatively-free people in the U.S. that what happens in Europe is still somehow relevant and applicable to the U.S. when it’s actually not? Oh, and it’s actually modern Greece that’s ripe for a fascist dictator, given the all but total collapse of their economy through default on their insurmountable debts and what-not.

          The nations of Europe actually prove that it’s not at all possible nor even plausible for governments to be socially conscious nor live in harmony with their populations, period.

          • You tore down your own position.

            If the governments of Europe (NATO?) were so powerful, so-called “no go” zones would not exist. The government would suppress the people trying to establish and enforce such zones. The response would be swift, and devastating. If wide spread camera surveillance of England were so onerous, you would see round-ups of suspicious (whatever that would mean) persons, and police dispersing crowds of more than ten, or so. Europe today is not Nazi Germany, is not Stalin’s Russia. Europe today is prosperous, the people have the right of ownership of property, the people have access to the same modern (and even better) communications systems you enjoy in America. They have representative governments, not politburos. They have ownership of businesses, they have no central planning administrations, they do not suffer food shortages, and they are not required to shop in government-owned stores. The people do not fear the “knock at midnight”. Neither do they fear becoming destitute because of devastating injury or sickness

            It is quite illuminating, entertaining, educational and sometimes aggravating to compare and debate ideas about rights, privileges and guns, but….do you truly believe that your government fears your guns? And those of fellow gun owners? The US government is constrained by laws, and votes, not by some notion of armed insurrection against an overreaching bureaucracy. Do you seriously believe that not for your guns, you would already be the resurrection of the Soviet Union? Even though that has not happened to your allies in Europe?

            • You tore down your own position.

              I actually tore down your position. The “no-go” zones exist specifically because their governments allow them to, and doesn’t allow anyone to do anything at all about them — nor to even make the perpetrators of crimes committed there answerable to the law. Europe today is, unfortunately, slowly going the way of Nazi Germany and Stalin’s Russia is not far behind. Europe today is starting to fall apart at the seams, the people have the mere privilege of ownership of property as its treated there. Just go ask the Swedes and Germans being kicked out of their homes to make room for “refugees” (READ: predatory economic AfPak migrants NOT actual war refugees). All across Europe, you can be arrested for saying things that wouldn’t make many people here bat an eye so, yes, some people do fear that “knock at midnight.” Their politicians are just as scummy as ours. They have far and away more central planning of economics than we do here. They also fear dying while waiting for treatment to be approved by some unelected, unaccountable bureaucrat on a government board — if it ever gets approved at all.

              I know for a fact that the government — any government — rightly fears an armed populace. In an earlier post, you claimed that the government can do all sorts of things in a political hyperbole-laced diatribe and there’s little to nothing that can be done about it. Yet, here you are contradicting yourself by claiming that the government is somehow constrained by laws and votes when you clearly said there were no such compunctions on their part. Which is it? You can’t have it both ways, as much as you’d like to think you can.

              • You are making the case that governments are afraid of citizens who are denied rampant gun ownership.

                The conditions you survey are indicative of benign, not dictatorial government. The type government you think lurks around every corner, if in place, would simply crush an out of control segment of the population, such as those creating “no-go zones”. A dictatorial government could not tolerate repudiation of government control.

                What you blokes see as governments afraid of an armed populace are merely governments, representing their people (all the governments in NATO are representative). Governments seeking to mitigate the unnecessary chaos of people deciding to use guns for settling private accounts, or committing crimes. Firearms can deal death at greater range, and faster than all the other weapons you believe are just as effective at death (but you also believe they are quite ineffective, such that you must have a gun to protect yourself). Governments looking to promote the general welfare, provide the most security for the most people, at the expense of the fewest.

                To put a cap on it, none of the governments of Europe have secret police rounding up political adversaries by the thousands, have no gulags, and no death camps.

                There is a respectable and comfortable mid-ground between wild west individualism, and a prosperous, yet benign state. You, and so many others, seem to believe that the government you claim is so incompetent is quite capable of incarcerating thousands of rebellious gun owners, thousands of non-armed citizens, and running efficient concentration camps.

                With a reported one firearm per individual in the US, one should expect serious crime to be all but non-existent. That citizens themselves negate the need for a police force of any kind. Yet, the US still posts unenviable high rates of felonious crime. More guns in rural areas do not affect the crime incidents in urban localities (where heinous crime is on the rise, again – according to President Trump). Based on President Trumps statements last year, more guns in urban districts are not making a meaningful improvement in crime rates there.

              • I am actually making the case that governments are afraid of citizens who are armed. That’s because they actually are, and they should be.

                The conditions I survey are actually indicative of a government increasingly hostile to civil liberties, to the point of not recognizing them at all under an ever-broadening list of circumstances. The type of government I actually happen to know for a fact is already in place has already failed to crush the Taliban, the SNA, and the Vietminh.

                What we happen to know for a fact is a government afraid of an armed populace has increasingly lost the trust, confidence, and patience of its citizenry. Governments actually seeking only to expend their own power and justify their own existence, completely at the expense of the body politic it fleeces for diminishing returns. Tools are irrelevant to evil people: they will find a way to kill just as many, if not even more, with other methods. Governments looking to promote their own welfare, provide ineffectual security against threats that they created, and at the expense of the most people it can take from.

                To actually put a cap on it, all of the governments in Europe are taking steps in the direction of gulags, first by silencing political adversaries with arrests under so-called “hate speech” laws purposely so vague that they criminalize things that wouldn’t make anyone here bat an eye.

                There is little or no respect of individualism because there in no benign state. I, and so many others, actually happen to know for a fact that we haven’t claimed the government could imprison thousands of rebel souls — we always make the opposite claim, and use it as yet another reason why gun-grabbers like you have a screw loose with your unenforceable tripe. But, just go ask the Japanese-Americans imprisoned during WW2, whether or not our government could run efficient concentration camps. Hell, the Nazis were even inspired in their implementation of their concentration camps by our government’s treatment of the Native Americans.

                With upwards of one gun per citizen in the U.S., your lot honestly expects serious crime to be off the charts. That blood would running like a river down Main Street in every township, parish, village, and city. Yet, the U.S. still posts precipitously lower rates of violent crime — as low as if not even lower than most of the rest of the Western world, in fact. More guns in any area do not affect crime rates at all, what with their being an inverse correlation between gun ownership and crime rates. At any rate, what Drumpf actually said about crime rates is that they’re going up in big cities. About this, he is correct. (Surprising, I know.) It’s a big enough spike to even drive the national trend up for the first time in a quarter-of-a-century.


                Feel free to take a peek at any city you like and be sure to compare data between years.


      • Well said BLoving! I’ve yet to see a Non-Moronic comment come from that idiot. He’s nothing but a Troll who sits at his keyboard day and night scanning pro-gun blogs, awaiting anything that he can impart his ignorant thoughts towards.

        • What else does it have to do in it’s parents basement with no friends? It angrily masturbates anyway it can. Trolling is just one of those ways. It knows that there are people that shouldn’t have weapons because it is one.

          • Ah yes, we have again reached the majestic heights of critical thought among gun owners. Faced with opposition to their myths, they default immediately to what is apparently considered Kryptonite to opposition thinking; calling someone a Troll. Yes, well that will do it. As declaring someone a Troll is apparently the sum of all your enlightened commentary, you can go back to reading your comic books, and leave serious discussion to adults.

        • You’re not doing much thinking kiddo. Thinking is reserved for rational people, not genocidal commie scum like you.

        • Serge. He’s not a commie. He’s a fascist. He doesn’t think he is. But he is. Most complete case of denial I’ve ever seen.

          • @pwrserge — Maybe that’s because there isn’t any. They’re just two competing groups of authoritarian thugs who want to be in charge.

        • Goddammit, Gov… why did you have to show me that? I’m already broke as it is…

          Ooooh… an eight-shot Redhawk in .357…. now THAT could turn my head away from the Security Six I still dream of…
          No. No… NO!!! GET THEE BEHIND ME SATAN!

    • funny you said nothing yesterday about the woman in san fran and the other man getting off Scott free with murder??

      does not fit you PC narrative???

      Troll on, but do try to be consistent about it???

      • Afraid I was vociferous regarding the negligence of a professional law enforcement type in allowing his gun to be stolen. Didn’t see a need to repeat everything yesterday.

        I do have a “day job”, so immediately responding to current events can sometimes lead to delay, or even choosing to not engage because too much time elapses.

        Regardless, a “Good Guy with a Gun” proved to be the type of irresponsible dullard who will proclaim his galactic right to carry a gun, and that the potential for tragedy is just something people in a free society must accept; their lives at undue risk because guns are sacred.

        • A day job? And in the past you’ve claimed to be of independent means, retired early, and have nothing but time to devote to bringing full time fascism or communism or whatever it is you bernie supporters believe in to America.

          • Oh, excuse me. Had no idea readers here could not imagine that one of wealth would also be employed (either paid or unpaid). It is true I do not depend on working to obtain filthy lucre as the sole means to purchase me pints and chips, but having a formal position to occupy one’s time is not some sort of repudiation of fortune as a resource.

      • Careful you might trigger the pajama boy. Oh wait… You already did! Please resident trolls, do tell us how to live from your parent’s basement. All wise and knowing ones please explain the world… Well just as soon as you finish your hot pocket and round of WOW.

    • 2ASux – Feel welcome to enlighten us ignorant rabble as to what reasonable restriction you think would have prevented this tragedy.

      • I should think that first we need to agree that not every US citizen currently breathing (non-criminal) should be trusted with firearms. We do not agree upon that. Discussion of potential preventatives would be futile at this point, would it not?

        • Oh I can assure you, many of us here can agree not every US citizen should be allowed to have a gun. I won’t say you would top that list but I bet you’re pretty far up there.

          • “Oh I can assure you, many of us here can agree not every US citizen should be allowed to have a gun. ”

            Beginning with that agreement, can we begin to agree on who those are who should be denied access to guns?
            1. Those involuntarily incarcerated for mental incompetence (once “adjudicated”, never to own guns)
            2. Those involuntarily incarcerated (convicted) for committing crimes of any magnitude (as in those acts which violate ordinances at the level above issuing a summons (ticket))
            3. Politicians of any stripe
            4. Those who refuse formal safety and shooting proficiency training

        • “3. Politicians of any stripe”
          Why? To make them feel even more than they already do that they need to hide away in the state or national capitol and not meet with their constitutuents? To further discourage anyone with a sense of integrity from running for office?

          “4. Those who refuse formal safety and shooting proficiency training”
          Presumably based on the historic success of competency tests for voting?

          • @ Serpent_Vision — Politicians don’t need guns, period. Their constituents do. It’s just another way for them to hold their so-called “representatives” accountable for their actions. Not to mention that there are sincere and legitimate doubts as to any “integrity” in anyone running for public office in the first place. Hence the Second Amendment.

            The only reason why ANY politician or bureaucrat would ever move to restrict access to arms by the body politic is because they intend to do things for which they should rightly be shot.

          • Politicians have more than proven themselves untrustworthy, by any measure.

            As to formal training, which CPA would you select? The one who simply passes one examination decades ago, or one who voluntarily increments education and competency by belonging to and demonstrating successfully completing recurring professional education?

      • He won’t. How many gun laws are there? In 1965 at a Congressional hearing the number 20,000 was used. It’s been repeated multiple times over the decades. There have been several “fact check” sites that have attempted to disprove the number. One counted only the federal acts that restricted firearms. Another counted 300 but qualified it with “relevant” whatever that meant. Both failed any attempt to count state or local laws. They aregue this by saying state laws preempt local laws. They further reduce the count by ignoring laws about concealed carry, background checks, laws for gun shops, mandatory sentencing etc. etc. After all the “ill-reverent” laws, state laws and local laws are left uncounted the find fault with the “20,000 laws.”

        A better question, and again one we’ll not get an answer too, is “Why didn’t the existing gun laws stop crime?

        • Are you posing that one cannot fix “stupid”, and the rest of society must endure the ever-present danger of death by negligent use of a firearm? That’s it? That’s the only acceptable scenario because everyone in America has the God-given right to kill fellow citizens through stupidity?

          Overall, you propose that no law would stop negligent shootings. Which laws, specifically, prevent any crime atall? None, would be the correct answer. Whatever is the point of a society having criminal laws?

        • @2Asux — We are actually continuing to dictate to you the reality that your gun-grabbing schemes are useless and will not do one damn thing you say they will. The only acceptable scenario would actually be for you to stop trying to convince anyone that the furtherance of policies that are not only long-defunct as totally ineffective but deliberately misapplied against disfavored minorities by the government you apparently love so much.

          Overall, we actually state matter-of-factly that laws merely punish behavior after it has already occurred. Your proposals — yes, all of them — are aimed at prevention, not punishment. You have openly admitted that prevention is not possible. Whatever is the point to you even being here anymore, let alone commenting?

          • “You have openly admitted that prevention is not possible.”

            I’ve only agreed that 100% prevention is impossible. Attempts to approach that pinnacle are not void on their face. Seat belt laws are relatively standard across the nation, but those laws have both prevention and punishment if mind. The preventative effect may possibly be viewed in light of the near stability of automobile deaths, even as the number of licensed drivers rises each year. However, seat belt laws are an infringement of your right to travel freely between communities and states, using your choice of transportation modes (akin to having the right to use whatever weapon of self-defense you choose).

            • Ineffective attempts to reach that pinnacle are void on their face, however. Seat belt laws are not analogous to gun control laws, either. Seat belts are demonstrably effective in saving lives — gun control laws are not. Also, seat belt laws are not an infringement on anything as there is no inherent right to drive on public roads. You also don’t necessarily need to use public roads to travel anywhere, either.

              • “Ineffective attempts to reach that pinnacle are void on their face…”

                Not if the method remains untried.

                ” Also, seat belt laws are not an infringement on anything as there is no inherent right to drive on public roads. ”

                You do not consider seat belt laws an infringement on your right to freely travel within the nation, using the means of your choice? I have heard complaints that restricting a “right” such that the exercise of it is rendered effectively moot is an unconstitutional infringement. In a related manner, consider taxes on guns and ammunition. Courts have ruled that common and uniform sales taxes on such are quite constitutional. What is unconstitutional is establishing a separate tax applied specifically and exclusively for gun and ammunition purchases, in such a manner (cost) as to effectively prevent purchases. Establishing laws that prevent one from travel upon commonly provided (through taxes) roadways simply because of a refusal to use a seat belt seems very similar. And let us not overlook the “utility” argument. While it may be quite true that the utility/benefit of seat belt usage can be identified, even quantified, why should “utility” be a factor regarding seat belts, when “utility” (need?) is not to be considered a factor regarding gun ownership?

                The right to freely travel about is not second class to the right to own guns. So much different from the seventeen hundreds, it is all but impossible today to freely travel anywhere without using public roadways. Very little contiguous land is lacking an owner, meaning one cannot freely cross property without permission, or committing trespass. Being required to negotiate passage across unlimited tracts of owned land is in essence infringing upon your ability to freely travel (especially as you may be denied passage on private property). This forced negotiation effectively removes your right to travel freely.

                While as one who understands and supports the idea that a driver’s license marks a privilege to drive, I am taking the stand that by forcing people to delay travel due to an unknowable number of obstacles (whilst negotiating permissions from private landowners) mandated use of a seat belt is an undue restriction on the inalienable right of freely traveling about the nation. The right to travel is not a privilege, nor less protected than the right of gun ownership. If you are free to choose the weapon of self defense (own a gun), you are rightly free to choose your means of travel, unfettered by seat belt laws (no matter how useful seat belts may be).

              • Except that those methods have been tried. They’ve been tried and they’ve failed.

                ” Also, seat belt laws are not an infringement on anything as there is no inherent right to drive on public roads. ”

                As I’ve already said, you don’t have a protected right to use public roads, so any rules or regulations set thereupon are not an infringement. What part of this are you having trouble understanding? Do you need me to run it all through Google Translate (and probably butcher it along the way) into a language that can actually comprehend? Anyway, your analogies don’t hold water because they’re inapplicable, and they’re inapplicable because they deal with things totally different and handled entirely differently. In conclusion, no, seat belt laws are not an infringement on anything and there is no right to travel on public roads, period, and you cannot make any argument that actually makes any sense whatsoever to the contrary. That’s why the analogy does not, cannot, and will not stand no matter how many times or in which manner you make it.

                Even still, courts can get things wrong, too. Excise taxes on guns and ammunition are not only useless but the funds don’t even go to where they’re supposed to, either. And gun control advocates do want to and have been clambering to make these taxes so onerous as to make it impossible for all but the wealthy elite that sign their checks. Security for me but not for thee seems to be the motto for your lot, not that you give a damn.