“The man who shot six people to death and wounded three others during a rampage at a Sikh temple in a Milwaukee suburb was an Army veteran who may have been a white supremacist, according to a law enforcement source involved in the investigation.” So . . . was he or wasn’t he? Sensibly enough, CNN ain’t sayin’. Yet. But if dishonorably discharged Army Psyops specialist Wade Michael Page was a hater, expect gun control advocates to ratchet-up the rhetoric. Gun grabbers like nothing better than a racist spree killer (e.g., the initial, misguided furore over the Trayvon Martin homicide). Racist > Gun Owner > Racist Gun Owner > Gun Owners Are Racists > Disarm Americans. Substitute “Crazy Person” for “Racist” and it’s same equation with the James Holmes attack. Combine, promote, legislate. Check this morning-after polemic from Peter Gelzinis at bostonherald.com . . .
Once again, the same government agents on that never-ending hunt for foreign terrorists among us were in the process of excavating the twisted story of yet another domestic terrorist who, again, may look a lot like the guy next door.
Perhaps the deeper meaning of “domestic terrorism” is that within the space of two weeks, another group of people in our country going about the simple business of living their lives, were cut down. Can there be anything sadder, or more terrifying?
Or more exploitable? An “assault rifle,” obviously. In this case, the killer used a 9mm handgun. Never mind.
The dead of Aurora have hardly been laid in their graves, and we must brace for another round of stories about lives lost to savagery … as well as lives saved by extraordinary acts of courage usually reserved for a battlefield.
And the worst part of all is that I’m sure this latest piece of insanity will be followed by the obscene logic that this tragedy could have been averted if only one member of the Sikh community had come to the temple yesterday carrying a gun.
Maybe. Maybe not. But then again, maybe. Meanwhile, brace yourself for more of the same.
White supremacist H*ll. The FIRST sentence of the FIRST paragraph tells you everything you have to know
He was an ARMY VETERAN. See, Janet Napolitano was right to have Homeland security watching those veterans after all.
An ARMY VETERAN … THIS is modern American journalism? What does this have to do with anything? But the smear is there anyway. Even BEFORE the unknown assertion that he might be a “white supremacist” is the bald statement “ARMY VETERAN.”
Those ARMY VETERANS are ALMOST as dangerous as those IDIOT JOURNALISTS. The ARMY VETERAN might kill a few people, the IDIOT JOURNALISTS will kill an entire country.
Now it comes out that the suspect was “discharged from the Army in 1998 for patterns of misconduct”
1998! 1998! That’s FOURTEEN YEARS AGO. A rational person might question what his Army service FOURTEEN YEARS AGO has to do with ANYTHING today. But the press can’t let a good smear go to waste.
It isn’t about smearing for his being in the Army It’s about his dishonorable discharge and what the reasons for that were.
I may be mistaken, but isn’t a DD a disqualifying event as far as buying a gun?
Wouldn’t that be great? If we had rational laws like that throughout the country?
When’s the last time you took a look at a 4473, Dave?
Low Budget Dave, we do have such laws. Look at the form next time you buy a gun. What we see here is an example of how gun control doesn’t work.
Dave, if you’re gonna come here to beat the gun-control drum (knock yourself out-its a freeish country) you might want to at least acquaint yourself with the laws we DO already have.
Do you have any idea what you’re talking about, Dave?
Oh wait, you just answered that question for me.
DD = felony.
I think DD is only applicable if there was a crime attached to it. BCD usually yes. DD can be turned into general under some circumstances, at least it used to be.
I got out 22 years ago so I might be wrong.
I don’t think this guy has a DD. The military has all sorts of other shitty ways to get rid of you for the smallest of infractions. Like UOTHC and Bad Conduct. Even General. I imagine he has one of those.
As was pointed out above, a DD is a felony. None of the others are however.
That must be the case. Otherwise, he would have to have gotten a gun illegally. (/sarc)
I have a nephew with a less than honorable, he actually has a certificate just like an honorable discharge, scrollwork and everything, it just says less than honorable, bizarre.
And yet the Govt STILL refuses to call the Ft Hood Shooter, who was ACTIVE ARMY MUSLIM, a terrorist. We have PROVEN connections and communication between him and AQ, we have his own statements and behavior, and yet they still insist on treating that one like a criminal offense.
But all of a sudden a WHITE Army veteran (we still don’t have details on his service) does something for an as yet undisclosed reason, and the Govt labeled it Domestic Terrorism before we even knew the guys name.
The only trend I am noticing here is that we have people involved in the Psych/”mental health”/mind games arena all snapping and killing a bunch of people. What’s the common factor? Maybe these people go into the head games industry because they are F’d up in the first place.
Absolutely, why doesn’t Fedzilla call the Fort Hood shootings domestic terrorism! The so-called “authorities” are calling this Sikh Temple shooting a case of domestic terrorism, how in Hell can they know that so soon? I believe that Fedzilla is conditioning the American people to a point where even a common everyday murder will be called domestic terrorism by the so-called “authorities”! The police state juggernaut just never stops.
Watch out for the DDT, Department of Domestic Tranquility, foreseen by myself 20+ years ago. They just ended up calling it DHS instead.
How was the Ft. Hood shooter a terrorist? Do engagements with legitimate military targets costitute terrorism now? When AQ forces attack a coalition convoy in Afghanistan… is that a terrorist attack?
I think not. It should be called what it is: Combat.
There is no legal or moral framework where your comment bears any relation to the truth. If I said much more, I’d get a *FLAME DELETED*, so I’ll just say that your obvious hatred for the United States saddens me.
What? I may hate our government but that doesn’t have anything to do with my questions. My point is that we should avoid the doublespeak prepetrated by politicians. Attacks on military or political targets during wartime is not terrorism, regardless of whether the attacks are carried out by regular or irregular forces. Britain burning the capital during War of 1812, Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, and an AQ infiltrator shooting military personnel at Ft. Hood qualify as combat… not terrorism.
Good news: If the attack is conducted by a lawful combatant than you are absolutely correct.
Bad news: actions conducted by an unlawful combatant, i.e., non-state actor, are illegal and havs historically been charcterized as piracy or terrorism.
If Hassan was acting as an agent of Al Qaeda then he was an unlawful combatant and can be said to be a terrorist. Had he been acting as an agent of Iran, he would be guility of treason but not terrorism.
I understand what you’re saying, but that is again falling prey to doublespeak. Basically, war is only “legal” if governments conduct it against other governments. If free people fight against oppression, that’s “illegal” since they’re not state-actors.
Um, no. The United States government attempts to legally dehumanize the “enemy” throwing out pretty much every word of the Geneva Conventions when it comes to whatever they want to do. Two wrongs make a what now?
That was the first rant that came to mind when I heard the “domestic terrorism” twaddle on the news.
Wouldn’t you hate it if someone said “Maybe these people buy guns because they’re already F’ed in the head?” People don’t just go into psychology/mental health/”mind games” because they’re screwed up. There are screwed up people in all walks of life. Your logic is very inconsistent.
How is that “obscene logic”? Seems like pretty simple logic to me. If everyone’s unarmed, no one can effectively fight back. If one persons armed, that person can effectively fight back. If %10 were armed, that would never have turned into a hostage situation. If half the people were armed, he might not have killed more than 1 or 2 people. I don’t understand how this logic is difficult to follow.
This is modern America; anything that suggests responsibility, self-reliance, or taking one’s own life, safety, and destiny into his own hands is considered obscene by the infectious filth known as progressives.
It is bad logic because it is wrong. You can’t compel priests to carry guns just because society has chosen to allow everyone else to carry guns.
Reverse that, my friend. You can’t compel me not to carry guns just because society has chosen to disallow everyone else from carrying guns.
fixed that for you.
“It is bad logic because it is wrong.” Care to elaborate?
“You can’t compel priests to carry guns…”
Where the heck did that come from?
Where’s the ‘compulsion’? Where are ‘priests’ required to carry guns?
The only ‘compulsion’ I can see is compelling those who want to be armed for self-defense to surrender that right, if they wish to enter a “gun free zone”.
Whatever narrative the lazy and sensationalist media tries to push about guns being evil, the huge increase in first time NICS and LTCF in my area beg to differ.
I’ll wager that the journalists pimping for gun control along with their political overlords won’t be bothered to do a survey of where the Sikhs stand on guns. In India Sikhs are enthusiastic gun owners and they have a long tradition of hunting, shooting and firearms ownership. The community has also worked in the Indian, British and Canadian armies historically and performed very well. These anti gun propagandists need an excuse to ram their nonsense through – it would help if the gun owning community were proactive on this and took these crooks head on. Yes, one person inside the Sikh temple with a handgun would have put an end to this asap. Logic that none of the medianazis will ever blunder into.
Sikhs are some of the finest, bravest soldiers ever known. They are certainly not gun shy.
Interesting – if indeed the shooter was truly dishonorably discharged from the armed forces, federal law already prohibited him from owning a firearm (just as if he were a felon). This crime is punishable by ten years in prison. Shockingly enough, that potential sentence was not enough of a threat to stop someone who is already intent on murder.
I’ll admit that I can’t wrap my head around this whole “domestic terrorism” thing. Isn’t acting with the intention of taking one or more lives terror enough? Do we really need to parse it further? Last that I checked, a person is not more dead if one kills them because of their race or religion than if one kills them for their wallet or purse.
The report is not that he was dishonorably discharged. He received a “less than honorable” or “other than honorable” discharge. Not the same thing, and neither of those bar one from firearm ownership.
Again, showing the ignorance of the media. “Less than honorable” discharge covers a number of different discharges.
To get a “dishonorable discharge” now requires quite a high level of misconduct.
Thus my use of “if indeed” as a qualifier.
According to what Fox News was saying around noon EDT, he purchased the firearm legally.
The thing suspiciously absent from these reports is that if he was dishonorably discharged, he can’t have legally purchased a firearm.
Well, that and the fact that murder is already illegal. But, hey. That doesn’t sell papers.
Also, almost every news story I’ve read about this, praised the officer and said something like “An officer put the shooter down, preventing more deaths.” Now substitute ‘CCW holder’ for ‘officer.’ Simple, no?
Another thing that bugs me in these news reports is the “lenient” gun laws in that state, implying that it’s the gun’s fault, again. I mean, really? We’re going to blame guns, seriously? So what about the officer that shot him? Is he the only one allowed to have a gun? So if he wasn’t there, more people would be killed, but I guess that’s OK with the gun grabbers then? What sort of perverted logic is that?
Did he do something more illegal by carrying into a house of worship?
My point is that the cop was praised for preventing more deaths, which is fine. But the antis don’t want anybody else carrying guns, so a CCW holder might have stopped the guy just as well as the cop, but because of their anti gun views and gun free zones, we are effectively disarming ourselves, with no other option but to run and hide.
If you were required to get trained and tested to get a CCW, then it would be the same thing.
Are houses of worship legally gun-free zones in Wisconsin? I did a quick check last night to see, but nothing came up.
I wonder if these people met your standard:
Aurora Colorado this past April
In Arvada Colorado in 2007.
There are several levels of military discharges, the news reports I’ve seen have said “Under Less than Honorable” which of course isn’t anything anyways – the actual category is “Under Other than Honorable”. This is not the same as a “Dishonorable” and I believe “Dishonorable” is the only classification that impacts firearms ownership.
Other Than Honorable discharges don’t carry the legal weight a Dishonorable Discharge does. We don’t have all the facts yet, but the articles are calling it a less-than-honorable discharge. IIRC, that’s the same as an OTH Discharge.
A few random thoughts:
A police spokesman shed some light on the “domestic terrorism” classification. If the police call it “terrorism” then they get additional FUNDING from the federal government, and help from the FBI. If this was a simple case of murder, then it is a local matter, and they would get no additional money.
If the shooter was dishonorably discharged, then he could not pass a background check. However, I think after a few years, one can have their dishonorable discharge changed to another type where one can buy a gun. There are many types of discharges, not just honorable, and dishonorable.
The shooter was a Pogue* (Piece of Garbage), the Army/ Marine classification for non-combat arms soldiers, and he also didn’t serve in combat. People like myself, a former 11-B (Infantry) soldier with combat experience should be the most crazy/dangerous right? Yet, it all the incidents involving former soldiers or Marines, the criminals seem to be Pogues…
*Yes, I know Infantry support types are important, the military couldn’t run without cooks, ect…
Why don’t they mention the church shooting that was stopped short by an armed citizen? I believe that is very relevant to the situation…
Because that would prove that we are right and the media’s conclusions are wrong.
The killing happened in a house of worship with a handgun. The left won’t care enough to bother making a big deal out of it.
So he a ‘veteran’ because he severed for 6 years, before 9/11, never deployed in combat (let alone anywhere in the middle east), and was dishonorably discharged? How about he unstable that’s why he did it not that he served in the military (kicked out of).
Very curious timing, this shooting.
there are quite a few rascist remarks made at various times on this site. this makes us all look bad and helps the gun grabbers in their job. personal flames are not allowed and are deleted. how much would it affect the freedom of speech here to adopt the same policy about rascist remarks? as i’ve stated before, this ain’t stormfront lite.
Is it possible to get your post stickied all the way on the top of this thread? I just started visiting this site about three weeks ago and it’s already abundant to me that quite a few people here are undeniably racist.
When you start throwing around racist terms and beliefs, you’re only furthering the stereotype that gun nuts are nothing but hicks.
I have complained about it, but apparently, the moderators don’t get as worked up over this compared to whether or not MikeB(numbers) gets his panties in a bunch when he is called a d!ckhead. $20 says they delete my comments.
I’d also call out a specific post if you feel it is racist. I’m not defending anyone but there are times when someone may read a post as racist when it wasn’t intended to be. This gives the person a chance to clarify what they ment. I haven’t been looking at this blog long so I don’t have the same impression but I would agree that racist comments only help the gun grabber support their position.
trust me – when someone indicates that all people of African descent should be shipped back to Africa or if the US Govt would only disarm all Black people that all crime would cease, there is no mistake on “intent”. Moreover, when the moderators take 24 hrs to remove a post, even after repeated back and forth on email about it, then perhaps the intent cannot be clearer?
True. It could have been unintended.
In fact, it’s likely that a whole lotta people are just a little too comfortable with what they post here….
Wait a second. Aren’t you a lawyer? 😉
I didn’t see that post (must have been removed, although I don’t read all the blogs). I thought you were referring to a comment posted on this article not another one and I just didn’t see anything on this post that was racist.
you’re only furthering the stereotype that gun nuts are nothing but hicks.
Youre only furthering the stereotype that all racists are hicks. I’ve lived in Chicago my entire life, I can assure you i’m not a hick. Most racists aren’t hicks either, think about White Flight, do you think most white people moved from the inner city to the suburbs just because they like commuting 1+ hour each way to work every day?
Examples? I don’t see any in this thread sofar…
just wait. certain posters may not be awake from their naps.
Yep, I’m a racist. And I would like to ask, what is wrong with that? You can change you skin color as easily as you can change your political ideology; Michael Jackson managed to do the former, and Michael Bloomberg the latter. I don’t see you calling for a ban on partisanship, I’m pretty sure you’ve engaged in it yourself.
this makes us all look bad and helps the gun grabbers in their job.
It does no such thing. Guns grabing here in the US is justified due to crime problems in certain areas, not because people are exercising 1A rights. And as RF has demonstrated, the antis will frequently just make stuff up. Can you please cite a single piece of gun grabbing legislation that was enacted because racists have guns?
when politicians put forth gun control legislation they try to paint gun owners in a negative light to gain support from the public at large. people proudly proclaiming themselves to be rascist does our cause no good. in order to keep our guns we’re going to have to reach out to people of different race, gender and even faiths or we lose the battle. as a proclaimed rascist and anarchist i know this means little to you. i wasn’t addressing you. you’re as amuch a lost cause as mikeybnumbers. but there’re others out there who may listen and even learn a little. i welcome all allies who support the gun cause in good faith.
when politicians put forth gun control legislation they try to paint gun owners in a negative light to gain support from the public at large.
They have never done this because of people self identifying themselves as racist. I asked before for you to cite a single piece of gun control legislation which was enacted due to racists having guns.
people proudly proclaiming themselves to be rascist does our cause no good.
It does plenty of good, it is a rallying call for other racists. Its not like i’m the only one here. Think about white flight, why do most whites want to live around other white people, they couldnt be closet racists could they?
in order to keep our guns we’re going to have to reach out to people of different race, gender and even faiths or we lose the battle.
No we won’t. Whites outnumber blacks 4:1. I never said anything about sex or religion. Do you ever actually reach out to other races or religions to help them exercise their 2A rights? How about some Muslim extremists?
you’re as amuch a lost cause as mikeybnumbers. but there’re others out there who may listen and even learn a little
I’ve been more than willing to listen, you’ve refused to address my questions. So I’ll ask again, what is inherently wrong with racism? Or when has a single piece of gun control legislation ever been enacted because racists had guns?
In all seriousness, why the hell are some people so hellbent on vilifying the media here? They’re just reporting facts and sourced speculation for the time being. I don’t see a political agenda being pushed by the likes of CNN/Fox, etc, at least not yet.
If anything, it seems as if many of you lash out at the media for not supporting your own political agenda.
Knowing what they are NOT reporting on is as important as what they do report. Facts are facts my friend. Unfortunately, we do not get all the facts from one source. Pay attention to the “talking heads” from more than one outlet and then find some more. You will start to get the clearer picture on just what drives them to report in the manner they do. This is true for ALL mainstream media.
Knowing what they are NOT reporting on is as important as what they do report.
Yes, but the media is not your mouthpiece. Given all the news to report on in the world, they can only report so much in so little time. Not to mention given the competitive nature of the industry, they must report on stuff that attracts viewers and keeps them tuned into the channel, thus boosting revenue It’s not much of a surprise that tragedies like this get significantly more airtime than do crimes that were stopped thanks to a guy wearing a CCW. For that, blame human nature, not the media.
But at the same time, it’s not as if the media is completely biased. I do see CNN, Fox, PBS, NPR, etc invite experts (gun enthusiasts like Farago, gun lobbyists, industry specialists, etc) to discuss gun control and clarify some questions regarding firearms in general.
Again, to Kinsho,
Are you serious? The bias in the MSM is EVERYWHERE. Just look at the non coverage Ron Paul got even when he won states! Truly, you are kidding.
Fair enough, the media is far from perfect. But to indemnify them over every little move they make seems extreme to me. Keep in mind that the media is like any other corporation out there. It is most concerned about the bottom line. So to keep viewers engaged, they must air subject matter that would keep viewers engaged on a regular basis. Massacres like this serve that purpose quite well.
So if you want to blame something, blame human nature, not the media.
Also, Ron Paul didn’t win any states….at least not in 2012 😛
matt. i never said legislation has been put forward because of a rascist with guns and you know it. the point i’m making is that people pushing gun control will gain support amongst undecided people because of the ugly spectre of racism. and outnumbering blacks 4 to 1 isn’t the only consideration. what about asian, latino aqnd others who might be swayed to gun control because of the racist attitudes of a few gun owners. as for what’s wrong with being a rascist i could school you all night and you still wouldn’t get it. as i’ve said you’re a lost cause and if farago was serious about taking fodder away from gun control advocates he would muzzle you.
Not sure why you replied to this thread, but…
matt. i never said legislation has been put forward because of a rascist with guns and you know it.
You implied it did, and would again in the future. Racists owning guns is nothing new, if the antis were going to use successfully use racists to paint gun owners in a negative light, they would have all ready, its not like gun control is new.
the point i’m making is that people pushing gun control will gain support amongst undecided people because of the ugly spectre of racism.
No one is undecided.
and outnumbering blacks 4 to 1 isn’t the only consideration. what about asian, latino aqnd others who might be swayed to gun control because of the racist attitudes of a few gun owners.
I don’t think i’ve ever said anything particullarly negative about asians or latinos, only blacks. No one is going to be swayed to limit 2A because of racism, 1A perhaps but not 2A.
as for what’s wrong with being a rascist i could school you all night and you still wouldn’t get it
Please do so, i’d love to hear whatever fallacies you have to put forth. As I said before, i’m more than willing to listen to you, and discuss anything you want to bring up. But you don’t seem to bring up a single fact.
as i’ve said you’re a lost cause and if farago was serious about taking fodder away from gun control advocates he would muzzle you.
How quick you are to demand we limit 1A rights just for the possibility of restoring 2A rights.
I dont think RF ever claimed he wanted to take fodder away from the antis, I’m not sure if you have noticed the name of this site, but it is called The Truth About Guns, and one of the truths is that racists own guns.
I should have said
I don’t think i’ve ever said anything particullarly negative about asians or latinos, only blacks and jews.
And when I have said negative things about jews I’m pretty sure I limited it to Israel, the ADL or them whining about the holocaust.
And if RF was serious about taking away fodder from antis, why does he feature Idiot Gun Owner Of The Day articles? All that feature does is provide fodder to the antis, far greater than anything I could ever possibly say no matter how outrageous.
And if racism was going to sway someones opinion about 2A, wouldn’t it sway them to be pro 2A and own guns for self defense, because someone else who is prejudiced against them owns guns? As Warren v District Of Columbia has shown, the police have no responsibility to protect anyone, and being anti-2A wont make you any safer.
It isn’t just “fodder” for gun control, it is the reason why gun control is necessary. You can’t just be upset about mass murder because you think it makes you look bad. You actually have to start looking at ways to cut down on mass murder.
I am not suggesting that we ban handguns, but how about a few rational, common-sense gun laws? What is the argument against stricter background checks?
What is the argument against limiting gun purchases to one per month?
What is the argument against limiting magazine capacity to 10? I keep hearing people say that “freedom” is the only argument. Honestly, that doesn’t seem good enough. America has plenty of freedoms that don’t require 20 gun purchases per month.
“What is the argument against stricter background checks?”
Do you mean to suggest that the FBI’s NICS is not doing its job?
“What is the argument against limiting gun purchases to one per month?
Nothing, other than the fact that it will not do anything and is therefore a needless limit on personal freedom.
“What is the argument against limiting magazine capacity to 10?”
It’s an arbitrary limit? 10 is fine, but 11? Hell, no! Capacity limits do nothing but force a reload. Ask Travis Tomasie how much of an inconveniece that is.
Life is full of arbitrary limits and laws that only help a little. The speed limit on my way home is 55. Why not 56?
Does 55 save lives? Maybe it does. Would it save a few lives to limit gun purchases to one per month? Of course it would.
Some people buy 20 guns in a month because they are collectors. Other people do it because they are going to drive to Chicago and sell them on the street.
“Would it save a few lives to limit gun purchases to one per month? Of course it would.”
Objection. Prejudicial. Argues facts not in evidence.
“Other people do it because they are going to drive to Chicago and sell them on the street.”
Really? Someone is going to walk into a gun shop in Milwaukee, buy up 20 Glocks at around $500 each, then bop on over to Chicago and sell them on the corner for $150 each? You really believe that?!
its called a straw purchase. And that’s illegal too. Just like murder.
Anyway, the ATF has stated that the average ‘time to recovery’ of a firearm, from the time its purchased to the time it is used in a crime is 10 YEARS. Criminals are using older, recycled firearms rather than ones recently purchased at a licensed retailer.
Dave, the 55 mph speed limit was enacted to conserve fuel after the oil crisis during the 1970’s. It has nothing to do with saving lives.
Hell’ s bells! If 55 saves lives (“A law we can live with”) then 45 would be even better, and 35 better still.
Oh hell, everybody walk.
That is the point exactly. Autos are dangerous, but instead of banning them, we have chosen to impose a few common sense restrictions.
Yes, 35 would be safer. 25 would be safer still. But instead we chose an arbitrary limit of 55. This is a compromise between safety and freedom. It is exactly the kind of compromise that the gun community should be supporting.
Instead, the NRA constantly tells us that any limit on guns is the moral equivalent of slavery. It would be like saying that any speed limit is a slippery slope that will eventually lead to banning cars. It just isn’t true.
Will we next be limiting the depth of swimming pools that people may construct in their back yards? Perhaps we should require everyone to walk around wearing a Tesla cage? Perhaps a waiting period before buying bacon and other fatty foods?
Sorry, I prefer the Autobahn — no limit. The Germans refuse to let the government dictate how fast they drive their cars.
That leads to the old saying that there aren’t many injuries on the autobahn. (Fatalities, sure, but not many injuries.)
Is this something that the government should regulate? It depends on the tradeoff between personal rights and other people’s safety.
They regulate in the name of “public safety”. Is that their motivation? Maybe “revenue enhancement” is the real motive.
Similarly, “public safety” may not be the true motive behind “”gun control”, no matter how lofty the goal we are told it is meant to achieve.
If the public safety is the objective, then increasing the pool of available victims by restricting the most effective self-defense tool yet devised seems a strange way to go about it…
lbd. you’ve had the laws that you claim to be common sense in place for years. all the things you want and more allready are the law. yet. like a broken record you keep insisting we need these laws. at what point do you start saying to yourself, my ideas aren’t working it’s time to try a different approach. otherwise you just sound like someone laboring with ocd.
The more restrictions we put on the sale and ownership of guns the more we enable a black market. Right now, for better or worse, the criminal element is satisfied getting their firearms from dirty cops, straw purchases, private sales and theft. Expand the market and Trans-National Criminal Organizations like MS-13 and the Russian mob will begin selling black market weapons. If you are going to illegally import AK-47s you might as well sell the real deal instead of the civilianized semi-auto. The law of unintended consequences guarantees that criminals will end up with more firepower than they now have. Just look at Mexico. Guns are illegal yet the cartels are walking around with military grade weapons. That is what will happen here if the gun control crowd gets their way.
Mexico also “imports” thousands of firearms from the US on an annual basis:
Mexican guns laws have been effective to the point that cartels are looking across the border to arm themselves.
But as Robert has pointed out most of the American guns gone south come from legal sales that leak into the cartels hands through corrupt Mexican officials (ok that’s redundant), through members of the military who defect to the cartels, or weapons provided to central American during the Cold War. In every case the cartels get their weapons by corrupt means.
I doubt that. According to the same ATF report that I linked to above….
In 2010, nearly 49% of all U.S. sourced firearms that were found in Mexico were traced back to retail purchasers. In 2011, over 46% were traced back to retail purchasers.
In comparison, in 2010, only 2% of all U.S. sourced firearms were found to be legally transferred from the US to a foreign entity. In 2011, that stat jumped up to 3.1%.
As for the rest of the firearms, well, they were unable to be fully traced. So we cannot really draw any conclusions from that pool. But on the guns that we can trace, the numbers are very telling.
Again as Robert has pointed out, the Mexican government only sends those guns to the FBI for trace that it chooses. They aren’t sending fulling automatic M-16s or the AKs because they know that the former came through military and police sales and the later came through TCOs.
Any sources that confirm what you’re saying or is it just conjecture? To me, that’s conjecture until you can provide some source stating otherwise.
And my point still stands. The very fact that a good number of Mexican thugs still look to the U.S. for arms is a testament to the efficacy of their gun control laws.
Did you bother to read the caveats associated with the data? The ATF specifically says that this data, provided by the Mexican government and does not constitute a random sample. The data supplied by Mexico excludes most of the weapons recovered by the Mexican government in its anti-cartel operations. Care speculate what percentage of the total guns recovered are sent to the US for trace?
In the meantime here is a 2011 STRAFOR article on the subject.
looks like I missed the edit window:
You might want to read Robert’s post. The ATF never claimed that all the guns came from US retail outlets. An unknown number, because they didn’t release all the data, came from authorized commercial transactions..
Again where are the economic indicators that show dramaticly rising gun prices in the Southwest caused by the diversion of guns to Mexico?
Why am I not seeing my posts….?
You’re using StratFor as a source? StrarFor has been in the news before for engaging in shady dealings and providing crappy intelligence.
That and the statistics in the article you linked are suspect. It alleges the Mexico sent the U.S. only 7200 guns to trace in 2008 whereas the ATF document reports that over 32000 guns were sent to the US for tracing purposes.
Not to mention it does not really reference any reports or statistics regarding the use and origins of long guns in Mexico.
Now I know that technically it’s not a random sample. It shouldn’t be a random sample considering that Mexico should not be sending over guns that they recognize as their own. The whole purpose of the tracing program is to determine the origin of guns that you determined have not originated from your country. Which explains why a third of the guns Mexico sends to the U.S. on a yearly basis cannot be successfully traced back to a U.S. origin.
So my point still stands. A significant number of Mexican thugs have been able to arm themselves thanks to the U.S.., which alone is a testament to the gun control laws in Mexico.
I did some additional digging around. I found it bizarre that your article only mentioned that 7200 guns were submitted to the U.S. government while the ATF report that I linked claimed over 32000.
Then I found out why. The ATF amends the statistics based on the weapon’s recovery date. So if the gun they’re tracing right now was originally retrieved by the Mexican government in June 2008, then they amend the 2008 tracing statistics to factor in their findings on that particular gun.
The article that you linked is referencing a GAO report that dates all the way back to June 2009 (which attests to Stratfor’s shitty intelligence gathering). The government had only traced up to 7200 guns through then. My report dates back to March of this year, IIRC.
So that article can basically be thrown out the window at this point. It’s referencing stale data.
Not only that, but it’s being highly selective with the data.
In April 2009, FactCheck.org concluded that at least a third of all illegal guns came from the United States. , using the same exact data that Stratfor was relying on for its bogus analysis.
You are the second poster to quote the Guardian in two days. Either a strange coincidence or you are posting under two different names. The polite fellow here and the troll hmmmmmm in other places.
It is a Progressive trademark to claim that opposing sources of information are unreliable while their sources only deal in objective facts. That is just projection. Outside of the most leftwing circles nobody takes the Guardian seriously. The Times, the Finacial Times and the Telegraph are the authoritive newspapers in the UK.
Another follower of the Guardian, the newspaper of “Red” Ken Livingston and George “Saddam’s buddy” Galloway. Are you a Brit?
Do you understand that if most of Mexico’s guns came from the United States gun store shelves in the Southwest would be empty and prices across the country would be through the roof yet we see no evidence of price increases along the border or in the country as whole. Explain.
I’ve tried responding several times now, but my comments are automatically being flagged for moderation for some reason. The site doesn’t ever tell me why.
Anyway, to sum up my research, the article you linked to is relying on stale data from 2009. The report that I linked to is up to date as of March of this year, IIRC. That’s why you see such a discrepancy in the numbers.
As for regards to your question of why prices haven’t gone up if Mexican gangs were hoarding American weapons, I can’t really answer that. I don’t know much about the economics. But I wonder if you do too.
If you know anything about the economics of the sporting arms industry, feel free to share the knowledge. All I can offer are hypotheses.
– It’s possible that the manufacturers are able to meet the small increase in demand fairly easily.
– It’s also possible that gun manufacturers depend more on the American military and foreign armies for most of their revenue, and as such adjust prices to reflect their dealings with the military. Thus, the civilian firearms industry is a secondary market that can only make little dents in the prices of firearms.
So the ultimate conclusion from all this:
Stratfor sucks as a source of reliable info. That and a good number of Mexican thugs are using American guns to wreak havoc and commit crimes.
Dave, A few objections if that’s OK.
“You actually have to start looking at ways to cut down on mass murder.”
The most intelligent statement you have made. However, if I read your intent correctly, you believe that further controls on guns would make a difference. Can you name even one mass murderer that would have given up the thought of committing that heinous act if guns were further controlled? By definition mass murderers are not logical beings. They are hell-bent on releasing their rage by ANY means necessary. Gun control will NOT prevent this. It is no different than telling a junkie he shouldn’t abuse drugs because the law is cracking down on meth labs. He is not considering the consequences. And neither will a mass murderer.
“What is the argument against stricter background checks?”
“What is the argument against limiting gun purchases to one per month?”
“What is the argument against limiting magazine capacity to 10?”
These are simple Dave but may be a little harder to explain. IMO Americans should not be subject to further restrictions and harassment UNTIL we (as individuals) have presented a reason to be treated differently (innocent until proven guilty anyone?). Thinking like you (over time) erodes our basic freedoms under the guise that it is “for your own good”. It will never stop as long as we continually accept these “little compromises” (see China-Population Control). Mass murderers do not have a mass murder background or else they would already be imprisoned or deceased. Thus the check reveals little. The sociopath will not obey your “mag limit” law or spend even one second reconsidering his path because he could not buy 20 guns this month. All these new controls seem to do (and it has been repeated) is put further restrictions on law-abiding Americans whose “right keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
Gun control only limits LEGAL access to firearms. It does little to the actual psychopath. The mass murderer will still destroy lives. He will just use a different tool. So, we are back to your original statement. And honestly, I don’t have the answer as to how to “cut down on mass murder”. But further controls on legal access to firearms only limits the law-abiding citizen and the freedoms afforded to ALL Americans. NO compromises should be permitted to our Constitutional rights.
Stop bending Dave. You will find one day that you are not as flexible as you thought. And then it is too late.
Mass murderers shoot people down in Britain, Finland, Germany, Norway etc. and all have very strict gun control laws. Obviously the law isn’t stopping people determined enough to want to kill large numbers of people.
The police have an effective method of dealing with shooters. They take them out. This is what citizens should be doing while the police are on their way.
Thanks to the people who have taken the time to write well-reasoned responses. I think this is a good discussion to have. My apologies if I have failed to explain my position as well.
I agree that we cannot predict mass murder, nor can we prevent it by taking away freedoms. On the other hand, the U.S. has a higher rate of gun murders than most of the developed world, and a disproportionate share of mass murderers.
It is because our citizens are more crazy than other countries, or is it because ours are better armed?
I understand that people will always kill other people. I understand that we can’t ban guns, and shouldn’t. Still, I think there must be ways to make mass killings harder to plan without treating everyone like a potential killer. I also think we can regulate guns without confiscating them.
The Supreme Court has carefully defined what laws can be implemented without infringing on the 2nd Amendment. There are only a few states that have chosen to implement the laws directly from the Supreme Court dictum. The rest of the states have chosen to pass laws that give more rights to gun owners than required by the 2nd Amendment. (Sometimes, only a small bit more, but increasingly, much more.)
It seems to me entirely appropriate that such states should reconsider their lax gun laws in light of recent events. Or, if states decide to stick with their current (lack of) regulations, they should have to come up with a better justification than “guns don’t kill people.”
I understand the argument, I just think it is not sufficient in a civilized society. I also understand that many people are concerned that gun regulations gradually become more severe over time. In my opinion, that is not a valid argument either. It appears to me that regulations have a long way to go before they become abusive.
If we were to stamp out every regulation that might eventually morph into an abuse of freedom, then we would never regulate anything. I would much rather wait, and evaluate each potential piece of regulation on its own merits, and let people draw the line when it appears we are actually approaching it.
The US murder rate is driven by inner city gang violence. The murder rate outside the inner city is as low or lower than most of the developed world. Overall violent crime in the US is low compared to gun free Britain or Australia. You are safer in crime ridden DC than you are in London or Sydney. Your chances of being a murder victim even in Chicago
are tiny while chances of being a victim of rape, assault or armed robbery in the UK are on the order of 2% per year.
Spree shootings are headline getters but account for only a fraction of a percent of murders.
Gun bans and restrictions create a criminal’s paradise. Criminals, by professional code DO NOT OBEY LAWS. (caps for emphasis not shouting).
Please explain the mechanics of how stripping law abiding citizens of self defense rights will affect the behavior of criminals for the better. The lack of logic and reasoning by grabbers is astounding. What do you get when you let emotions rule facts? A Jesse Jackson special edition Glock anti aircraft pistol
You bet; here comes “More Fodder for Gun Control”.
All these stories point out that, unless they happen in a police station, the cops, the only ones some feel should have the right of self defense, show up after the incident. And why isn’t anyone perusing the coincidence the these last two, I believe staged, shootings were involved with Wade Michael being a Psy-ops specialist and James Holmes’ neurosciences doctoral program? Just happenstance? No one believes that the correlation should be investigated? I think mass shooting will keep happening until gun banning legislation is passed, then watch the real mayhem ensue.
WTF? Not another one…
I continually wonder why Switzerland, which has all kinds of full auto TRUE “assault rifles” in a great number of Swiss households, isn’t experiencing these mass murders.
Is the situation in the US due to the availability of weapons? Or is it a difference in culture and attitudes toward lawful and civil behavior?
Or false flag incidents
In Switzerland, you have to have a permit to buy a gun or to keep the rifle from your military service. You have to pass an examination that covers the safety and legality of gun use. Ammunition is also strictly controlled. You can buy ammo at a firing range, but you have to use it there.
Switzerland does have a lot of guns, but they also have some common-sense gun laws. The culture is different, of course, but they made a lot of progress without ever imposing the kind of “gun ban” that people worry about.
Like Iceland for example, Switzerland is essentially an ethnically homogenous country, countries with ethnic diversity are the countries that appear to have social problems.
Most of these “news” stories are just opinion pieces. If you read a news article and remove all their opinions you will have about 4 sentences left.
1) People in Wisconsin have the right to keep and bear arms openly or concealed.
2) The news media has informed the public that mass murders do occur.
3) The news media has also informed the public that on several occasions such attacks have occurred at places of religious worship.
Why didn’t anyone shoot back? Why should I have any sympathy for adults who KNOW murder can happen and do nothing to prepare for it?
Did the temple have a “NO GUNS” sign? If so, why would anyone go there? People know that with very few exceptions, mass murders have occurred in gun free zones.
Well, this proves it, states with permissive shall-carry policies enable the average citizen to stop crime. States like Wisconsin…..oh wait a second….
Fact: Make a list of the top ten states with the most free gun policies, and you will be pretty close to a list of the top ten murder rates. But of course, guns stop crime right?
Huh? Could you explain, please?
Fact: Make a list of states by murder rate, with the lowest murder rate at the top. Nine of the top ten states (the “safest”, if we are only considering murder rate) are shall-issue.
Remember, that could be for any number of different reasons. It could be that guns stop crimes, or it could just as easily be that states with the most crime eventually tried to get more serious about controlling guns.
“Remember, that could be for any number of different reasons.”
Clearly. I was merely drawing attention to the fact that gun laws have little, if any, effect on murder rates.
“…or it could just as easily be that states with the most crime eventually tried to get more serious about controlling guns.”
Of course. And it is easy to see how well regulating objects has affected behavior. I refer you to such crime-free paradises as New York, Chicago, D.C. and Los Angeles.
There is not much way to tell if it is working, because we don’t know what the murder rates would be like there without the gun control.
Also, we don’t know what the murder rates would be if every other state helped out a little. Everyone points to the high rate of gun crime in Washington DC, but it might be a little lower if the nearest Virginia gun shop was more than ten minutes away.
“…but it might be a little lower if the nearest Virginia gun shop was more than ten minutes away.”
Really!? You believe that D.C. residents are bopping over to Virginia to buy guns (in violation of federal transfer law) then heading back to D.C. to kill people? Is that really your position!?!
Is that a trick question? The statistics are pretty easy to look up. Something like 90% of guns confiscated after crimes in DC came from neighboring states. The fact that they are secondary market sales might make the gun store owner feel a little more legal, but it doesn’t take CSI to figure out that the customers buying 10 guns at a time are reselling them in DC.
But before you say: “… that proves gun laws don’t work,” remember the original argument.
The original argument is that people are seeking out places with lax gun laws because it is the lax laws that don’t work.
I said this on another post, but here we go again. If you believe that a D.C. resident is crossing the river to buy 10 Glocks (in violation of federal firearms transfer law) at around $500 a piece and then returning to D.C. to sell them for $200 a piece (that’s a $300 loss per gun), then I’ve got a bridge in Brooklyn I wanna sell you.
And before you say that it is the lax gun laws that don’t work, keep in mind that it is already illegal to purchase a handgun in a state you do not reside in.
Moonshine, no one ever buys expensive guns and sells them at a loss. What people do is buy cheaply made guns and sell them at a huge markup.
If you look at the crime stats, for example, in DC, the most commonly confiscated gun for many years was the Raven .25.
When $599 Sig’s are confiscated, there is every chance that the criminals paid $700 and up.
If your argument is that gun smuggling is not profitable, I think you are kidding yourself.