HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Justice & Public Safety » Gun Control & RKBA (Group) » Nancy Skinner to introduc...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 09:46 PM

Nancy Skinner to introduce ammunition bill.

I saw a report on this on the evening news. I am a resident of Utah, but temporarily residing in the Bay Area to complete graduate studies, so this won't have any immediate effect on me. For those who are more knowledgeable about gun law, how far can they go to restrict ammunition sales before it becomes an infringement of 2nd Amendment rights? I don't think this will have any impact on the crime rate either...gang types don't expend large amounts of ammo in practice AFAICT, and the histories of the recent mass shooters commonly show a period of planning that would allow them to acquire enough ammo for their task.

California 15th Assembly District representative Nancy Skinner (D-Berkeley) plans to re-introduce legislation to tighten ammunition purchases, her office announced today.

“In California, it’s harder to get some cold medicines than ammunition,” stated Skinner, referring to the state’s over-the-counter pseudoephedrine laws. “Something has to change.”

Pseudoephedrine is a precusor ingredient to manufacturing methamphetamine.

Skinner aims to make buying ammunition at least as difficult as buying pseudoephedrine



108 replies, 8227 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 108 replies Author Time Post
Reply Nancy Skinner to introduce ammunition bill. (Original post)
Puha Ekapi Jan 2013 OP
Puha Ekapi Jan 2013 #1
slackmaster Jan 2013 #2
ProgressiveProfessor Jan 2013 #4
Politicub Jan 2013 #5
ManiacJoe Jan 2013 #6
friendly_iconoclast Jan 2013 #13
friendly_iconoclast Jan 2013 #10
godai Jan 2013 #76
friendly_iconoclast Jan 2013 #83
godai Jan 2013 #99
friendly_iconoclast Jan 2013 #101
godai Jan 2013 #102
friendly_iconoclast Jan 2013 #103
godai Jan 2013 #104
gejohnston Jan 2013 #105
godai Jan 2013 #107
godai Jan 2013 #108
Warren Stupidity Jan 2013 #78
friendly_iconoclast Jan 2013 #82
Tuesday Afternoon Jan 2013 #17
Politicub Jan 2013 #20
Tuesday Afternoon Jan 2013 #21
Politicub Jan 2013 #22
Tuesday Afternoon Jan 2013 #23
Lizzie Poppet Jan 2013 #36
formercia Jan 2013 #53
Arctic Dave Jan 2013 #8
slackmaster Jan 2013 #9
Arctic Dave Jan 2013 #11
slackmaster Jan 2013 #12
godai Jan 2013 #77
Politicub Jan 2013 #19
ileus Jan 2013 #3
friendly_iconoclast Jan 2013 #7
holdencaufield Jan 2013 #15
samsingh Jan 2013 #26
friendly_iconoclast Jan 2013 #27
samsingh Jan 2013 #38
Puha Ekapi Jan 2013 #40
samsingh Jan 2013 #46
Puha Ekapi Jan 2013 #47
samsingh Jan 2013 #56
Puha Ekapi Jan 2013 #58
samsingh Jan 2013 #66
Puha Ekapi Jan 2013 #68
samsingh Jan 2013 #69
Puha Ekapi Jan 2013 #73
samsingh Jan 2013 #79
gejohnston Jan 2013 #49
slackmaster Jan 2013 #35
samsingh Jan 2013 #39
slackmaster Jan 2013 #41
samsingh Jan 2013 #45
gejohnston Jan 2013 #48
samsingh Jan 2013 #57
gejohnston Jan 2013 #59
samsingh Jan 2013 #65
gejohnston Jan 2013 #67
samsingh Jan 2013 #70
gejohnston Jan 2013 #71
samsingh Jan 2013 #80
gejohnston Jan 2013 #81
DragonBorn Jan 2013 #100
samsingh Jan 2013 #106
GreenStormCloud Jan 2013 #28
michreject Jan 2013 #32
Remmah2 Jan 2013 #34
guardian Jan 2013 #42
Puha Ekapi Jan 2013 #14
friendly_iconoclast Jan 2013 #16
Tuesday Afternoon Jan 2013 #18
slackmaster Jan 2013 #24
Tuesday Afternoon Jan 2013 #25
jimmy the one Jan 2013 #29
Puha Ekapi Jan 2013 #37
Puha Ekapi Jan 2013 #43
friendly_iconoclast Jan 2013 #50
Puha Ekapi Jan 2013 #51
friendly_iconoclast Jan 2013 #52
AtheistCrusader Jan 2013 #63
gejohnston Jan 2013 #64
Bay Boy Jan 2013 #88
OneTenthofOnePercent Jan 2013 #30
holdencaufield Jan 2013 #31
michreject Jan 2013 #33
Eleanors38 Jan 2013 #44
bowens43 Jan 2013 #54
friendly_iconoclast Jan 2013 #55
jimmy the one Jan 2013 #60
gejohnston Jan 2013 #61
Puha Ekapi Jan 2013 #62
friendly_iconoclast Jan 2013 #72
jimmy the one Jan 2013 #74
gejohnston Jan 2013 #75
jimmy the one Jan 2013 #84
friendly_iconoclast Jan 2013 #86
gejohnston Jan 2013 #87
friendly_iconoclast Jan 2013 #85
jimmy the one Jan 2013 #89
gejohnston Jan 2013 #90
friendly_iconoclast Jan 2013 #91
jimmy the one Jan 2013 #92
friendly_iconoclast Jan 2013 #93
jody Jan 2013 #95
friendly_iconoclast Jan 2013 #97
jody Jan 2013 #98
jimmy the one Jan 2013 #94
friendly_iconoclast Jan 2013 #96

Response to Puha Ekapi (Original post)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 09:47 PM

1. Linky

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Puha Ekapi (Original post)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 09:48 PM

2. I predict a huge increase in sales of reloading equipment and ammunition components

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #2)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 09:55 PM

4. That horse is out of the barn

Have friends in NV or UT will help a whole bunch should that kind of madness be passed

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #2)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 09:55 PM

5. The gun nuts can barely scratch their own ass

And you expect them to make ammunition?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Politicub (Reply #5)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 09:57 PM

6. Well, that post certainly "removed all doubt".


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ManiacJoe (Reply #6)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 10:06 PM

13. The words 'sharpest tool' and 'shed' come to mind, also...

...'bulb' and 'lighting aisle'.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Politicub (Reply #5)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 10:03 PM

10. Most of them are smart enough to drive a car across the nearest state line...

...where it will still be perfectly legal to buy all the ammunition they can.

Looks like the 'gun nuts' are smarter than Rep. Skinner.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #10)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 04:09 PM

76. Make that illegal, like fireworks purchases. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to godai (Reply #76)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 06:06 PM

83. No state that sells fireworks requires proof of residency, AFAIK.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #83)

Fri Jan 11, 2013, 09:36 AM

99. Seems like you missed my point.

It's transporting the fireworks to a state where they are banned is a crime. Nothing completely solves the problem but roadblocks of various types can help. Crazy gun nuts won't worry about this but law abiding citizens would.

I don't generally associate the word smart with gun nuts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to godai (Reply #99)

Fri Jan 11, 2013, 12:36 PM

101. California has a couple of thousand miles of borders...good luck with that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #101)

Fri Jan 11, 2013, 01:02 PM

102. A couple dozen stings, with major fines, would slow things down.

None of the regulation will be perfect but, obviously, things have gotten out of hand and somethings need to change.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to godai (Reply #102)

Fri Jan 11, 2013, 01:11 PM

103. Arizona and Nevada will cooperate with stings? I think not...

Massachusetts tried that with liquor buyers in New Hampshire (booze is *way* cheaper up there),
and got their undercover agents arrested by the NH state cops for their trouble.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #103)

Fri Jan 11, 2013, 01:35 PM

104. Some examples where this has worked.

Fireworks from DC to MD...underage Alcohol purchases in DC to MD. Cigarettes from VA to NJ and NY.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to godai (Reply #104)

Fri Jan 11, 2013, 01:49 PM

105. The cigarettes,

was that work of the states or the ATF?
http://www.atf.gov/alcohol-tobacco/

While underaged drinking are local issues, the tax difference IIRC, would be ATF.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #105)

Fri Jan 11, 2013, 01:58 PM

107. It was a tax issue for cigarettes. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #105)

Fri Jan 11, 2013, 02:14 PM

108. dup

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #10)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 04:13 PM

78. Put teeth in the law and put law breakers in jail. nt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #78)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 06:05 PM

82. How? It's unenforceable outside of California, and doubtfully enforceable inside it.

Arizona, Nevada, and possibly Oregon will tell California in polite terms to go piss up a rope if asked to enforce
California laws for them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Politicub (Reply #5)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 11:11 PM

17. truly the term nuts is what had the wherewithall to slaughter innocent victims at Sandy Hook and

Aurora. Being Nuts is not indicative of IQ neither is owning a gun.

Your post fails on so many level and is insulting to so many people that it staggers lee.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tuesday Afternoon (Reply #17)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 11:21 PM

20. I don't know who Lee is, but my apologies for making him stagger

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Politicub (Reply #20)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 11:28 PM

21. I am not surprised. and if you meant it sincerely then I will accept your apology on behalf

of law abiding citizens across this (still yet though slipping) great nation of ours ....

prepare to be edified---

The first censored rock n roll record to be a n°1 hit

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tuesday Afternoon (Reply #21)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 11:32 PM

22. Very apropos.

Touché and well played, sir or madam.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Politicub (Reply #22)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 11:36 PM

23. gracias

<---- me, curtsy as I would be madame.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Politicub (Reply #5)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 10:16 AM

36. Literally millions of people do precisely that.

Handloading is a billion-dollar industry, as even the most cursory inquiry would have told you.

How's that foot taste, Einstein?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Politicub (Reply #5)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 01:42 PM

53. It's not difficult at all and can be done quite cheaply.

I've been reloading for 40 Years and have saved thousands as a result.

You obviously are not familiar with the Hobby.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #2)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 10:01 PM

8. I predict in increase in hospital visit due to mis loaded ammunition.

 

We used to have a Blackhawk with the the cylinder blown in half and the breach blown away from the body. Luckily no one was injured.

That's what 10 extra grains will do to you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Arctic Dave (Reply #8)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 10:02 PM

9. That would be a classic negative unintended consequence of a bad bill written with good intentions

 

It's a very good reason NOT to put onerous restrictions on ammunition sales.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #9)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 10:04 PM

11. No, that is simple Darwinism.

 

Some people are just too dumb to be doing certain things.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Arctic Dave (Reply #11)


Response to Arctic Dave (Reply #11)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 04:10 PM

77. So true. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Arctic Dave (Reply #8)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 11:19 PM

19. As long as they don't put gun powder in the microwave

But that's asking too much.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Puha Ekapi (Original post)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 09:50 PM

3. I'd let someone see my operators before buying ammo.

As long as there's not any limits to the amount or frequency I purchase ammo.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Puha Ekapi (Original post)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 09:58 PM

7. Nancy Skinner is a blithering idiot, and proved it with her own words:

"Among the most shocking details from the shooting massacre in Colorado is the undetected stockpiling of ammunition and weapons by the alleged shooter. In Newtown, the shooter had hundreds of unspent rounds. While incidents like Aurora and Newtown may be rare, we can’t let ammunition stockpiling go unnoticed,” said Skinner.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #7)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 10:49 PM

15. I have hundreds of unspent rounds ...

 

... in my odds and ends bin.

If hundreds of rounds represents a stockpile then I must be the Scrooge McDuck of ammunition.

Just goes to show ... one man's stockpile is another man's hedge against inflation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #7)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 12:59 AM

26. she's not an idiot - she's compassionate - trying to stop tragedies

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to samsingh (Reply #26)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 03:33 AM

27. Someone can be both well-meaning and stupid. Rep. Skinner is such a person.

For example: Why does she think that limiting the amount of ammunition one
can posess will stop a tragedy? For that matter, how does she plan on enforcing it?

Yeah, Fred Felon might get another year added on to his sentence after he
gets busted for a gun crime- but spree killers won't give a shit about that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #27)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 10:55 AM

38. what makes anyone think it wouldn't reduce tragedies?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to samsingh (Reply #38)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 11:00 AM

40. For reasons...

...already posted in this thread. With the recent mass shootings, the amount of ammunition actually used was relatively small, in quantities that that a legitimate sport shooter could reasonably use in practice in a very short time. In other words, it doesn't take a large "stockpile" of ammo to commit a crime, and large quantities of ammo are rarely used in the commission of the crimes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Puha Ekapi (Reply #40)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 01:00 PM

46. yet in other cases it was proven that the shooter ran out of bullets and was

apprehended while changing his clip. this saved lives. lives that would have been lost if the clips were larger.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to samsingh (Reply #46)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 01:13 PM

47. "Changing his clip"

implies that the shooter didn't "run out of bullets". Which is it? How many rounds total did the shooters of all types use? How will this proposed legislation prevent that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Puha Ekapi (Reply #47)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 03:59 PM

56. he ran out of bullets and put another clip into the gun

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to samsingh (Reply #56)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 04:09 PM

58. So what effect would this legislation...

...actually have on mass shooters? Lanza expended something like 150 rounds, which is hardly a "stockpile". 150 rounds is just a decent afternoon's practice.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Puha Ekapi (Reply #58)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 10:02 AM

66. what would you suggest?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to samsingh (Reply #66)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 12:50 PM

68. Thorough...

...background checks for ALL firearms transactions, including all private sales, better identification of mental illness and much better access to mental health care. Trying to restrict ammunition is not going to work. Even a relatively small quantity that would be reasonable for a law abiding sportsman to possess is way more than enough to commit a mass shooting, as evidenced by recent events where the perpetrator fired anywhere between 10 and 150 rounds. 150 rounds is a very modest amount, and can be burned up in a short afternoon practice session. And if you are going to allow people to own guns, they need to be able to practice. Those who practice regularly and are proficient and familiar with their firearm are also safer with them, and have fewer accidents.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Puha Ekapi (Reply #68)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 01:40 PM

69. who pays for the medical care? and what do we do we the people who refuse to get help?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to samsingh (Reply #69)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 01:50 PM

73. Good questions:

As far as cost, it should be well funded under Medicare and the Affordable Care Act. As to what to do about those who refuse treatment, I really don't have a good answer. Not that there isn't a good answer out there, I'm just not the one to ask. One thing I do believe though, and that is allowing dangerously mentally ill people to run loose with no treatment and no supervision doesn't seem to be working very well. I do think that education is an important component though...to destigmatize mental health issues and have them be considered no differently than any other medical condition.

But back to the point of this thread, I really am curious how this legislation will prevent criminal activity or crazies from committing mass shootings.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Puha Ekapi (Reply #73)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 04:30 PM

79. legislation that will make it more difficult to get guns, ammunication, or equipment that shoots

a lot of ammunication is part of a program to reduce overall gun violence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to samsingh (Reply #46)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 01:22 PM

49. JL's gun jammed

because of the magazine.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to samsingh (Reply #26)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 09:28 AM

35. Samuel Johnson did not coin the phrase "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions"

 

But someone did, and whoever did was absolutely right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #35)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 10:57 AM

39. ironically, gun supporters fall into that category

the one attacking Pierce Morgan was a scary example. Completely deluded, frightened, and angry. Paranoid. And he's got lots of guns and ammunition.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to samsingh (Reply #39)


Response to slackmaster (Reply #41)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 12:58 PM

45. Piers asked a simple question - how many people were killed in the UK with guns?

that got no direct answer or even ballpark of an answer.

but these wackjobs are heavily armed

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to samsingh (Reply #45)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 01:21 PM

48. not a simple answer

given the population difference, it was a stupid question. One could easily ask Morgan how many were killed in Italy or Norway, with laxer gun laws. Or South Korea that has similar laws to UK.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #48)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 04:03 PM

57. it was an intelligent question if someone wants to really know the answer about guns


simple path.

# of gun deaths in the UK multiplied by (population of the US/ population of the UK)

provides a comparable ratio. I think the answer is something like 100 in the Uk to 16000 in the US

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to samsingh (Reply #57)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 04:19 PM

59. all of our murders combined

13,800 about 70 percent with firearms.
UK's murder rate is about 1.2, twice of Norway's, while the US is 4.8.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #59)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 10:01 AM

65. that'a large discrepancy don't you think?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to samsingh (Reply #65)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 11:26 AM

67. depends how UK reports them

don't want to scare off the tourists. It wasn't higher when UK had US style gun laws. British colonies with the same laws like BVI and Bermuda have higher murder rates than ours.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #67)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 01:42 PM

70. but if i look at the data without conjective. The UK has fewer gun related deaths than the US

by a large magnitude.

Those are real lives, real families that are devastated. Why is there any hesitation to immediately start enforcing, strenghtening and adopting laws. They will safe lives.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to samsingh (Reply #70)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 01:47 PM

71. in the US it is criminals killing each other for the most part

and drug users give them the money to buy the guns and ammo. Everyone is for enforcing current laws.
Because the laws are theater.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #71)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 04:48 PM

80. the basic message though is the difference in gun deaths. Your analysis may be correct or it might

not.

there is a notable difference

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to samsingh (Reply #80)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 04:52 PM

81. yes but that difference preceded

UK gun laws. That being the case, it hardly matters.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to samsingh (Reply #80)

Fri Jan 11, 2013, 10:25 AM

100. The UK is much more violent

The UK may have fewer firearm related deaths but they also have more than twice our violent crime rate per capita.

Im on my phone at the moment but when I get home Ill post the accurate stats.

America has something like 450 violent crimes per 100k while the UK had around 2500 per 100k.

I do not wish to become more like the UK who the EU just declared more violent than South Africa. Nope does not sound fun.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DragonBorn (Reply #100)

Fri Jan 11, 2013, 01:57 PM

106. i don't know very many people who would say that the UK is more

dangerous than South Africa. I know people who live in both countries.

to compare the violence in the UK to the US and think the UK is worse is disingenuous.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #7)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 06:06 AM

28. Hundreds of rounds is a stockpile?

.22LR is sold in bricks of 500 rounds. Most pistol ammo is sold in boxes of 50. I only have a few boxes of ammo and I have hundreds of rounds.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #28)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 08:07 AM

32. I'm up to a 5 figure range



I can't find any small pistol or small rifle primers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #28)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 08:24 AM

34. 250 rounds of 12 gauge in a weekend trap shoot is a regular.

 

500 rounds of .22 in an afternoon is nothing for me and the family.

Snow is here, outside ranges are miserable, people are snuggled away in the basement reloading for spring time.

Rifle, pistol, shotgun...........................

They can kiss my brass.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #7)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 11:59 AM

42. hundreds of rounds = one afternoon of target practice

 

Here is Nancy Skinner's real plan

1. restrict "ammunition stockpiling" to some miniscule amount like 4 rounds total
2. complain that gun owners are no longer proficient because they don't get enough target practice and are now "unsafe" to shoot a firearm
3. ban all firearms

The antigunners have one goal: the complete abolition of private ownership of all firearms.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Puha Ekapi (Original post)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 10:08 PM

14. I just don't see it...

...impacting criminals or crazies. It may have the impact of driving prices up for the average user, but beyond that, what will it actually accomplish?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Puha Ekapi (Reply #14)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 11:00 PM

16. Lots of extra $$$ for gun shops in Nevada, Arizona, and Oregon,...

...as it would still be perfectly legal for them to sell Californians all the ammunition
they could afford.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Puha Ekapi (Original post)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 11:13 PM

18. perhaps it should be easier to purchase Pseudoephedrine and convict the criminals that are misusing

it in order to manufacture methamphetamine . . . .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tuesday Afternoon (Reply #18)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 12:15 AM

24. No, that would make sense

 

Ideas that make sense aren't allowed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #24)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 12:47 AM

25. damn it. I will just have to try harder - remind me to take my stupid pill in the morning? thanks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Puha Ekapi (Original post)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 06:36 AM

29. putting words in her mouth

FriendlyIcon: For example: Why does she think that limiting the amount of ammunition one
can posess will stop a tragedy? For that matter, how does she plan on enforcing it?


I reread the article twice but I didn't see where skinner contended that her bill to tighten ammo purchases would 'stop a tragedy'. Could you copy & paste an excerpt of her saying that? thanks.

If you put words in someone's mouth, then use that as a predicate to develop pejorative opinions about the person, it's called slander. If you make a false implication as you did above, I'd call it cheating.

.. as far as enforcing her bill, twould likely be a passive check which would need little 'enforcement' outside of refusing the sale if a proper ID wasn't produced; perhaps state ID, state drivers license, foid card. Or refusal if person appears intoxicated or otherwise distraught. See?
.. personally I could support a wait period for boxes larger than 100 of ammo caliber larger than 22, plus fmj. If stockpiling is the object, shouldn't be a problem. But it'd be too complex I know. Hey! 500 bullets per day law! or, um, 180,000 rounds per year limit!!! uh oh, I hear wayno already, INFRINGEMENT.
.. I owned 2 long guns in 30 years & I still had the very same box I first bought of 250 22s, more than half filled, when I got rid of em - the sg maybe I went thru 100 shells, fleeting interest in skeet. Used to fire them into soft ground once a year to see if they still worked, is all. Can think of hundreds of times I'm glad I didn't have a gun, not once I wished I'd had one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jimmy the one (Reply #29)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 10:43 AM

37. Sooo.....

....if the bill isn't designed to prevent a mass shooting or to reduce crime, what is the purpose of this bill, in your opinion?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Puha Ekapi (Reply #37)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 12:12 PM

43. Crickets

Anyone want to pony up the reason/s this bill will be effective at reducing crime? Surely there must be at least one...right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Puha Ekapi (Reply #43)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 01:33 PM

50. It could be circumvented by one road trip out of state.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #50)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 01:37 PM

51. Yes it can....

...and most assuredly will be.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Puha Ekapi (Reply #51)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 01:40 PM

52. Gun shop owners in Nevada, Oregon, and Arizona will be most grateful....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jimmy the one (Reply #29)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 05:27 PM

63. What?

Why the hell would FMJ be a flag?

I doubt any mass shooter has ever given a thought to lead contamination inside a building.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #63)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 05:36 PM

64. from the movie

and because it is the standard military round without knowing why
http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/INTRO/150?OpenDocument

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jimmy the one (Reply #29)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 07:20 PM

88. Just curious...

... can you give an example of: "Can think of hundreds of times I'm glad I didn't have a gun"?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Puha Ekapi (Original post)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 07:05 AM

30. Oh, this is absurd. What is this bill supposed to prevent?

 

Seriously?? This bill obviously does nothing to stop crime... so what it the purpose?

Loughner's gun consumed less than one standard box of 9mm ammunition (about $10)
In both the Aurora and CT shooting, the shooters would have only needed about 5 boxes of .223 ammunition ($40)
And in the vast majority of gun crime (which is not comprised of mass murders) only 5-15 bullets are needed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneTenthofOnePercent (Reply #30)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 07:21 AM

31. It's not meant to prevent ...

 

... it is meant to annoy.

But, instead, it will increase the sales of weapons and ammo -- and reloading supplies.

Lucky for me -- my club reloads in bulk

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to holdencaufield (Reply #31)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 08:10 AM

33. I have 2 Dillons set up

One for large primers and one for small. Makes caliber change a whole lot easier.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneTenthofOnePercent (Reply #30)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 12:37 PM

44. Floor cave-ins on the apartment below. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Puha Ekapi (Original post)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 01:53 PM

54. "before it becomes an infringement of 2nd Amendment"

where in the 2nd Amendment does it say that you have a right to purchase ammunition?

BTW Are you member of a well regulated militia? If not you have no constitutionally protected write right to
fire arms.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bowens43 (Reply #54)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 02:06 PM

55. A tax on printer's ink was held to infringe on the First Amendment

See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minneapolis_Star_Tribune_Company_v._Commissioner

http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1982/1982_81_1839

Why would this be any different?

Also, ALL members of the Supreme Court agreed that the Second Amendment
protected an individual right.

From the dissent in District of Columbia v. Heller (emphasis added)

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

JUSTICE STEVENS, with whom JUSTICE SOUTER, JUSTICE
GINSBURG, and JUSTICE BREYER join, dissenting.

The question presented by this case is not whether the
Second Amendment protects a “collective right” or an
“individual right.” Surely it protects a right that can be
enforced by individuals...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #55)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 04:54 PM

60. another PT Barnum (2)

iconoclast: Also, ALL members of the Supreme Court agreed that the Second Amendment
protected an individual right.


Another P.T. Barnum, thinking a sucker born every minute.
As most all of us know, the dichotomy in the interpretation of the 2ndA is twofold; one interpretation is a militia based right, the other an individual based right.
These two interpretations are ALSO known as a 'narrow individual right' and a 'broad individual right'.
The narrow individual right is better known as the militia interpretation. It is called 'narrow' since it allows that, in 1791, there was no objection to people owning & keeping their single shot private muskets & rifles, indeed this was encouraged since firearms were hard to come by back then, for militia duty. So they had a 'narrow' individual right to keep/bear arms at homes & use them, outside of militia.
The broad individual right is also known today as simply the 'individual' right, broadly applied with no obligation to militia.

Nice tapdance there, icon, but solly, no cigar.

puha: Sooo.......if the bill isn't designed to prevent a mass shooting...

I try not to answer stupid questions too much, but: Right, the bill isn't designed to prevent a mass shooting. Happy? .. to provide a passive check on ammo purchases (probably) so it's not as easy as buying a hamburger. Could marginally improve the situation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jimmy the one (Reply #60)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 05:00 PM

61. hard to come by?

Michael A. Bellesiles fan are you? IIRC, the Militia Act expected you to buy your own gun.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jimmy the one (Reply #60)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 05:01 PM

62. Again...

...I ask you, how would it improve the situation?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jimmy the one (Reply #60)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 01:48 PM

72. Beware what you advocate, lest it come to pass:

http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/10C13.txt


-CITE-
10 USC Sec. 311 01/03/2012 (112-90)

-EXPCITE-
TITLE 10 - ARMED FORCES
Subtitle A - General Military Law
PART I - ORGANIZATION AND GENERAL MILITARY POWERS
CHAPTER 13 - THE MILITIA

-HEAD-
Sec. 311. Militia: composition and classes

-STATUTE-
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied
males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section
313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a
declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States
and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the
National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are -
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard
and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the
Naval Militia.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jimmy the one (Reply #60)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 03:26 PM

74. Arming a disarmed america

johnston: {firearms} hard to come by? Michael A. Bellesiles fan are you? IIRC, the Militia Act expected you to buy your own gun.

Yes. Yes. Provide your own gun, not nec buy it.

In 1791 2ndA & 1792 militia act, there were no national armories, springfield & harpers ferry hadn't opened up yet (iirc 1795, HF first). There were approx 3 million americans in 1790 census, roughly 600,000 slaves, 2,400,000 whites half men half women, so about 600,000 white males eligible for militia agd 17 - 45. Where did the muskets come from to arm them all?
Washington circa 1776 importuned that there were no firearms 'to be had in these governments', and had to buy about 140,000 from the french & belgians. Perhaps 25,000 left over from french & indian wars, still leaves near 400,000 militia men without firearms, maybe 50,000 homemade by then, but nowhere near 600,000, likely about 300,000 half in poor shape, rusted, inferior.
So yeah, firearms were hard to come by in 1790s; jefferson/dearborns militia returns of 1803 iirc, as bellesiles wrote in his fine book, showed only 45% of militia members with firearms. Most were dependent upon states or fed armories after HF & springfield opened up.

Name your sources then, for where muskets came to america, to equip those half million militia members. I'm sure there's a couple pages devoted to it in the 2nd amendment mythology bible.

Michael Bellisiles book 'Arming America' is a fine history, closer to the truth than the 2ndA mythology. Yes he was errant on several probate passages, but 99% of his objective material is factual, & it is his subjective material which is debateable.
.. of course you'll find john lott all about the 2ndA mythology bible, despite the fact that lott created a pseudonym 'mary rosh' where he went on amazon & promoted his own book, calling himself 'the best professor I ever had!', and saying how great 'More Guns Less Crime' was. As well, I believe that was his book which was funded by the Olin foundation, a subsidiary company (front) for winchester ammunition. Imagine, a book funded indirectly by winchester ammunition investigating whether concealed carry reduced crime, & whaddaya know, it DID!
Oh, & even gun guru gary kleck disputed lotts' findings, that lott's results were (paraphrased) likely due to other factors not accounted for in the lott/mustard study.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jimmy the one (Reply #74)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 03:52 PM

75. you didn't read the scandal

that cost him his Bancroft Award and job?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arming_America#Emory_investigation_and_resignation

In two scholarly articles, law professor James Lindgren of Northwestern University noted that in Arming America, Bellesiles had
purported to count guns in about a hundred wills from 17th- and 18th-century Providence, Rhode Island, but these did not exist because the decedents had died intestate (i.e., without wills);
purported to count nineteenth-century San Francisco County probate inventories, but these had been destroyed in the 1906 earthquake and fire;
reported a national mean for gun ownership in 18th-century probate inventories that was mathematically impossible;
misreported the condition of guns described in probate records in a way that accommodated his thesis;
miscited the counts of guns in nineteenth-century Massachusetts censuses and militia reports,
had more than a 60% error rate in finding guns listed as part of estates in Vermont records; and
had a 100% error rate in the cited gun-related homicide cases of seventeenth-century Plymouth, MA.
Critics also identified problems with Bellesiles's methods of citation. Cramer noted that Bellesiles had misrepresented a passage by George Washington about the quality of three poorly prepared militia units as if his criticism applied to the militia in general. (Washington had noted that the three units were exceptions to the rule.) Cramer wrote, "It took me twelve hours of hunting before I found a citation that was completely correct. In the intervening two years, I have spent thousands of hours chasing down Bellesiles’s citations, and I have found many hundreds of shockingly gross falsifications."/div]

http://www.emory.edu/news/Releases//Final_Report

Oh, & even gun guru gary kleck disputed lotts' findings, that lott's results were (paraphrased) likely due to other factors not accounted for in the lott/mustard study.
Yes he did, and I never said anything about Lott.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #75)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 06:51 PM

84. bellesiles (pr'd bell isles)

athiestcrusader: Why the hell would FMJ be a flag?

.. well, higher muzzle velocity, more kinetic energy per bullet, are they considered magnums? like my hypothetical duel with somebody who said a gun is a gun is lethal as in all, I'll take the m16 & .223 & he can have a 22 pistol with 22 longs, at 150 yds.
I'm not a gun or ammo expert, don't contend to be - I know some bullet characteristics & a few guns is all, and the 4 (yes 4) categories of ballistics. Was a marksman in navy but I thought it was about the same difficulty as learning how to bowl tenpins.

I doubt any mass shooter ever given a thought to lead contamination inside a building

Haha, no pt barnum, maybe vaudevillian milton berle, nyuck.

johnston: you didn't read the scandal that cost him his Bancroft Award and job

I know all about it; some kinda water leak in his office which wrecked some research, then he did do some sloppy work on the probate records, as I wrote in my post you replied to, but all in all his objectivity is 99% accurate imo.

link: miscited the counts of guns in nineteenth-century Massachusetts censuses and militia reports, .. pffft, citing the mass & dearborn census could vary under different accountings of it, I smell a trumped up accusation.
.. had more than a 60% error rate in finding guns listed as part of estates in Vermont records; and .. even taking this into account might bump up his claim of ~14% gun ownership, up to maybe 23%, is all, in vermont only. When critics list percents when speaking of relatively small amts, it looks worse than it is, ie this could be 160 where he reported 100.
.. had a 100% error rate in the cited gun-related homicide cases of seventeenth-century Plymouth, MA... .. gun homicides were rare in colonial/early america, this could be an 'error rate' of reporting 2 when there were in fact 4, or 3 when there were 6. Lying by statistics, ever hoidadat?

Critics also identified problems with Bellesiles's methods of citation. Cramer noted that Bellesiles had misrepresented a passage by George Washington about the quality of three poorly prepared militia units as if his criticism applied to the militia in general. (Washington had noted that the three units were exceptions to the rule.) Cramer wrote,

I don't put much faith in anything clayton cramer says, he's a spinning gun guru. Washington did think the militia was poor in general, indeed washington supported a 'select' militia rather than arms in everybody's hands. Exceptions to what rule? (above) that militias were great, by washington????? I'm incredulous, never heard this before.

johnston: Yes he did, and I never said anything about Lott... So? I'd rather have michael bellesilles on my side, than john lott aka mary rosh, or clayton cramer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jimmy the one (Reply #84)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 06:55 PM

86. Belleisles is a known fraud, and resigned his professorship after being found out

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jimmy the one (Reply #84)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 07:01 PM

87. a committee of independent scholars

discovered most of his fraud and verified that he is in fact a fraud.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jimmy the one (Reply #74)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 06:53 PM

85. Tsk. You were doing quite well, right up until *this* clanger:

Michael Bellisiles book 'Arming America' is a fine history, closer to the truth than the 2ndA mythology.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arming_America


Emory investigation and resignation

As criticism grew and charges of scholarly misconduct were made, Emory University conducted an internal inquiry into Bellesiles's integrity, appointing an independent investigative committee composed of three leading academic historians from outside Emory. Bellesiles failed to provide investigators with his research notes, claiming the notes were destroyed in a flood.

The scholarly investigation confirmed that Bellesiles's work had serious flaws, calling into question both its quality and veracity. The external report on Bellesiles concluded that "every aspect of his work in the probate records is deeply flawed" and called his statements in self-defense "prolix, confusing, evasive, and occasionally contradictory." It concluded that "his scholarly integrity is seriously in question."

Bellesiles disputed these findings, claiming to have followed all scholarly standards and to have corrected all errors of fact known to him. Nevertheless, with his "reputation in tatters," Bellesiles issued a statement on October 25, 2002, announcing the resignation of his professorship at Emory by year's end.
Aftermath of the scandal

In 2002, the trustees of Columbia University rescinded Arming America's Bancroft Prize, the first such action in the history of the prize. Alfred A. Knopf, publisher of Arming America, did not renew Bellesiles's contract, and the National Endowment for the Humanities withdrew its name from a fellowship that the Newberry Library had granted Bellesiles. In 2003, Arming America was republished in a revised and amended edition by Soft Skull Press. Bellesiles continued to defend the book's credibility and thesis, arguing that roughly three-quarters of the original book remained unchallenged.


http://www.emory.edu/news/Releases//Final_Report.pdf


http://www.nytimes.com/2001/12/08/books/08GUNS.html?scp=3&sq=bellesiles&st=cse&pagewanted=all


... He has said from the start that he took notes on the thousands of colonial-era probate records with tick marks in pencil on yellow legal pads. That fact alone was surprising to many of his fellow historians, who tend to use a database when working with such large amounts of information.

Almost all of those notebooks were destroyed when his office at Emory was flooded in May 2000, Mr. Bellesiles said.

James Lindgren, a professor at Northwestern University Law School and by far the most thorough of Mr. Bellesiles's critics, asked him last year where he had done his research on probate records. Mr. Bellesiles responded with a number of locations, including the San Francisco Superior Court, where he said he had found probate records from the 1850's.

Mr. Lindgren, who has done extensive work in probate data, called the courthouse and was told that all the records for that decade were destroyed in the 1906 earthquake and fire. They were not available in two other Bay Area libraries, either. Mr. Bellesiles now says he must have done the research somewhere else and cannot remember where.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #85)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 07:30 PM

89. John Lott vs Michael Bellesiles pt 1

What are you telling me about this for, I already wrote that I knew all about it. I'd read Arming America twice by the time he the prize was rescinded, still think it's a great book. My dogs chewed up about 30 pages too.

Almost all of those notebooks were destroyed when his office at Emory was flooded in May 2000, Mr. Bellesiles said

This was verified, there was a water leak above his office I believe at emory Uni, & evidently waterlogged some of his work.

OK, my turn. Your revered gun guru john lott, aka mary rosh, author of 'More Guns, Less Crime':

Earlier this year, Lott found himself facing serious criticism of his professional ethics. Pressed by critics, he failed to produce evidence of the existence of a survey -- which supposedly found that "98% of the time that people use guns defensively, they merely have to brandish a weapon to break off an attack" -- that he claimed to have conducted in the second edition of "More Guns, Less Crime".
Lott's defenders rightly point out that the missing survey -- which was completely lost in a computer crash, Lott says -- isn't central to the argument of "More Guns, Less Crime". But as Harvard economist David Hemenway wrote in a recent critique of Lott's latest book, "The Bias Against Guns", one must have "faith in Lott's integrity" before accepting his statistical results. That is because in the dauntingly complex subfield of econometrics, statistical manipulation is a constant concern.
In a recent attempt to rescue his beleaguered "More Guns, Less Crime" hypothesis from criticism, Lott has been caught massaging his data to favor his argument. In subsequent exchanges with Mother Jones, he changed his story several times about a key data table that was misleadingly labeled -- and then surreptitiously amended -- on his website. Nevertheless, most pro-gun scholars and political conservatives have yet to call Lott to account.


this is not the first time Lott has been accused of overstating his results. In early 1997, Lott testified before Nebraska lawmakers .. claiming to have proven a causal link between right to carry laws and lower crime. Yet soon afterwards in the same journal, economist Dan Black and criminologist Daniel Nagin found that slight alterations to Lott's data and model dramatically skewed the outcome. For instance, removing Florida from the analysis caused the beneficial impact of right to carry laws on murder and rape to vanish entirely. http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2003/10/double-barreled-double-standards

To be cont'd, next, Mary Rosh!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jimmy the one (Reply #89)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 07:35 PM

90. so?

This was verified, there was a water leak above his office I believe at emory Uni, & evidently waterlogged some of his work.

It was? show us. The committee found he made shit up on numerous occasions.

Who mentioned John Lott?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jimmy the one (Reply #89)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 07:45 PM

91. Yeaah, about that; "Pulped" Fiction: Michael Bellesiles and His Yellow Note Pads

The only one here defending a fraud is you:

http://hnn.us/articles/742.html

Monday, August 8, 2005 - 12:01
"Pulped" Fiction: Michael Bellesiles and His Yellow Note Pads

Jerome Sternstein
Mr. Sternstein is Professor Emeritus of History, Brooklyn College, CUNY, and co-editor of The Encyclopedia of American Biography.

...THE FLOOD

Always, in beginning that tale, Bellesiles places the date of the Bowden Hall"flood" which supposedly"pulped" his notes either in May 2000 or in the summer of that year, although it happened on April 2, 2000, on a Sunday evening. He first mentioned his"water damaged" notes in an e-mail -- one of several e-mails whose contents he disavowed only last month -- to one of his leading academic critics, James Lindgren, on Sept 19, 2000, and not in August as he only recently claimed; and in another e-mail, on Nov. 30, 2000, he dated that damage to"the Bowden Hall flood this summer ." Several weeks later, on Dec. 21, 2000, in a posting on H-NET (H-OIEAHC) he again repeated that his notes were"in a sorry state because of the great Bowden Hall flood of 2000 (the pipes in Emory's History building burst this summer)." In his article in the OAH Newsletter,"Disarming the Critics" (Nov. 2001, p.3), Bellesiles left the time of the"flood" vague, writing,"As I mentioned to many historians after my book appeared in September 2000, my notes of these probate records had been destroyed" during the Bowden Hall flood, and though he doesn't give a date for it, refers readers to the Emory Report, vol. 52, 8 May 2000, for confirmation of the damage it caused. But in his recent response to his critics in the William and Mary Quarterly (WMQ), he was once again precise about when the flood happened, and once again he was precisely wrong about the date, stating"it is now well known that my notes were destroyed in the May 2000 flood of Bowden Hall at Emory University" (WMQ, Jan. 2002, p.247). And in his latest communication to HNN, on April 9, 2002, he once more placed the"flood" in May. Never has Bellesiles, either privately or publicly, acknowledged that the"great Bowden Hall Flood," as he likes to label it, occurred on the date it actually happened: April 2, 2000.

How can one account for Bellesiles's repeated lapse of memory in assigning the flood to either May 2000 or to the summer, rather than the correct April 2 date? How was it possible for him to clearly recall the exact spot in his office where among his"mountain of paper," as he has described his research notes, his twelve yellow legal pads containing his controversial probate research lay on a chair under cascading water, but he can't remember the month or season of the year when he claims they became useless pulp? What is at work here, I believe, is not some bizarre form of selective memory disorder but an effort by Bellesiles to create a false impression of where he was and who was responsible when his disputed research notes apparently disappeared -- if they ever did, indeed, disappear or never existed. Since Bellesiles left for Europe in May and remained there until August, teaching at Oxford during the summer, his mantra that the"great Bowden Hall flood" took place in that time span appears to be a deliberate attempt to invoke an image of being absent amidst that turmoil. And if he was far removed from Emory when the waters tumbled from his office ceiling pulping his yellow note pads, then it just might have been possible, as he always implies, for unnamed others, presumably clumsy Emory custodians or incompetent employees of the firm Emory brought in to clean up and dry out the building, to have tossed them out with the trash before he could intervene.

What academic critic of Bellesiles's scholarship hearing of his grievous loss would be so bold, however far-fetched his tale of"pulped" notes might appear, to challenge Bellesiles's story, particularly when he began giving interviews and publicly informing everybody who would listen that salvaging them was a task wholly beyond his control. As he wrote HNN last month,"I was not there, so I cannot be certain" what happened. Still, even though he says he was not"there," he claims with absolute authority (it should be noted, however, he has given flagrantly contradictory and inconsistent statements about this issue) that"All of my notes were destroyed in boxes on the floor of my office, and they got drenched, pulped," and suggests with a knowing nod and wink, but never openly, that Emory's workmen discarded them (quoted in Melissa Seckora,"Disarming America", National Review Online, Oct. 1, 2001).

But however much Bellesiles tries to create the opposite impression, one important fact is irrefutable. Bellesiles was"there" at Emory in April 2000, teaching two courses on a Tuesday, Thursday schedule, one of which met in room 116 in Bowden Hall (from 1 to 2:15 p.m.) before the flood and was moved to another building following it. A student who took one of Bellesiles's courses, History 231,"Foundations of American Society to 1877," clearly recalls that term papers were due the first week of May and that final examinations took place early that month, long after the deluge of April 2.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jimmy the one (Reply #89)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 08:02 PM

92. will the real mary rosh, please stand up?

there’s the ludicrous Mary Rosh affair, in which Lott was caught red-handed writing pro-Lott comments and reviews in various internet forums, under the name “Mary Rosh.” It was, as I recall, one of the first well-known internet sock puppeting scandals.

wiki: As part of the dispute surrounding the missing survey {see jimmy the one's previous post on this}, Lott created and used "Mary Rosh" as a fake persona to defend his own works on Usenet and elsewhere. After investigative work by blogger Julian Sanchez, Lott admitted to use of the Rosh persona. Sanchez also pointed out that Lott, posing as Rosh, not only praised his own academic writing, also called himself "the best professor I ever had".
.. Many commentators and academics accused Lott of transgressing normal practice, noting that he praised himself while posing as one of his former students, and that "Rosh" was used to post a favorable review of More Guns, Less Crime on Amazon.com. Lott has claimed that the "Rosh" review was written by his son and wife. "I probably shouldn't have done it—I know I shouldn't have done it—but it's hard to think of any big advantage I got except to be able to comment fictitiously," Lott told Wash Post in 2003.


Blogs & Reviews by Mary Rosh! about himself! herself! John Lott!

2001-11-09 Mary Rosh: I had him for a PhD level empirical methods class when he taught at the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania back in the early 1990s, well before he gained national attention, and I have to say that he was the best professor that I ever had. You wouldn’t know that he was a “right-wing” ideologue from the class. He argued both sides of different issues. He tore apart empirical work whether you thought that it might be right-wing or left-wing. At least at Wharton for graduate school or Stanford for undergraduate, Lott taught me more about analysis than any other professor that I had and I was not alone.

2001-11-17 Mary Rosh: Stop editing my responses! It is amazing enough that you distort and lie about what Lott says.

2002-08-02 Mary Rosh: Lott exposes the Maltz and Targonski paper as a sloppy fraud. This is a devistating piece. Gun control types are going to be sorry that they ever pointed to this paper

Mary Rosh: SAVE YOUR LIFE, READ THIS BOOK —GREAT BUY!! Reviewer: maryrosh from Phila
.. If you want to learn about what can stop crime or if you want to learn about many of the myths involving crime that endanger people’s lives, this is the book to get. It was very interesting reading and Lott writes very well. He explains things in an understandable commonsense way. I have loaned out my copy a dozen times and while it may have taken some effort to get people started on the book, once they read it no one was disappointed.
This is by far the largest most comprehensive study on crime, let alone on gun control. Professor Lott examines crime rates as well as accidental gun deaths and suicides for all 3,056 counties in the US...


2003-01-22 Mary Rosh: From: MaRyRoSh@aol.com To: CalPundit
Subject: Sorry You are correct. The MaRyRoSh pen name account was created years ago for an account for my children, using the first two letters of the names of my four sons. {IE maybe MArk, RYan, ROger, SHawn}... (They later got their own accounts but this one was never erased.) I shouldnt have used it, but I didnt want to get directly involved with my real name because I could not commit large blocks of time to discussions. (However, I never subscribed to the firearmsregprof posting hosted by Volokh.)

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2003/01/21/maryrosh/

There's your fraudulent charlatan hero, straight out of the anals of the 2nd Amendment Mythology. As I said, I'll take michael bellesiles any day of theweek.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jimmy the one (Reply #92)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 08:07 PM

93. What are you on about? No one here has supported Lott.

In fact, the only one supporting academic fraudsters here is you...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #55)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 09:27 PM

95. friendly_iconoclast there you go again, using facts to spoil a rant. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Reply #95)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 09:33 PM

97. This thread cries out for bookmarking, and I've done so.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #97)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 09:34 PM

98. Augean Stable is full again. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Puha Ekapi (Original post)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 09:14 PM

94. Bowdon Hall flood at emory

Hey johnston, about those errors in the (vermont?) probate records, here's what bellesiles said: Of special interest recently have been the findings of the Boston Globe reporter David Mehegan, who found "several" errors on one of these web listings. There are currently 1,449 probate files recorded on the site; Mr. Mehegan discovered discrepancies in three of these files from Vermont.

Lying by statistics; You, all, have mainly read rightwing propaganda about bellesiles, & little if anything from our side of it.

Earlier this year the Omohundro Institute of Early American History and Culture and the American Historical Association councils passed an unusual resolution:
Although it is appropriate to subject all scholarly work to criticism and to evaluate that work's arguments and its sources, the Council of the American Historical Association considers personal attacks upon or harassment of an author, as we have seen directed at Michael A. Bellesiles following publication of Arming America: The Origins of a National Gun Culture, to be inappropriate and damaging to a tradition of free exchange of ideas and the advancement of our knowledge of the past.

http://www.oah.org/pubs/nl/2001nov/bellesiles.html

Show me something from the right defending john mary rosh lott.

johnston: .. and I never said anything about Lott.
icon: No one here has supported Lott

Lott & Bell went up the hill to fetch a pail of water
Bell came down & broke his crown, but johnny was his daughter:

Kennedy and others have even likened Lott to Michael Bellesiles, the historian who could not produce the data at the heart of his award-winning 2000 book "Arming America", which had seemed to undermine the notion that there was widespread gun ownership and usage in colonial America. But while Bellesiles resigned after a university panel challenged his credibility, thus far Lott has escaped a similar fate.

And then un-friendly icon posts rightwing garbage to fabricate that bellesiles intentionally tried to blow smoke on the emory flood... he wasnt' there at the time it flooded, & he spoke of it at the end of summer & conflated the dates by a mere month, due the date of the magazine reporting it in may, rather than actual date of april. But thanks, friendly icon, for demonstrating the kinds of cheap shots the rightwing took to discredit bell at all costs.

On the evening of Sunday, April 2, a connector on a sprinkler main broke on the building's third floor. Contractors had been working on the plumbing. When the water was finally cut off about 25 minutes later, standing water was two inches deep in some places, and practically no part of Bowden Hall escaped completely dry. Mr. Bellesiles says that his probate notes were destroyed in the flood.

In mid-February 2003 Soft Skull Press announced that it would be issuing a revised edition of Arming America.{dunno if this ever happened} From the press release: "This is not the first time it has fallen to Soft Skull to ensure the American public can read books the Right doesn't like,..It is imperative that we stand up to the NRA smear machine.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jimmy the one (Reply #94)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 09:31 PM

96. ...happened while Bellesisles was there- and he lied about it.

Again:

But in his recent response to his critics in the William and Mary Quarterly (WMQ), he was once again precise about when the flood happened, and once again he was precisely wrong about the date, stating"it is now well known that my notes were destroyed in the May 2000 flood of Bowden Hall at Emory University" (WMQ, Jan. 2002, p.247). And in his latest communication to HNN, on April 9, 2002, he once more placed the"flood" in May. Never has Bellesiles, either privately or publicly, acknowledged that the"great Bowden Hall Flood," as he likes to label it, occurred on the date it actually happened: April 2, 2000. ...

...What academic critic of Bellesiles's scholarship hearing of his grievous loss would be so bold, however far-fetched his tale of"pulped" notes might appear, to challenge Bellesiles's story, particularly when he began giving interviews and publicly informing everybody who would listen that salvaging them was a task wholly beyond his control. As he wrote HNN last month,"I was not there, so I cannot be certain" what happened. Still, even though he says he was not"there," he claims with absolute authority (it should be noted, however, he has given flagrantly contradictory and inconsistent statements about this issue) that"All of my notes were destroyed in boxes on the floor of my office, and they got drenched, pulped," and suggests with a knowing nod and wink, but never openly, that Emory's workmen discarded them (quoted in Melissa Seckora,"Disarming America", National Review Online, Oct. 1, 2001).

But however much Bellesiles tries to create the opposite impression, one important fact is irrefutable. Bellesiles was"there" at Emory in April 2000, teaching two courses on a Tuesday, Thursday schedule, one of which met in room 116 in Bowden Hall (from 1 to 2:15 p.m.) before the flood and was moved to another building following it. A student who took one of Bellesiles's courses, History 231,"Foundations of American Society to 1877," clearly recalls that term papers were due the first week of May and that final examinations took place early that month, long after the deluge of April 2.


Bellesisles is a scammer that you persist on defending for some reason...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread