HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » gejohnston » Journal
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU
Page: 1

gejohnston

Profile Information

Gender: Do not display
Hometown: Rock Springs, Wyoming
Current location: Sweetwater County, Wyoming & Citrus County, Florida
Member since: Mon Aug 7, 2006, 12:19 AM
Number of posts: 15,302

Journal Archives

worst mass murder in Calgary's history

What Calgary police chief Rick Hanson called the "worst mass murder" in the city’s history didn’t end at the barrel of a gun.

Instead, the 22-year-old suspect identified on Tuesday as Matthew de Grood is accused of entering the kitchen at a house party, taking “a large knife” and using it to fatally stab four men and one woman, all of whom were students in their 20s.

snip..................
"I call it moral panic,” said Janne Holmgren, director for the Centre for Criminology and Justice Research at Mount Royal University. “Sometimes fear drives a lot of legislation, unfortunately.”
snip......................
Holmgren, the criminology professor with Mount Royal, agreed that anything can become a weapon if placed in the wrong hands.

Even Statistics Canada lumped other cutting instruments such as broken bottles, screwdrivers and scissors into the “knife” category.

“Instead of focusing so much on the weapons issue being used, maybe a better way to look at it is to think about addiction issues, alcoholism, drug abuse. That’s what drives crimes,” Holmgren said. “It’s not your drawer of knives.”

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary-stabbings-how-knife-crime-in-canada-can-cause-moral-panic-1.2611698

My question is: why are mass murders outside the US rarely reported here, even though ours are in every paper in the world. Also, why are mass murder by firearm front page news, but other means are on page five below the fold?

I wonder how I can get one? Perfect for Wyoming winds.

We might be seeing wind turbines in the skies instead of fields soon. A Massachusetts Institute of Technology startup has come up with a new type of floating turbine that's more efficient — and can deliver power and WiFi connectivity to remote areas.
The invention could have a major impact in places like Alaska, with vast swaths of land that are off the grid, and without traditional sources of power and internet access.


Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/altaeros-energies-wind-turbine-is-also-a-wifi-hotspot-2014-4#ixzz2yXyJ4pcE

How can we encourage safe storage?

How can we get people to move their guns from those pretty wood and glass cabinets to safes? It isn't just about small children finding a loaded one, although 62 per year are 62 too many, the larger issue is this:
Most crime guns enter the black market through theft. according to the, rather old, Wright-Rossi study, five out of six. That was before NICS. That is also the main reason most countries have safe storage laws.

https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/abstract.aspx?ID=155885

If you could buy the Cleveland baseball team, or the

DC NFL team, what would you change their names to?

Why did gangs rarely use guns before the Gun Control Act?


Miller's (1992) study indicated that gangs had become more dangerous than ever in the 1970's. He attributed this to four major motives: honor, defense of local turf, control , and gain . In the 1970's, "gang crime was more lethal than any time in history; more people were shot, stabbed, and beaten to death in gang-related incidents than during any previous decade . . . and the prevalence and sophistication of firearms used was unprecedented" (Miller, 1992:142).

Of course, my question is "why didn't they use them until then?" It couldn't be about access. until the Gun Conrol Act,all they needed was a Sears catalog and a money order. If they were in New York, they just needed a PO box in CT, or one of the many "undocumented pharmacies" to do it for them. Where I grew up, guns were, and are, in about 55-70 percent of the households. Yet when the cops had their "scare straight board" they would bring to health class in the 1970s they not only brought examples of various drugs and paraphernalia, but also confiscated weapons. Other than a rifle and shotgun that got the hacksaw treatment, the were knives and improvised medieval melee weapons. Which begs the question, why make a mace when you can rip off Mom's .38?
Was it because they wanted guns, but could not afford them?
Was it because guns were for "wusses", kind of like the criminal element in the UK even before UK had any gun control laws? (Starboard Tack referred to this as "the rules")
Was it because guns were associated with cops, outdoors people, and the "squares" in rifle club, while the King Bad Ass in the movies had switchblades and homemade zip guns?
http://www.ojjdp.gov/jjbulletin/9808/youth.html

http://newyorkcitygangs.com/
http://www.nytimes.com/1999/02/15/nyregion/with-brass-knuckled-tales-50-s-street-gang-looks-back.html
http://www.sagepub.com/upm-data/43455_1.pdf
http://researchmatters.asu.edu/stories/professor-unearths-1950s-research-gangs-2052

My definition of "sensible" federal gun control law.

Before we add any new laws, I think we need to make current laws sensible. My proposal is this:
Current NFA weapons:
----SBRs and SBSs become Title 1 weapons under the Gun Control Act. Why? Under current law, a single shot .22 with a 15 inch barrel are as strictly regulated as machine guns (minus the Hughs Amendment), and much tighter than an AR-15. AFAIK, we are the only country that does that and it isn't logical.
----Silencers become unregulated accessories as they are in Norway, UK, France, New Zealand, and Finland.
----Novelty guns like pen guns etc. I have no opinion either way so far.
----Machine guns and destructive devices, as currently defined, stay Title 2.
Title 1 GCA:
---keep current regulations on interstate sales.
---Change the definition of "prohibited person" slightly. Life time prohibitions would only be for violent felonies. Someone who got busted for having a joint or two in Utah in 1975 shouldn't be a lifetime prohibition. For none violent crimes (including those who shouldn't be crimes to start with) prohibition ends when you are off parole or probation. As for misdemeanor, DV (where violence is proven) would be life time.
--- Misdemeanor like simple assault, at least a temporary prohibition of five years. Getting in a one time bar fight when you are "young and stupid" is different than a 30 year old who picks bar fights just to top off "a night on the town".
----"Violent" felonies not involving humans. Lifetime prohibition on anyone convicted of felony animal cruelty, dog fighting, illegally killing federally protected wildlife (eagles for example) and poaching (IIRC, Texas made poaching a felony. In Wyoming, your third strike is a felony.) "Mentally ill" would remain those adjudicated by a judge. LaPierre's "mentally ill" registry idea, and gun control advocates jumping on his band wagon, was repugnant. It scapegoats many of the least violent people in society, and is open to be misused (antis redefining "mentally ill" simply to create more "prohibited persons". That is also the real reason behind the idea to add "terror watch list" to NICS. Which brings me to,
---"Terror watch list" aka Bushes bogus list. It should have gone the way of Tom Ridge's color code. A secret list where people land up on due to clerical errors or political reasons, without any due process, simply doesn't have a place in a free society.
Background checks:
still working on how I would do intra-state private sales. So far, I would give FFLs and incentive to do them by changing the procedures. Currently, AFAIK, FFLs have to log the gun in their bound book and log it out with the 4473. To broker private sales, I would have a different form and not require it be logged in as part of the store's inventory.
National reciprocity: I think a federal law forcing states to recognize all CCW permits from other states and territories would violate the 10th Amendment. They don't even do that with medical and law licenses.
Misc: "assault weapon" bans. It is a legal political term created for propaganda purposes. Some "assault weapons" have no military or police application at all. For example, high end target pistols like the Walther GSP are "assault weapons" in New York and California. There is nothing "military style" about them.
Go to Page: 1