# Monday, March 14, 2005
« Underwriter Laboratory issued their fina... | Main | California Court Rules Same-Sex Marriage... »
I just invited 'the enemy' to Boomershoot 2005

One of the email lists I subscribe to is about biometrics.  One of the most active posters on the list is Henry.  Henry was the main reason I wrote this on ID cards and he was a significant impetus on my airplane security essay.  It was my email discussions with Henry on gun control that finally pushed me to the point of finally writing my Just One Question essay.  If you follow some of the links you can see some of his writings on the subject of ID cards.  He thinks the Federal government should mandate Universal Biometric Identification (UBID) and the use of the UBID should be so pervasive that it would be impractical or impossible to function in society without it.  And, of course, he is proponent of gun control.  And it is no surprise he is from New York City and a lawyer.  In his mind gun owners are insecure and fall back to “primal fears” and use “deadly weapons“ as their “security crutch”. 

Recently Henry posted a pointer to this GAO report on gun control and terrorism to the biometrics email list.  I responded with this:

Assuming they want to keep the contents of the list secret this is a sticky problem.  In the case of the using the list for restrictions on who can fly they can approve the person to fly then put undercover Air Marshals on the flight.  But in the case of the firearms purchase what are they going to do?  Forbid them from buying and hence let the suspected terrorist know they are "the list"?  And if the person is in the country lawfully what is the government justification for denying a guaranteed civil liberty?  They can't very well deny the liberty without due process.  And if given due process the intelligence data used to put the person on "the list" would come to light and perhaps terminate that source of intelligence.
 
Interesting problem--and as near as I can tell, unrelated to biometrics.
And the discussion was on again.  Ultimately that discussion lead to my inviting him to the Boomershoot again (he declined last years invitation).  The objective is for him to actually meet some gun owners rather than have his perceptions be based on ignorance or worse yet, Hollywood.  The most recent portions of our discussion follow.
From: Henry J. Boitel
Sent: Sunday, March 13, 2005 7:15 AM
To: Huffman, Joseph K
Subject: Chicago Tribune | Gunman kills 7 in rampage


Joe,

Feel free to put this comment on your web site, so long as it is quoted in full. Please advise me if you use it.

Have you noticed that whenever this sort of thing happens ( see today's article concerning killings at a church service and see also recent stories concerning killings in courtroom and murder of  Judge's family) the weapon of choice is almost always a gun.  You recently said that there should be no greater controls on guns than on the simultaneous possession of a match and gasoline.  I hear about that combination being used within the United States for intentional homicide very rarely.  In fact, even in societies where gun ownership; is very restricted, in the absence of war or rebellion, there does not appear to be anywhere near as much homicidal and destructive violence as there is in the United States.

So many of our citizens have their constitutional rights permanently terminated or substantially abridged by the wrongful or negligent use of firearms, that a fair and reasonable view must conclude that substantial restrictions ought be placed on the ownership,  registration and tractability of firearms.

In view of the indisputable, very substantial amount of death and destruction that we have experienced on an ongoing basis, it takes a peculiar kind of reasoning defect not to take that harm into consideration when discussing whether there ought be more controls imposed.  Even amongst those who claim that it is a constitutional right to "bear arms" and that such a claimed right allows no restriction on the type or extent of arms any person may have,  it is beyond understanding that those who hold such views will not consider whether there ought be a revision of that claimed constitutional right.   You see, the debate does not simply end on the question of ones view of what the Constitution means, the regular slaughter of innocents compels confrontation with the question of whether such a Constitutional provision ought exist.

Henry
Henry J. Boitel
New York
[Henry included a link to a Chicago Tribune article about several people who were killed in church shooting in Brookfield WI.  That particular article requires registration.  Similar news stories appear here.]

From: Huffman, Joseph K
Sent: Monday, March 14, 2005 11:09 AM
To: 'Henry J. Boitel'
Subject: RE: Chicago Tribune | Gunman kills 7 in rampage


There is just one question to be answered. 

http://blog.joehuffman.org/archive/2004/12/14/583.aspx

It takes a peculiar sort of reasoning defect to not take into account all the good that comes from having access to effective personal defensive tools.


-joe-
----
http://www.joehuffman.org
http://www.boomershoot.org

From: Henry J. Boitel
Sent: Monday, March 14, 2005 11:50 AM
To: Huffman, Joseph K
Subject: Re: Chicago Tribune | Gunman kills 7 in rampage


Joe,

Your effort to control the discussion would be laughable were it not for the many thousands of people who are killed and injured and terrorized each year by the misuse of weapons.  I am happy to see that you agree that the real issue is not what the Second Amendment means, but rather, whether guns have a gross negative impact upon society.  There is a real problem with people who are born into fear or who develop a sense of insecurity such that their primary security crutch is a deadly weapon.  No matter how much one talks about the needless bloodshed, they return to their primal fears.

The gun control issue is not going to go away on either side.  My hope is that those in favor of greater control will eventually organize into an effective movement.

Have a blast,
Henry
Henry J. Boitel

From: Huffman, Joseph K
Sent: Monday, March 14, 2005 12:26 PM
To: 'Henry J. Boitel'
Subject: RE: Chicago Tribune | Gunman kills 7 in rampage

There are many anti-gun organizations in the U.S.  I could provide a list for you if you wished and suggestions at to which ones are most effective if you wish to contribute to them.  The problem they have is they have lots of tragic stories to motivate their activists, millions and millions of dollars in donations, but they are intellectually bankrupt.  They cannot demonstrate any benefits from their successes or the successes of firearms restrictions in other countries.  Ultimately they stumble when the facts are presented to the legislatures and the people.  The Internet has made the problem much worse for them and they are rapidly loosing ground.

You refusal to address my question would be laughable if it weren't for the fact that MILLIONS of people each year in the U.S. use firearms to defend themselves from serious injury or death.  The benefits of easily accessible defensive tools far out ways any disadvantages of those same tools being used for criminal ends.  And as one attempts to restrict the access of those tools it appears that one always ends up restricting the availability to the people that use them for good more than from the people that use them for evil.

If the permission to use your email extends to the email below I will use that on my blog.

Thank you.

"The blast" will be on May 1 this year (http://www.boomershoot.org/2005/blast.htm).  You, as always, are welcome to attend.  We are expecting extensive press coverage this year so if you don't make it out there yourself there should be some main stream media coverage that you can find out what you missed.  And if you wish to get in on the manufacture of homemade explosives without turning over personal details to the government this will be your last opportunity.  See our press release for more details: http://www.boomershoot.org/2005/SafeExplosivesAct.htm


-joe-
----
http://www.joehuffman.org
http://www.boomershoot.org


From: Henry J. Boitel
Sent: Monday, March 14, 2005 12:48 PM
To: Huffman, Joseph K
Subject: Re: Chicago Tribune | Gunman kills 7 in rampage

Joe,

I am on the way out the door and will be out of town for a few days.  My permission to use what I have written only extends to the emails we have exchanged today, taken as a whole, and not segmented.  If you want me to write a gun control piece as one essay, I would be happy to do so.

I am tempted to come out and observe the roll your own explosives crowd,  Although I doubt I can make it, are you able to ensure my safety from hostile factions? The type that get red in the face and wild in the eye when you refer to their fascination, insecurity and inability to see the danger they promote?  

Best wishes,
Henry
Henry J. Boitel
New York

 
From: Huffman, Joseph K
Sent: Monday, March 14, 2005 1:02 PM
To: 'Henry J. Boitel'
Subject: RE: Chicago Tribune | Gunman kills 7 in rampage

You would be quite welcome to write an essay on gun control for me to publish on my web page.
 
The greatest physical dangers you would face at Boomershoot would be sunburn, hypothermia (one never knows), and tripping over a clump of grass.  Everyone is there to have fun.  Causing you or anyone else physical harm would at best only be a momentary pleasure and would be bound to get them talked about (adapted from a Robert Heinlein quote).  Your psychological model of gun owners is common but disproved.  I can probably find the research papers if you are interested.
 
Have a nice trip.

-joe-
----
http://www.joehuffman.org
http://www.boomershoot.org

Joe Huffman  Monday, March 14, 2005 3:04:00 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [109]  | 
Monday, March 14, 2005 8:14:00 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)
Joe,



That was a brilliant post and an inspirational idea to invite the gentleman to the event. I just want to point out several things.



I don't generally admit it, but in the real world, I am an insurance adjuster. Your comparison of guns to a match and a gas can are probably more apropos than you realize. Tens of thousands of people are killed by the results of arson every year. Compare that to the statistics regarding gun accidents with children and you are looking at a 1,500 to one ratio.



Secondly, I guess I'll be leaving my "Love It or Leave It" hat and my camo face paint at home, if I'm trying to appear moderate.





Cheers,



Benjamin
Benjamin
Tuesday, March 15, 2005 12:29:00 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)
Hi Joe,



Can you please send me Mr. Boitel's email address?



I'd like to send him a pleasant email, and share with him that, as a Range Safety Officer at Boomershoot, I will make sure that shooters adhere to gun safety protocols. Safety has been the standard at all Boomershoot's I've ever attended.



I would also like to share with Mr. Boitel the story of my evolution from couldn't-care-less-about-guns into becoming a firearms instructor -- which has nothing to do with hunting or sporting, and everything to do with self-defense and independence...



If Mr. Boitel cannot make it to Idaho for Boomershoot, I will try to arrange a hands-on session with him, at a gun range in (or close to) his hometown. He sounds like a decent guy, but just a bit misinformed, combined with formulating his viewpoints out of emotion and fear, rather than logic.



Thanks,

Stephanie
Stephanie Cyborg
Tuesday, March 15, 2005 12:56:00 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)
Thanks to both of you. Email address is on it's way to Steph via her boomershoot.org account.
Joe
Wednesday, March 16, 2005 11:55:00 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)
Of course, Henry might get hit by a bus on the way to boomershoot. A possibility several orders of magnitude more likely than that he will be harmed by any weapon AT boomershoot. me, I just wish I could afford to be there myself.
og
Thursday, March 17, 2005 11:09:00 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)
Joe and Friends,



The temptation to come out and see a bunch of The View From North Central Idaho of a bunch of red-necked, knuckle-dragging, Neanderthals is getting stronger. Conservation is good for its own sake, but it is even better if one can get to see nature in the wild.



I sincerely appreciate your kind offers.



If my wife gives me permission, you may well see me or both of us.



I guess I should also check with the company that makes the panic button I wear to see if the signal will carry out there. It would be difficult to adjust to life without a panic button, even for a few days.



Then there's the insurance company, extra therapy sessions before depature, etc. Are there any other preparations I should make? Do you have hotels out that way, or is it still boarding houses? How about transportation, it has been a while since I have been on a horse, and I never was much good on a mule [although I am a certified [certifiable, you might say] liberal Democrat).



Sepaking of mules, do the radio stations out there carry much more than the bleating of rightwing talk shows. What a bunch of crybabies. They still can't get over the fact that FDR, one of our greatest presidents, was ever elected.



Anyway, what I am really interested in finding out is why those among you who are anywhere close to the border of normality, are opposed to reasonable gun regulation.



Best wishes and have a blast,

Henry
Henry J. Boitel
Thursday, March 17, 2005 11:41:00 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)
Boomershoot IS therapy.



The nearby motels are listed here:



http://www.boomershoot.org/general/general.htm#Accommodations



If they haven't filled up from all the Boomershoot people the Helgeson has free wireless internet service.



Directions and suggestions on transportation are here:



http://www.boomershoot.org/directions.htm



If your panic button (whatever that is) doesn't work just stay close to Stephanie. She is a certified NRA firearms instructor and will protect you and/or give you instruction on how to use a loaner handgun safely. Or you can just yell "Help!" and a hundred people, with guns, will be there in a few seconds to save you.



And please do bring your wife. My wife enjoys spending time with the non-shooting women during the event.



Radio reception in Orofino, the closest town where you probably will stay, is limited to just one station unless you have cable I think. I don't know what it carries because I can't receive it from where I live. From the boomershoot range you can receive numerous FM stations, as well as AM, that carry at least a small variety of formats other than political talk shows.



If you want to help with the making of reactive targets please plan to show up on site by midday on Saturday.
Joe
Thursday, March 17, 2005 12:09:00 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)
Actually, you're more likely to find NPR or sports radio.
Ry Jones
Thursday, March 17, 2005 3:05:00 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)
Henry you said, "...why those among you who are anywhere close to the border of normality, are opposed to reasonable gun regulation."



Your question presumes facts not in evidence. And no, not the part about "normality". You presume there is such a thing as "reasonable gun regulation." That gets back to my one question:



http://blog.joehuffman.org/archive/2004/12/14/583.aspx



If no one can show where a gun regulation has been a force for good, as opposed to just good intentions, then it is not reasonable. It is at best a waste of resources, perhaps an enabler of crime, and in the worst case an enabler of genocide.
Joe
Friday, March 18, 2005 12:59:00 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)
Joe,



I find it funny (ie., peculiar, not haha), that persons who are often critical or dismissive of lawyers, in other contexts, often fall back on legal expressions to try to establish their point. I should say that most of my time in courtrooms relating to guns has not been for the purpose of proving how dangerous or helpful they are, but rather in defending or prosecuting persons who have caused the deaths of others by using guns.



Here are some questions for you to chew on:



1. Is it true that carrying a gun, for purposes other than legitimate hunting, is either a sign of hostility or a sign of fear? [Lets leave law enforcement officers out of this, since that is an overlappying but different discussion]



2. Can you establish, give or take several hudred million deaths, that firearms held for purposes other than hunting have been "a force for good"? ie., that if firearms, as weapons, had never existed that the world would be a worse place?



Best wishes,

Henry

Henry J. Boitel

Henry J. Boitel
Friday, March 18, 2005 1:28:00 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)
1. No.

2. Yes.



Now answer my question:



http://blog.joehuffman.org/archive/2004/12/14/583.aspx
Joe
Friday, March 18, 2005 2:07:00 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)
Oh, Joe, You are so clever. I am looking for answers, not conclusions. Explain yourself.



I also think you should rephrase your question that is surrounded by a speech. Your one question is:



"Can you demonstrate just one time, one place, throughout all of human history, where restricting the access of handheld weapons to the average person made them safer?"



While it is obviously a tactical effort to define the limits of dicussion so as to produce as to pre-empt discussion and leave a misleading impression, I think that it should atleast be rephrased to be:



Can you demonstrate just one time, one place, throughout all of human history, where restricting the access of handheld weapons to people made anyone safer?



The first change modifies "the average person" to "people". There is no such thing as an average person. Morover, the moment an average persons causes a wilfull or negligent harm to another, you would take him out of the average category and make him a criminal or idiot. You define the problem out of existence.



The second change modifies "them" (meaning the gun possessor) to "anyone" meaning anyone. I hope that gunowners are safe, but by definition, except for gunowners who shoot themselves or who get themselves into situations where they are shot or arrested, of course a gunowner is "safer" packing a gun, than he is without it. However, there is the rest of the population to consider. Moreoften than not, gun owners shoot other people. Again, this is a situation where you defined the problem out of the question.



I guess that is enough for now.



Best wishes,

Henry
Henry J. Boitel
Saturday, March 19, 2005 4:32:00 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)
Dear Joe,



While you are thinking about the foregoing, the following article, in today's (can I use the name here?) New York Times, includes some important insights about gun environments that bear upon the issue you try to reach with your "one question":



March 19, 2005

OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR

Put Down Your Gun

By DAVID FEIGE



In an unmarked corridor on the fifth floor of Bronx Supreme Court, a heavy steel door marks the point at which the custody of a prisoner is transferred from the New York City Department of Corrections to a court officer. The beige paint on the door is chipped and scratched, and the tiny pane of thick plexiglass is nearly opaque from grime. On one side of this door are courtrooms filled with jurors and judges, spectators and lawyers. On the other are bare walls, bars and handcuffs.



There is a sign on the side of the door that one sees when passing from the court side into the realm of corrections. It, too, is scratched and worn, but its simple admonition suggests a fundamental change that could go a long way toward preventing the kind of deadly violence that erupted in an Atlanta courtroom last week. It reads: "No Weapons Beyond This Point."



The massacre in Atlanta, in which a defendant grabbed a gun from a sheriff's deputy and then killed Judge Rowland W. Barnes, another sheriff's deputy and a court stenographer, is sure to fuel hours of analysis by security consultants on how to guard judges more effectively and make our courthouses safer. Law enforcement unions will undoubtedly call for more manpower and a higher officer-to-defendant ratio. Unfortunately, it's doubtful that anyone will propose a sensible solution that could have prevented the killings in the first place: making courthouses gun-free zones.



The typical hall of justice is chockablock with weaponry. Court officers, court clerks, parole and probation officers - not to mention police officers - all carry handguns for the ostensible purpose of maintaining order and security. This stands in stark contrast to our prisons. While corrections officers may carry weapons in public, in nearly every jail and prison across the country those guns get checked at the door.



One of the elemental rules of a prison is that any weapon will eventually be turned against its owner. That sane and simple logic dictates that firearms are restricted to the guards in the towers and on the perimeter. With no guns to take away, the net result of overpowering a guard is just that - having overpowered a guard. Nobody is going to shoot his way to freedom.



This bit of prison wisdom leads to the question of why anyone should be carrying a gun inside a courthouse. Most courtrooms are terrible places in which to fire a weapon - they're small and crowded and any shooting is highly likely to cause innocent casualties. They are also easy places in which to restrict the possession of weapons - most have a secure perimeter and rules that require most everyone entering or leaving to submit to a search.



The appropriate mix of proper manpower and alternative technology - stun belts (which fit under a person's clothing and can zap him with 50,000 volts), pepper spray and other nonlethal weapons - can secure defendants without guns. (Or, even if handguns are the only weapon that make citizens and court officers feel secure, there is no reason they can't be restricted to a small group of guards at critical points of entry and exit.)



Police and court officers will not take kindly to being stripped of their weapons; it is an article of faith among them that being better armed than the bad guys is critical to safety and security. But they need only consider the blood on the floor of that Atlanta courtroom to see the folly of that belief.



David Feige, a public defender in the Bronx and Soros Justice Media Fellow, is the author of the forthcoming "Indefensible."

Henry J. Boitel
Saturday, March 19, 2005 4:44:00 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)
Dear Joe,



Happy Name Day!



I wonder how Saint Joseph made it through those perilous times without a firearm?



As luck would have it there is a second article in the New York Times, authored not by an eastern lawyer, but by a western judge. Stick with it and you will see how it bears upon your reworded "One Question"



Best wishes from your friend,

Henry



March 19, 2005

OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR

Personal Safety and Public Justice

By JOH KANE



Denver — IN 27 years on the federal bench, I have received two threats serious enough to warrant around-the-clock protection. The first was from a woman who offered $500 to anyone who would kill me because I had affirmed an order deporting her boyfriend. In the second, I was mistaken for another judge who had ordered firearms confiscated.



In both cases, I was protected by the United States Marshals Service, and the suspects were prevented from doing any further harm. But like all judges, I know that my job can be dangerous. I was saddened but unsurprised at the murders of a state judge in Atlanta and the husband and mother of a federal judge in Chicago in recent weeks.



The predictable response to these murders will be a demand for more protection for judges: more guns, barriers and electronic paraphernalia. Yet one nation under guard is not the answer. Tying judicial security to the war on terrorism risks destroying the very institution we seek to defend.



The danger that judges face is not likely to be related to terrorist organizations; there is no tradition of organized groups killing judges in this country. Not even in the 1930's, when the mob was being prosecuted by people like Thomas E. Dewey, did it resort to taking aim at judges. Dewey, for example, was the target of a murder plot, but further attempts - as well as plans to assassinate a state court judge - were scotched by none other than the notorious gangster Louis Buchalter. We leave judges alone, he is reported to have said, because they're the only hope we have. Gangsters lack conscience, not common sense.



Another problem with judicial security is that it is unexpectedly difficult to define. After the shooting in Atlanta, for example, one defense lawyer described security at the courthouse as "absolutely atrocious," while a judge there said it was "phenomenal." The lawyer focused on poor training for security officers, while the judge noted that judges have a private elevator and their own parking garage.



The lawyer saw vulnerabilities beginning at the courthouse door. The judge saw security everywhere but the precise location where his colleague was shot: the bench. Under the prevailing mindset, nobody is safe.



The answer is not to convert courtrooms into fortresses or to cloister judges behind barricades. It is to create a sensible state of elevated awareness throughout the judiciary - not only about the need for better security but about the specific nature of the risk.



Since 1970, 10 state and federal judges have been murdered, seven of them in job-related incidents. Those who threaten judges are almost always disturbed individuals seeking revenge. (The murderer of the mother and husband of the judge in Chicago was sadly typical: he was an embittered former plaintiff.) Of the three federal judges killed in the last quarter-century, all were killed by men disgruntled with their treatment from the federal judicial system.



In state courts, violence is more likely to occur over domestic relations matters. In federal courts it is more likely to come from litigants representing themselves, particularly those who have fired their lawyers, in emotion-laden cases alleging violations of civil rights or injuries to self-image, cases that deeply involve notions of personal worth.



Metal detectors at courthouses and beefing up security can thwart impulsive acts, but they are ineffective against long-simmering resentments or the detailed plans of paranoids. For those we rely on intuition.



Judges receive instruction on how to vary their departure time and route between home and chambers, install alarm systems and report threats and suspicious activity to the marshals service. But we get no training in analyzing pleadings and correspondence or profiling potentially troublesome personalities - or how to treat such people once they are identified. The goal should be to narrow the field of potentially troublesome people to permit the marshals to focus on those who are truly threatening. Doing this would not only make the courts safer, but would also show that the system is committed to fairness.



When that woman put out a $500 contract on my life, the marshals service suggested I carry a gun. I followed this advice for a while, but then I gave it up. It made me uncomfortable.



Carrying a gun made me look at everyone with an attitude that made fairness and impartiality impossible. This, in the end, is too high a price to pay for judicial security: it cannot come at the cost of justice.



John Kane is a senior judge in the United States District Court for Colorado.

Henry J. Boitel
Saturday, March 19, 2005 9:40:00 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)
Henry, I'm very busy preparing for my wife's birthday party.



I don't mind you tweaking the question some but the manner in which you suggest leaves open the possibility of answering, "Yes, of course, Hitler and his thugs were made safer by disarming the Jews." or some such unsatisfactory answer.



See also my Quote of the Day for today: http://blog.joehuffman.org/archive/2005/03/19/1798.aspx which says, "It never troubles the wolf how many the sheep may be."



And it would appear that you are admitting that people who own, and presumably carry, guns are safer than those that don't. The question you (and I) wish answered is, "Is the general population safer with many people owning and carrying guns?" That depends on how many "sheep dogs", to continue the analogy, there are among the sheep and the wolves. The vast majority of the gun owning population are better described as "sheep dogs" than "wolves". Those that are afraid of guns and want all guns removed from society are the sheep. My Quote of the Day for tomorrow will shed more light on this.



And if you wish to provide prisons as an example of where restrictions of guns makes people safer and use that as a model for society as a whole then that doesn't require a response from me.



The judge that carries a gun and then feels it changed his attitude to the defendants is not a representative sample of gun owners. As an instructor I have taught many people, including a judge, how to defend themselves with a firearm. That particular attitude change has never been reported to me.
Joe
Sunday, March 20, 2005 4:33:00 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)
Happy Birthday to Barb.



Joe, you have hit upon an important point. Putting aside people who accidentally shoot themselves or who, because they have a firearm, get themselves into situations where they are harmed or imprisoned, it is true that just about anyone who has a firearm handy will feel and probably be "safer" than he or she otherwise would be. That result applies whether or not the person with the firearm is a good guy or a bad guy. Guns don't discriminate. They find their way into the hands of good people and bad, wize and stupid, old and young. That certainly is one of the sound reasons why there should be substantial regulation of firearms possession. Firearms are equal opportunity enablers - frequently finding themselves into the wrong hands.



Your comments about sheep and wolves do not particularly add anything to this discussion.



Do you know how many people were reported as being shot by firearms in the United States in the past five years?



Best wishes,

Henry





Henry J. Boitel
Sunday, March 20, 2005 10:49:00 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)
Henry, I don't know the answer, I could look it up but your question is irrelevant. A modification of the question that would make it relevant would be "How many people were criminally or accidentally shot in the last five years." This removes the people in the population represented by your question that were legally shot by the police and private citizens. And still that number is almost irrelevant unless it is compared to another number. That number would be something along the lines of the answer to the question, "How many people legally used a gun in defense of themselves or other innocent life in the last five years?" You will find the ratio of those two numbers various from about 1:1 (using a misapplied criminal victimization survey to answer the second question) to about 1:30 at the other extreme.



The crux of firearms regulation question is, "Can a firearm regulation reduce the first number more than it reduces the second number?" If so then you can make people, on the whole, safer by implementing that regulation. But to the best of my knowledge the answer is no. These questions are really just another way of getting to my "one question" and result in the answer I expected all along--"No."



The sheep, wolves, and sheepdog analogy is particularly appropriate because if you can increase the number of "sheepdogs" in the population without increasing the "wolf" population the "sheep" will be safer. In fact increasing the number of "sheepdogs" will reduce the "wolf" population because some of them will "starve" (criminal activity becomes to risky to engage in), be injured and/or killed, or be captured. As you reduce the "sheepdog" population you increase the "wolf" population because the "sheep" are so plentiful and "feeding" on them is a low risk activity.



Now, PLEASE, YOU answer my question.
Joe
Sunday, March 20, 2005 2:20:00 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)
Joe,



I have already told you that your question is, inadvertnatly no doubt, a setup.



1. In any, but totalitarian societies, the burden is upon the shooter to justify the shooting. The reason for that is obvious.



2. My guess is that, when you talk about shooting of wrongdoers, your assummption appears to be that a claim of wrongdoing should be accepted at face value. We have no way of knowing how many shooting by police or private citizens are on par or on the statistical path of some of the notorious shootings of innocent people in the past five years.



3. As far as I am aware there are no statistical compilations of circumstances where one law envorcement officer shoots another, either when one or both are on duty or when both are off duty. The number is substantial, based simply on the ones of which I am aware. That is not to say that cops should not have guns or that cops are bad people. It is a reflection of how dangerous guns can be even in the hands of trained professionals.



4. Them, of course, there are incidents like the one you are featuring on the main page of your blog. Should coitus interruptus explosivus be excused because it occurred in the heat of passion or was a shot in the dark or was simply an accidental discharge or bang? Are you preparing to give your readers tips in answer to your question of how the technique could have been improved?



Best wishes,

Henry
Henry J. Boitel
Sunday, March 20, 2005 4:51:00 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)
1. The last time I looked our system of justice was still "innocent until proven guilty". That applies to the use of firearms as well as baseball bats for self defense. Furthermore not all defensive uses of a gun involve shots being fired. The mere display or even the claim that someone has a firearm is frequently enough to deter an attacker.



2. No. There are thousands of shootings each year that even though the shooter is known they are not charged with a crime--because there was no crime committed.



3. The gun handling (in regards to safety) of cops is generally considered to be far worse than the average private citizen. Cops carry guns because they are required to, whether they appreciate them or not. Private citizen carry them because they want to, there use is a hobby, and they tend to obey the safety rules more rigorously.



4. There three safety that must be followed at all times. These Darwin Award candidates violated all three of them.



Henry, not only has the CDC found there is no reliable evidence that any attempted firearm regulation has made people safer but the National Academy of Sciences came up with the same conclusion. The Department of Justice sponsored research on "assault weapons" came up with similar conclusions in their numerous research efforts. Your persistence holding onto failed ideologies indicates you either have evidence you are not sharing or that evidence is irrelevant to you. In either case I have zero tolerance for discussions with people with that mindset.
Joe
Sunday, March 20, 2005 6:39:00 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)
Joe,



I will be disappointed if you exist this discussion on a pompous noite.



You know better than to characterize the CDC report as you have.



In fact, the summary introduction to the report clearly states:



"The Task Force found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws or combinations of laws reviewed on violent outcomes. (Note that insufficient evidence to determine effectiveness should not be interpreted as evidence of ineffectiveness.)"

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm



The limited regulations, the lack of uniformity across state borders, and the lack of properly funded statistical information, all contribute to the fact that it is difficult to draw any conclusions as to the efficacy of existing regulations.



The first few paragraphs of the report lay out the background against any discussion must take place:



"Although firearms-related* injuries in the United States have declined since 1993, they remained the second leading cause of injury mortality in 2000, the most recent year for which complete data are available (1). Of 28,663 firearms-related deaths in 2000 --- an average of 79 per day---16,586 (57.9%) were suicides, 10,801 (37.7%) were homicides, 776 (2.7%) were unintentional, and an additional 500 (1.7%) were legal interventions or of undetermined intent.



"An estimated 24.3% of the 1,430,693 violent crimes (murder, aggravated assault, rape, and robbery) committed in the United States in 1999 were committed with a firearm (2). In the early 1990s, rates of firearms-related homicide, suicide, and unintentional death in the United States exceeded those of 25 other high-income nations (i.e., 1992 gross national product US $8,356 per capita) for which data are available (3). In 1994, the estimated lifetime medical cost of all firearms injuries in the United States was $2.3 billion (4).



"Approximately 4.5 million new firearms are sold each year in the United States, including 2 million handguns. In addition, estimates of annual secondhand firearms transactions (i.e., sales, trades, or gifts) range from 2 million to 4.5 million (5,6). Further, an estimated 0.5 million firearms are stolen annually (6). Thus, the total number of firearms transactions could be as high as 9.5 million per year.



"The 1994 National Survey of the Private Ownership of Firearms (NSPOF), conducted by Chilton Research Services for the Police Foundation, under sponsorship of the National Institute of Justice, indicated that American adults owned approximately 192 million working firearms, an average of one per adult (7). The NSPOF also indicated that firearm ownership was unevenly distributed in the population: only 24.6% of U.S. adults owned a firearm (41.8% of men and 9.0% of women). Another survey (2) found that 41% of adult respondents reported having a firearm in their home in 1994, and 35% did so in 1998. A third survey (8) reported that 35% of homes with children aged <18 years had at least one firearm. Rates of firearm ownership in the United States also exceed those of 14 other nations for which data are available, with the exception of Finland (9).



"Of the estimated 192 million firearms owned in the United States at the time of the 1994 NSPOF survey, 65 million were handguns; 70 million, rifles; 49 million, shotguns; and the remainder were other guns (7). Among handgun owners, 34.0% kept their guns loaded and unlocked. An estimated 10 million handguns, one sixth of the handguns owned, were regularly carried by their owners, approximately half in the owners' cars and the other half on the owners' persons.



"The manufacture, distribution, sale, acquisition, storage, transportation, carrying, and use of firearms in the United States are regulated by a complex array of federal, state, and local laws and regulations. This review examines firearms laws as one of many approaches to reducing firearms violence (10,11). "



Best wishes,

Henry
Henry J. Boitel
Sunday, March 20, 2005 7:04:00 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)
As one editorial (http://www.jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/101303/opi_13753216.shtml) put it:



----

Gun control groups deplored the alleged "lack of studies" on gun control.



CDC spent $2.6 million on gun studies during the previous administration. Same results.



In the most recent CDC study, a task force of 14 experts spent three years reviewing 51 different studies and could find no evidence. At some point, one might surmise that there isn't much gold in that mine.



...



If guns kill people, then more guns should kill more people. Yet, deaths and injuries from firearms have declined for the past 10 years, even though 4.5 million new firearms are sold each year.

----



If all the thousands of gun restrictions that have been tried have yet to show results after millions of dollars are spent in analyzing the results and billions have been spent in enforcement just what is it you think will work that hasn't been tried someplace already?



Restrictions on a guaranteed civil right must have exceedingly strong justification. Where is your evidence for whatever restriction you think is justified?
Joe
Sunday, March 20, 2005 7:23:00 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)
Joe,



What I said about the CDC report can, similarly be said about the National Academy of Sciences report. Your suggestion that either one of them helps to establish the value of a firearmed society, simple is not correct.



The NAS report can be found at:

http://books.nap.edu/books/0309091241/html/index.html



At the outset of the report, under the heading "Major Recommendations", the following appears:





"MAJOR CONCLUSIONS



"Empirical research on firearms and violence has resulted in important findings that can inform policy decisions. In particular, a wealth of descriptive information exists about the prevalence of firearm-related injuries and deaths, about firearms markets, and about the relationships between rates of gun ownership and violence. Research has found, for example, that higher rates of household firearms ownership are associated with higher rates of gun suicide, that illegal diversions from legitimate commerce are important sources of crime guns and guns used in suicide, that firearms are used defensively many times per day, and that some types of targeted police interventions may effectively lower gun crime and violence. This information is a vital starting point for any constructive dialogue about how to address the problem of firearms and violence.



"While much has been learned, much remains to be done, and this report necessarily focuses on the important unknowns in this field of study. The committee found that answers to some of the most pressing questions cannot be addressed with existing data and research methods, however well designed. For example, despite a large body of research, the committee found no credible evidence that the passage of right-to-carry laws decreases or increases violent crime, and there is almost no empirical evidence that the more than 80 prevention programs focused on gun-related violence have had any effect on children’s behavior, knowledge, attitudes, or beliefs about firearms. The committee found that the data available on these questions are too weak to support unambiguous conclusions or strong policy statements.



"Drawing causal inferences is always complicated and, in the behavioral and social sciences, fraught with uncertainty. Some of the problems that the committee identifies are common to all social science research. In the case of firearms research, however, the committee found that even in areas in which the data are potentially useful, the complex methodological problems inherent in unraveling causal relationships between firearms policy and violence have not been fully considered or adequately addressed.



"Nevertheless, many of the shortcomings described in this report stem from the lack of reliable data itself rather than the weakness of methods. In some instances—firearms violence prevention, for example—there are no data at all. Even the best methods cannot overcome inadequate data and, because the lack of relevant data colors much of the literature in this field, it also colors the committee’s assessment of that literature."



In view of the huge number of deaths and injuries that are firearms related, to me, at least, the lack of adequate data is incomprehensible.



Best wishes,

Henry

Henry J. Boitel
Sunday, March 20, 2005 7:43:00 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)
Almost for certain the numbers you see are the total number of injuries and deaths. The justified shootings are almost always lumped in with the unjustified. As soon as you start trying to separate the criminal from the "praiseworthy" uses of firearms the issue becomes far less clear--as the CDC and the NAS both state. And without clear evidence to justify restrictions the government has no business spending limited resources on enforcing a restriction that might actually make things worse instead of better.



And if you want my personal opinion the CDC and the NAS researchers know the truth lies on the side of gun ownership and are just uncomfortable reporting it. Most of the researchers involved have long histories of producing research results that were anti-gun ownership. For them to say the issue is not clear was a big step for them. But that is just a guess on my part. And of course I have my biases.
Joe
Monday, March 21, 2005 6:17:00 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)
Joe,



This gets us back to a point I suggested in my initial comments. You have a bias in favor of guns, grounded in what you feel threatened by, and I have a bias in favor of attempting to do something about all of those unwarranted deaths and injuries, From where I stand, the scale leans heavily in my favor.



I rarely hear gun people talk about what they propose be done to cut down on unwarranted death and injury. I am sure you would say there is more education and training needed. You will get no argument from me on that. However, my belief is that it will not make enough of a difference. As a side note, everything has a price. Do you have an estimate of how much it would cost to give everyone the education and training they ought have?



It all comes down to the three R's: Regulation, registration and restriction. They lead to accountability. A firearm is an inherently dangerous instrumentality. Going back hundreds of years, the common law has had a clear rule with regard to inherently dangerous instrumentalities: strict accoutability and liability. See. for example - http://www.state.wv.us/wvsca/jury/inherently.htm



Best wishes,

Henry
Henry J. Boitel
Monday, March 21, 2005 6:56:00 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)
Henry, if you were the prosecutor and just rested your case the defense attorney would move for a dismissal on lack of evidence and received it. You have presented ZERO evidence than any of your suggestions would make ANY difference. All you have is an hypothesis that has been tested hundreds of times all over the world for a 100 years or more. And the result for all the expense is, "The Task Force found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws or combinations of laws reviewed on violent outcomes."



The defendant walks. Come back again when you have some evidence.



There are roughly 8 to 10 BILLION bullets sold in the US each year (http://blog.joehuffman.org/archive/2004/11/21/492.aspx) . Millions of people carry a loaded gun with them nearly everywhere they go every day. A gun is not considered an "inherently dangerous instrumentality". The use of explosives (as in your link) require far, far, more care than a firearm.
Joe
Monday, March 21, 2005 9:36:00 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)
Joe,



We have not yet arrived at the trial. We are still in the process of gathering information. This is a dialog. Calm down that trigger finger and disuss facts rather than hasty, convenient, admittedly biased conclusions.



If you will read the prior materials carefully, you will see that the studies to which you have made reference say that there is NOT enough information available to conclude that weapons laws are NOT effective. They do not even go into the question of whether more stringent laws would or would not be more obviously effective.



On the issue of dangerous intrumentality, see:



Responsibility of Firearm Owners and Dealers for Their Second Amendment Right to Bear Arms: A Survey of the Caselaw - http://articles.corporate.findlaw.com/articles/file/00566/000570/title/Subject/topic/Injury%20%20Tort%20Law_Personal%20Injury/filename/injurytortlaw_2_192



Best wishes,

Henry
Henry J. Boitel
Monday, March 21, 2005 10:16:00 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)
I read the entire page on the issue of firearms as a "dangerous instrument". As near as I could tell there was no general finding of a firearm as such. Yes, there were a few cases but it general they were not considered such.



As the "defense attorney" in this case I am not under any obligation to assist the prosecutor. Therefore when you come up with some evidence that one or more of your three R's will make society safer rather than more hazardous let me know so we can proceed with the "trial".
Joe
Tuesday, March 22, 2005 7:24:00 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)
Joe,



Perhaps we can reach a point of agreement. You were quite enthusiastic in referring to the studies produced by the Centers for Disease Control and the National Academy of Sciences. Those studies demonstrate that available statistical information is inaduate to form an opinion, one way or other other, as to the effectiveness of existing gun control legislation. That leaves open the question of what better information would show and also leaves open whether more stringent gun control would more readily yield such information.



Will you join me in asking Congress to mandate and fund the objective gathering of adequate information that would assist in coming up with reliable conclsions as to the impact of gun regulation?



Given the sheer number of people who are killed and seriously injured by firearms, it is difficult to justify not pursuing all reasonable efforts to obtain worthwhile information -- whereever it may lead.



You seem like a thoughtful person who dislikes wrongful death and injury at least as much as you like the proliferation and use of firearms. Let's get the facts so that you can make a decision that is not simply based upon what you would like to hear.



Best wishes,

Henry
Henry J. Boitel
Tuesday, March 22, 2005 11:40:00 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)
"That leaves open the question of what better information would show and also leaves open whether more stringent gun control would more readily yield such information."



It also leaves open the question of whether less stringent gun control would more readily yield such information. It seems to me that the complete bans that have been implemented in various countries would be a ready source of data to be utilized without infringing any further on the rights and (potentially the) safety of people in this country.



One also has to ask if a moderate amount of gun control doesn't provide any measurable benefits at what point do you expect the benefits to occur? At what point do the mechanism by which the previous efforts fail no longer exist? And will any effort be more successful than the restrictions we have placed on the use of recreational drugs?



All that aside, I'm all for more information. The problem with this particular research topic however is that it has a history of becoming very politicized. There were millions of dollars that were given to "researchers" that produced blatantly unwarranted conclusions. It was so bad that when Congress held hearings on all the junk "science" they produced the researchers and managers didn't even show up. Researchers always have biases of some sort and most work hard to put them aside and go through peer reviews to further guard against biases making their way into the final results. But with a political hot potato like this it's much harder because it might be a career limited move if you produce something that pisses off some powerful Congress critter. Please note I have not placed blame for shoddy work on either side of this issue. Although the history is rather one sided I worry that errors in the other direction are just as likely with the proper change in political winds.



I think the solution is for the research to be funded by someone other than Congress. I'm not sure who that would be. Perhaps some foundation that has no obvious political alliance or a private University that doesn't get substantial funds from government sources.



"You seem like a thoughtful person who dislikes wrongful death and injury ... Let's get the facts so that you can make a decision that is not simply based upon what you would like to hear."



The same appears true of you. And will you continue to gather facts and make a decision based upon where those facts lead you rather than simply based on what you would like to hear? Which leads me to my final question for this post. Have you and your wife made your reservations for attending Boomershoot 2005 yet? My time will be very limited but two other people have volunteered to be your "guide" for the event. Both are smart, articulate, and have long term goals which are incompatible with causing someone with whom they disagree physical harm.
Joe
Friday, March 25, 2005 10:39:00 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)
Joe,



There has been a pause in our exchange because I have been trying to figure out how I could possibly attend Boomershoot 2005. Seriously, my bet is that you have a great bunch of people and that it will be a lot of fun. As pro-gun control and pro-explosives control as I am, and as little contact as I have had with such things outside the criminal justice system, I am as impressed as anyone might be by the skill of target shooting, the noise and chaos of controlled explosions, and the camaraderie of people getting togther to do what they like to do.



That said, it does not come at a good time and it is outrageous that it can cost more to travel to places within our country than it does to travel halfway around the world. The bottom line is that I will not be able to make it there.



Last night I heard a discussion relating to the shootings at the school on the Indian Reservation. The statement was made that "Guns should not be left within the reach of depressed people."



1. Do you agree with that view;



2. I realize that the question of who is and who is not "depressed" is problematic, but can you get by that for the moment and get to the root of the issue?



3. Assuming that, as a general rule firearms should be as freely available and carryable, as you sometimes advocate, do you believe that issues of mental stability ought weigh into whether a person should be permitted to possess a firearmm?



4. If you do, how would you word the standard?



5. If you do not, can you state in absolutes what, if any, limitations there ought be on the right (or privilege) to own a firearm.



6. As an extension of 5, do you think there should be a difference between the right to own and the right to carry? If so, what is that distinction?



Have a blast,

Henry
Henry
Friday, March 25, 2005 11:46:00 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)
Sorry you won't be able to make it. I understand the issues and I really appreciate your trying to make it work for you. I know you aren't just saying that you gave it consideration too. I saw your hits earlier this week on boomershoot.org regarding directions and accommodations.



On to your questions:



1. and 2. If the view was modified to be "suicidal" or "suicidal tendencies" rather than merely "depressed", then my answer would be a qualified "yes". The reason being is that there are some studies (but not all) that indicate a somewhat positive correlation between firearm availability and suicide rates. In fact, I tell my students that if there is someone in the house that has tendencies towards suicide to give serious consideration to removing the firearms from the home or putting them in a very secure safe that person doesn't have access to. In one case I contacted the wife of a couple we know and highly recommended she remove the guns I knew her husband owned from the house for that very reason. She had already considered that but hadn't acted on it until I gave her that little extra push. In any case that danger must be weighed against other dangers such as an abusive ex-boyfriend/husband that recently threatened them.



The qualifications are:



A) Similar restrictions should be placed on people's access to cars. I personally know two incidents where drivers committed suicide by head-on collisions with other vehicles. In one case my cousin was severely injured and in the other my friend Ry managed to leave the freeway at 70 MPH to avoid the head-on and only had clean up his own the vomit afterwards--the driver and passenger of semi-truck a mile further on were killed along with the suicidal driver. I only personally knew one person, a great uncle, that committed suicide with a firearm. Too small, and probably biased, a sample to draw any conclusions from but a worthy hypothesis to explore.



B) As you indicate, it's tough to measure mental state accurately and objectively.



C) I am hesitant to get the state involved because of the potential for abuse. For example: the abusive ex-boyfriend could convince his mental-health/police/whoever buddies that his ex was depressed, suicidal and should have her guns, needed to protect her from the ex, taken away. Even further down the slippery slope is that you might ultimately have to have an annual pysch exam in order to retain possession of your firearms.



3. and 4. "Mental stability" is again tough to define. Currently Federal law says that firearm possessors must never have been involuntarily committed to a mental health hospital. I have never spoken out against that restriction however I don't think it is the proper domain of the Federal government. That is more appropriately the domain of state law.



5. If the person is not safe to have possession of a firearm (or matches and a can of gasoline) then they aren't safe to have freely walking around in public. Yes, I advocate the access to firearms for some ex-felons--particularly non-violent felons.



6. I can't think of any reason to make that distinction. Do you have something in mind that I might not have considered? Of course I can see a reason to prohibit carry in some hazardous environments perhaps some areas of a oil refinery where there are high concentrations of explosive vapors or in a fireworks or explosives factory, the same sort of place where you might prohibit smoking for similar reasons.
Joe
Saturday, March 26, 2005 3:56:00 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)
Joe,



1. I will return soon to the issues concerning mental instability. I have to do a bit of rearch into it. For the time being, let me say this:



It is clear that a person who has been adjudicated to be a danger to himself and to others ought not have use of or access to a firearm. My sense of fairness tells me that determinations of whether a person is mentally unstable should not be left to beauaucrats and that one should not be deprived of rights and privileges accorded to the general population unless there is adjudication.



I think that convictions for crimes of violence, violenct domestic relations history, public intoxication, use of judgment altering drugs (whether or not prescribed) all ought shift the burden, automatically, to the applicant to establish that he can be entrusted with a gun. [It is likely that a number of peace officers who feel the effects of that rule, if fairly enforced].



I asked you if you draw a distinction between the right to own and the right to carry because when weapons are carried the potential of their being misused, in the heat of anger, is much greater. A person who owns a firearm and uses it only under defined circumstances, without the right to carry it in public, is less likely to use it wrongfully. Keep in mind that "less likely" is not same as "will not". Life is mainly chracterized by probablities.



More on the foregoing at another time.



2. You frequently refer to the Canadian experience. I came across the following editorial from the Canadian Medical Association Journal - 2003. They make a good point concerning the cry for proof as to the effects of gun control. As you know, the gun abuse problem in the US is far worse than it is in Canada.



Best wishes,

Henry



Reasonable control: gun registration in Canada

http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/168/4/389



Over the past decade in Canada, roughly 1200 people have been killed and another 1000 wounded, every year, by firearms.1,2 Gunshot wounds are the third leading cause of death among Canadians aged 15 to 24.2 We rank fifth among industrialized nations in the incidence of firearm-related deaths in children under age 14.2 The estimated cost of gun injuries and deaths in Canada is $6 billion per year.3



Over the past 30 years most affluent countries, with the exception of the United States, have adopted national programs to control the ownership and use of guns by private citizens. In Canada this has included legislation in 1978 to license new gun acquisitions; additional requirements for owner screening and gun storage were introduced in 1991. Compulsory gun registration, which has been causing all the fuss lately, was written into the Firearms Act (Bill 68) in 1995, which also provided for the establishment of a centralized database. This legislation strengthened licensing provisions through further background and community checks, notification of current and former spouses of the acquisition, renewal of acquisition certificates every 5 years and other provisions. More power was given to firearms officers to investigate complaints and initiate the revocation of licences. As of Jan. 1, 2003, the deadline for registration, about 75% of owners had registered 5.8 million of an estimated 8 million unrestricted firearms.



The Auditor General's report that the registration system has been mismanaged by the federal government at a staggering cost to taxpayers has led to calls to dismantle it. This would be a serious mistake. Registration is a key part of the strategy to reduce mortality and morbidity resulting from the misuse of privately owned guns and the illegal trade in firearms.



Reason and evidence support this view. David Griffin, Executive Officer of the Canadian Police Association, stated in a presentation to the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs4 that licensing and registration of firearms "discourages casual gun ownership" and "has been effective in preventing people who should not have guns from getting them." As a result of the legislation, Griffin reported that "tens of thousands" of "unwanted, unused and unnecessary" firearms had been turned in to police.



Eighty percent of firearms deaths arise from suicide; 15% are homicides and 4% are classified as "accidents."1 It is both common sense and a long-standing public health strategy to reduce this toll by controlling access to guns, especially by anyone likely to use them irrationally or with criminal intent.



What the registry adds to gun control is that it links the firearm to the owner. Because the registry makes the owner responsible for specific guns, he or she is more likely to store them safely. This reduces the chances that children, people suffering from mental illness or addicted to drugs or alcohol, or people involved in personal disputes will use a firearm. It also reduces the chance of theft. Stolen guns are increasingly traded for drugs or sold to illegal international arms traders.5 Jurisdictions with licensing, registration and other controls report that fewer guns are available to criminals.6 Registration also provides police with the information needed to enforce firearm prohibition orders and to recognize risks in volatile situations such as domestic violence.



There will never be undisputed evidence that a law or public policy has achieved, by itself, the desired effect. But most citizens, even if they disagree with a law, will abide by it. Our gun-control legislation has encouraged owners to construct safe storage places for their guns, to buy and sell them legally and to register them. Also, importantly, laws are an expression of societal values; in this case, they serve to educate the public about the risks inherent in gun access and to reinforce the ideal of public safety above the privilege of private ownership. We encourage the federal government to stick with the gun registration program and get the job done. — CMAJ



References



1. Firearm deaths, 1970–1999. In: Causes of death. Ottawa: Statistics Canada; 2000. Cat no 84-208.

2. Cukier W. Firearms regulation: Canada in the international context. Chronic Dis Can 1998;19(1):25-34.

3. Miller TR. Costs associated with gunshot wounds in Canada in 1991. CMAJ 1995; 153(9):1261-8.[Abstract]

4. Griffin D. Issue 3: Presentation on behalf of the Canadian Police Association. Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. In: 37th Parliament, 2nd sess. Ottawa: House of Commons, 2002 Nov 27. Available: www.parl.gc.ca/37/2/parlbus/commbus/senate/com-e/lega-e/03eva-e.htm?Language=E&Parl=37&Ses=2&comm_id=11 (accessed 2003 Jan 24).

5. Report of the United Nations Conference on the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects; 2001 Jul 9-20; New York. Available: http://disarmament.un.org/cab/smallarms/files/aconf192_15.pdf (accessed 2003 Jan 22).

6. Webster DW, Vernick JS, Hepburn LM. Relationship between licensing, registration, and other gun sales laws and the source state of crime guns. Inj Prev 2001;7(3):184-9.[Abstract/Free Full Text]





Henry
Tuesday, March 29, 2005 7:59:00 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)
Henry, you wrote:



----

I think that convictions for crimes of violence, violence domestic relations history, public intoxication, use of judgment altering drugs (whether or not prescribed) all ought shift the burden, automatically, to the applicant to establish that he can be entrusted with a gun.

----



I could accept that as long as there is a working process for it. Currently there is a process provided for in U.S. law by which a convicted felon can get his or her firearms rights restored but it isn't funded. Therefore in essence it is non-existent.



In regards to the carrying of a weapon and the heat of anger you might be surprised at the reality. To the best of my knowledge there have not been any published studies on it but some writers and numerous people report that people carrying guns take extra effort to not get in situations where they could loose their temper. They specifically restrain themselves from hostile acts because they are carrying a gun. They report things like, "If I hadn't been carrying a gun I would have punched that jerk in the mouth." They carrying of a gun means you will be held to a higher standard of behavior should a situation become physical. People recognize this and deescalate situations to avoid the risk of actually using their gun. We talk about this and teach de-escalation in the NRA Person Protection class.



The editorial you quote fails to recognize the benefits of firearms ownership and hence concludes that discouragement of firearms ownership has no drawbacks. It also doesn't address whether the money (nearly $2 Billion by some estimates) spent on registration would yield greater benefits if spent on police or educational efforts.
Joe
Friday, April 01, 2005 7:29:00 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)
Joe,



As to you first two paragraphs of your note, it looks like we are on the path to agreement that under those circumstances there ought be gun restrictions and that such restrictions will work only if there is proper funding to implement and enforce the restrictions. It would be interesting to hear from others, who follow this blog, as to whether they have a view on what I have just stated.



The third paragraph is the kind of self-serving conventional wisdom that we all engage it to butress what we like, but that is, otherwise, meaningless. Of course people have to take extra care if they own or carry a firearm. Of course, most people who own or carry guns take the precautions that they ought take. The problem is that we have a very large number of people who are killed or injured as the result of gun misuse or negligence in the storage of firearms. The issues are whether: a) this is a social problem that should be addressed by regulatory measures; b) such measures are justified either because they will directly reduce injury or because they will better fix accountablity for such injury?



As to the editorial, I think it does a pretty good job of speaking for itself. Your comment would be relevant if the editorial was advocating a ban on guns. It does not. The last paragraph of the editorial is particularly to the point:



"There will never be undisputed evidence that a law or public policy has achieved, by itself, the desired effect. But most citizens, even if they disagree with a law, will abide by it. Our gun-control legislation has encouraged owners to construct safe storage places for their guns, to buy and sell them legally and to register them. Also, importantly, laws are an expression of societal values; in this case, they serve to educate the public about the risks inherent in gun access and to reinforce the ideal of public safety above the privilege of private ownership. We encourage the federal government to stick with the gun registration program and get the job done."



Best wishes,

Henry







Henry
Friday, April 01, 2005 9:43:00 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)
Joe,



As a supplement to my last note, here is an article from the March 31, 2005 issue of Texas A&M The Battalion (http://www.thebatt.com/news/2005/03/31/Opinion/Pro-Does.The.United.States.Need.More.Strict.GunControl.Laws-907457.shtml)



Best wishes,

Henry



Pro - Does the United States need more strict gun-control laws?

By S R

Published: Thursday, March 31, 2005



Despite President Bush's aggressive anti-terrorism program, the Bush Administration has a blind spot when it comes to gun laws in America. The number of people killed by firearms has unfortunately risen after seven consecutive years of decline, and there are critical loopholes and ambiguities in the United States' federal gun laws. In light of this news, the Bush Administration must focus on keeping U.S. citizens safe from internal threats.



While the Second Amendment clearly gives citizens the right to bear arms, Americans have continued to radically abuse this right. Elaborate mass shootings frequently haunt the nation's front pages, and smaller incidents casually go unnoticed. According to bradycampaign.com, 82 people die from gunshot injuries in the United States every day. This number alone is reason enough to immediately re-examine the roots of this recurring problem and implement suitable solutions. Brian Malte, the outreach director for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, believes that it's time for the public to realize the severity of the problem with gun control. He told the Los Angeles Times, "When you have a lot of these incidents happening at about the same time, people start to put one and one together."



Past and present gun-related statistics can be partially attributed to the recklessness of Congress and the Bush Administration's lack of gun law reformation. Bush's 2005 budget could possibly force 88,000 police officers off the streets, causing a deficiency in state security. Congress' failure to renew the familiar assault weapons ban has immunized gun manufacturers from civil liability for letting weapons fall in the hands of gun traffickers, snipers and terrorists - a critical factor in the dramatic nationwide killing spree.



In 1999, Bush verbally endorsed the assault weapons ban and still articulates his pledge to sign the bill with little hesitation if it reaches his desk. But sticking with a political trend of unfulfilled promises, he hasn't called on a single Congressman in support of its renewal. As a president who has been relentless in pressuring Congress on almost every issue important to him, his actions (or lack thereof) in regard to the bill are undoubtedly questionable and negligent.



Federal law concerning gun sales and ownership is a complete legislative mess. The vague regulations have forced states to fill in the gaps, causing a plethora of troublesome loopholes. As a result of the poorly written laws, a category known as private sellers exists, where anyone who wants to sell guns from his private collection doesn't need to conduct background checks, keep any records, research the buyer's qualifications or be knowledgeable of firearms in any way.



Since the horror of Sept. 11, the National Rifle Association (NRA) has repeatedly reminded us that the airplane hijackers used box cutters - not guns - to terrorize the nation. This observation holds little significance when compared to a recent report by the Government Accountability Office, which found that 47 suspects on an FBI terrorist watch list legally purchased firearms in the United States last year. Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., told the Associated Press that the "FBI knows that terrorist access to guns in our country is a real problem. Hopefully, the FBI can talk some sense into the rest of the Bush Administration and put the safety and security of the American people ahead of the interests of the gun lobby."



By examining specific cases involving links between terrorism and guns, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence has revealed alarming results that scream for reformation. Specifically, the study found that gun shows are a breeding ground for terrorist gun sales; nothing in federal law prevents terrorists from instantly amassing arsenals of weapons; the irresponsibility of the gun industry allows corrupt gun dealers to funnel guns to terrorists, and the loopholes in the law have allowed terrorists to buy military ammunition magazines and "gun kits" through the mail that can be assembled into untraceable assault weapons.



The Brady Campaign issues an annual report card that analyzes and grades each state based on a checklist of overall gun safety. The Campaign claims that while some states have successfully strengthened their laws and blocked efforts by gun lobbyists to weaken existing laws, a number of states continue to drag their feet on gun safety measures. Texas received a D- for its efforts, a slight decline from previous years; and eight other red states with equally insufficient grades are still pursuing an easier system for citizens to carry concealed handguns.



A false sense of security has surfaced within the United States, and gun-related fatalities are a constant reminder of this inadequacy. While the Administration's efforts have protected us from malicious outsiders, they have neglected to acknowledge the trend of trigger-happy Americans. Without a doubt, the government should bite the bullet on gun control and start prioritizing the safety of its citizens.

Henry
Saturday, April 02, 2005 1:19:00 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)
"There will never be undisputed evidence that a law or public policy has achieved, by itself, the desired effect..."



This paragraph completely misses the points I have been making. Has this public law achieved ANYTHING other than spending between one and two BILLION dollars and make some people feel like they have "done something"? See for example what I chose as the "Quote of the day" yesterday: http://blog.joehuffman.org/archive/2005/04/01/2090.aspx



The editorial you most recently quoted is irrelevant. It is nothing but a rehash of the Brady Campaign's talking points (http://blog.joehuffman.org/archive/2005/04/02/2108.aspx). Where's the evidence? What are the facts? And if you do the correlation between the Brady "report card" and the crime rate in the various states as I did (http://blog.joehuffman.org/archive/2005/01/17/929.aspx) you will find there is NO correlation between their "grade" and the crime rate. So what good do those laws do us?



You say, "The third paragraph is the kind of self-serving conventional wisdom..."



I can see how your statement applies to what you said about firearms being used in the heat of anger--very "conventional wisdom". My rebuttal of that is based on personal experience and the testimony of many people who carry firearms.



Further rebuttal to you using that as an excuse to restrict the carrying of firearms is that in order for you to justify such a restriction with "without the right to carry it in public, is less likely to use it wrongfully" you must demonstrate this outweighs the losses that occur when people need a weapon to defend themselves or other innocent life and don't carry a weapons simply because the government told them not to. Keep in mind that people that are willing to use a weapon in a crime aren't going to much care if they carry a weapon in violation of the law. Any restriction you impose on the general population will affect the normally law abiding far, far, more than the willful criminal. And since defensive uses of firearms outnumber offensive uses of firearms by a substantial number you will always reduce the defensive uses more than the offensive uses. Hence restricting the carrying of firearms only INCREASES the total number of successful violent crimes. See also my quote of the day for today: http://blog.joehuffman.org/archive/2005/04/02/2107.aspx



It all boils down to my one question again.



-joe-

P.S. I had read Runnel's opinion piece about 6:00 AM yesterday. I recognized the Brady lines in it but didn't bother to rake her over the coals about it until you brought it up. Thank you for giving me the incentive.
Joe
Saturday, April 02, 2005 6:00:00 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)
I have to give you both due credit for a thorough and spirited discussion of this subject. I am only going to address a couple points.



Firstly, Henry and yourself refer to a CDC report. I, personally, do not credit that agency with any integrity whatsoever. The quote that intrigued me was this:



"Research has found, for example, that higher rates of household firearms ownership are associated with higher rates of gun suicide,..."



This is one of those statments that is removed from logic. It does not state that suicide rates are higher in homes where a firearm is present; it clearly states that that means is what is preferable to other options available. If I stated that homes where rope is available, the rate of suicide by hanging is increased, that would be a meaningless statment. People use the means available.



My only other comment is Henry's post about getting shot around a bunch of gun enthusiasts for the fact that he recommends "the 3 R's." That is a silly allegation or point. My father always points out that the safest place in the world to be is at a gun range. There are law-abiding, armed people all over the place.



In the interest of debate, I will be linking this conversation on my blog.



Regards,

Benjamin
Benjamin
Saturday, April 02, 2005 8:33:00 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)
Benjamin,



I think I should make two things clear: 1) To the extent that I expressed a concern about the safety environment or the goodwill of those who attend, those comments were made in jest, and if that was not clear, I apologize. My sense is that Joe and those who assist him are probably models of firearms and explosive safety and are not inclined toward anti-social conduct. 2) As regards just about everything else I have said, I have been quite (I almost said "dead") serious - that includes the reference to the 3 R's. To the extent that I quote published material, I do so because I think it should properly be part of a discussion of this subject.



You are correct to point out that gun suicides are more likely to occur in a place where there is a gun. In that sense, the fact is useless. There is, however, an underlying issue that relates to all unjustified firearms violence: If the firearm had not been available, would the violent act or the extent of its consequences have occurred? As an attorney, I have been involved in enough homicide cases, at trial or on appeal, to have reached the conclusion that, in many cases, the violence or the extent of the resulting injury, would not have occurred were it not for the availability of a firearm. That is due to several factors that we can discuss. Do you or Joe or any of the other readers disagree with my point, as a general proposition? I understand you may come back and say that this has to be counterbalanced by situations in which the presence of a firearm prevented violence or limited it to jusifiable self-defense. That is a separate issue (i.e., where the balance of the equities comes out). Before we can get to it, we should have some agreement as to what goes onto the scale.



Joe,



Your dismissal of the "heat of anger" use of firearms is directly contrary to what experience demonstrates. There are two broad branches relating to heat of anger or heat of passion.



The first relates to the situation where person "A" becomes overwhelmed with a desire to inflict harm or punishment and will attack person "B" with anything that is available, including a chair or bare hands. If the gun is available and is used, the resulting injury is likely to be more devestating than if it were not available.



The second relates to the situation where person "A", while angry, is still mindful of his own safety, and will not attack unless he or feels confident of having superior force. A firearm is more likely to provide that inducement to go forward than any other weapon or thing.



Knives, automobiles, baseball bats, ropes, broken bottles, and weighted objects each exist in far greater numbers than firearms - yet the number of intended serious injuries and deaths caused by each of those things is substantially fewer than those causes by firearms. Do you dispute that point? As regards purely accidental serious injuries and deaths, from the foregoing list only automobiles exceed firearms, but the two situations are not comparable. Human involvement with automobiles is far greater in time and numbers than with firearms. This last point can be discussed further, if the difference is not clear.



Best wishes,

Henry



Best wishes,

Henry
Henry
Saturday, April 02, 2005 8:42:00 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)
Benjamin,



I just took a look-see at your blog, and I see that you have characterized the instant discussion as one in which Joe ". . . has had a spirited discussion with a gentleman who is strongly against private ownership of any kind".



Where did you get the idea that I am against private ownership of any kind? This sort of discussion is difficult enough without one side mischaracterizing the position of the other. Please correct the misunderstanding.



Best wishes,

Henry

Henry
Saturday, April 02, 2005 9:33:00 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)
Henry,



When I said "spirited," I meant it. You are by no means the run-of-the-mill, lazy Brady-type gun banner. You are articulate about your beliefs and that comes across quite well.



Firstly, I will address the "availability" and "heat of anger" arguments. I applaud you in admitting that suicide statistics amount to mere conjecture when arguing about the necessity of regulation in stopping people from hurting themselves. Personally, I feel that if an adult miscreant wants to snuff himself, fine. The argument revolves around the availability of firearms to underage people, who may or may not be mature and prepared for those kinds of conditions. Every responsible gun-owner I know takes precautions to prevent accessibility to children. My father had a shotgun growing up that was bolted to the wall. I tried to get it out once and spent 45 minutes giving myself a backache.



As to the "heat of anger" argument, I have carried a gun off and on for awhile now. Long before that I carried a knife. In a closed quarters situation, I would probably rely on that much more than a firearm. Knives are more easily deployable and useful at a range under 3 feet. Conversely, if I were a sadistic criminal and wanted to inflict the maximum amount of horror on an individual, I would likewise use a cutting instrument. The idea that a gunshot wound is more horrible than, say, bludgeoning someone's head with a piece of rebar is merely naive.



As I mentioned in my first post in this thread, I am a property adjuster. My job sometimes necessitates me being in situations that aren't good for my health (crackhouses, regions that are hostile to outsiders, etc.) My disdain for attorneys does not stem from the adversarial position I sometimes find myself in with them, it is their insulated view of the world.



As to my blog mentioning your being against private ownership altogether, I will update that post to say that you dispute that. I will pose this question here and elsewhere; if you are not against private ownership, what are you against? What do you consider "reasonable measures" in the process of infringing on an enumerated right?



Best Regards,

Benjamin
Benjamin
Saturday, April 02, 2005 9:45:00 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)
Dear Mr. Boitel:



I recognize that you have good intentions. I once thought that gun registration, regulations, and more laws were "reasonable" and no big deal.



After being shot at, assaulted (separate incident), experiencing two break-ins while home alone (two other occasions), and, after hearing the stories of various friends of mine were held at gunpoint, I began thoroughly question my thoughts that gun restrictions were reasonable, and no big deal…



All of the above incidents happened in Chicago – a city with some of the nation’s strictest gun laws. For example, Chicago has a full ban on hand guns. It’s illegal to even maintain a hand gun in one’s own home.



After enduring disturbing levels of crime and gun violence, I began to ask – and I’ll ask you the same: If gun laws are so successful, then why so much violence, crime, and guns in Chicago? The same goes for other cities with highly restrictive gun laws, such as DC, NYC, LA… Shouldn’t these places be extraordinarily safe, and free from guns, period?



Not so.



Because, no matter how well-intentioned, gun laws do more harm than good. We could pass another 20,000+ more guns laws, to go with America’s existing approx. 20,000 gun laws, and it still _will not_ stop “bad guys” from getting guns. The law is irrelevant to criminals.



Gun restrictions, do, however, disarm citizens, thereby putting guns only in the hands of cops and criminals. Unarmed people are easy prey for thugs.



The beauty of legal concealed carry (the discreet carrying of hand guns) is that the surrounding population benefits as a whole. _Everyone_ need not conceal carry a firearm to deter thugs; the mere thought that someone _might_ be armed serves as a deterrent to would-be attackers.



There is a wide array of glaring data online and in print demonstrating the perils of, and unintended consequences of, "reasonable" gun laws. I encourage you to visit this link to an excellent .pdf book that recaps some of the topics you and Joe Huffman have discussed:

http://www.keepandbeararms.com/downloads/GunFacts_v3.2.pdf">http://www.keepandbeararms.com/downloads/GunFacts_v3.2.pdf



In the abovementioned book, all data is backed up with reliable sources.



We (you, Joe Huffman, supporters/opponents of gun control, me) all share in a desire to reduce violence. We disagree on how, exactly, to do that.



Education is better than passing more laws. I became a certified firearms instructor so I could teach others how to follow gun safety protocol. This knowledge isn’t solely for future gun owners – it’s helpful even for those who don’t plan to own a gun.



For example, what would you do if you happened to stumble across a gun by accident? Would you know how to remove the ammunition? Would you even know if it had ammunition in it, period? Would you know how to turn on the safety switch? What would you do if a child had found a gun, and s/he brought it to you? (That’s kind of a trick question because a child trained in gun safety would know not to touch or carry a gun – they would instead stop, refrain from touching it, but tell an adult about the gun immediately.) Would you even know how to safely hold the firearm?



Learning how to handle firearms isn’t just for gun owners.



Back in my Chicago days (long before I’d been trained in firearms), the cops were scouring my neighborhood, looking for a gun that had been thrown aside by a gang banger who’d just committed a crime. It was then that I realized if I were to stumble across a gun – whether on the street or who knows where – I wouldn’t know the first thing about how to hold it, or how to make it inoperable. Sure, I could just not touch it, but what if a child brought a gun to me? Or what if a gun was found in a "public" place, and it would be negligible to leave it, rather than move it to a safer location?



Furthermore, my first visit to a gun range wasn’t for the intention of owning a gun. Rather, I’d previously received gun-free self-defense training in which we were taught how to perform weapons retrieval – in other words, how to get a gun in your hands if you were held a gunpoint. My intentions in my first visit to a gun range were to learn how to handle a firearm, if I were to retrieve it from being held a gunpoint.



Again, learning how to handle firearms isn’t just for gun owners.



I know you are unfamiliar with firearms. As a certified firearms instructor, I offer to you and your wife the same invitation that I offer to my students who are survivors of assault: free gun training.



Please note that my specialty is not in marksman (er, markswoman?) training whatsoever. I teach Guns 101 to beginners. My class is geared towards people like you who’ve never handled a gun before. The majority of the curriculum focuses on safe handling of firearms, followed by learning how to operate a hand gun.



Also, if you were to join us at Boomershoot (a very different kind of shooting – more geared towards recreational fun), I’d be happy to satiate the concerns you’ve expressed regarding “safety” at the event, for I serve as a Range Safety Assistant at the shoot. You’ll quickly learn that there is no need to feel threatened. Gun owners at Boomershoot are polite, respectable people.

http://www.Boomershoot.org



Hopefully you will turn around your opinions, just as other proponents of gun control have reversed their beliefs after encountering facts, rather than knee-jerk emotions. This includes people such as Ms. Paxton Quigley, author of _Armed and Female_ and other publications. http://www.paxtonquigley.com/



Regards,

Stephanie

http://boomershoot.org/2004/ChicagoReader10-15-04.htm



More firearms data:

http://www.keepandbeararms.com/
Stephanie
Saturday, April 02, 2005 10:42:00 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)
Benjamin,



I am making an effort in this discussion to draw a clear distinction amongst what I suspect, believe or know. We all sometimes use words that are intended to mean one of those but covey one of the others. If you catch me not making myself clear, please point that out. I will do likewise with you.



One of the things that does not work well in this type of discussion is the mistake or tactic of mistating the other person's position. You have characterized me as being against all private gun ownership. I pointed out that this was a mis-statement. You are now going to put something on your blog that I "dispute" your statement. That would not be a fair way to put it. What you should do is either delete the statement or make clear that you misspoke or even say that you think I am just hiding being moderation and that you think I really want to ban all private firearms. Do think it would be fair for me to say you are an insurance claims adjuster and that your position is that all claims should be defeated regardless of merit? Then you would come back and say you have never said any such thing. Would it then be fair for me to simply say that you dispute what I said about your position? You get my point.



As to guns and suicide, I did not say that suicide statistics are pure conjecture. I don't know what the stats are with regard to the number of people who use guns as compared to the number of people who use other means. I will look to see what information is available on the point. There are a lot of factors that would be involved in trying to draw any conclusions. Do gun owners commit suicide more or less often than the rest of the population? When they do commit suicide what is the means that they usually use. If gun owners commit suicide more or less often, is it because the type of mentality that wants a gun is more or less likely to commit suicide or is it because the possesion of a gun makes one more or less likely to commit suicide? etc. The same questions can be asked about people who get access to guns owned by someone else. etc.



In addition, this discussio is not going to have much meaning if it revolves around your personal motivations or my personal motivations. We are talking here about social policy, not about whether your or I may be good, bad, crazy, suicidal or possessed of poor impulse control.



It is also important not to demonize classes of people. I don't see what it adds to this conversation for you to say: "Personally, I feel that if an adult miscreant wants to snuff himself, fine." There are a lot of people who commit suicide, with and without guns, who cannot be characterized as "miscreants".



Best wishes,

Henry
Henry
Saturday, April 02, 2005 10:55:00 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)
Stephanie,



Many thanks for your kind offer. As noted in an earlier posting, my wife and I will not be able to attend Boomershoot, and it has absolutely n