Why don’t they get it? They can’t possible understand the issue if they think this makes sense:
The terrible irony is that where there are more guns, there is more opposition to gun control.
Just change “gun” to “mixed race marriages”, “homosexuals”, or “Jews”. Then tell me again about the irony.
In Canada they spent about $2 Billion dollars for their firearms registry. For that $2 Billion dollars they registered about seven million guns. That is about $285 per gun. And they probably didn’t get more than about half of them. There was widespread disobedience.
In the U.S. there are about 300 million guns in circulation. Assuming the cost of registration per gun does not go up (and I have some novel ideas for increasing the cost that we came up with when the issue came in up Washington State back in ’97.) The total bill for firearm registration would be over $85 Billion.
Expect that price tab to be very, very conservative. Not only was the Canadian effort implemented nearly 15 years ago U.S. gun owners might not play nearly as nice as the Canadian gun owners did.
I love the possibilities:
You can buy a car from an out-of-state dealer and pick it up there. You can buy a house in another part of the country, as speculators unwisely did during the real estate bubble, sight unseen. But even though the Second Amendment protects an individual right to own firearms — and presumably to buy them — you can’t purchase a handgun while you’re visiting another state.
A gun rights group has sued the Justice Department to overturn this prohibition, which became law as part of the Gun Control Act of 1968, and the case is now in front of U.S. District Judge James Robertson in Washington, D.C.
But it should be no surprise that the anti-gun people don’t want to discuss the case on the merits:
While this may be an intricate legal question that only lawyers might fully appreciate, it offers a glimpse into how the legal system operates in practice. Courts don’t always reach — they’re often hesitant to reach — broad questions about a law’s constitutionality. Procedural rules are hugely important.
In this case, for instance, the Obama administration appears to have taken the position that there’s no way for anyone to challenge the 1968 Gun Control Act on Second Amendment grounds unless they’re arrested for violating it first. Any volunteers?
I also like it that the American Civil Liberties Union is on our side on this one.
The gun-control law is a monument erected to the memory of our daughters.
Suzanne Laplante-Edward
December 7, 2009
Gun Control Issue Reveals a Changing Canada
Her daughter, Anne-Marie, was killed in the Montreal shooting in 1989.
[That explains so much. I wondered what that law was for.
Her daughter would have been far better off had she had a gun of her own and appropriate training on how to use it to defend innocent life. The $2 billion spend on the registry would have been better spend on arming and training people at risk of being victims instead of attempting to disarm more victims.
Update: And the next time you want to build a $2 Billion monument–use your own money and don’t hassle other people in the process.–Joe]
Most of the time the gun blogs and the gun rights community screams “bloody murder” when the ATF is mentioned. Sometimes I believe such claims are literally true.
While I am of the opinion that the ATF should not exist that is not a political reality. But it may be possible their behavior can be changed such that the very worst behavior is reserved for those that are more deserving. True criminals that use firearms and explosives to harm others or destroy property should be punished and the ATF does have that task in it’s charter. Changing their behavior can come about by “whacking them about the head and shoulders with a stick” via legislative action and criticism in public opinion. I wholehearted support such action on many occasions.
But there are occasions where the ATF and Federal prosecutors treat a situation appropriately. And if you want someone or an organization to change their behavior it is just as important to use the “carrot” as the “stick”. If they know there is nothing they can do to “make us like them” there is no point in trying. And they are our servants so they do have some motivation for pleasing us.
This is one of those cases where they should be given a “carrot”:
A Belgrade man was sentenced in federal court in Helena Thursday to two years probation for failing to register a silencer on his rifle with federal authorities, according to the U.S. Attorney’s Office. Brandyn Dean Stanbary, 33, had previously pleaded guilty to the charge of willful failure to supply information, the U.S. attorney’s office said in a prepared statement. Senior U.S. District Judge Charles C. Lovell also ordered Stanbary to pay a $25 fine.
…
Gun owners are required under the National Firearms Act to register silencers with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, providing their name and address, along with the name of the manufacturer and serial number of the silencer, and pay a registration tax.
After they found the gun, Belgrade police contacted ATF, which verified that Stanbary did have a silencer and had not provided ATF with the required information.
Stanbary “later admitted that he willfully failed to supply the required information regarding his shortened rifle and silencer to the ATF,” according to the statement.
While I am of the opinion that firearm should no more be taxed that churches or free speech it is, still, the law as it currently stands. As such the guy did fail to abide by the law but apparently without intent to cause others any harm. He is guilty of a crime where the only victim is the U.S. government which didn’t receive it’s $200 in taxes for the suppressor. The legal costs, the probation and the $25 fine seem appropriate to me under the circumstances.
Thank you ATF and Federal judicial system for doing the right thing.
Guns have only one purpose, to kill. Opposition to gun control is another participation in death.
Florence Adams
December 5, 2009
Recent church activities reminiscent of Inquisition
[It’s possible that in this particular instance this is sarcasm or part of rhetorical question. But it is consistent with a lot of other people and I’m certain nearly all anti-gun people agree with the sentiment.
This means we have a lot of work to do in gaining mind share in some area. The claim above is totally bogus of course but people are not rational and expecting them to be rational is irrational. For the same amount of work it will be far more productive to swing people in the middle to our side. This has the effect of isolating people who believe crap like the above. Isolation will create internal conflicts which will either result in their conversion or further irrational behavior on their part which discredits them. Either way we win.–Joe]
[F]or supporters, the registry remains both a valuable tool and an article of faith – especially in Quebec, where support for it remains the highest in Canada, recent polls show.
Ingrid Peritz
December 5, 2009
Referring to the Canadian firearms registry in the article ‘A SLAP IN THE FACE’ FOR VICTIMS.
[With emphasis on “article of faith”. Here is what a criminologist has to say about the gun registry:
[A]nalysts say there is no evidence to link the registry and drops in homicide. Irvin Waller, a criminologist at the University of Ottawa and founder of the school’s Institute for the Prevention of Crime, says the government could have invested the billions spent to set up the registry on more effective ways to combat violence against women. He said one method involves programs to educate teenage boys in high school.
The firearms registry, introduced by the Liberals in 1995, took years to get up and running and still doesn’t have full compliance, making it impossible to measure its effectiveness, Dr. Waller said. “It’s basically not been operational, so there’s no logic to assuming it would have any impact on anything,” he said, noting that homicides have been dropping in Canada since the 1970s, well before the registry was set up.
The last time I heard numbers for the number of crimes solved in Canada via the firearms registry (including the handgun registry which has been in place since the 1930s) the number was one. Not one per day, per week, or per year. But one in nearly 70 years. With numbers like that just what is it they think the firearms registry is good for? Sure, it will help some with confiscation. But if that is their goal then they should be open and honest about it. If that isn’t their goal then just what is the real reason for a firearms registry?–Joe]
He that lieth down with dogs shall rise up with fleas.
Ben Franklin
[This could apply to many of the things going on politically these days or almost any day. But on this occasion I’m thinking of the global warming/climate change supporters.–Joe]
It Was a Bright and Calm Morning…
My son and I both decided to hunt Late Muzzleloader season this year for a simple reason– there are far more does and “antlerless” bucks in our little hunting spot than antlered bucks, and this season allows harvesting of “three point minimum or antlerless” white tail deer. Hunting muzzleloader season gives us a high probability of harvesting deer within walking distance of home.
We have one functioning muzzleloader rifle (step one food processor) so Son was given the first watch at the tree stand. The second time out he took a decent young buck (small nubs for antlers) on Thanksgiving Day. He spotted it while climbing down the tree, and shot it with the rifle still tied to the cord we use for raising and lowering things from the stand. After that I started going out to the stand, but saw nothing in several days. That’s unusual, but a deer had just been taken right there by Son. Maybe they’re a bit spooked. Don’t know, but on the morning of the last day of this one-week season, I got tired of sitting in the stand (besides, it was cold) and decided to take a walk.
It was a beautiful morning, just after sunrise, so if I never got a deer, it would still be worth the nice walk along the top of the picturesque basalt cliffs above the Palouse River. There are always a lot of deer tracks up there, as it’s their only option for traveling between their feeding grounds (farmer’s fields) and their primary source of water. My trouble that morning was that if there were any deer, they’d be immediately alerted to my presence. Every 50 yards or so as I was walking along the ridge, a pheasant or two, or about 50 quail, would explode up from near my feet. I might as well have been blowing an air horn every 50 yards and carrying a boom box playing rap music.
There’s a place along that ridge that’s down in a depression, and has some flat land with 360 degree concealment. I knew in advance that if I was going to see a deer along the ridge away from our tree stand, it would likely be there. As I topped the rise, getting ready to look down into the depression, I went slowly, making no sudden movements.
Sure enough, there were two deer, and one of them was a very nice eight-point buck! About 200 yards away, he’s looking in my direction. The sun being directly behind me, I was casting a 100 yard-long shadow right in his direction. Pure stealth isn’t much of an option, but I was moving very slowly so as not to alert them too much. Whack-a-Whack-a-Thump-a-Thump-a-Thump!!! A pheasant exploded up at that moment about six feet away from me, so the buck got real nervous and trotted away. It’s been years since I saw a nice buck up there, and, aware of my presence, this one and the doe are now on the move away from me. Oh well. (but they didn’t bolt, as often happens)
I can either back-track less than a mile, cross the bridge for home and get ready to go to work, or I can go on, crossing another bridge about a mile ahead. That’s an easy choice– I keep going forward in the direction of those two deer. Wham, Slam, Whack!– quail and pheasants continue to announce my presence. This is getting hopeless. But it’s sure a nice day for a walk.
The deer never panicked, I guess, so what ended up happening was that I was dogging them. They’d put some distance between us, I’d close in, and they’d make some more distance. Repeat. Eventually they made a wrong move. Some more quail (announcing my presence, but not telling exactly where) must have startled them out of the thick brush and into the open field.
I did not expect that. They were in range, barely, but moving away fast. Too far away to attempt a shot on a moving target. No shot. What do you do in this situation? I whistled. Deer whistle (I guess it’s more of a fast hiss than a whistle) at each other as an alert message. Anyhow, it worked. They stopped, turned 90 degrees broadside and looked back at me. From that moment, circumstances dictate action. No time for kneeling, and that might scare them off, so standing it is. We’re all in the open. Lock to full cock. Backstop? Check (there’s a hill a couple hundred yards behind them). Front sight. This is a longish shot for this weapon with open sights from standing– about 80 to 90 yards (I’ve never fired this rifle at anything more than 100 yards distant – maybe that has to change, but I’m confident at 100 and this is a bit less). Some vacillating takes place for about a second. One shot, one chance. Too far? Wobble area looks good. Too far? They’re still standing there, stone still. This is a hair trigger. Sight’s right on the sweet spot, what’re you waiting for? Too far? Nope. Bang!
The two deer took off running. The usual question comes to mind; did I miss? They’re running fast and far. 200 yards and they’re out of sight over a rise in the undulating fields. Oh well. It’s a nice day for a walk. Should I reload? Maybe. Have to cover 200 yards to look over that rise and try to spot them. Better do that. There they are; waaaay out there and still running. I must have missed, though the let-off felt fine. Damn. But wait. The doe’s way ahead of the buck. Buck slows down and stops. Then he looks like he got tired and decided to have a little lie down. That’s odd. They only ran about 1,000 yards. No, it can only mean I got him.
He’s lying down with his head up. Better reload. I carry two reloads– plastic cartridges that contain a measure of black powder, a ball with lubricated patch, and a percussion cap. They’re nice because you can use the cartridge structure as a short ball starter. It’s easy– you just place the ball end over the muzzle and smack the other end, like so… Oops! Forgot to pour the powder in first. I have just dry-balled the gun and there’s an injured buck (I don’t know how injured) down there. He could get up and run away. I could lose an injured deer. This sucks. My chosen method of removing a dry ball is to seat the ball all the way down, remove the nipple and trickle a few grains of powder through the flash channel into the breech chamber, cap, then fire. Works like a charm. I have no nipple wrench. Who needs to remove a nipple in the field on a half-day hunt? (it’s coming with me from now on) The nipple’s seated tight– can’t break it free with the Leatherman tool. Damn, damn, damn. I eventually was able to pry the ball out at the muzzle, using the awl accessory (if I’d rammed it down I’d be hosed). Cool. Didn’t scratch the muzzle ’cause the patch protected it. That ball is toast, but I have one more reload.
Meanwhile, the buck is lying there, looking around…head up, head down, head up, head down again. Did he die? Head comes back up. Crap. I had to get close enough for a 100% sure CNS (Central Nervous System) shot. Walk slowly. 40 yards, take aim. No. Why not get closer? 30 Yards, kneel, full cock, put a shot through the neck at the base of the skull. He drops like a stone.
This is not a good place from which to pack out a large deer. Good net coverage. Kamiak Butte, with the cell towers, is only 6 miles to the southwest. I call Son on the phone. No answer. I wait and call again. No answer. I call my wife– she should be getting ready to drive to school. Maybe she can meet me on the Colfax highway a few hundred yards over a hill and bring me home to get the pickup. No answer. I’d also been dogging a coyote along the way, and I’d seen the ‘yote running along the same path as the deer. Can’t gut this buck yet. That’s just inviting that ‘yote in to come and mess up my deer while I’m gone. Leave it whole. I walk a couple miles home, get Son out of bed and drive back to the Colfax highway. We get permission to drive over a planted field to the deer. No dice. The frozen mud had thawed enough at the surface that a 4×4 with studded snows can’t get a grip to climb over the hill. We’re on foot. We go back home to grab a saw and a sled.
Below; the buck fell about a 1,000 yards from where he was hit, which was out of the frame to the upper right.
Looking closely, I find an entry wound in the deer’s left hind quarter. Odd. I could have sworn he was broadside to me when the gun fired, and I know I didn’t pull the shot that much. And there’s a ball, just under the skin behind the right shoulder, exactly opposite where I was aiming, but I can’t find a corresponding entry wound. Oh well, I’ll find it when I skin the carcass. Someone else must have shot this deer before me, which would explain the entry wound in the hip. That’s plausible, since I’ve been hearing shots in the area all week. Weird.
Hours later we had the big buck hanging in the garage after getting the workout of the year. Man, this hunting business is getting more like hard work. After gutting (in the field) and skinning the deer (in the garage) there was only the one entry wound to be found. The ball had struck the left “ham” at a shallow angle, passed through the intestines doing very little damage, passed through the stomach, blew a three-finger-sized ragged hole through the liver, punctured the diaphragm, punctured a lung, glanced off a rib and stopped just short of exiting the hide on the right side. I measured 25 inches of penetration, from a ~180 grain round ball that left the muzzle at ~1,920 fps. That deer ran about a thousand yards with all that damage.
My best guess is that the buck was all wound up tight, having spotted me, knowing that I’d been following him. The cow-sized cloud of backlit, white smoke that erupted at extra-sonic speed from the muzzle must have made him jump slightly, changing the angle of impact from broadside to less than 45 degrees. I calculate he had about a quarter second to move from the emergence of the smoke cloud. I dunno. Maybe he wasn’t so fully broadside to begin with as I’d thought. The “act of grace” neck shot did not penetrate more than three inches, but shattered the vertebra.
Here’s one reason to have children. They can pull your sled;
Observations on penetration and “stopping power”
Starting last season, we’ve shot three deer with the same exact load from the same muzzleloading rifle. The first shot penetrated an adult whitetail fully, straight through the ribcage, severing a rib fully on each side, from <30 yards. The same shot from Son hit a smaller deer broadside through the ribs, hit the heart and blew it completely apart, such that you could lay it out like a pancake, and did not exit the hide on the far side. Less than 14 inches penetration. Hitting the big buck in the heavy hip muscle from almost three times the distance, the ball went through 25 inches of animal, and the second ball (on the buck's neck) was demolished after about three inches. The same load (110 grains of Old Black pushing a ~180 grain .495" round ball) penetrated between 3 and 25 inches (a factor of 8.33) depending on shot placement. Sort of makes you wonder about penetration figures given for defense loads. It all depends and what's being penetrated, from hide, to muscle, to the liquid chambers inside the heart, to lung and liver tissue that doesn't explode like that heart did. And stopping power? Each one of these deer was hit with a 100% lethal shot, and they ran from eighty to one thousand yards after being hit.
We’ve had similar “stopping power” experiences using modern rifles, but never has a modern rifle load failed to penetrate completely, regardless of what it hit inside. I’ve been wondering whether the stories of recovered, modern hunting rifle bullets are just mythology, but if the differences in penetration can be so great with the muzzleloader they must be fairly large with modern systems too.
(With that I think I’ve outdone myself—- 2,000+ words. It’s my first nice buck. Can’t I prattle on and on about it?)
Below; Along the bottom, near that ditch behind the small rise is where the buck fell. Kamiak Butte is in the distance, top right in the frame.
Below; this .495″ (well, formerly .495″) lead ball traveled 25 inches into the animal. I’d not believe it if I hadn’t seen it. I bet I could load it again and kill another deer with it next year.
I left my copy of Lethal Logic in Idaho this weekend or I would quote chapter and page but in essence one thing Henigan says, “Yes, the NRA is right, ‘Guns don’t kill people; people kill people’ but guns enable people to kill people.” And of course that is justification, in his mind, to restrict access to firearms.
What is overlooked, minimized, or deliberated not mentioned is that guns also enable the protection of innocent life and any roadblocks you put up to reduce access to “people that shouldn’t have guns” also reduces access to people that need guns to protect themselves and others. The reduction in access might be not be a complete blockage but any increase in the price of acquisition and ownership reduces the number of people willing to pay that price. Just being put on a government list has a chilling effect on any type of activity. Particularly when that activity has a history of increasing your odds of being put on a death list. Would you be willing to register with the government as a homosexual or Jew?
Another technology that enables both good and evil has been blogged about recently is something I have been working overtime on for The Borg recently. In fact my tester and I were exchanging IM as late as 11:33 tonight and I still have one eye on a build in progress.
Here are some of the blog posts I have recently read about cell phones being used for determining the location of the user:
I’m extremely busy at work right now on Windows Mobile 7.0. This is an operating system which will be used in millions and millions of cell phones. My team is the location team. We are responsible for determining the location of the phone and getting that information to applications that want it. I know as much about this topic as just about anybody in the company.
There are multiple ways of determining the location of a modern cell phone. In a decent environment (underground, or next to tall buildings are not good environments) the built-in GPS can obtain the device location with an accuracy of 10 meters or better. The other obvious way to determine location is using the cell tower you are connected to. As a rough estimate this can get you about 1000 meter accuracy. There is a third way that isn’t quite so obvious and Roberta didn’t mention it. High end phones these days have built-in Wi-Fi and by grabbing the BSSIDs* of the visible Wi-Fi access points you have pretty good odds of determining the location to approximately 100 meters.
This is an enabling technology. It can enable good things.
It can help you find your lost phone. 10 meter accuracy can enable turn by turn directions to get you to or from an unfamiliar location. 100 meter accuracy can get you all the pizza shops within walking distances. 1000 meter accuracy can get you a weather forecast or the cheapest gasoline nearby.
It can enable bad things.
That little application your ex boyfriend put on your phone when you were on good terms (or by hiding his own phone in the bumper of your car) might be Roberta’s transponder and he is using it to stalk you. It could be that the cell phone operator (AT&T, Sprint, Verizon, etc.) has put the transponder application in all the phones or is able to remotely install one and is selling the service to the secret police tracking down dissidents, homosexuals, and Jews. The technology could be used to give credence to your stalkers alibi that he was 50 miles away when your house was set on fire with you in it.
I can’t directly speak to the acceptability of what Sprint did with the location information of their customers. I’m as skeptical of the morality of what happened as anyone but without more data it’s hard to say for absolute certainty they were slim-balls. I do know the amount of effort we at Microsoft put into protecting the privacy of our customers.
When I started on this project I had expected to be in fights over making the technology sufficiently “safe” without neutering it so much to make it useless. I figured I would get a reputation as a paranoid nut. I was wrong. There was never a scenario that I proposed as something to be guarded against which people didn’t take seriously and address. I don’t think I was even the most vocal advocate for privacy safeguards. I was exceptionally pleased when one program manager put his foot down over an issue and said it was because he didn’t want to get into the “police nightmare situation”. “What is that?”, I asked. His answer? “The police are constantly bugging us for location information. If we don’t store it we can’t give it to them and they won’t ask for it more than once or twice.”
Some of the solutions we are implementing to protect user privacy are:
The biggest problem we see is that all it takes is for the user to download the application called “StalkersHelper” and say “Allow” to the location permission question and all the work (I’m sure we have spent many 10s of thousands of dollars just on meetings to discuss the privacy issues) we have done has been bypassed.
The second biggest problem is that the mobile operators might bypass (intentionally or by neglect) our safeguards. Getting bad publicy like Verizon just did (and perhaps the threat of lawsuits) will motivate them to protect the privacy of their customers so I don’t worry about this nearly as much as the customer themselves inviting the wolf in the door.
With those risks is it worth it? How many lives have to be lost to stalkers tracking down their victims before the technology is banned? If it saves just one life isn’t it worth it to ban it? In another year or two will Microsoft be regarded as a “merchant of death” like Glock, Smith & Wesson, and Ruger?
My guess is the technology will be accepted and while there will be instances where the technology was used for evil and/or immoral purposes most people will recognize the benefits it enables outweigh the evil it enables. It’s really no different than cars, knives, and guns. There are rules to follow which reduce the chances of accidents and deliberate misuse must be dealt with by punishing the offender not by attempting the removal of the technology from society.
Now if only Henigan and company could follow the same line of reasoning.
*The Basic Service Set Identifier identifies each Basic Service Set (BSS). The BSSID is the Medium Access Control (MAC) address of the Access Point (AP) in the Infrastructure BSS networks, and it is generated randomly in Independent BSS or ad hoc networks. This means there are duplicates out there and there is ambiguity to be resolved in some instances.
From various email lists:
Sent: Tuesday, December 01, 2009 10:39 AM
To: 2ndamendmentrights@yahoogroups.com; wa-guns@yahoogroups.com
Cc: nrainstructorsrkba@yahoogroups.com; rkba@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [wa-guns] become an NRA instructor (nra.idw)One of the ways that the control nuts advance their agenda is by working the problem from all angles, it’s something we could do more of -and- it is tremendously effective. You don’t have to be on the streets with signs and OC (although, that’s one way to go) to show people the importance of restoring our freedom. One way you can do it in the second amendment arena is to simply go out and teach people about guns.
The safest, most effective and most fun way to do that is as a certified NRA instructor; as part of an instructor team. If you’re curious about it I would be glad to answer any questions I can. It’s something I’ve been enjoying for about ten years now. You -may not- discuss politics during class but you don’t need to, the people there are seeing you lead by example. Which makes a nice contrast to the folks at Brady campaign in every way imaginable.
If you know any proficient shooters in the NW I’d appreciate you letting them know about this and about the NRA instructor development workshop that will be held at Kenmore range (Wa) January 15th to the 17th. Some details are here: ( http://www.wcwinc.org/club/educ4.htm ) or just email me any questions you have. Information/location of NRA instructor classes nationally can be found at: http://www.nrahq.org/EDUCATION/Training/instructor.asp
-Boyd Kneeland EVC wa-08, NRA TC, EKC Friends of NRA committee etc (working as many angles for freedom as family and work life allows…)
Boyd’s email address is “boyd AT seanet.com”
[Y]our generalization in calling your “opponents” stupid is just wrong. That’s a trick that you and other leaders in the pro-gun movement perpetuate. Thousands of your followers then pick up on it and pretty soon you’ve got millions repeating the same nonsense. Pro-gun folks are smart and honest while the gun control people are stupid and dishonest. I think that’s a false message and you should stop preaching it.
mikeb302000
December 3, 2009
Comment to Dumb statement
[How very interesting that mikeb302000 should say this.
This is the same mikeb30200 who is unable or unwilling to explain how he determines truth from falsity. Hence, in reality, his statement above is almost completely devoid of any content. By his own admission he can’t determine truth from falsity, right from wrong, or good from evil. Yet here he claims Say Uncle is wrong and is sending “a false message”.
As Say Uncle responded, “[Y]ou’re stupid. Go away, the adults are talking.”–Joe]
[I]f you’re a moron, you think we gun rights people walk around saying that guns make us ten feet tall and bulletproof, which we don’t. We say that a gun is the most effective tool for active resistance of violent crime, an assertion that has been supported many times in varying studies. If you have a gun and someone walks up and shoots you, you’re dead. With a gun. But most criminals don’t walk up and shoot you. They don’t want to kill you. They want your car, your wallet, to rape your wife or child, or some other various shenanigans. These kinds of things are clear to folks who aren’t delusional. But being reality-based isn’t generally in the repertoire of the anti-gunner.
Say Uncle
December 2, 2009
Dumb statment
[Another way to say it is that a classic strawman argument is being attempted. But somehow that doesn’t have as much “punch” as the way Uncle expressed it.–Joe]
Sixteen years after opponents of sensible gun laws argued that the Brady Law would be ineffective because criminals supposedly wouldn’t buy guns from licensed dealers, we see almost two million blocked sales. We need to extend that success in blocking dangerous people from getting guns by requiring Brady checks on all gun sales and ensuring the appropriate records are in place.
Paul Helmke
President of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence
November 30, 2009
Brady Law at 16: A Public Safety Success Story
[Notice Helmke measures “success” in terms of blocked sales. Not in increased public safety. Also note that those 1.6 million attempted sales, if truly attempts by people not allowed to own firearms, were all Federal crimes and those people should be in Federal prisons. But, since the total Federal prison population (Table 2, pim08stt02.csv) is as below we know one or more of the following is true. A) The Federal prosecution rate is extremely low. And/or B) Those blocked sales should not have been blocked.
| Number of prisoners | ||||||
| Region and jurisdiction | 12/31/2000 | 12/31/2006 | 6/30/2007 | 12/31/2007 | 6/30/2008 | |
| U.S. Total/a | 1,391,261 | 1,569,945 | 1,594,611 | 1,598,242 | 1,610,584 | |
| Federal | 145,416 | 193,046 | 199,118 | 199,618 | 201,142 | |
| State/a | 1,245,845 | 1,376,899 | 1,395,493 | 1,398,624 | 1,409,442 | |
If those blocked sales were actually crimes then why didn’t Helmke call on the Obama administration to prosecute those crimes and increase public safety? Is a person who can’t be trusted with a firearm someone you would trust with a kitchen knife, a baseball bat, or a can of gasoline and a book of matches?
Helmke is of the opinion the prevention of gun sales is an achievement to be proud of–even when there is no increase in public safety and convicted felons seeking firearms are not put in prison.
I can only conclude that Helmke’s organization is, as many others have already noted, better named the “Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Ownership”.
The Brady Campaign–infringing a specific enumerated right since 1974. It is the 21st Century equivalent of the KKK.–Joe]