More non-rifle violence

[MichaelHarris]

But we all know the reporter probably lied right?

NM Police Looking for Suspects in Denny's Killing

Hamby said at least four masked men with rifles and handguns rushed into the northwest Albuquerque Denny's around 9:30 a.m. Saturday and demanded money.http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=7891070

[kristopher]

1. Do you sell decoder rings to go with your posts?

If you have a point, I can't find it. Care to elaborate?

[MichaelHarris]

5. you

need a decoder ring even when a link is provided?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

9. Might be referring to your assertion that the reporter is lying.

[iverglas]

97. and once again I wonder

How secure in one's self must one be to be so willing to make an ass of one's self publicly?

What did the world do before the internet gods invented stupidfaceiconthingies, and specifically the one that signals to the dim that a statement is sarcastic?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

2. What has anyone accused the reported of lying about?

[X_Digger]

3. Math is your friiiieeeennndddd

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/data/table_20.html

Total murders   handguns  rifles  shotguns  knives      hands,
fists, feet
14,831		7,361	  450	  455	    1,796       854
		49.6%	  ____	  3.1%	    12.1%	5.8%

It's called a percentage.. some portion out of the whole meet
a certain criteria (in this case, the criteria is 'with a
rifle'.) In this case, to answer the question "How often
are rifles used in murders?" we have to take the number
of times they were used (450) and divide by the total number
of murders (14,831). That gives us a fraction. Go ahead and
put it in your calculator, I'll wait..

0.030341851527206526869395185759558.. (my, that's a lot of
numbers, isn't it?) If multiply by 100, and round to one place
behind the decimal point, we get what? 3.0

So in 2007, 3.0% (percent) of all murders were committed with
rifles. 

There, that wasn't so hard, was it?

I know it's hard to wait, but sometime in September, the FBI
will release a report on crime in the United States for the
year 2008. Your homework is to wait for that report and then
perform the same exercise! Won't that be fun?

Not-So-Fun Fact: You'll notice that in 2007, you were almost
twice as likely to be killed by hands and feet as a rifle, and
four times as likely to be killed with a knife!

[iverglas]

98. "It's called a percentage."

Actually, it's called a big fat straw thing.

Or did you see the word "murders" in the opening post?

[X_Digger]

100. I know you're late to this game, it's been going on a while..

.. you might want to research previous attempts at remedial math.

[iverglas]

101. I think you must have been intending to speak to someone

Just wanted to let you know that you apparently clicked on the wrong post.


Edit -- I do beg your pardon, there was a homicide in the opening post -- but I had read ahead; post 20:

"Hamby said police believe the men committed 10 similar robberies in the Albuquerque area in the past year, but no one was shot in those incidents. She would not provide further details."

One homicide, indeed. But nine other incidents of major crimes committed, evidently with rifles, where no deaths occurred.

I know, I know. You want to pretend they didn't happen.

[X_Digger]

102. No, silly.. read on..

Michael has been making a series of posts with the same theme.. the FBI stats re rifle use in homicides or other violent crime _must_ be wrong because he can google lots of stories..

Really, you should check the backstory before jumping in like you know what's going on.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=230890#231486
"when one agency makes a report you guys like (3% rifle crimes from the FBI/DOJ)"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=227949
"It's only June 10th, 3% huh?"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=226930
"I'm doing freelance photojournalism work when a report goes out over the scanner. Seems some people are chasing someone with a shotgun somewhere, details sketchy. While waiting to see if I'm going to have a story to cover I decided to do some research. You know the one, it's where some say assault rifles are used in very few crimes. I'm sure you've heard it, it's the one where they say rifles are used in only 3% of crimes. Funny thing, they never show you 2008 and 2009 stats. Here's half of 2009. I left out some stories and I didn't have the desire to go all the way to January, actually it was a bit overwhelming. If these facts aren't enough just go to Google News, US, and assault rifle as the search. Make sure you have a lot of time and some food, it's going to take a while. 3 percent huh? Weird:"

[iverglas]

103. my dear fellow

Maybe you should be here more than 6 months before you decide to try lecturing me about "backstories".

I'm quite familiar with the "homicides aren't committed with rifles" diversionary grooming.

[X_Digger]

104. Well, I wasn't going to point out the irony..

.. that you always seem to ask about a backstory in _some_ threads, but didn't bother to do any research before jumping in here.

[iverglas]

105. hmm

Ironic it isn't, but pretending that my pointing out that tales of heroic shooters aren't always what they seem to be is somehow equivalent to your allegation that I don't know what I'm talking about here is ... well, dumb.

[X_Digger]

106. So you were aware of Michael's position on..

.. the FBI/DOJ stats, and assumed my post was in the wrong place, why?

[iverglas]

107. oh, for pity's sake

I'm bored.

[Tejas]

121. c'mon iverglas, MH acts like the DOJ doesn't even exist and that

the GAO is the last word on facts. Even you wouldn't do that.

[rrneck]

4. Here's a few

http://toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090613/NEWS02/906130374/-1/OPINION04
Toledo police are seeking help identifying assailants in the beating death of a South Toledo man.

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=298&articleid=20090617_298_0_Ateaeh113127
A teenager who is accused of beating a homeless man to death with a rock was charged Wednesday with first-degree murder.

http://www.cadillacnews.com/story_news/?story_id=937701&year=2009
REED CITY - The Reed City Michigan State Police are seeking a 24-year-old Baldwin man for his alleged connection with a near-fatal beating.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gtcSK8qaGGVDikaEFhYD_pgjOLrwD98SLFD00
Two teens guilty of simple assault in the fatal beating of an illegal Mexican immigrant that sparked outrage from Hispanic leaders and civil-rights groups were each sentenced to at least six months in prison Wednesday.

Ain't Google fun?

Actually I prefer anecdotal information to statistics, although both are important. The information you can get from it is more illuminating for me than a bunch of pureed numbers.

But we need a frame of reference for the antecdote don't we? I think I understand what the OP was about, (hence the links above) but I'm not sure.

[MichaelHarris]

10. you want to play that game?

You look back a month at violent crimes committed without firearms and I look up the ones committed with guns and we do a comparison. You really want to do that?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

12. Lets compare the number of crimes committed with legal firearms with the number...

committed with illegally possessed firearms.

David

[MichaelHarris]

14. how about

we not move the goal posts and just do violent crimes with guns as opposed to violent crimes w/o guns. You afraid of that comparison?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

17. Go right ahead. Since 98% of those are committed with illegally possessed firearms.

Nothing to be afraid of since my right to possess firearms is Constitutionally protected and will be so long after I am dead.

David

[iverglas]

99. ... which dropped like lawn darts from the sky

into the hands of very bad people.

Those "illegally possessed firearms" were just born that way. No one every possessed them legally before they got possessed illegally!

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

144. Those are very strange ideas you have, Iverglas.

[X_Digger]

13. And how many violent crimes without firearms get reported in the news?

How about we ask the resident cops? Or ask the resident medic how many of his calls get reported to the media, eh?

Or better yet, go to your local court house and / or police station and ask for a summary of that same information- oh wait, it would mean actually doing research before spouting off, and it doesn't rely on your holy grail- the press.

[MichaelHarris]

16. no idea

I thought we were going to use real numbers and not what we "think" they are. Do you think that there is a percentage of gun violence stories the press is lying about? You think they are making them up? You really are paranoid aren't you?

[X_Digger]

19. Lead isn't this dense..

News Flash: Crime with guns makes the news more often than crime without guns.

What I suggested was getting the facts yourself- each AG puts out a report every year about crime in their state (see TX - http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/pages/crimestatistics.htm).

If you think that rifle crime has been under-reported, go to the source and add it up yourself.

Once you have, and you understand that those of us who've posted the FBI data have _validated_ their claims _by going to the AG reports_ then you'll understand the validity of the 3% homicide, < 1.5% other crime statistic- and you'll know it's valid because you actually looked it up, researched it, and know for yourself.

THEN.. try the same exercise with another source, like, oh say, the GAO report. What? The GAO doesn't list sources for the data that one can independently verify? They just say "based on ATF reports" (what reports? where? what did they say?) Then ask yourself, "What data would be important to know in order to evaluate the scope of the problem? How many guns are seized by the government? How many are traced? Does this represent a large percentage of the seized weapons, or a small amount? Are the ones seized and traced to the US a result of the civilian market or sold through the state department's export control office directly to a military or law enforcement program in that foreign country?"

You know, doing the research. I'm not under the misapprehension that the news is to be trusted on it's face. Same with GAO reports, or congressional budget reports, or VPC press releases, or NRA press releases, etc..

If you can't do your own research, then at least have the good grace to shut the fuck up when those of us who have tell you you're full of crap and show you why.

*shakes head*

[MichaelHarris]

23. wanna play?

search news stories for violent crime without firearms and I'll do the same, who do you think will win? Who do you think will "shut the fuck up?" See post 9, http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=232028&mesg_id=232028

[X_Digger]

76. Let's not search NEWS, let's search COURT & POLICE records

How's that?

Here, I'll even help you get started-

http://www.wacrimestats.net/

http://wa-state-ofm.us/UniformCrimeReport/

http://www.waspc.org/files.php?fid=2350

[Euromutt]

77. So THAT's why this place is called DU! (n/t)

[Statistical]

133. lol. I wonder how many people got the alternate DU reference. n/t

[rrneck]

15. That's not the point.

You could tally all crimes involving rifles(which I assume was the point of the OP) and I could tally all the crimes involving anything else from fists to baseball bats to whatever and we'd have - wait for it - statistics. And we would have also indulged in an exercise in futility because that data has already been amassed and then posted time and again right here.

The value of anecdotal evidence is not in the number of stories told, but our understanding of the people involved. Knowing people and understanding why they do the things they do, gaining an awareness of their lives beyond just the basic facts about a particular event personalizes them and keeps them from becoming - wait for it - statistics.

I wasn't sure, and I'm still not, why you focus on crimes committed with a rifle. I found it interesting enough to respond to the OP. I thought if I asked you about your motivation for the post, I might get a coherent answer. I was wrong.

Stories about events are crucial for humans to understand each other. If we understand the author, that helps us understand the stories s/he tells. Since you seem to bounce around all over the place I don't understand what you're trying to say. I would be interested in your opinion regarding a solution to violence in this country, including how to properly deal with the technology used to commit that violence. If rifles are a problem for you - why?

But if all you're going to do is be a smart ass, save yourself the trouble. I'm not interested.

[MichaelHarris]

18. didn't

think you would be.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

21. That's your response to his questions, lame, very lame.

[MichaelHarris]

22. nope

my response to his, "I'm not interested."

Nice try though.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

24. I must have missed the answers to his questions, where are they?

[MichaelHarris]

25. said he

didn't wanna play, got pissed and went home I think.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

26. I wanna play so I'll ask.

Why are you so obsessed with rifle crime? Why don't you believe the FBI statistics in regards to rifle crime?

[MichaelHarris]

27. Why don't

you believe the GAO report on US guns in Mexico?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

28. Simple question simple answer. They traced less than 1/4 of the guns they confiscated.

Now about my questions.

[MichaelHarris]

29. prove it

you don't like the report because it doesn't favor your cause. You know that to be true, you won't admit it. You just parrot the, "It's flawed" argument. Now to your question. Do you honestly think that every law enforcement agency provides perfect, up to the minute firearm data to a federal agency for reporting? I mean every single violent crime report? Before you answer, remember this. The state doesn't have to report any data to a federal agency if it's not a federal crime. 10th Amendment sort of stuff, you like that one don't you?

Say you have a bunch of pro-NRA type sheriffs, John boy goes out and shoots up a bunch of parked cars with his AR-15, is that going to get reported to a federal agency by a right-wing NRA supporting Sheriff? You don't know, I don't know, we both know however the numbers are probably low. I'll admit it, you won't. The "NRA protect my guns at all cost blinders" have killed quite a few this year.

You are no different from me, you don't like the GAO report, I just gave you specific information on how crime data with rifles can be wrong, unreported, and meaningless unless it's a mandatory requirement. It will never be a mandatory requirement because of the 10th aand state sovereignty when it comes to non-federal local crime.

One of the most contentious points in the formation of a Federal government came from the individual states. The states didn't want to lose the ability to make regional decisions nor to be subject to an overriding power from a distant national capital. The Tenth Amendment was written to reassure the states that they would remain largely in charge within their own borders.http://www.populistamerica.com/10th_amendment

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

30. The article you cited stated that.

I could care less about the GAO report, it's Mexico's problem if they have a problem with smuggling then they should tighten their border security. In regards to your argument, the FBI says the report covers 96% of the country. Why would the 4% of the country that doesn't report have statistics any different than the rest of the country? An honest person would say that statistics would be similar. Would the 4% even if they had significantly more of a certain amount of crime change the overall statistics? Not likely.


David

[MichaelHarris]

31. I'll do exactly

what you guys did with the GAO report. The FBI report only cites 96% of the reporting agencies. Doesn't say how many agencies reported does it? See how your group did the GAO and see how it can be done to the FBI report? Nawww you don't, it's the blinders.

You don't care that weapons purchased in the US are killing people in Mexico? That's pretty sad.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

32. From the Wall Street Journal

The study acknowledges the data gap. In 2008, of the almost 30,000 weapons seized by Mexican law enforcement, only 7,200 were submitted to the bureau for tracing, the study said. The number of weapons submitted would be higher were it not for bureaucratic problems, U.S. and Mexican officials said, according to the study. Officials told investigators they expect to fix those problems to allow more complete data to be gathered.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124528641705825899.html?mod=rss_com_mostcommentart

My group didn't do anything with the GAO report. The GAO admitted the problem and the reasons for it. The problem with your point is that the other statistical data backs up that the FBI reports cover almost all of the crime. The CDC has very similar numbers to the FBI in regards to gun violence. Are you honestly a journalism student? It's obvious who is wearing the blinders.

David

[MichaelHarris]

33. Don't

insult me Dave, it really makes you look very stupid. I'm growing tired of the childish attacks on my profession. Yes, I'm a photojournalist, mostly sports related. Is the number 90% of 7,200? How many would you like it to be? Don't be a child with insults, I've never insulted you, it really lessons your position. What is your profession, maybe I can mock that along with the rest of the Gungion parrots.

The report acknowledges that there are significant gaps in the data. It also blames both US and Mexican authorities for the problem, citing US laws that allow "paperless" sales of firearms between private individuals and corruption in Mexico that makes it difficult for the US to help it fight the arms influx.http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0619/p02s05-usgn.html

We can link to link all night, the report says there are gaps, no one disputes that. It's the gun lobbies inability to to see there is a problem and work for a solution instead of discrediting the report. Look at the titles of the articles in right-leaning papers, tell me what you see. Am I debating with a child who will continue the insults?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

35. Give me a break. You started the insults.

Asking if you really are a journalist isn't an insult it's a question. I'm a Fire Captain mock all you want. I would prefer that all the weapons were traced and that all the numbers were released. Tracing less than 1/4 of the 30,000 weapons confiscated then saying 90% of all the gun used in crimes come from the US doesn't inspire confidence in the report.

David

[MichaelHarris]

36. I have no

reason to mock you and you will not find a post where I insulted you, be a little more honest.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

37. Quote my supposed insult in post #32, put up or shut up.

[MichaelHarris]

38. questioning my profession

is an insult, many in the gungion have done it and you know it.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

39. I asked if you really were a journalism student? Not if that was your profession.

That's not an insult.

David

[MichaelHarris]

40. Come on Dave

you know you meant it as an insult to my intelligence, now you're really reaching. Look back at your posts to me, see any insults? Find where I insulted you. I should actually question your professionalism.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

41. It's an honest question given your posts here.

You have admitted in this thread knowing that the FBI stats are likely pretty accurate but routinely arguing against them to try and prove a point. I find that behavior strange for a journalism student which is what I for some reason thought you were so I asked. If you are that insecure about your work you need some help.

David

[MichaelHarris]

42. Ok Dave

you get back to me when you feel like being honest. You and I both know the common theme in the gungion is to insult me and my profession, you've seen it a number of times. Maybe tonight is not a night honesty is your strong point. Hopefully you'll admit to the insult. I'll keep posting the crime, you keep posting your "good killings", I'll fight for a national registration for all and you just use the words.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

43. There was no insult. You have again insulted me though. Congrats on the hypocrisy.

I never said I was for National Registration.

David

[MichaelHarris]

44. I quote

"Yes I support opening the NICS to private sales and have suggested it here many times."

Dave What do you think they do with those background checks? I've bought many firearms as I'm sure you have. Do they put the weapon and serial number on the form and/or is there linking information to the background check and purchase?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

45. I think they follow the law.

Of course only FFL dealers are required to fill out 4473's. I'm not sure what you think that has to do with opening the NICS to private sales.

David

[MichaelHarris]

46. The NICS

approval number is on the form 4473, you don't think that's the same as a national registry? You are for the national background check right, for every gun sale like you stated earlier?

Do you see that the NICS combined with the 4473 which has a spot to fill in the NICS approval number amounts to a national registry. Now are you still for a All-inclusive background check for all sales?

http://www.titleii.com/pdf/4473.pdf

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

47. You seem to have your own opinion of how private sales would be used with the NICS not NCIS.

Since it is not currently allowed, how private sellers would use the NICS would be up to congress to decide. Of course this would never be signed into law if private sellers were forced to divulge all the details of the sale. After all the goal is to stop felons and the mentally ill from obtaining guns, we wouldn't want to screw that up by trying to create a National Gun Registry would we.

David

[MichaelHarris]

48. Was there an

answer there? Do you support a national background check for all firearm transactions? If you need the form 4473 to verify the truth that the NICS number is actually there then http://www.titleii.com/pdf/4473.pdf

Do you support a background check for all as you previously posted?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

49. My position is clear to anyone who cares.

[MichaelHarris]

50. Which is

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

51. A new law would have to be passed. The details would be worked out in Congress.

Since it is not currently allowed, how private sellers would use the NICS would be up to congress to decide. Of course this would never be signed into law if private sellers were forced to divulge all the details of the sale. After all the goal is to stop felons and the mentally ill from obtaining guns, we wouldn't want to screw that up by trying to create a National Gun Registry would we.

David

[MichaelHarris]

52. So you

are not for background checks for all, the way the law is currently written, for FFLs as you stated earlier? Filling out a 4473 and the NICS.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

53. Do you just try and act this dense to annoy people?

I said I was for opening the NICS to private sales. I never said I was for treating those private sellers like FFL dealers or for making those private sellers follow the same regulations or requirements as FFL dealers. I never said anything about the way the law was currently written and how it should apply if private sellers were allowed to use it and for you to suggest otherwise is dishonest and you know it. Passing any law that would create a National Firearms Registry will never happen, pushing that idea instead of something that will actually pass and keep firearms away from criminals and the mentally ill is spitting on the graves of those victims you claim to care so much about.

David

[MichaelHarris]

54. Once again

when you get in a corner you start the name calling. In your world, when you get the NICS number while doing a background check on a private sale what are you going to write it on? Seems to me the 4473 is the appropriate from. Dave, there already is a national registry. The link between the NICS and the form 4473, you have to know that, the 4473 has been around for years, they just don't throw them away.

Now it seems to me if you have to choose between a national database, that already exists, and guns in the hands of felons, your going to choose armed felons right?

While you think about it:

ATF sends 100 agents to Houston to help stop flow of guns to Mexican cartels
HOUSTON — One-hundred federal agents and other personnel have been deployed to Houston in an effort to stop the flow of firearms to Mexican drug cartels from one of the major sources of guns seized south of the border, officials announced Tuesday.

They'll spend the next four months in the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives' Houston field division, developing cases against people and groups trafficking firearms to Mexico, acting ATF Director Kenneth Melson said.

Melson said 90 percent of the guns that U.S. officials have traced for Mexican authorities have come from the United States. Of those, most have been traced back to Texas, and within the state most came from the Houston area.http://www.sfexaminer.com/nation/ap/48297427.html

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

55. Again that is your fantasy of how something not allowed by law might work in the future.

In order to get through Congress your idea won't work. So if it's background checks for private sales and no records of them and no private sales database or arming felons, you are going to choose arming felons right?

David

[MichaelHarris]

56. I'm just trying to get

a straight answer. First your for something, then you realize it may lead to some sort of database (which it always did) now your waffling. Which is it?

Me, I'm for NICS and the FFL form. If it keeps one person alive that's enough for me, you?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

57. In your fantasy world it's a problem. In the real world it would work out just fine.

The idea that has been submitted here is that private sellers could call a number and give the NICS a DL# of the purchaser and the NICS would say yes or no to the sale. No 4473's no records. Just a yes or no.

David

[MichaelHarris]

58. So those deaths

from non-tracked guns sold to felons is OK by you because being able to own guns without being on a national database is more important? A database you're already on if you own guns.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

59. Guns wouldn't be sold to felons, they would be stopped by the NICS.

[MichaelHarris]

60. with no

FFL form because of your fear of a national database right?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

61. With no FFL form so it would actually pass.

[MichaelHarris]

63. because

of a fear of a national database right? Don't make me ask 3 times, it's the database right?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

64. The database would stop Congress from passing it.

[MichaelHarris]

65. I won't use dense

or any of the other names used against me but the database already exists, but what do you think happens to the FFL forms used every time you buy a gun? That's a database. Why would you have a separate system for FFLs and non-FFLs?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

66. I think the FFL dealers comply with the law. A database would be a deal breaker for Congress.

[MichaelHarris]

68. dammit man

we already have that law! FFLs have to comply with it! Why not private sales if you're going to make them do the NICS. You want to make a whole new law for private sales when all you have to do is add private sales to the existing law. WE ALREADY REQUIRE FFLs TO DO THE FORMS! Look, you can see where this is going and where it's been, all you're doing now is dancing. You made a statement earlier about being for background checks for ALL sales. All you want to do now is waffle around the 4473, you have to know they work together for honest, law-biding gun owners. Now, after you realize there is a database you want to do some tango.

THE DATABASE EXISTS! If they find your gun in a pond they know it's yours. Why do you not want it for private sales? Dave, with all due respect you really are nothing more than a parrot for the NRA and it's position. Yes, I did finally insult you.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

69. Unlike you I really don't want criminals to have firearms.

I don't know the NRA's position on this, but I think they are against any checks on private sales. I want a law that will actually pass and actually keep firearms away from criminals and the mentally ill. Why on earth would you be opposed to that? You clearly don't actually care about the victims of crime. You may be one of the most twisted people I've dealt with here.

David

[MichaelHarris]

70. hahahahahahaha

OK Dave.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

71. You clearly care more about a database than the victims of crime. Talk about sad.

[MichaelHarris]

72. LMFAO

I have no words. You've actually gone crazy.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

73. I'll say a prayer for you my friend.

[Euromutt]

75. Calling the 4473 system a "database" is stretching the term

The fact is, there's no centralized archive of 4473s, because the 4473s are retained by the FFL dealer. Yes, "if they find your gun in a pond," it can be traced by its identifying marks (manufacturer, model and serial number), starting with the manufacturer, going to the distributor and ending up at the dealer. Then the dealer can look up his records and see that he sold, say, a S&W M&P40, serial number MPQ1234, to Mr. Euromutt on November 19th, 2007. But the ATF can't decide to look up everyone who bought a particular model of firearm from an FFL in a computerized database. Records of transactions that are approved by NICS are required by law to be destroyed within 24 hours. Whether that actually happens, I hesitate to assume, but it does mean that any attempted prosecution using evidence gained from such a database would reveal that the DoJ was breaking the law.

So how would you want to regulate private sales with a 4473? Should every private gun owner maintain a bound book permanently, and woe betide him if he loses a single page?

[MichaelHarris]

81. So

if there is no database how do they know this?

People on Terrorism Watch List Allowed to Buy Guns, Explosives
People named on the government's terrorist watch list have successfully purchased firearms hundreds of times since 2004 , government investigators reported today. In one case, a known or suspected terrorist was able to buy explosives, the Government Accountability Office reported...."The special interest gun lobby has so twisted our nation's laws that the rights of terrorists are placed above the safety of everyday Americans," Lautenberg said in a written statement, "The current law simply defies common sense."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/22/AR2009062201766.html?hpid=topnews

[X_Digger]

89. See, you actually _can_ ask an intelligent question..

.. where is that data?

Are they using secret warrants to search people's houses? Is the FBI breaking the law by retaining NICS check data? Is the BATFE breaking the law by making copies of 4473's?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

92. Shockingly there will be no response.

[MichaelHarris]

115. already answered

for the early morning chimps.

[MichaelHarris]

112. The forms are kept

with the FFL sellers and cross-linked to each background NICS number. Both easily accessed with a court order when a crime is suspected, such as someone selling a gun to a felon. How did you go from data access to searching peoples houses? You guys sure are scared and twitchy.

[X_Digger]

123. So much for intelligent questions..

The tiahrt amendment says that all personal NICS data has to be destroyed within 72 hours after an approval, and 4473's are not submitted to the BATFE, they reside with the FFL.

The tiahrt amendment also says that NICS and BATFE trace data can't be used for a general fishing expedition, only in connection with an open investigation. A warrant would require probable cause, due process, etc- something notably absent from folks dealing with the 'secret terrah watch list'.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

145. So that would be hundreds of different databases that have to be searched.

[Euromutt]

122. We know the FBI keeps statistics on background checks

Which is how they can say how many sales they've approved, how many they've turned down, how many they've put on hold. They may also keep track of how many NICS checks were flagged because the person was on the watch list, without attaching information that would identify such persons. Indeed, doing so would be illegal.

Note that if such an illegal database were to exist (as you seem to believe it does), it would go a long way to validating the "paranoid rantings" of various gun ownership advocacy groups against any measure that allows the government to collect information on firearm sales, lest they use it to create a de facto firearms registry, even if doing so would be illegal.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

67. Where is this database held?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

74. For those interested in the truth.

A Firearms Transaction Record, or Form 4473, is a United States government form that must be filled out when a person purchases a firearm from a Federal Firearm License holder (such as a gun shop).
The Form 4473 contains name, address, date of birth, government-issued photo ID, National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) background check transaction number, make/model/serial number of the firearm, and a short federal affidavit stating that the purchaser is eligible to purchase firearms under federal law. Lying on this form is a felony and can be punished by up to five years in prison in addition to fines, even if the transaction is simply denied by the NICS.
The dealer also records all information from the Form 4473 into their "bound-book". A dealer must keep this log the entire time they are in business and is required to surrender the log to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) upon retirement from the firearms business. The ATF is allowed to inspect, as well as request a copy of the Form 4473 from the dealer during the course of a criminal investigation. In addition, the sale of two or more handguns to a person in a five day period must be reported to ATF on Form 3310.4.
If a person purchases a firearm from a private individual who is not a licensed dealer, the purchaser is not required in most states to complete a Form 4473, though some states force individual sellers to sell through dealers.
These forms are given the same status as a tax return under the Privacy Act of 1974 and cannot be disclosed to private parties or government officials without a proper warrant. Dealers are required to maintain completed forms for 20 years in the case of completed sales and 5 years where the sale was denied by the NCIS check coming back disapproved or other disqualifying information.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Form_4473

[MichaelHarris]

83. No database?

Explain this:

People on Terrorism Watch List Allowed to Buy Guns, Explosives
People named on the government's terrorist watch list have successfully purchased firearms hundreds of times since 2004 , government investigators reported today. In one case, a known or suspected terrorist was able to buy explosives, the Government Accountability Office reported...."The special interest gun lobby has so twisted our nation's laws that the rights of terrorists are placed above the safety of everyday Americans," Lautenberg said in a written statement, "The current law simply defies common sense."

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

96. Stupid question, simple answer. Warrants and Investigations.

[MichaelHarris]

111. The warrants

looked into what type of file system Dave? You're right though, your response was extremely stupid.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

140. There is no National Database held in one location, you have been proven wrong again.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

62. So a National database is more important than keeping guns away from criminals?

[spin]

79. A national database is essential ...

for firearm confiscation.

Which, of course, is why I oppose it.

[MichaelHarris]

82. You've watched

Red Dawn way too many times. Does fear control your life?

[spin]

87. I watched Red Dawn once many years ago...

It was an O.K. movie.

I've studied enough history to know that we have very unusual rights in this country. The founding fathers were extremely intelligent men who created a form of government that has survived many tests. In my opinion, the most important amendments to the constitution were the First which guarantees the freedom of the press, and the Second which allowed the common man to own firearms.

While our form of government is far from perfect, it is in my opinion superior to all the alternatives I've studied. Because of our freedoms, we can work to improve our government and indeed we have over the years.

Freedom of the press and the right to own firearms both serve to protect the citizens of this country from tyranny. I believe the freedom of the press is more important than the right to own firearms. However, if the First Amendment is ever destroyed, the Second maybe required.

I love posting here on DU and other sites with the freedom to express my opinions. In many nations I would risk imprisonment and possible torture if I expressed opinions that the government didn't agree with. To preserve that right, I also want to be sure that the government has no record of the firearms I own. Gun confiscation has already occurred in this country and it was preceded by registration. I have no desire to see gun confiscation as I seriously believe we would become true slaves over time.

No, I am far from afraid. As long as we insure that we have a free press and that we have gun rights we can enjoy our freedom. If we lose either or both, just look at the news on Iran to see our future.

[MichaelHarris]

88. Do

you think a "list" is something to fear? In other words is a firearm registry a bad thing if it helps stop the purchase of firearms by felons? In our 200 plus years as a nation, how many times has the government removed firearms from the hands of it's citizens? Do you think it will happen? What fear do you have, as a legal and safe gun owner, of such a database so much so that it keeps you from acknowledging that such a list would help keep firearms out of the hands of criminals? As a conscientious gun owner wouldn't you welcome such a system? What is your fear?

[Deadric Damodred]

90. You are asking for a firearm registry of all guns...

...that's asking for a lot. Gun owners are not unreasonable, we'll compromise, provided it's an actual compromise (a compromise is something were both sides give up something and gain something, not where one side gives up something and one side gains something). So if we give you gun registry, what will you give us? How about striking down the 1986 Machine Gun Ban? After all, to use your wording, what fear do you have, if you have a list of everyone's guns anyway?

[MichaelHarris]

110. You're

precious Heller decision doesn't allow for Machine Guns, you ever read the whole decision? Not just the parts you liked but the entire thing?

[Deadric Damodred]

125. Once again, you are wrong.

Heller only says that dangerous and unusual weapons (which means National Firearms Act weapons) can be restricted. It doesn't say they can be banned, just restricted. They already are restricted under the National Firearms Act of 1934. Under that act, you have to register them, pay a tax on them, and pretty much let the BATFE crawl up your ass and check to see if it's clean. Don't you think that is restriction enough? The 1986 Machine Gun Ban is just a redundant piece of legislation designed to slowly choke off all machine gun ownership by only allowing those which were made before 1986......that's not restricting, that's banning. So if you want your registration, we'll compromise if you get rid of the Machine Gun Ban, but you can keep the National Firearms Act. Don't want to make that compromise? That's fine, but no registration for you.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

91. How would a database of guns help keep guns away from criminals?

There have been a few instances of firearms confiscation.

David

[MichaelHarris]

109. So then

you do fear something as an honest citizen?

[spin]

95. You seem to like to use the word "fear"...

I'm not "afraid". One the other hand I do learn from history.

Even in the United States, registration has been used to outlaw and confiscate firearms. In New York City, a registration system enacted in 1967 for long guns, was used in the early 1990s to confiscate lawfully owned semiautomatic rifles and shotguns. (Same source as previous paragraph) The New York City Council banned firearms that had been classified by the city as "assault weapons." This was done despite the testimony of Police Commissioner Lee Brown that no registered "assault weapon" had been used in a violent crime in the city. The 2,340 New Yorkers who had registered their firearms were notified that these firearms had to be surrendered, rendered inoperable, or taken out of the city. (NRA/ILA Fact Sheet: Firearms Registration: New York City's Lesson)

More recently, California revoked a grace period for the registration of certain rifles (SKS Sporters) and declared that any such weapons registered during that period were illegal. (California Penal Code, Chapter 2.3, Roberti-Ross Assault Weapons Control Act of 1989 section 12281(f) ) In addition, California has prohibited certain semi-automatic long-rifles and pistols. Those guns currently owned, must be registered, and upon the death of the owner, either surrendered or moved out of state. (FAQ #13 from the California DOJ Firearms Division Page)
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_registration.html

And I do indeed fail to acknowledge that firearm registration will accomplish anything worthwhile.

A snippet of an article that addresses this subject:

Only one thing is overlooked in the common-sense proposals to register guns, so here it is. How exactly would writing down my name, or your name, help arrest criminals or make you safer? Although at first blush, gun listing has a sort of tantalizing appeal, on reflection you have to wonder whether gun lists would be an instrument of crime control at all.

The unfortunate answer is that, no matter how good it feels when the words first pass your ears, registering honest gun owners doesn't stop criminals, and in fact focuses in exactly the opposite direction. It is an allocation of resources that has no chance of achieving its goal, if that goal is the reduction of crime.

1. Registering 70 million American households is extremely expensive.

Do you know what it takes to run a database that big? You need 19,000 changes daily, just to keep up with people who move every ten years. Floor after floor of cubicle after cubicle for employees with permanent jobs, payroll, parking and dry cleaning bills. It's a government jobs program all by itself, all in the common sense -- but deceptive name -- of stopping crime. How many criminals do you figure will register when all is said and done? That's right, none, and the planners know that. All that money and time, invested on tracking the innocent. That's why so many police departments are against it -- they'll be forced to run huge data centers with their limited resources, and hire clerks instead of cops.
http://www.gunlaws.com/gunreggie.htm

No, I'm not afraid. I just can plainly see the path that gun registration would follow.

Let me ask you a question. Are you opposed to strict enforcement of existing law and punishments severe enough to discourage criminals from carrying or owning illegal weapons? The money spent for your registration scheme would be far more effective if used to combat criminals rather than honest citizens.

[MichaelHarris]

108. Sure

I'm for strict enforcement of existing gun laws, especially the one where felons own guns. You don't seem to interested in closing even one source of illegal purchases. As an honest citizen why do you not want a database of gun ownership? You said it's fear so what is it?

[beevul]

113. Mike...

"As an honest citizen why do you not want a database of gun ownership?"

For one to trust a database of gun ownership, one MUST trust that there will never be a government that can not be trusted with it, and that the information it contains will NEVER be misused.


After the last 8 years, do YOU trust that there will never again be an un-trustworthy government occupying the oval office?

Or that a gun ownership datebase or other databases will NEVER be misused?


I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that you will not answer yes to iether of those. And if thats the case, would you really expect anyone else to?

[MichaelHarris]

116. You fear the government?

And for the last 8 years? What did you do with your fear those last 8 years? I didn't see you in the streets the last 8 years trying overthrow a regime, did I miss that on CNN? Did you loose any of your guns? I have no fear of loosing my guns or the Second Amendment. Only a fool thinks like that.

[beevul]

118. You said fear. I didn't. I said distrust.

Kindly keep your words out of my mouth.


"I have no fear of loosing my guns or the Second Amendment. Only a fool thinkslike that."

Yeah. Only a fool thinks like that. Well, if fear is the word that may or may not be true, but...Losing ones guns simply can not happen here in America.




New Orleans.


Oh...

[MichaelHarris]

119. ummm

yeah, do me a favor. Type Katrina gun confiscation in a Google search. Tell me the names of the websites of the first 10 pages of hits.

Police department spokesman Bob Young said it has stored 552 guns that were confiscated after Katrina, through Dec. 31, 2005. Police have said they only took guns that were stolen or found in abandoned homes.http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-10-08-nra-katrina_N.htm

Yeah, tons-o-violations there by gun grabbers. :sarcasm: Do you guys ever do any research, or do you just parrot right-wing sites?

[X_Digger]

124. Try searching youtube instead..

.. you can see the ABC news video of armed police taking a revolver from a little old lady.

research indeed.

[spin]

132. I believe that a number of posters have explained to you...

why we oppose registration. Registration can all too easily lead to confiscation. And the anti-gun groups shot themselves in the foot when confiscation did occur in New York and California.

While we don't fear our government, we don't entirely trust it either.

But you are entitled to your opinion. If you want to push for gun nationwide gun registration, contact your elected representatives and convince them. If enough people feel as you do, you should have some success.

One thing you definitely will accomplish if your idea garners support, gun sales will skyrocket.

I seriously doubt that gun registration will ever become law. Far, far too many people own firearms and are opposed to the idea. Many Democratic politicians in Congress support RKBA and would vote against it. Many Democrats would vote against a reinstatement of the assault weapons ban, which is less controversial than nationwide gun registration.

Today in a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder, 65 Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives, led by Congressman Mike Ross (D-AR), expressed their opposition to the reinstatement of the failed 1994 ban on semi-automatic firearms and ammunition magazines. These congressmen cited numerous studies that proved the 1994 ban was ineffective, and they strongly urged Attorney General Holder to stop his effort and instead focus on the enforcement of existing gun laws.
http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/washington-whispers/2009/03/23/some-democrats-and-the-nra-agree-on-assault-weapons-ban.html

(If you would like to read the letter, a copy can be found at:
http://www.nraila.org/media/PDFs/AWBLettertoHolder309.pdf

The effort to push a gun registration scheme will fail in Congress since it would be political suicide for many who voted for it.

Like overthrowing abortion rights, the idea of national gun registration is like beating a dead horse.

But if you love wasting your time on useless pursuits, enjoy yourself.

[Euromutt]

127. You're presuming a registry would stop felons

See, there's a hitch to that, known as Haynes v. United States 390 U.S. 85 (1968). Haynes was convicted felon caught in possession of a sawed-off .410 shotgun, which had not been registered as a short-barreled shotgun (SBS) per the National Firearms Act of 1934. Haynes argued that, since he had a felony conviction, it would be illegal for him possess any firearm, and requiring him to register his SBS would tip off the authorities that he was in violation of the law, and thus violate his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. The Supreme Court ruled 8-1 in Haynes' favor; persons ineligible to possess a firearm cannot be legally compelled to register any firearms in their possession.

Now, in the case of the NFA, Congress found a workaround by amending the law to require the transferor to register the firearm to the transferee, and the court ruled in United States v. Freed 401 U.S. 601 (1971) that this did not violate the right against self-incrimination, and this might also be applied to universal firearms registry, but that still leaves some major loopholes.

A felon could circumvent the 1968 amendments to the NFA by purchasing a legal-length shotgun, and cutting it down himself, and not be charged with failing to register it. Similarly, if a person legally ineligible to possess a firearm were to gain possession of one that had been lost track of in the registry--e.g. by being stolen from its legal owner, or smuggled into the country--the registry would provide neither added means to catch the felon, nor the means to punish him more severely if he were caught in possession of a firearm. In other words, for law enforcement purposes, we'd be no better off. A registry might make it marginally more difficult for the criminally inclined to acquire firearms, in that there'd be more hassle involved and a bit more expense, but the problem with criminals is that they're willing and able to pay black market prices for firearms. Handguns sell on the British black market for up to six times what they cost on legal market in the U.S., and the operative phrase is they sell.

In our 200 plus years as a nation, how many times has the government removed firearms from the hands of it's citizens?

Registered firearms? It's happened a few times. In the 1990s, the City of New York confiscated rifles and shotguns deemed to be "assault weapons" using the registry of long guns. In 1997, the state of California declared that SKS rifles registered from that moment up to January 1st 2000 would not be subject to confiscation; then the legislature welshed on the deal, and used registration records to confiscate the SKSs that had been registered.

This is the problem with so-called "common sense" firearm regulations; reasonable as they might seem on their face, no gun owner can avoid thinking of Darth Vader's words to Lando Calrissian:
"I am altering the deal. Pray I don't alter it any further."
The obvious way to avoid this is to refuse to enter the "deal" in the first place.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

93. It seems to control yours.

[MichaelHarris]

114. me

afraid of something? Not at all, I've been to almost every National Park, never needed a gun. Walked the streets at night of many of the world's major cities, never needed a gun. I'm 51 and the only time I was threatened was by a CWP holder wanting a parking spot. Luckily one of my best friends from high school, a police officer saw what happened and arrested the guy. So me afraid? Naawwww, except once in a while from crazed cowboys.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

141. I've never carried a gun in those places either. I guess I am as brave as you are, joy for me.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

34. Thanks for admitting that you are just here to cause trouble and really don't believe that crap.

[Tejas]

94. and that's exactly what it is: crap - DOJ trumps GAO

[MichaelHarris]

117. Once again

the parrot wants a cracker. DOJ trumps GAO! USA, USA, USA! Fucking parrot.

[Tejas]

120. Typical anti-gun rhetoric and childish insults all you have?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

143. I thought you never insulted anyone, more of that honesty you are famous for.

[Tejas]

84. civil rights are not a game, nor something to hold in disdain

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

6. Of course the claim you don't like is about homicides not all crime.

[Euromutt]

7. He likes the one about rifles and nonfatal violent crime even less

When it comes to nonfatal violent crimes, firearms other than handguns are used in 1% of crimes. And that's not only rifles, but also shotguns and any Class III stuff, so the percentage of nonfatal violent crime committed with rifles must needs be lower than 1%.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/wuvc01.pdf

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

8. Just addressing the moving goalposts.

[iverglas]

126. ah, playing with numbers is such fun

firearms other than handguns are used in 1% of crimes


I'm seeing this in your source:

Table 2. Violent crime, by type of weapon, 1993-2001
All nonlethal violence
No weapon: 65.9%
Any weapon: 25.9%

broken down into:
Firearm: 9.5%

broken down into:
Handgun: 8.3%
Other firearms: 1.2%


So huh. Firearms other than handguns account may be used in 1.2% of all non-lethal violent crimes, but they are used in 1 in 8 non-lethal violent crimes where a firearm is used.

When you look at it that way, eh?

[benEzra]

128. Ummm, you might want to break out your calculator...you just proved our point.

So huh. Firearms other than handguns account may be used in 1.2% of all non-lethal violent crimes, but they are used in 1 in 8 non-lethal violent crimes where a firearm is used.

"Firearms other than handguns" are about equally split between rifles and shotguns, per the FBI UCR data, ignoring the very small contribution from Title 2 stuff. 1.2% (rifle + shotgun) works out to 0.6% rifle and 0.6% shotgun. And 1 in 8 gun crimes (rifle + shotgun) works out to rifle involvement 1 in 16 nonlethal violent crimes in which a firearm is used, plus another 1 in 16 involving shotguns.

1 divided by 16 is 6.25%. That is not significantly different from the 2007 FBI UCR, which shows rifles involved in 3% of homicides and 5% of firearm homicides, that you keep pretending is way, way low.

You just validated the point that rifles are not a significant contributor to violent crime, whether lethal or nonlethal. 0.6% of nonlethal violent crimes and 3% of murders does not support the "ZOMG RIFLES ARE THE BOGEYMAN!!!111" meme being peddled here.

Yes, playing your little shell game with numbers is fun, but the fact remains that rifles of ANY type are involved in fewer than 1% of nonlethal violent crimes (by your own post above) and 3% of murders (per the FBI UCR).

[X_Digger]

129. Actually it gets better..

Going by the homicide breakdown between shotguns and rifles (in other UCR data, not supported by this report, I know), giving them an even split is being generous.. More like a 2 to 1 ratio between shotguns and rifles.

eta: swapped rifles and shotguns for shotguns and rifles

[benEzra]

130. I was going by the split in the 2007 UCR, which shows a roughly even split

e.g., 450 rifle murders and 455 shotgun murders out of 14,831 total murders. That's from Table 20, Murder, By State and Type of Weapon.

[X_Digger]

131. *nod* depends on the year..

It waffles between evenly split, 1.5x, to 2x depending on year.

[iverglas]

134. excuse me

which shows rifles involved in 3% of homicides and 5% of firearm homicides, that you keep pretending is way, way low.

I do what, now?

Why do I want to spend time among people who are so unable/unwilling to speak the simple truth?


Yeah, one in 16 violent crimes committed with firearms are committed with a rifle, that's just soooo insignificant.

The figures in question appear to be from survey responses, which do not make me happy to start with. But let's look.

Average annual victimizations: 8,896,460
Any weapon 2,304,340
No weapon 5,863,750
Firearm 846,950
Handgun 737,370
Other gun 100,470

100,000 violent crimes committed with long arms.

Yeah. That's just a piddling insignificant thing, that is. Why, one wonders why those people even bothered to mention them.

[benEzra]

135. Zero point six percent. Cue the fearmongering.

And I see that continuing the shell game, you slipped in the sum of all non-handgun weapons to try to inflate rifle crime, which is less than half of that number, and I'm sure there will be more scary anecdotes to follow to make that number seem bigger.

ZERO POINT SIX PERCENT of violent crime.

Less than SIX POINT FIVE PERCENT of all gun crimes.

THREE PERCENT of murders.

Like the head of the U.S. gun-control lobby said, back when rifle crime was HIGHER THAN IT IS NOW:

"(O)ur organization, Handgun Control, Inc. does not propose further controls on rifles and shotguns. Rifles and shotguns are not the problem; they are not concealable."

--Nelson T. "Pete" Shields, head of what is now the Brady Campaign 1978-1989, Guns Don't Die--People Do, Priam Press, 1981, pp. 47-48 (emphasis added).

[iverglas]

137. I'll take that as a mistake

And I see that continuing the shell game, you slipped in the sum of all non-handgun weapons to try to inflate rifle crime, which is less than half of that number, and I'm sure there will be more scary anecdotes to follow to make that number seem bigger.

You meant "non-handgun FIREARMS", of course.

I don't actually give a shit whether a crime is committed by someone using a rifle, a shotgun, a blunderbuss or a handgun.

Kindly give up on trying to offload your stereotypes onto me.

Surely you are perfectly aware that I oppose handgun possession by the general public for precisely the reasons that you quote, in large part the concealability.

And I am perfectly aware that some criminals find it to be in their interests to possess rifles and I have to assume that they consider said rifles to facilitate their criminal activities.

A semi-automatic rifle in the trunk of a drug trafficker's car just doesn't show up in all those numbers. It only shows up in anecdotes. So obviously, said drug trafficker was in possession of said rifle purely for target practice at the range.

[Statistical]

136. I have to think iverglas works for the NRA.

The "proof" she sometimes comes up with.

Average annual victimizations: 8,896,460
...
Other gun 100,470

So roughly one out of 88 non lethal violent crimes involve a long gun (figuring a 50/50 split of rifles & shotguns that is what one out of ~176 involve a rifle).

Yup you just proved how big of a problem it is right there.

I mean we went from the 3% of homicides involve a rifle # (which is lower than most people would assume) to "proof" of the problem of rifle violence in the larger non lethal violent crime number which turned out to be.....
<1%.

Wow.

[iverglas]

138. let me help you with that

I have to think iverglas works for the NRA.

Quit while you're ahead: I have to think.

Then take your advice, and you might not look like a deceitful dolt.

Not, of course, that I would say you are any such thing.



typo fixed

[Euromutt]

146. I could "look at it that way," but why would I?

Firearms other than handguns account may be used in 1.2% of all non-lethal violent crimes, but they are used in 1 in 8 non-lethal violent crimes where a firearm is used.

When you look at it that way, eh?

And when you look at violent crimes (both fatal and nonfatal) in which a rifle is used, a rifle is used in 100% of those crimes. Big deal. If you arbitrarily restrict the dataset, you can make anything sound significant.

That said, I could see a rationale for looking at violent crime involving any weapon, because use of a weapon constitutes a definite threat of lethal force, whereas crime committed without a weapon is not necessarily life-threatening. Non-handgun firearms are used in just over 1 out of 22 incidents, and it's fairly likely that rifles make up less than half of that.

[MichaelHarris]

11. As I've said

violent crime

[Statistical]

139. Rifles are used in

The overall violent crime stat is "better" than the 3% of homicides stats.

Two different sources, the FBI Unified Crime Report (UCR) and the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS).

Two law enforcement government bodies reaching the same conclusions. Rifles are used in an insignificant number of crimes & homicides.

[spin]

20. Did anyone notice that...

THamby said the men who were arrested are in their late 20s to early 30s and are from South America, but she did not know where specifically. She said police were working with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to verify the men's identities.

*****snip****

Hamby said police believe the men committed 10 similar robberies in the Albuquerque area in the past year, but no one was shot in those incidents. She would not provide further details.

She said about 35 detectives, who were in the area as part of a special operation targeting robberies, responded to the restaurant and found two of the suspects quickly.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=7891070

Interesting. Maybe the guys from South America play by different rules.

[benEzra]

78. I experienced a couple hours' worth of rifle nonviolence on Saturday afternooon...

took the AK to the range to recheck the zero with the new stock and forend, practice some mag change drills, for fun and improvement. May have gone through 70 rounds total. Another guy shooting an AK came up, oooh-ed and ah-ed over the Kobra, and liked the way I had mine set up with the stock and forend, so much so that he took some cell phone pics of the rifle so he could set his up the same way. A good day.

And FWIW, about 80% of the rifles I saw at the range were your eeee-villll "assault weapons." Several AR-15's, several civvie AK's, an M1 Garand (ping!), some others.

[spin]

80. Sounds like a great afternoon (n/t)

[Tejas]

85. and this has what to do with gun laws or 2nd Amendment rights?

[benEzra]

86. FUD campaign, in an attempt to salvage the "rifles are commonly misused" meme. (n/t)

[Merchant Marine]

142. I don't know why

He thinks his anecdotes are meaningful. If statistics hold true there will be ~500+ rifle murders this year, and a decent amount of violent crime committed with rifles. He can post 1-2 sob stories a day, easy. But it still won't make rifle crime exceed 3%.

Michael Harris, what do you think you know that the FBI doesn't?